We continue line-by-line scrutiny of the Crime and Policing Bill. Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted during sittings of this Committee, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members can email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@ parliament.uk or alternatively pass on their written speaking notes to the Hansard colleagues in the room.

Clause 56

Offences relating to intimate photographs or films and voyeurism

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss schedule 8.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I am very pleased to be able to speak to these provisions.

We live our lives surrounded by technology that allows us to take photographs or record film at the click of a button. Laptops, tablets, smartphones, smart TVs and minute cameras and recording devices have revolutionised our lives, but they do not come without the very real risk that they can be used for nefarious purposes, such as taking intimate images of a person without their knowledge or consent.

The scale of this problem is growing. When the Law Commission carried out its detailed review of the law in this area in 2020 to 2022, it found that the police recorded at least 28,201 reports of disclosing private sexual images without consent between April 2015 and December 2021. Only three years later, a Women and Equalities Committee investigation showed that the Revenge Porn Helpline went from receiving 3,200 cases in 2020 to 22,276 in 2024. Those figures include only those reporting to the helpline. As we are all aware, many, many more individuals may not report.

I have huge respect for the work of the Revenge Porn Helpline, which is committed to supporting victims. The Government and the wider violence against women and girls sector have moved away from using the terminology “revenge porn”. Let us be clear: it is not revenge. Nothing a victim could ever do justifies any kind of abuse. It is not an act of revenge; it is an act of abuse. It is also not pornography. The participant is not consenting, and the subject never intended it to be available for public viewing. It is non-consensual intimate image abuse.

The Government share the Women and Equalities Committee’s concerns. We have committed to halving violence against women and girls, who make up the majority of victims of intimate image abuse. Taking an intimate image of someone without their consent is a violation. Victims can experience significant harm and trauma. It can impact every aspect of their lives, from their physical and mental health to their relationships and careers. It is therefore vital that our legal framework deals effectively with that behaviour.

That type of offending needs to be seen as part of the wider landscape of sexual violence and sexual offending. It may be carried out by those who are also committing the most abhorrent physical sexual offences. That was so in the case of Gisèle Pelicot, whose husband was caught because he was taking photographs under women’s clothing—an act similar to those covered by the upskirting offence in England and Wales. As is evident in that case and many others, intimate image abuse can be the beginning of an escalation, or can go hand in hand with those already perpetrating violent sexual crimes. If we can catch it early, perhaps we can prevent or stop further abuse in its tracks.

We know that there is a relationship between online and offline violent misogyny. We also know that many perpetrators start their campaigns of abuse with apparent low-level sexual offences. Sarah Everard’s murderer had indecently exposed himself before he went on to brutally rape and murder her. The escalation is clear in both the online and the offline world. The Pelicot case shows that intimate image abuse cannot be viewed in isolation; it is part of wider violence against women and girls. That is why the Government, in this clause, are cracking down on the perpetrators of violence against women and girls in all its forms. Those perpetrators need to be stopped and held accountable for their crimes. As Gisèle Pelicot said:

“it’s not for us to have shame—it’s for them”.

Existing law does address some of that behaviour, but it is far from comprehensive and effective. The previous Government introduced some new offences in this area to tackle sharing intimate images without consent, but they did not go far enough. They did not have the bravery or political will to take a real stand against this type of abuse, introducing offences on intimate image abuse in their Criminal Justice Bill, which they allowed to fall in favour of attempting to re-elect a failing Prime Minister and a failing Government. This has gone on long enough. That is why, in our first year in office and in our first crime and justice Bill, we are now doing what they should have done and are addressing the taking of those images, the first step in this type of offending.

The clause and schedule we are discussing build on what we have already done in the Data (Use and Access) Bill, fulfilling our manifesto commitment to ban the creation of sexual deepfakes. In that Bill, we introduced a new offence of creating purported intimate images—more commonly known as deepfakes—without consent, or reasonable belief in consent. We have also introduced an offence of requesting the creation of such an image without consent or reasonable belief in consent. Those new offences will tackle a rapidly proliferating area of offending, providing further protection for victims.

The taking of real intimate images needs to be tackled as well, however. The taking of intimate images without consent is not new. It has been possible for many years, from analogue cameras through digital cameras to the ease of the smartphone. The law has rightly criminalised some of that behaviour, but changing technology has made it even easier to take such images. Only last week, The Sunday Times reported on the widespread practice of individuals installing covert cameras in order to secretly record intimate images of women getting changed at swimming pools. Some of that behaviour is already covered by existing offences, but we want to ensure that the law is consistent and comprehensive, and captures all the behaviour that it should, giving the police and the Crown Prosecution Service the tools to tackle it.

At the moment, taking such images is covered by the offence set out in section 67 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It is part of a wider set of offences in sections 67 and 67A, which cover “observing” and “recording” of individuals in certain intimate circumstances without their consent. Section 67(3) provides for an offence of recording images of a person “doing a private act” if the person recording it intends that he, or a third party, will gain sexual gratification from looking at the image, and the person recording knows that the person in the photo does not consent to being recorded with that intention. That means that the prosecution has to prove the perpetrator’s intent and that they knew that the person in the photo had not consented to being recorded for that purpose.

The voyeurism offences also include the so-called upskirting offence in section 67A of the 2003 Act, which covers recording images, without consent or reasonable belief in consent, of a person’s genitals or buttocks, or underwear covering them, under a person’s clothes. The offence has different intent elements from the section 67 offence and a different definition of the photographs taken. Those differences were among many issues looked at by the Law Commission, which in 2019 was asked to review in detail the law on taking, making and sharing intimate images without consent. The commission submitted a final report in 2022, “Intimate image abuse”, which recommended a comprehensive suite of intimate image abuse offences to ensure that the law was consistent and coherent. We agree that that is what is needed. Consistent law will be easier to understand and to work with, ensuring that perpetrators are brought to justice.

As I mentioned, the previous Government made some changes on sharing offences, but they left the law in a mess. We now have a situation where the offences relating to taking and to sharing intimate images without consent are not consistent. Different definitions of the images are covered and they include different intent elements. The Government will not tolerate that.

To address such offending properly and consistently, we will repeal two of the existing voyeurism offences, relating to

“recording a person doing a private act”

and

“recording an image beneath a person’s clothing”—

the so-called upskirting offence—and replace them with three new criminal offences to tackle the taking or recording of intimate images without consent.

The base offence will be of taking or recording an intimate image without consent or a reasonable belief in consent. That offence carries no requirement to prove that the taking or recording was done for a particular reason. There will also be two more serious offences of taking or recording an intimate image without consent and with the intent to cause alarm, distress or humiliation, or without consent or reasonable belief in consent for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification.

Consent must be at the heart of this new offence. It is the key element, and one that is long overdue. Previously, the onus was on the defence to prove that the accused intended to cause harm. Now, we are moving to a consent-based model that centres the autonomy of the victim. Consent is the most important element of any law of this nature. I am not interested in what consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their own relationship; what this Government are interested in is that, where consent is not given, the perpetrators are punished appropriately and the victim receives the justice they deserve for the violation and abhorrent abuse that they have experienced.

Crucially, these offences will all use the definition of a person in an “intimate state”, which covers images in which the person’s buttocks, genitals or breasts are exposed or covered with underwear; images depicting the person engaging in a sexual act of a sort not usually seen in public; and images showing the person using the toilet. That is broader than the current definition and provides a consistent definition across all the intimate image abuse offences, providing a package of offences.

These changes are important and overdue, but we will not stop there. One of our other concerns about the current law relates to people installing equipment in order for them, or someone else, to take an intimate image without consent. Section 67(4) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 makes it an offence for someone to install equipment, or construct or adapt a structure, or any part of a structure, to enable someone to commit the offence of observing a person doing a private act. That means that I commit an offence if I drill a hole in a changing room wall to allow myself or someone else to spy on people getting changed for sexual gratification, knowing that those getting changed do not consent to being observed for this purpose. That is currently an offence even if I never actually use the hole to spy on those people—merely adapting the structure is sufficient.

However, the offence in section 67(4) of the 2003 Act is limited to installing equipment or adapting structures in relation to observing victims, not recording photographs or videos of them. That means that if I install a spy camera in the wall of a changing room so that I, or someone else, can remotely take photographs or videos of people getting changed, I am not committing that offence. I would have to have actually taken the photographs for that offence to have been committed. That cannot be right.

The new offence to be inserted at section 66 of the 2003 Act will change that. To address concerns about the increasing use of spy cameras to record people in public bathrooms, changing rooms, hotel rooms or holiday lets, it will be an offence to install equipment with the intention to enable anyone, whether the installer or a third party, to commit one of the taking offences. To address the harmful and culpable nature of that behaviour in and of itself, it will not be necessary for any images to have been taken using the equipment.

These offences will build on the sharing offences in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to provide a holistic package of offences using the same definitions and core elements. That addresses the criticisms of the patchwork nature of the existing law, which has resulted in gaps in protection for victims. On top of that, we know that being a victim of one of these crimes can be humiliating and degrading, and that victims can be overwhelmed by shame and embarrassment despite having done nothing wrong. It is therefore vitally important that victims will automatically be eligible for lifelong anonymity.

We are also ensuring that those convicted of the new offences of taking or recording an intimate image for sexual gratification, or installing with the intent to enable the commission of that offence, may be subject to notification requirements. That means that they can be monitored in the community, helping the police to keep the public safer from these predators. The courts can already deprive offenders of the images and the devices on which they are held upon conviction for non-consensual sharing of an intimate image. We will update the sentencing code to give courts the same powers, upon conviction, for intimate images taken without consent. I am grateful to the Law Commission for its extensive review of the law relating to intimate images and its well-considered recommendations upon which these new provisions are based.

I also extend my gratitude to all those who took the time to contribute their views, knowledge and experience, particularly the victims. The courage needed to speak out about these crimes cannot be overestimated, and we are indebted to those brave victims who have shared their experiences so powerfully. We are also grateful to the bodies representing the police, prosecutors and legal practitioners. This allowed us to hear from experts in this area, from those supporting and campaigning on behalf of victims.

It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. Clause 56 introduces schedule 8, which sets out new or amended provisions concerning criminal offences related to the taking, sharing or misuse of intimate photographs without consent, as well as acts of voyeurism. We very much welcome the measures being brought forward.

Many members of the public may be surprised that there is currently no single criminal offence that covers intimate image abuse. In July 2022, the Law Commission completed its review of the laws surrounding the taking, creation and distribution of intimate images without consent. It described the current legal framework as fragmented and outdated, highlighting the fact that existing offences had not kept pace with advances in technology or changes in patterns of sexual offending.

The then Conservative Government intended to use the Criminal Justice Bill to introduce a range of complementary offences to tackle the taking or recording of such images, as well as installing equipment to enable a person to commit a taking or recording offence, before the Bill fell ahead of the 2024 general election. As such, we welcome clause 56 and the measures in schedule 8. Schedule 8 is intended to strengthen legal protections against such offences, reflect modern technology and behaviours, and ensure that victims of these deeply intrusive acts are better safeguarded and supported through the criminal justice system.

These offences aim to address harmful behaviours such as secretly filming or photographing someone in a sexual or private context without their knowledge or consent. There are three main offences: one for taking or recording an intimate image without consent; one where the act is done to cause distress or humiliation; and another where it is done for sexual gratification. The legislation also provides certain exemptions, including where the person had a reasonable belief in consent, or where images were taken for legitimate purposes, such as medical care or by family members in certain situations. It also clarifies that images taken in public, where a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy, are generally excluded.

The new offences carry different penalties depending on the intent behind the act. The general offence is punishable by up to six months imprisonment or a fine, while the more serious offences, involving intent to harm or sexual gratification, carry a maximum sentence of two years. Clause 56 also introduces offences for installing or maintaining equipment, such as hidden cameras, with the intent to commit these acts. This ensures that preparatory behaviour intended to facilitate such invasions of privacy is also criminalised. Overall, the clause rightly strengthens the legal framework around image-based abuse and helps to protect people from intimate violations in both private and public settings.

Being filmed or photographed in an intimate or vulnerable situation without consent is a deep violation of privacy and dignity. Victims often experience long-lasting emotional and psychological effects. In some cases, the fear of images being shared online can lead to isolation, damage to personal relationships, and even job loss or reputational harm. We know how much that particularly impacts specific groups—research suggests that up to 90% of victims of intimate image abuse are women. By criminalising not only the taking and sharing of intimate images without consent, but the installation of equipment intended to facilitate such acts, the law sends a clear message that those behaviours are unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

These changes also help to close existing legal gaps, offering victims stronger protection and greater confidence that their experiences will be taken seriously. Importantly, the new offences allow for appropriate punishment that reflects the severity of the harm caused while also deterring future offenders. This is a vital step in modernising the law to reflect the realities of abuse in the digital age.

It would be useful to understand whether the voyeurism element of these proposals is sufficient in cases of extortion. The National Crime Agency and other organisations have launched campaigns to highlight the dangers of extortion involving intimate images. The Law Commission’s study highlights reports of its prevalence among young men, with some estimates suggesting that young men account for 90% of victims. In cases where consent is initially given, does existing law sufficiently protect individuals who are subsequently extorted? It may be the case that this clause is not the place to address that, and that the Government feel that sufficient powers already exist. I am keen to hear the Minister’s views on that.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan.

I rise in full support of the Government’s action to tackle internet image abuse through clause 56 and schedule 8. As the Member of Parliament for Gravesham, I have heard how digital abuse and coercion are becoming increasingly common in our schools, in our relationships and even in our homes. This measure is not just a policy update; it is a legal correction, a turning point in how the law confronts modern abuse. It stands in defence of dignity, particularly for women and girls who have borne the brunt of silence, shame and victim-blaming for far too long.

The abuse we are addressing through this Bill is often hidden, carried out online without witnesses but with devastating consequences. Victims are often blamed, disbelieved or told that they brought it on themselves. Clause 56 and schedule 8 will take a powerful step in changing that narrative, and I place on record my strong support for the Government’s proposals. I also want to highlight why these offences are so necessary, how the cultural context has changed, what impact this Bill will have on real people, and why this is a turning point in our fight to end violence against women and girls.

As the Minister described, clause 56 and schedule 8 add the base offence of taking and recording intimate images without consent, regardless of motive, to the offences of doing so with intent to cause alarm, distress or humiliation, and of doing so for the purpose of sexual gratification. These offences are key to reflect the reality of modern abuse. The base offence rightly does not require intent, because the harm is real whether or not it was intended.

Unfortunately, we live in a world in which private moments can be turned into weapons, where trust can be shattered with a click and where a single image taken without consent or shared perniciously can spiral into shame, harassment and lifelong trauma. The Law Commission describes our current legal framework as a “patchwork,” unable to keep up with the evolution of technology or the disturbing ways in which people are exploiting it, and the Law Commission is right. Until now, there has been no clear, single criminal offence of taking or recording intimate images without consent. Offences exist for sharing such images, but even then the law requires intent to cause distress or humiliation to be proven. The result is that many perpetrators escape justice while victims suffer in silence. This Bill changes that.

For the first time, we have a clear set of offences that target the taking of intimate images without consent whatever the intent behind the action, whether it is humiliation, distress or sexual gratification, and the installation of the hidden recording devices that enable abuse. It addresses that breakdown in trust.

The Kaspersky report “The Naked Truth” sets out the scale of the challenge. In a global survey of 9,000 people, 22% of respondents had saved explicit images of themselves on their devices and 25% had shared images with people they were dating—among 16 to 24-year-olds that figure rose to 34%. It is this younger generation who we must protect. Some 46% of people globally are either survivors or know somebody who has been a victim of intimate image abuse. That number rises to 69% for 16 to 25-year-olds. We really must act now to prevent this from continuing.

The need for reform has been recognised for some time, but the legislative space did not allow it to move forward. This Labour Government are now picking up the mantle and delivering on that commitment. Clause 56 and schedule 8 build on the groundwork of the Online Safety Act 2003, which acknowledges image sharing. The Bill addresses the act of recording, closing another legal gap. This Government will not stop there: deepfakes and AI-generated sexually explicit images will also be addressed in clause 135 of the Data (Use and Access) Bill. That shows a serious, layered, long-term response to a serious, layered, long-term problem.

We owe it to the survivors, to the next generation, and to every woman and girl who has ever been told that she should have known better. This Government will not look away; we will act, protect, and make it clear that everyone has the right to their own body, their privacy and their peace of mind.

The Liberal Democrats are very supportive of clause 56 and schedule 8, which tidy up existing measures, including those previously implemented by the Liberal Democrats. That includes our campaign to ban revenge porn—we note the excellent points made by the Minister, the hon. Member for Pontypridd, regarding both “revenge” and “porn”—which elevated the taking of intimate images to a criminal offence in 2015, with sentences of up to two years in prison for those convicted.

We also note the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on the Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019, so shamefully blocked by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) in 2018, which made upskirting a specific crime. We congratulate the Government on bringing forward measures to combat these upsetting, intrusive and insidious crimes.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan.

Violence against women and girls is not just a societal problem—it is a national emergency. I am proud of the action that this Labour Government are taking in our Crime and Policing Bill to tackle it. Tough new action is needed, and we are bringing it. The Labour Government have set out an unprecedented ambition, as we heard from the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd, to halve violence against women and girls within a decade. We will use every lever available to deliver this change.

The commitment goes beyond promises. One of the deliverables is the inclusion of new offences for the taking of intimate images without consent, as we have heard. These steps are crucial in addressing the evolving nature of sexual offences, which have outpaced existing laws. We must address this issue—it demands action and our unwavering commitment. Unlike the last Tory Government, which failed to keep up with developments in technology and sexual offending, we are taking tough action against perpetrators and ensuring that protections are better for victims—that is paramount. The consequences of this abuse can be life-changing and tragic. We must take the steps outlined in clause 56 and schedule 8 to ensure that we do not miss the opportunity to protect people from this rapidly growing harm.

The Women and Equalities Committee, which I sit on, has heard evidence from victims of non-consensual intimate image abuse. They have described the far-reaching and continuing impact that the abuse has had on their lives, confidence and relationships. I have heard from the witnesses how this has affected them. Unless we meet the victims and hear it from the horse’s mouth, the deep impact on them does not become real. Many of them are still suffering today. It has even pushed some to the brink of suicide. TV personality and campaigner Georgia Harrison told our predecessor Committee what happened in her case. She said:

“It impacted me in every way you could imagine. So I always sort of compare it to grief: you have to actually grieve a former version of yourself, you feel like you lose your dignity and a lot of pride, there is so much shame involved in it...It got to the point where I was so emotionally affected by what happened to me that I ended up being physically ill as well, to the point where I was in hospital”.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan, and to follow the powerful and well-researched contribution from the hon. Member for Southend West and Leigh.

In the digital age, the non-consensual capture and distribution of intimate images and the act of voyeurism have become all too common. Clause 56, which seeks to confront these violations and better protect individuals’ privacy and dignity, is one that I am happy to support, and I thank the Minister for so clearly setting out the case. The clause expands existing laws to criminalise the non-consensual taking of intimate images, including instances such as downblousing, the creation and distribution of digitally altered images such as deepfakes without consent, and the installation of equipment intended to capture intimate images without consent. All are in response to the recommendation from the Law Commission’s 2022 report on intimate image abuse.

The digital landscape has facilitated new forms of abuse, often with devastating consequences. Refuge has reported that one in 14 adults in England and Wales has experienced threats to share intimate images—that is 4.4 million people. The Revenge Porn Helpline has detailed the rise in those figures—it received nearly 19,000 reports in 2023, marking a 106% increase from 2022, and a tenfold rise over five years.

I also welcome the Minister framing this crime in the Government’s violence against women and girls strategy. There is a clear gender disparity when it comes to this crime. In 71% of cases, the victim is female and in over 81% of cases, the perpetrator is male. Those statistics underscore the urgent need for legal reforms to address and deter such abuses effectively, and to protect women and girls overwhelmingly. However, as we have heard frequently in Committee, it will also be critical that the measures are matched with improved enforcement. The sharing of intimate images has been illegal since 2015, and threatening to share intimate images has been a crime since 2021 but, shamefully, perpetrators are rarely held to account.

Data published by Refuge in 2023 showed that conviction rates for intimate abuse remain woefully low, with only 4% of cases that are reported to the police resulting in perpetrators being charged. I share Refuge’s view that that must improve. I was also shocked to learn that there remains a gap in the law where non-consensual images remain on perpetrators’ devices even after a conviction. That must be incredibly distressing for those affected by this crime. I ask the Minister to outline what provisions are in place to protect the dignity of victims, so that perpetrators are compelled to delete any non-consensual images.

I thank the hon. Members who have contributed to the discussion, which has been deeply moving at times, particularly when it has touched on the impact on victims in all our constituencies and how widespread and horrific the problem is. That stresses the importance of us tackling it in the Bill.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, mentioned sextortion, as did other hon. Members. It is a growing problem. Just this week, its impact—on young men as well as young women—was highlighted on “Good Morning Britain”. Sextortion is already covered by existing offences; we feel that it is already tackled. We are aware that it happens primarily online on social media platforms. Thankfully, the codes of practice that Ofcom is introducing under the powers in the Online Safety Act 2023 will compel platforms to do more to tackle this horrific abuse. However, it is already a crime, and I stress that any victim or survivor who is struggling with it should report it to the relevant authorities—to the police and to the social media platforms directly—because action should be taken to tackle it and the powers and offences to do so are available. These crimes have caused tragic suicides, and I would encourage anyone struggling to reach out and tell someone to contact the Revenge Porn Helpline, which is there to offer assistance and support. It is a brilliant resource, as has been highlighted.

The hon. Member for Windsor asked about deprivation orders, I believe, and how we can ensure that these images are removed from devices so that victims are not retraumatised but protected. We are updating sentencing guidelines, to ensure that that measure is available to the courts—that devices can be taken off perpetrators and the images removed so that victims retain their dignity and are not being revictimised consistently.

This has been a very important discussion, highlighting just how important these measures are. I commend this clause and schedule to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 56 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 8 agreed to.

Clause 57

Exposure

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The clause provides for a modest but important reform to strengthen the offence of exposure in section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Currently, the offence, which carries a two-year maximum prison sentence, is committed when a person intentionally exposes their genitals and intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress. Importantly, the offence—subject to certain conditions—attracts sexual offender notification requirements. That means that qualifying offenders released into the community will be required to notify the police of their personal details. Offenders have to provide their local police station with a record of, among other things, their name, address, date of birth and national insurance number.

In “Modernising Communications Offences: A final report”, published in 2021, the Law Commission noted evidence in response to its public consultation that suggested that the intention to cause alarm or distress was “too narrow” a mental element for this offence. The commission highlighted the fact that sexual gratification and a desire to humiliate the victim were among the major drivers of exposure. Under the existing criminal law, if a person exposes their genitals to another with the intention to humiliate, or for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, and does not also have an intention to cause alarm or distress, the behaviour is not captured by the exposure offence in section 66 of the 2003 Act. If a person is exposing themselves only with the intent of obtaining sexual gratification and with no intent to cause alarm or distress, that is currently insufficient to commit the section 66 offence.

Crown Prosecution Service guidance makes that point clear and suggests that, in such cases, charging with the offence of outraging public decency should be considered. However, depending on the circumstances, outraging public decency might not be an appropriate or valid charge. That offence is committed only when someone does something lewd, obscene or disgusting in the presence of at least two members of the public. The offence requires at least two people to have witnessed the act or been capable of witnessing it, so if, for example, someone exposes themselves to a lone woman for sexual gratification, that very disturbing behaviour would not currently be captured by the outraging public decency offence—and it would not be captured by the existing sexual offence of exposure. If someone were to expose themselves, for sexual gratification, to a person in a private dwelling rather than in public, the behaviour would not fall within the terms of that offence, either. Furthermore, and very importantly, the offence of outraging public decency does not attract sexual offender registration requirements. On release, therefore, the additional protection to society that effective sex offender management provides would not apply to such an offender, even if they carried out the behaviour specifically to obtain sexual gratification.

It is important that we recognise the seriousness of the offence of exposure in the 2003 Act. For victims, it is clearly a disturbing and frightening experience, which can have lasting effects. It is a serious sexual offence that can be identified as a signal of potential for escalation towards even more serious and violent offences. Sadly, we have seen that time and again. Although what I am about to discuss is by no means the only example of escalation of sexual offences, it is perhaps one of the most prominent in recent history. It is one that I know has stayed with all of us across the House, and no one more so than the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention, my very good and right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham. I pay tribute to the way she and her community have coped with the devastation of this tragic event five years ago.

The clause updates the offence of exposure set out in section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The current legislation criminalises a person who intentionally exposes their genitals intending that someone will see them and experience alarm or distress. With technologies ever expanding, the last Conservative Government’s efforts to modernise the legal framework in response to the Law Commission’s 2021 report “Modernising Communications Offences” included the addition of a cyber-flashing offence aimed at better addressing the realities of digital abuse and ensuring that the law keeps pace with the increasing use of technology to commit sexual offences.

The clause rightly expands that to cover not just situations where the individual exposes their genitals to cause alarm or distress, but those where they do so for the purpose of sexual gratification and are reckless as to whether the exposure may cause alarm, distress or humiliation to someone who sees it. That follows the Law Commission’s reporting that it had received evidence indicating that limiting the offence to cases where there was intent to cause alarm or distress was too restrictive. It found that motivations such as seeking sexual gratification or aiming to humiliate the victim were also significant factors behind exposure-related behaviour. The Minister made a clear case for this change to the law, but also set out the impact that such behaviour can have or lead to.

Exposing yourself in public, often referred to as flashing, is a serious and unacceptable criminal offence. It is not just inappropriate; it can cause genuine fear, distress and long-term psychological harm to those who witness it, especially when the victim is a child or vulnerable person. Flashing is not a harmless prank or joke; it is a violation of personal boundaries and can be deeply traumatic. It demonstrates a lack of respect for others and a disregard for the basic right to feel safe in public spaces. This kind of behaviour erodes trust in the community and contributes to a culture of intimidation and discomfort. It is right that we take every measure to stop indecent exposure.

Proposed new section 66(1A) of the 2003 Act aims to introduce a safeguard by excluding certain scenarios, where the exposure is intended only for a specific person or group, from the offence. In such cases, the offence will not be committed under the sexual gratification limb unless the individual is also reckless as to whether one or more of those people will be caused alarm, distress or humiliation. This provision seeks to ensure that consensual acts of nudity—for example, between partners in a secluded area—are not criminalised simply because they are accidentally witnessed by a third party.

The clause will help to ensure that perpetrators of sexually motivated public exposure, such as flashing, can be held to account even if they deny intending to cause harm. The revised wording offers greater clarity for law enforcement and the courts, ensuring that such harmful behaviours are prosecuted more effectively while also providing reasonable protections for consensual and private conduct.

It has been reported that flashing offences have doubled in a decade, with more than 1,000 instances of indecent exposure being reported to the police every month, but barely one in 10 leads to a charge. In the light of that, can the Minister confirm whether she is confident that new subsection (1A) will not inadvertently create a loophole for perpetrators to evade accountability by claiming that their exposure was intended for only a particular person?

The clause aims to strengthen the protections for individuals from indecent exposure, and to ensure that our communities remain safe and respectful spaces for all. It seeks to provide clearer definitions and stricter penalties for offences involving indecent exposure so that perpetrators of such offences are held accountable and victims receive the justice that they deserve for this sexual crime.

While sometimes dismissed as minor, exposure of this kind can have a significant psychological and emotional impact on victims. It is not a trivial matter and can often be a precursor to more severe offences, as we saw with the tragic murder of Sarah Everard, and it contributes to a climate of fear and discomfort in public spaces. Multiple incidents of indecent exposure were linked to the convicted murderer of Sarah Everard before the tragic events of her death in March 2021. In 2015 and 2020, allegations of indecent exposure were made against him in Kent, where he was said to have exposed himself in public. Those reports were not fully investigated at the time. In February 2021, just days before he abducted and murdered Sarah Everard, he was reported to police for exposing himself to staff at a McDonald’s drive-through in Kent. Despite that report being made on 28 February, no meaningful action was taken prior to the murder, which occurred on 3 March. Those incidents have since been heavily scrutinised during inquests and reviews, revealing systematic failures in policing responses to sexual offences, especially so-called lower-level offences such as exposure.

While I welcome the expansion of the scope of this offence through clause 57, I urge police to use the new powers and treat these crimes as the serious crimes that they are. They can be a warning of even worse crimes to come. I welcome the Minister’s statement that the College of Policing guidance is being changed appropriately. Being subjected to indecent exposure by a stranger while walking home can leave a woman with lasting trauma. Such behaviour is unacceptable and should be met with appropriate consequences.

I thank the hon. Member for Windsor for his important contribution. It is right that we expand the scope of the offence to ensure that all victims are properly protected and that perpetrators are brought to adequate justice. As he rightly pointed out, justice is a system; it needs every part to work. We need to ensure that the police are equipped with the guidance, training and tools to go after these foul perpetrators—they need to know what to do, what to look for and who to find. They should be taking this seriously, so I am glad that the College of Policing guidance is now in place. We need the CPS to have the offences available to charge the perpetrators—that is what this Bill will provide—and then we need the court system to be available to hear the cases so that justice can be brought.

The shadow Minister sought reassurance that perpetrators would be brought to justice. As I have just outlined, we are assured that we have all the tools available; we just need to stop these acts taking place. This modest but vital step is part of our wider strategy to halve violence against women and girls. These crimes may be low level and classed as non-contact, but sadly we all know what happens when they escalate. It is important that we take them seriously and have robust laws in place to deal with them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 57 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58

Sexual activity with a corpse

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

I feel that I should provide hon. Members with a content warning before I discuss what this new offence does, and it is probably quite important that we are doing this before lunch. Clause 58 is on a gruesome but none the less important issue. The clause introduces an amendment by expanding the law on sexual activity with a corpse—a distinct and abhorrent type of offending, as shown in the recent case of David Fuller. The sheer horror and repulsiveness of the crime cannot be overstated. My heartfelt condolences go out to the families of those subject to the offence, who have been profoundly affected by these unimaginable, heinous acts. The clause will address a wider range of such despicable behaviour and mark the beginning of a very important step towards ensuring justice for all. We are committed to stopping all such behaviour by making a significant change today. I would like to take a moment to set out the history of the offence.

The Labour Government introduced the Sexual Offences Act 2003 after a full and extensive consultation called “Setting the Boundaries”. It significantly modernised and strengthened the laws on sexual offences in England and Wales. One of the key recommendations from “Setting the Boundaries” was the inclusion of the offence of sexual penetration of a corpse, in chapter 8, “Other Offences”. At the time, the consultation said:

“It came as a surprise to most members of the review that there was no such protection in law for human remains and that necrophilia was not illegal.”

That is why the recommendation was simply put that sexual penetration of a corpse needed to be a criminal offence. Then and now, a Labour Government have demonstrated the importance of getting such legislation right to prevent such heinous behaviour. The commitment was evident then and remains even more crucial now.

I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to the independent inquiry for its thorough investigation into the horrific acts committed by David Fuller in the mortuaries of the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells hospitals. The interim report, published on 15 October 2024, provides essential preliminary findings and recommendations for the funeral sector, highlighting areas that require attention. We eagerly await the final report and will carefully consider its findings to ensure that such atrocities are never repeated. At the core of our efforts, we remain deeply mindful of the families of those subjected to the offence. Their pain and suffering are unimaginable, and our thoughts are with them. We are grateful to the families of the deceased who have bravely come forward to speak publicly about their experiences in the hopes of making lasting change. We understand that revisiting these traumatic events is incredibly painful, and we are truly sorry for any additional distress caused by bringing these matters up in Parliament, but their voices are vital in ensuring justice.

Police officers have played a vital role in explaining the immense challenges faced while gathering evidence for the courts. Their painstaking work in sifting through the horrific images and explaining the evidence was crucial. Without their efforts, we might not have fully understood the importance of broadening the offence to include sexual touching. Their dedication and professionalism have been instrumental in bringing David Fuller to justice. David Fuller is serving a whole life sentence for his abhorrent crimes. As Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb stated during the sentencing, his

“actions go against everything that is right and humane. They are incomprehensible”

and

“had no regard for the dignity of the dead.”

These words resonate deeply with all of us, reinforcing the importance of upholding the dignity of, and respect for, those who have passed.

We are committed to ensuring that justice is secured for the families of the deceased in all cases of sexual activity with a corpse, not just in cases of penetration. That is why the clause repeals the existing offence of sexual penetration of a corpse in section 70 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and replaces it with a broader offence of sexual activity with a corpse. The broader offence still criminalises sexual penetration of a corpse, but it also criminalises non-penetrative sexual touching, adding it into the criminal law for the first time. It increases the maximum penalty for sexual penetration of a corpse from two to seven years’ imprisonment. Where penetration is not involved, the maximum penalty will be five years’ imprisonment. The new offence will be committed whenever a person intentionally touches the body of a dead person if they know they are dead or are reckless as to whether the person they are touching is dead, and the touching is sexual. Touching is already defined in section 79(8) of the 2003 Act.

We want to ensure that criminal law is robust and comprehensive, effectively addressing the harm caused by this reprehensible behaviour. It is imperative that our criminal law evolves to encompass additional forms of abuse, particularly those that violate the dignity and sanctity of individuals both alive and deceased. By broadening the offence to include non-penetrative actions, such as the sexual touching of a corpse, the law will be more robust, ensuring that perpetrators cannot escape justice.

Our commitment extends beyond merely updating the law and involves a holistic approach to justice that prioritises respect for those affected. We strive to create an environment in which such heinous acts are met with the strongest possible legal repercussions, ensuring that justice is served and, importantly, that the families of the deceased receive the support and closure they so rightly deserve. I commend clause 58 to the Committee.

The clause updates and strengthens the current offence of sexual activity involving a corpse, as set out in section 70 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The revised provisions broaden the scope of the offence by replacing the term “sexual penetration” with the more encompassing term “sexual activity”. The clause replicates a provision of the Conservative Government’s Criminal Justice Bill, which fell due to the 2024 general election. The change ensures that any form of intentional sexual touching of a dead body—not just acts of penetration—will be captured by the law.

Many members of the public are shocked to hear that these vile and horrific offences take place, and will be further shocked that some of this activity is not covered by the law. Currently, section 70 of the 2003 Act defines the offence of sexual penetration of a corpse. That offence applies when a person intentionally sexually penetrates the body of a deceased individual, and knows or is reckless as to whether the body is that of a deceased person. The offence carries a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment.

As the Minister mentioned, the provision was notably used in the high-profile case of David Fuller, a former hospital electrician who was convicted under section 70 for multiple instances of sexual penetration involving the bodies of at least 100 women and girls in hospital mortuaries. However, the current scope of section 70 does not extend to non-penetrative sexual acts, so it could not have been used to prosecute further allegations against Fuller relating to other forms of sexual activity with the bodies of his victims. Under this legislation, a person commits an offence if they intentionally touch a part of a dead person’s body, with that touching being sexual in nature, and if they either know or are reckless as to the fact that the body is that of a deceased person.

The clause also provides a new, tiered sentencing structure. Where the sexual activity involves penetration, the offence carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment. In all other cases, the maximum penalty is five years. These sentencing thresholds aim to reflect the seriousness of the conduct, while allowing courts flexibility to reflect the nature of the offence. The new offence introduces different maximum sentences depending on whether penetration is involved. Can the Minister explain how these sentencing thresholds were determined, and have the Government considered how the updated offence aligns with comparable offences in other jurisdictions? Does this bring us into line with international best practice?

There have been some truly harrowing cases that have exposed the inadequacies of our current legal framework in this regard. As both the Minister and the shadow Minister highlighted, the case of David Fuller is the obvious and most extreme example—a hospital electrician who, over 12 years, sexually abused the bodies of more than 100 women and girls in women and mortuaries. His crimes went undetected for decades, revealing significant systematic failure. I fully support the clause that the Minister has outlined, particularly because, as Baroness Noakes has highlighted during parliamentary debates, had Fuller not been convicted of murder, he might have faced only a minimal sentence for his other offences.

I have several critical questions on clause 58. I appreciate that the clause would significantly increase the penalty, but are those proposed penalties sufficient? Given the gravity of these offences, should the maximum sentence not be even higher, so that it serves as a stronger deterrent? Take the example of David Fuller. If we had caught him before the murder, under the provisions of the Bill, would he have been given seven years, and is that enough? What safeguards are in place? How can institutions, especially hospitals and funeral homes, implement stricter protocols to prevent such abuses? Perhaps the Minister can comment on that. How do we support the victims’ families? Beyond legal measures, what support systems are available to help families to cope with the trauma inflicted by disgusting crimes such as this? Clause 58 is clearly a necessary and long overdue reform that acknowledges the sanctity of the deceased and the rights of the families, and provides greater justice for those who can no longer speak for themselves. I welcome it.

I welcome the comments from the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Windsor. Both touched on sentencing, and I am happy to address their questions. We have considered a range of options. Increasing the statutory maximum for section 70 to seven years is in keeping with the other serious contact offences in the Sexual Offences Act, while it remains lower than most of the serious contact sexual offences against living victims. Sexual assault and rape, for example, have a maximum penalty of 10 years and life imprisonment respectively. The statutory maximum set out in the clause is for a single offence. If a person receives multiple convictions for this offence, or if that offence is committed alongside other offences, then the court may adjust the overall sentence to reflect the totality of the offending in the ordinary way.

We also heard strong evidence of the harm caused by this offending to victims’ families and believe that two years does not reflect the harm caused. We have, therefore, considered, in particular, the serious emotional and psychological distress and the feelings of shame and embarrassment that the families undergo, knowing that the bodies of their loved ones have been sexually abused. It is therefore right that the new law takes

“Concealment, destruction, defilement or dismemberment of the body”

as a factor that indicates high culpability on the part of the offender, and that a more serious punishment may, therefore, be appropriate.

I remind hon. Members that we currently have a sentencing review in place, which is reviewing all the offences available and looking at this. That independent review is ongoing and we anticipate that it will report this year. We are also aware that the Law Commission is considering a review of the criminal law around the desecration of bodies as part of its next programme of law reform. We are currently discussing the possibility of looking into this with it. Let me reassure Members that we are not stopping and that we will not hesitate to go further if required.

On the support available for victims, I would like to reassure the hon. Member for Windsor that victim support is always available for anyone who has been a victim of crime, whether or not that crime has been reported to the police. I encourage any victim, survivor or family to reach out to victim support. The Ministry of Justice funds a number of victim support organisations and provides grants to local police and crime commissioners to provide tailored support in their areas for whatever they feel is necessary. We also have the victims’ code, which outlines exactly what victims are entitled to if they have been a victim of crime, and support is one of the many elements available to them there. I encourage anyone to reach out and seek the support that is available.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 58 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59

Notification of name change

I beg to move amendment 36, in clause 59, page 59, line 11, at end insert—

“(11) If a relevant offender does not comply with the requirements of this section, they shall be liable to a fine not exceeding Level 4 on the standard scale.”

This amendment imposes a fine of up to £2,500 if a registered sex offender does not notify the police when they change their name.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 50, in clause 59, page 59, line 11, at end insert—

“(11) Police must notify victims of relevant offender’s new name—

(a) No less than three days before an offender intends to use it, or

(b) If that is not reasonably practicable, no less than three days after the date the offender began using it.”

This amendment would place a duty on police forces to notify victims if their abuser legally changed their name.

Clause stand part.

Amendment 37, in clause 60, page 60, line 25, at end insert—

“(10) If a relevant offender does not comply with the requirements of this section, they shall be liable to a fine not exceeding Level 4 on the standard scale.”

This amendment imposes a fine of up to £2,500 if a registered sex offender does not notify the police when they are absent from their sole or main residence.

Clause 60 stand part.

Amendment 38, in clause 61, page 63, line 4, at end insert—

“(9) If a relevant offender does not comply with the requirements of this section, they shall be liable to a fine at Level 5 of the standard scale.”

This amendment imposes an unlimited fine if a relevant registered sex offender does not notify police if they are entering a premises where children are presented.

Clause 61 stand part.

Clause 66 stand part.

New clause 55—Annual statement on employment status of sexual offenders—

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report on the employment status of convicted sexual offenders at the time of their offence.

(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), ‘Sexual offenders’ means any person found guilty of an offence stipulated in the Sexual Offences Act 2003.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to release an annual report on the employment status of convicted sexual offenders.

Opposition amendment 36 introduces a financial penalty for a registered sex offender who fails to notify the police of a name change. The penalty, set at a fine not exceeding £2,500, aims to ensure that offenders remain fully accountable for complying with the notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The failure to notify the police of a change in name could undermine the effectiveness of the existing system designed to monitor and track sex offenders, making it crucial to incentivise full adherence to the notification process.

Sexual offences are among the most serious and traumatic crimes, leaving deep and lasting harm on victims, emotionally, psychologically and socially. These offences often involve a profound breach of trust and personal safety, with long-term consequences for victims’ wellbeing and mental health. The most severe cases can shatter lives and destroy families. Because of the gravity and impact of these crimes, it is vital that society sets a clear and uncompromising message that such behaviour will not be tolerated, including in the conditions and requirements that follow conviction.

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment 50, in clause 59, page 59, line 11, at end insert—

“(11) Police must notify victims of relevant offender’s new name—

(a) No less than three days before an offender intends to use it, or

(b) If that is not reasonably practicable, no less than three days after the date the offender began using it.”.

This amendment would place a duty on police forces to notify victims if their abuser legally changed their name.

Clause stand part.

Amendment 37, in clause 60, page 60, line 25, at end insert—

“(10) If a relevant offender does not comply with the requirements of this section, they shall be liable to a fine not exceeding Level 4 on the standard scale.”.

This amendment imposes a fine of up to £2,500 if a registered sex offender does not notify the police when they are absent from their sole or main residence.

Clause 60 stand part.

Amendment 38, in clause 61, page 63, line 4, at end insert—

“(9) If a relevant offender does not comply with the requirements of this section, they shall be liable to a fine at Level 5 of the standard scale.”.

This amendment imposes an unlimited fine if a relevant registered sex offender does not notify police if they are entering a premises where children are presented.

Clause 61 stand part.

Clause 66 stand part.

New clause 55—Annual statement on employment status of sexual offenders—

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report on the employment status of convicted sexual offenders at the time of their offence.

(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), “Sexual offenders” means any person found guilty of an offence stipulated in the Sexual Offences Act 2003.”.

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to release an annual report on the employment status of convicted sexual offenders.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger, while we expect a vote. As we are quorate, I will move on with this task. I will come on to answer the questions put by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, but will first go through the relevant clauses.

Ensuring that the system for managing sex offenders is as robust as it can be is a crucial part of delivering the mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. It is important that the police have the right tools to manage sex offenders and prevent reoffending.

Clause 59 requires registered sex offenders to notify the police of a new name no less than seven days before using it. Currently, when an offender changes their name, they are required to notify the police no more than three days after the change. The clause strengthens the current requirements by ensuring that sex offenders give notification of name changes in advance, which will support the police in ensuring that safeguards are in place.

Clause 60 introduces a requirement for registered sex offenders to notify the police when they intend to be absent from their sole or main residence for more than five days. It also requires offenders to tell the police of their intention to be absent no less than 12 hours before leaving their home address. Currently, offenders are required to notify the police of any address where they spend seven consecutive days or seven days cumulatively in a 12-month period. It is clear from our engagement with the police that the current legislation could be exploited by offenders staying at several different addresses for periods of just under seven days, meaning they do not have to notify. This change will enable the police to receive more actionable information about the offender’s travel plans and it will close the opportunity for them to spend up to seven days at many different addresses without notifying.

Clause 61 seeks to strengthen the management of registered sex offenders by providing the police with actionable information in advance of an offender entering specified premises where children are present. The current legislation requires all registered sex offenders to notify the police after spending 12 hours in a household with children. That 12 hours is not cumulative, leading to potential safeguarding risks and operational challenges.

For example, the police face challenges in evidencing an offender’s presence in a household for more than 12 hours or contradicting offenders’ assertions that they were in the household for less than 12 hours. Sadly, abuse can take place in any timeframe. These changes aim to enhance the safety of children by requiring offenders to notify the police in advance of going into premises where children are present. The clause includes a power to specify the premises in secondary legislation, so that the requirement can apply to more categories of premises than households and we can amend the list as and when needed.

This measure will apply to those offenders with convictions for child sexual offences or who are deemed by the police to pose a risk of sexual harm to children. It will ensure that the police receive actionable information with which they can take steps to safeguard children.

Clause 66 gives the police the power to issue registered sex offenders who pose an additional risk a notice that restricts them from changing their name on identity documents—namely passports, driving licences or immigration documents—without police approval. Any failure to seek approval from the police will be a breach punishable by a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment. The police will be able to give approval to name changes where there is a relevant condition, for example where an offender gets married or changes religion. However, the police will still be able to refuse approval in those instances if it is necessary to protect the public from the risk of sexual harm.

Clause 66 allows for information sharing between the police and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency so that the DVLA can make the police aware of any unauthorised attempts to change a name on a driving licence. Equivalent processes already exist for passports and immigration documents. This will ensure that those registered sex offenders who are deemed to be at risk of using a name change to commit sexual harm are unable to continue offending under a new name and pass under the radar of law enforcement. It is important to recognise that these restrictions are necessary to ensure that high-risk offenders are managed effectively in the community and to protect the public from the risk of sexual harm.

I will deal briefly with amendments 36 to 38 tabled by the hon. Member for Stockton West. It is already an offence under section 91 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 either to fail to comply with the notification requirements or to knowingly provide false information to the police in purported compliance. These offences are currently punishable, when tried on indictment, by up to five years’ imprisonment. The amendments would, in effect, considerably lower the existing punishments for non-compliance with the notification requirements. A potential custodial sentence or an unlimited fine is already a strong deterrent for non-compliance. The amendments are therefore unnecessary, although I accept the spirit in which they were probably intended.

Amendment 50 seeks to place a duty on the police to notify victims—

Order.

As I was saying before we were so democratically interrupted, amendment 50 seeks to place a duty on the police to notify victims when an offender intends to change their name. Again, I entirely understand the intention behind the amendment, but the police are already able to disclose information, on a discretionary basis, to protect victims from further harm.

It is important to note that many victims will simply not want to be notified of information relating to the perpetrator of the crime, especially if they have made considerable efforts to move on with their lives. I handled a case of this type very recently. A woman came to see me about her abusive father. She had not heard from him or anything of him for decades, and the effect of the notification on her was one of calamity: it was to see her life turned upside down by something she had moved past.

One can only ask how we would administer such a system, with an opt-in and opt-out, when we are talking, specifically in relation to sex offender notification systems, of periods of decades. Therefore, although I absolutely recognise the intention behind the amendment, I wonder whether cases can be cited in which this type of notification would have made a difference but did not happen. I would be happy to hear from and speak to the hon. Member for Stockton West about that.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree with me that, given the lifelong trauma from such offences, and the ongoing mental health struggles that could be triggered by such a notification, we need to put victims at the heart of everything that we do? How can we ensure that measures like this enable that to happen?

I have met victims of childhood sexual abuse, for example, who have suffered trauma years and years into the future. I have to say that, in recent years, that has been very badly exacerbated by delays in our courts system. I have worked with children who were sexually abused in childhood, who do not see the inside of a courtroom until they are adults, causing a period of developmental delay in their lives. Their lives remain on hold while they are waiting for a system to deliver something for them. I have seen that affect their working lives. I have seen it affect their mental health beyond anything that should have happened. Sometimes state failure has exacerbated that, so we have to have a pragmatic system that allows for the risk to be assessed and the needs of the victim to be assessed to see whether notification would be a requirement, and that currently exists.

New clause 55 seeks to introduce a requirement for data on the employment status of convicted sex offenders to be published on an annual basis. I reassure the hon. Member for Stockton West that registered sex offenders are managed under multi-agency public protection arrangements and will already have in place a risk management plan that considers employment information. That would allow the offender managers to manage risks around employment post conviction. The police may record the employment status of individuals on their systems where that is relevant, but to routinely require forces to collate and publish employment data would have questionable gains. Such resources are considerably better focused on the management of offenders.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data annually on registered sex offenders who are subject to multi-agency public protection arrangements, and we are confident that the police already have the systems in place to record appropriate data to ensure that offenders are managed according to their risk. I recognise the spirit in which the amendments were tabled but, given what I have said, I hope that the hon. Member for Stockton West will withdraw his amendment.

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.

Clause 59 seeks to curb the ability of registered sex offenders to change their names and thereby evade detection and pose a renewed threat to public safety. It does so by introducing a mechanism whereby police can issue a notice to a registered sex offender that prohibits them from changing their name on official documents, such as passports or driving licences, without prior authorisation. It is contingent on the police’s assessment that such a change would pose a risk to the public or specific individuals. Exceptions are considered for legitimate reasons, including marriage, religious conversion or protection from harm, and offenders retain the right to appeal the decisions in a magistrates court.

The current legal provisions clearly allow some of the most dangerous in society to evade detection and sometimes even to secure positions of trust, often leading to further offences. Take the case of convicted paedophile Terry Price, who sexually abused Della Wright when she was between the ages of six and 11. Terry Price changed his name five times and offended over three decades. Monsters like that simply must be stopped, and the current provisions are clearly not enough to prevent such criminals from using multiple identities to evade detection and commit the very worst kinds of crime. Thankfully, he is now serving a 22-year sentence. Della Wright bravely waived her right to anonymity and has campaigned tirelessly for measures to close the legal loopholes that allow sex offenders to change their names. Her campaigning has given this issue the attention it deserves.

The measures introduced in the clause are proportionate in that they are contingent on the police’s assessment that such a change would pose a risk to the public or specific individuals. I welcome clause 59, but wish to speak to the Opposition amendments that have been tabled to strengthen it. I welcome the constructive way in which the Minister dealt with them.

Amendment 36 seeks to impose a fine of up to £2,500 if a registered sex offender does not notify the police when they change their name. Fining registered sex offenders who do not notify the police when they change their name would be a meaningful extra deterrent. We spoke earlier in Committee about fines for littering; if we impose fines of up to £2,500 for persistent or serious cases of littering, why should we not impose a similar financial penalty for registered sex offenders who clearly try to evade the law?

Amendment 50 would place a duty on police forces to notify victims if their abuser legally changes their name. It is beyond comprehension that there is no provision in place to give victims the dignity and transparency of being updated if their convicted abuser legally changes their name. I take the Minister’s point that some victims do not want to know—that was a good retort to the amendment—but the suggestion of an opt-in or opt-out system was constructive.

Clause 60 will introduce a requirement for registered sex offenders to inform the police if they plan to be away from their sole or main residence for more than five days. Specifically, offenders must notify the police at least 12 hours before leaving, providing details about the date of departure, travel arrangements, accommodation plans during their absence and their expected date of return. If any of this information changes before departure, offenders will be obligated to update the police accordingly. Additionally, if the actual return date differs from the one notified to police, they must inform the police within three days of returning.

Under the current legal framework, offenders are required to notify authorities only if they stay at a new address for seven consecutive days or more, which has allowed some to exploit the system by moving between different locations for shorter periods without notification, thereby evading effective monitoring. By reducing the notification threshold to five days, clause 60 seeks to prevent such circumvention and ensure continuous oversight.

I wholly support Opposition amendment 37, which seeks to add more teeth to the clause by imposing a fine of up to £2,500 if a registered sex offender does not notify the police when they are absent from their sole or main residence. Earlier, I used the example of litter fines; if we can fine parents up to £2,500 for persistent absences from school, as is currently the case, we could and should fine registered sex offenders who go absent from their sole or main residence. It is something that the average, sensible, small c conservative citizen of this country would see as an entirely appropriate additional deterrent.

Clause 61 introduces a new provision into the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to mandate that certain registered sex offenders notify the police before entering premises where children are present. While registered sex offenders are currently already subject to various notification requirements, there has been no explicit mandate for them to inform authorities before entering environments where children are present. The enhanced ability of police to monitor high-risk individuals effectively, while also deterring potential reoffending by increasing the accountability of registered sex offenders, is clearly welcome. Knowing that additional safeguards are in place to protect children will hopefully give communities greater peace of mind.

I urge Committee members to back Opposition amendment 38, which would impose an unlimited fine if a relevant registered sex offender did not notify police that they were entering premises where children were present. There should be no excuses for registered sex offenders in making such a serious breach. If we are seeking to give communities peace of mind, amendment would 38 provide an additional mechanism through which paedophiles would be compelled to think twice about flouting the law, and parents would feel like the law was well and truly on their side when it comes to protecting children from the most dangerous criminals.

I have realised that I did not answer one question after the Divisions. The hon. Member for Stockton West asked about the justification for the regulation-making power in clause 60; I refer him to paragraph 90 of the delegated powers memorandum for the details on that.

On amendments regarding a £2,500 fine, under the existing legal framework a person would go to prison for up to five years and face an unlimited fine, so the amendment would weaken the current position. I want to make that completely clear before we divide.

On the hon. Member for Windsor’s point about it being a constructive conversation, as somebody who sat on the Opposition Benches and moved hundreds of amendments over the years, in my view the point was always to have a constructive conversation with the Government about what would make things better. That is absolutely the spirit in which I wish to proceed. I always welcome any conversation that any Opposition Back Bencher, and indeed Front Bencher, wishes to have with me.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The clause introduces a new and significant change to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 through the insertion of proposed new section 87A. This change provides for registered sex offenders to give their notifications virtually, in specific conditions, as opposed to attending the police station in person. The provision is designed to make the notification process more flexible and efficient, while still ensuring public safety and compliance with the law.

The core idea behind the clause is to allow individuals to submit their notifications virtually, such as through video calls or similar technologies. However, the virtual submission of notifications will be allowed only when specific conditions are met, as set out in the clause. Will the Minister clarify how senior police officers will determine when it is safe to allow offenders to submit their notifications virtually instead of attending a police station in person? What specific factors will be considered in the risk assessment to ensure that public safety is not compromised? Under what circumstances can a senior police officer revoke the permission for virtual notifications, and how quickly can the decision be made?

Apologies, Minister—I should have called you first, but you now have the wonderful opportunity to both reply and speak for the first time.

It is absolutely fine, Sir Roger. Clauses 63 provides the police with the power to receive virtual notifications from registered sex offenders in specified circumstances. It was a direct recommendation from Chief Constable Mick Creedon’s independent review into the police-led management of registered sex offenders in the community, which the Home Office published in 2023. The police will be able to give permission to notify virtually only to offenders they deem suitable. The police will be able to revoke this permission at any time, and retain a power to compel the registered sex offender to attend a police station to notify.

This change will make it easier and quicker for specified sex offenders to notify changes to the police, thereby improving efficiency. It will also reduce the likelihood of unintentional but unavoidable breaches of the notification requirements due to, for example, offenders being unable to travel to a police station before the statutory three-day time limit as a result of health or mobility issues. This measure will make it easier for offenders to comply with the requirements and will allow the police to manage any risks more efficiently.

The measures will apply only where the police deem it safe and appropriate to notify virtually. If there is any risk that an offender is misusing the permission, the police have the power to revoke it and require that notification take place in person. The police can allow an offender to notify via a means that enables both parties to see and hear each other without being in the same place. In practice, that will mean that an offender must use, for example, video calling software—which we all got used to—to communicate with their offender manager, with both being visible and audible to each other.

In the independent review of the police-led management of registered sex offenders in the community, Mick Creedon said:

“I strongly recommend that discretion is incorporated into the notification requirement regime. Whilst the requirements might still be common at the point of conviction, the subsequent risk assessment and management plan should vary, allowing forces to assess which details to collect and how individuals should notify, affording opportunities for online or remote notification where appropriate.”

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 63 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 64

Review of indefinite notification requirements (England and Wales)

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 65 stand part.

Registered sex offenders who receive a sentence of imprisonment of 30 months or more must comply with the notification requirements indefinitely after 15 years, or eight for juveniles. They may apply for the police to review and, if appropriate, discharge their notification requirements. There is currently no power for the police to proactively review an offender’s indefinite notification requirements after 15 years. That results in offenders who are unable to make an application—for example, due to a disability—remaining subject to the notification requirements unnecessarily.

Chief Constable Mick Creedon recommended in his independent review into the police-led management of registered sex offenders in the community that the police should have the discretion to proactively review a registered sex offender’s indefinite notification requirements once the statutory minimum duration has elapsed. Although registered sex offenders already have the right to apply for a review once the minimum duration has passed, these clauses will give the police in England, Wales and Northern Ireland the ability to initiate a review themselves.

The process will remain the same as that for offender-initiated reviews. The police must seek information from other agencies responsible for the risk management of registered sex offenders to inform their decisions about whether to discharge the indefinite notification requirements. Offenders who pose a risk will remain subject to the requirements for life if necessary.

Clause 64 amends the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to make changes to the review process for offenders in England and Wales who are subject to indefinite notification requirements. These changes specifically apply to offenders sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 30 months or more. Under the current law, offenders subject to indefinite notification must comply with notification requirements for a minimum of 15 years, or eight years for juveniles, before they may apply to the police to review their requirements. The police, working alongside other multi-agency public protection arrangement agencies when appropriate, will review these requirements to determine whether they are still necessary to protect the public from sexual harm.

One of the significant changes introduced by clause 64 is the concept of an own motion review. This allows the chief officer of police to initiate a review of an offender’s indefinite notification requirements without the offender needing to apply. The chief officer can assess whether an offender still needs to comply with the notification requirements, based on the risk they pose to the public. While the review process can begin only once the minimum review period has elapsed, the chief officer of police must notify the offender that they are initiating a review and allow the offender to make representations. The police must also inform the responsible bodies, such as the Probation Service, and seek any relevant information they hold. Once the offender has had an opportunity to make their case, the chief officer must make a determination within six weeks. If the decision is to end the notification requirements, they cease immediately.

Clause 65 introduces new paragraphs 6A to 6D to schedule 3A to the 2003 Act, establishing provisions for own motion reviews in Northern Ireland that mirror those set out in the new sections for England and Wales. Is the Minister confident that own motion reviews of indefinite notification requirements will not undermine public safety, and how can we ensure that the decision-making process in these reviews is transparent, and that there is adequate oversight to hold the responsible authorities accountable?

I thank the shadow Minister for his questions. These amendments to the law were very much in the predecessor Bill to this one; I think I am the only person who has now sat through this Bill Committee twice. There have not been substantial changes from the point at which the previous Government wished to seek these changes. Frankly, this is a minor amendment that has been asked for by the very experts who currently manage the risk within the community. It came from a Home Office review that was published under the previous Government, in which Mick Creedon wrote:

“I recommend that legislation places the responsibility on the police service to proactively consider and, if suitable, apply for indefinite notification requirements to be removed where justifiable without applications from the individuals.”

This is coming from Mick Creedon and those who lead police forces, who I have met specifically to discuss the management of sex offenders. Actually, a success in an area of safeguarding law over a number of years is that an increasing number of people have been convicted of sex offences, which is largely down to growing numbers of people being convicted because the evidence base of online child abuse, for example, has grown. There is a real need for officers to be really focused on where risk is the greatest, so that they can protect the public. Protection of the public is where Mick Creedon is coming from in his review, and that is why the clause exists.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 64 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 65 and 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 67

Power of entry and search

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this, it will be convenient to consider the following:

Clause 68 stand part.

Schedule 9.

The aim of clause 67 is to improve the process by which the police obtain warrants to enter and search registered sex offenders’ homes to assess their risk of sexual harm. Currently, under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, a superintendent is required to make an application to a court for a warrant in person. Setting the requirement at that level can cause delays to warrants being obtained. This measure will lower the rank of officer able to authorise an application to inspector and enable the application in court to be made by a constable. Allowing officers below the rank of superintendent to apply for and obtain such warrants will make the process more efficient, which will help improve the police’s management of offenders. It will bring the power of entry and search in line with other similar provisions, where lower-rank officers are able to apply for warrants.

Finally, clause 68 and schedule 9 make minor and consequential amendments to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 as a result of the changes introduced in this part of the Bill.

Section 96B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 grants police officers the authority to apply for a warrant to enter and search a relevant offender’s home when necessary for assessing their risk. Currently, that application can be made only by an officer of at least the rank of superintendent. The police typically seek and execute such warrants when an offender refuses to allow the police entry to their home, thus hindering the risk-assessment process.

The clause amends section 96B by altering the application process. Instead of requiring a senior officer of at least superintendent rank to apply for the warrant, proposed new subsection (1) would allow an application to be made by a police officer, but it must first be approved by an “appropriate officer”. That term is further clarified in proposed new subsection (10) to mean a constable who is authorised to make the application by a constable of at least the rank of inspector.

That change rightly aims to streamline the process while ensuring that officers of appropriate rank and authority can make the necessary applications to protect the public and assess offenders’ risks effectively. How big an impact does the Minister anticipate that allowing officers of lower rank to apply for warrants will have on the efficiency and speed of police operations when carrying out the risk assessments? Will thought be given to the relevant training for the appropriate officers in such circumstances?

The shadow Minister makes some interesting points. It is impossible for me to say now exactly how much this will improve things in the future, but it will obviously be kept under review. The Government have set up a specific unit, the national centre for VAWG and public protection—the creation of a specialist policing centre for specific active training and specialisation in the space of public protection, child abuse and violence against women and girls. I think that specialist training is required not only here but across the board. We need to ensure that all police forces across England and Wales have standardised practice in public protection and safeguarding.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 67 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 9 agreed to.

Let me just explain: the duty of the Chair is to facilitate the debate and to expedite the business; it is not the duty of the Chair, or my responsibility, to curtail debate. If anybody wants to speak to something, please do so, but if you do not want to, indicate that, and that will give more opportunity for Members to talk about the things that they really want to talk about. I hope that is clear. Stop me at any time if you feel I am rushing you.

Clause 69

Stalking protection orders on acquittal etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 70 stand part.

Stalking is a high-harm, high-volume form of violence against women and girls. It is important that the right tools are in place to manage stalking perpetrators and to ensure that victims are protected at the earliest opportunity. The changes in the clause widen the situations in which a stalking protection order can be issued. SPOs were introduced in 2019, with the aim of ensuring that effective protections were put in place as soon as risk is identified for victims of stalking.

Let me pay tribute to somebody once of this parish: Alex Chalk. He is no longer a Member of Parliament, but he was an incredible advocate for changing the law on stalking and always a pleasure to work with when I was in opposition. Currently, only the police can apply for an SPO, with applications considered by the magistrates court. These changes will enable the courts to make an SPO of their own volition at the conclusion of criminal proceedings in situations where the defendant has been convicted or acquitted. In both scenarios, there can still be a real need to ensure that safeguards and protections are in place for victims.

It can be all too easy for defendants who are sentenced to time in prison to continue stalking their victim from prison—I know that, because it happened to me. For defendants who are acquitted, the court may consider there is still a need to safeguard the victim from any further stalking behaviour. The Government’s view is that the current process of using restraining orders in these situations is not sufficient, and that was echoed in the recent super-complaint on the police response to stalking. Restraining orders were not designed specifically to address the risks associated with stalking, and cannot impose positive requirements that address the root causes of the stalking behaviour. This measure therefore provides for stronger protections for victims of stalking.

Stalking is a deeply harmful and invasive crime that can have severe, long-lasting effects on victims. The impacts of stalking go far beyond the initial fear that it instils. It can completely disrupt a person’s sense of safety, security and control over their own life. Victims of stalking often experience intense psychological distress, ranging from anxiety and depression to post-traumatic stress disorder. The constant feeling of being watched, harassed or threatened can lead to chronic stress, sleep disturbances and a diminished quality of life. In extreme cases, victims may even alter their daily routine, change their contact information or move to new locations to escape the perpetrator’s unwanted attention.

The emotional and psychological toll on victims extends to their families and loved ones. Friends and family members of stalking victims often share in the anxiety and fear, feeling helpless as they watch someone they care about fall victim. Relationships may become strained as the victim withdraws or becomes hypervigilant, and families may find themselves taking additional security measures to protect the victim. The overall sense of instability can erode trust and safety within the victim’s support network, leaving everyone involved emotionally drained.

The Suzy Lamplugh Trust, a leading charity focused on personal safety and stalking, defines stalking as

“a pattern of fixated and obsessive behaviour which is repeated, persistent, intrusive and causes fear of violence or engenders alarm and distress in the victim.”

It is right that, under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, steps were taken to legislate for the criminalisation of stalking. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust highlighted:

“Section 2A labels stalking as a criminal offence for the first time in English and Welsh Law.”

I am proud of the steps that the previous Government took to take action against this terrible crime, and I support the current Government in their efforts to reduce its prevalence.

Clause 69 amends the Stalking Protection Act 2019 to strengthen the ability of courts to impose stalking protection orders, even when criminal proceedings do not result in a conviction. It will insert proposed new section A1, which defines what a stalking protection order is: an order that can impose prohibitions or requirements on a person to prevent acts associated with stalking. It clarifies that SPOs may now be made on application by the police or following an acquittal, appeal or finding of insanity or disability. I would be grateful if the Minister could expand on how the Government will ensure that the power is used proportionately and not seen to be circumventing due process, particularly in cases of acquittal.

As the Minister will know, in November 2022, the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, acting on behalf of the National Stalking Consortium, submitted a super-complaint highlighting serious and widespread concerns about how the police respond to stalking. The complaint identified systemic issues, including a lack of understanding among officers about what behaviours amount to stalking. It also criticised the quality of investigations, stating that, even when stalking is correctly identified, police often fail to handle these cases appropriately.

The head of external affairs at Women’s Aid, Isabelle Younane, emphasised that changes to stalking protection orders will only be effective if the root issues are tackled. She stressed the need for the police and other agencies to have a consistent understanding of the orders and to apply them properly, ensuring that breaches result in meaningful consequences. Is the Minister confident that the police have the capacity, training and resources to effectively address stalking cases in line with the measures in the Bill?

Proposed new section 364A of the sentencing code introduces the concept of a stalking protection order designed to prevent individuals from engaging in stalking behaviours. The order can include both prohibitions and requirements. Subsection (2) directs readers to section 2A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 for examples of behaviours associated with stalking.

Subsection (3) provides that an SPO may be time-limited or indefinite; if time-limited, subsection (4) mandates a minimum duration of two years. Allowing a stalking protection order to be time-limited or indefinite will mean that the courts can tailor orders to individual cases. In some situations, an indefinite order may be necessary to protect victims from ongoing risk, while in others a fixed-term order may be more appropriate.

This measure can help to ensure long-term protection. Requiring a minimum duration of two years for a time- limited SPO will ensure that victims receive meaningful protection. Short-term orders may not give victims the reassurance and safety they need, especially in cases where stalking behaviours persist or escalate over time. Has consideration been given to increasing the minimum period to allow for sufficient victim protection?

Proposed new section 364B of the sentencing code gives courts the power to impose an SPO following a conviction. The court must be satisfied that the offender has committed acts associated with stalking, that there is a continuing risk of stalking to another person, and that the order is necessary to protect that individual. That can include cases where the stalker targets people close to the main victim—for example, friends or family—to cause distress to the main victim.

These provisions are a positive and necessary step in strengthening protections for stalking victims. They recognise that perpetrators often target people close to the victim, such as friends, family members or colleagues, in order to cause distress, and they reflect the reality that stalking is used as a form of psychological manipulation and control. Including those indirect victims within the scope of protection will ensure a more comprehensive and preventive approach.

Requiring every restriction or requirement in the order to be necessary for the protection of the individual at risk builds in an important safeguard and ensures that conditions are proportionate and directly linked to the risk presented. It balances the rights of the defendant while prioritising victim safety. Furthermore, allowing courts to consider conduct that took place anywhere, including behaviour predating the new legislation, will ensure that they can take a holistic view of the stalker’s actions. This flexibility will enhance the effectiveness of orders and ensure that victims are not left unprotected simply because of jurisdictional or timing technicalities.

Proposed new section 364C of the sentencing code provides more detail on how prohibitions and requirements in a stalking protection order should be framed and applied. It requires that, where practicable, any conditions imposed must not conflict with the offender’s religious beliefs or interfere with their usual work or education commitments. It also confirms that SPOs have a UK-wide effect, unless specifically restricted to a certain area. Additionally, where an individual is already subject to an SPO, the court must ensure that any new conditions do not contradict those already in place. That will help to avoid confusion and ensure consistency in enforcement. How confident is the Minister that the need to protect victims is not undermined by the requirement to avoid interfering with an offender’s work, education, or religious practices?

Proposed new section 364G of the sentencing code makes it clear that breaching the terms of a stalking protection order without reasonable excuse is a criminal offence. It will be for the court to determine what qualifies as a reasonable excuse in an individual case. The offence carries a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment, a fine, or both, on summary conviction, and up to five years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both, on conviction on indictment. Subsection (3) states specifically that courts cannot issue a conditional discharge for breaching an SPO.

How will the Government ensure that the penalties for breaching an SPO are proportionate? Are courts being encouraged to take breaches seriously, even when no new criminal offence has occurred? Can the Minister clarify what might constitute a reasonable excuse for breaching an SPO and how consistent the courts are likely to be in applying that standard?

I rise to speak in support of clauses 69 to 72, which would enhance legal protections for victims of stalking. As the Member of Parliament for Gravesham, I know deeply how stalking affects victims. I have met several women at my surgeries whose lives have been turned upside down. They plan their movements to avoid being tracked, fear being spotted by their stalker or that the stalker will do something more, and have to deal with the impact on their wider lives, families, neighbours and community. These women are alone and exposed, and feel very vulnerable in their own homes and out in their community. The Government are right to act, and clauses 69 and 70 mark a significant shift by allowing courts, not just the police, to impose stalking protection orders. Upon conviction or even acquittal, courts will now have the power to step in when it is clear that there is a risk of stalking.

I pay tribute to the extraordinary work of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, which is the UK’s leading stalking charity, having helped more than 70,000 victims to find a path of safety. This week is National Stalking Awareness Week, so this discussion could not be more timely. In its 2023 report “I just want this to be over”, the Suzy Lamplugh Trust laid bare the lived experience of stalking victims in our criminal justice system. What it found is sobering. The report depicts widespread mischarging by the Crown Prosecution Service, with stalking cases being downgraded to harassment or missed altogether. One victim that it cites was told that her stalker’s behaviour was just “unpleasant”, not criminal. Her case was closed, only to be reopened after months of persistence and trauma. Victims who are strong enough to come forward are being told that they have to prove that they are in danger to a system that doubts, delays or deflects. Clauses 69 and 70 will change that.

Another reminder of the incredible danger of stalking is the fact that 94% of women killed by their male partners were stalked beforehand. That is not a warning sign; it is a flashing red light. Victims cannot wait for an eviction; they need protection now, and that is what the Bill delivers. That is how we will rebuild our faith in the justice system and tell every woman and girl in this country that they do not have to prove their fear before they are protected. I commend the clauses and the Government’s commitment to a justice system that sees, hears and stands up for victims.

Stalking is a form of psychological violence that will affect approximately one in five women. It is an insidious crime that can shatter lives. I have heard from victims of stalking who feel trapped and afraid to leave their homes, are constantly looking over their shoulder on the way to work, and have cut ties with loved ones out of fear that they are putting them in danger. Survivors are left with lingering anxiety, trauma and pain years after the harassment ends. In the most extreme cases, stalking can escalate to acts of physical violence. It is a crime that thrives on control, leaving victims in a constant state of fear. I welcome the Government’s strengthening measures to combat the crime.

I made a visit to the S-TAC—the stalking threat assessment centre—in Stratford police station a couple of weeks ago to see the work of the dedicated team there, which brings together the Met police, mental health services, the Probation Service, the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and the CPS, all funded by the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. The work they are doing to help victims and fight perpetrators is incredibly impressive.

I echo the written submission from Claire Waxman, the London Victims’ Commissioner, who made specific points on these clauses that it is worth exploring. The Liberal Democrats welcome the steps to allow SPOs to be made on conviction or acquittal, but we echo the concern that the police need clear instructions to pursue SPOs at an earlier stage, and not only at the conclusion of court proceedings. When I was at S-TAC, there was a general feeling that police and authorities were unaware of the measures, so more needs to be done to ensure that police are much more aware of the steps that are available and that they apply for the measures earlier.

At S-TAC, I also heard that it can take up to six weeks to obtain the evidence and get a hearing for an SPO to be implemented. That is just too long. Is there an opportunity to introduce an SPN—a stalking protection notice—that could be implemented straightaway? A domestic abuse protection notice can be implemented immediately, and then within three days, where there is a domestic abuse incident or where the offender is known to the victim, an order can be obtained. There is a gap in situations in which no domestic abuse is present, and about three in 10 victims are not known to the perpetrator. Can the Minister confirm how initial delays in obtaining SPOs will be resolved so that they can be brought into force sooner? Is there an opportunity to streamline SPOs and include a notice in the earlier stages of obtaining the order?

I am sure that the Minister has heard me say this before, but I want to mention the possibility of creating a single stand-alone stalking offence. This reflects and echoes the written evidence from Claire Waxman. The police’s understanding of stalking legislation and the offence in general is not good enough. At the same time, the section 4A offence becomes too high a bar to prove; the phrase “alarm or distress” is unhelpful, especially given that victims are often not aware of the offending at the time. I push the Minister to bring forward the measures that Claire Waxman has called for and create a single offence of stalking.

I will start at the end and work backwards through the questions. It was a delight to hear everybody mention the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, which is an amazing organisation that I have had the pleasure to work with for many years. Since becoming a Minister, I have had the especial pleasure of working very closely with the trust on how we come out of the super-complaint with the recommendations and improve the situation all round. I would say exactly the same thing about Claire Waxman, who is both my friend and my colleague.

On the issue of the legislation, part of the super-complaint was about the need to look at the different specific offences. I do not disagree that the bar can be too high or that there can be confusion about the two different offences. The legislation is currently under review, as Claire Waxman and others in the coalition recommended.

The super-complaint showed that when used properly, SPOs are considered an extremely valuable tool in protecting victims of stalking, but it also identified that not enough are being put in place, as other hon. Members have identified, and that there is not effective monitoring of the ones that are.

There is clearly much more to the issue than this legislation. I sat for years considering well-written legislation; I do not have many good things to say about the past 14 years, but the words that got written on goatskin were considerably better than the words that had existed before. But they are pointless if they do not change things on the ground.

It is quite hard for me to sit here and have people talk to me about how traumatic it is to be a victim of stalking—about the things that happen that change people’s lives forever—because my life has changed immeasurably because of the stalking that I currently experience, and that happens to me all the time. When I have tried to get SPOs for other people, one of the main problems I have perceived is delay in the courts, which others have identified. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam is in the lucky position of representing one of the rare places in the country where people can get a DAPN or a domestic abuse protection order.

It is lucky that we have them, but depressing that we have a higher rate of domestic abuse, so it was felt that they were required. We are very pleased to be part of the trial, but we need to be doing more in Sutton and south-west London to address these issues.

Absolutely. The Metropolitan police’s decision to use those three particular boroughs for the domestic abuse protection orders was undoubtedly based on intelligence, and also on what we can best learn. We have seen with the domestic abuse protection orders that someone can get in and out of a courtroom within 24 hours. That has absolutely not been the case with SPOs classically, nor am I going to stand here and pretend that I can make that happen with all orders. What I am saying is that there is a standard, and safety and risk have to be considered.

Looking across the board following the super-complaint, these clauses are a step in the right direction. This is about changing how things happen on the ground and giving people the confidence to access the orders. If someone tries to get an order and cannot, they start to think, “What’s the point?”

On the shadow Minister’s point about breaches, any order—and I know because I have them—is only as good as what happens when it is breached. If nothing happens when somebody breaches an order, the victim does not bother reporting them any more, and they certainly do not bother trying to get another order, on acquittal or not.

Just to bolster the Minister’s argument, the 2024 London stalking review found that 45% of stalking victims felt compelled to abandon their pursuit of justice.

Exactly. We rely on our courts to ensure that these decisions are proportionate. In order to get proportionate decisions on breaches, we need to ensure that our criminal justice system is better trained across the board.

From the Home Office’s perspective, I point to the fact that this Government have finally invested in a specific policing unit on violence against women and girls, public protection and safeguarding for the entire country. That has not existed before. I always say, “I want what counter-terrorism has got”. Well, counter-terrorism has it, and the number of victims of violence against women and girls dwarfs by a country mile the number of people affected by terrorism in our country, but there is not standardised training for police to ensure that, where the legislation might be complicated, they can move things forward—even if the legislation were not changed, which we are seeking to do—or training about how quickly police should be applying for things. These are all things that will take time and training, and we cannot just rely on legislation to answer all the questions.

The requirements attached to an SPO must be proportionate, so it is right that a court takes into account the impact on the respondent’s religious beliefs, education and employment, for example. The court is only required to avoid conflicts so far as it is practicable. Again, the courts are well versed in making such balancing judgments. As somebody who has had orders made where the judgment has had to be balanced—for example, where there has been a question whether the respondent has a right to contact me because I am their Member of Parliament—I relied on the court to decide what was practicable in those circumstances. The shadow Minister asked for an example, but it would be dangerous for me as a Minister to give examples that could then be used in a court. Courts deal with balancing the rights of the respondent and the victim. I will not pretend that I think they always get it right, but it is for them to decide how to balance those particular considerations.

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 72 stand part.

Following what I was just saying about making things actually change on the ground, these clauses are about doing some of that. It is important that professionals with safeguarding responsibilities, such as the police, teachers, healthcare professionals and social workers, have adequate and clear guidance to support them in their work to tackle stalking and to support victims. We must also ensure that such professionals are doing all they can to pursue perpetrators while adequately safeguarding victims. To do that effectively, they must work together.

Clause 71 therefore enables the Home Secretary to issue multi-agency statutory guidance on stalking. It will apply to relevant public authorities and professionals will have to have due regard to it. In short, this measure provides a framework to support professionals to better respond to the needs of stalking victims and to better manage stalking perpetrators.

I have seen amazing examples of that. In fact, the two best examples in the country are in London and Cheshire, where multi-agency solutions, with local health services, victims services and police sitting together, are dealing not just with the victim’s trauma or getting a criminal justice response, but with the medical element—the psychological issue—of people with obsessive behaviours. I cannot praise those two multi-agency units enough.

It is important that the right procedures and policies are in place to safeguard victims of stalking as early as possible. Our manifesto committed to giving victims the right to know the identity of their online stalker. I had the privilege of working with Nicola Thorp, who has tirelessly campaigned for this measure after her ordeal with stalking. In her case, the police said they could not reveal the identity of the offender even after he was arrested, despite the perpetrator once saying that he had got so close to Nicola on the train that he “could smell” her.

Clause 72 provides for the introduction of statutory guidance, which will set out the process the police should follow to decide whether they can release the identity of a stalking suspect. In doing so, they will need to consider the risk to the victim and what steps are needed to safeguard them from further harm. The police will have to have due regard to the guidance.

We know that stalkers will often use multiple online aliases to terrorise their victims. It is extremely dangerous for victims to be unaware of the true identity of who is stalking them online. This measure is an important aspect of ensuring that victims of stalking have the best possible protections and safeguards in place.

Proposed new section 7A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is a positive step, as it allows the Secretary of State to issue formal guidance to public authorities in England and Wales on stalking-related matters. That includes the interpretation and application of relevant provisions in the 1997 Act, the Stalking Protection Act 2019, and the Sentencing Act 2020.

This guidance will help to ensure that those working across the criminal justice system and other public services, such as the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and local authorities, have a consistent and accurate understanding of the law and best practice in responding to stalking. It strengthens victim protection by promoting a co-ordinated and informed response, supports earlier identification of stalking behaviours, and provides a clearer framework for agencies to act before harm escalates.

Clause 72 gives significant responsibility to the Secretary of State to issue guidance to chief officers of police on the disclosure of police information for the purpose of protecting individuals from risks related to stalking. This power includes using existing police common-law powers to disclose relevant information, such as the identity of online stalkers, to victims of stalking. The guidance can be revised as needed. Before any issuance or revision, the Secretary of State is required to consult with relevant parties, including the National Police Chiefs’ Council and any other stakeholders deemed appropriate. Importantly, the Secretary of State must also ensure that the guidance is published and accessible.

This new provision aims to improve the safety of stalking victims by ensuring that the police have clear and consistent guidance on disclosing information that could help to protect those at risk, particularly in cases of online stalking. Making it mandatory for police officers to consider this guidance increases the likelihood that appropriate actions will be taken in situations where the disclosure of information could prevent further harm to victims. How do the Government intend to ensure that the guidance issued by the Secretary of State is effectively implemented across all stakeholders, particularly in areas where stalking cases may not be as prevalent?

I wish there was a place where stalking cases were less prevalent—what there will be are areas where stalking cases are less prevalently reported. To return to those two brilliant multi-agency examples, doing a job really well often increases the crime rate in that area, which is sometimes quite difficult for police forces to deal with. I pay credit to those that bother to do it.

The shadow Minister points out that the guidance is advisory, but professionals will be required to have regard to the guidance, and we will continue to work with representatives from the agencies, the stalking sector and others to monitor progress in this area. More broadly, monitoring progress on stalking will form part of the wider ambition to halve violence against women and girls and the work that I, the Policing Minister and the Home Secretary seek to do around how we monitor the standards of policing more widely and assess how well policing is doing in many different areas.

I would like to point out something shocking: currently, the police do not have any required standards for reporting on their performance around domestic abuse, sexual violence and stalking. I think the people of this country would be quite shocked to realise that we do not routinely assess the standards of forces on those things. The shadow Minister has my absolute guarantee that monitoring how such things actually work on the ground is something that I will do until the day I die.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 71 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 73

Administering etc harmful substances (including by spiking)

I beg to move amendment 44, in clause 73, page 88, line 33, after “aggrieve” insert “, take revenge on, prank,”.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 45, in clause 73, page 88, line 34, at end insert—

“(c) the person does so knowingly or recklessly.”

Government amendment 16.

Clause stand part.

Government amendment 19.

Clause 73 modernises and strengthens the law on the administration of harmful substances, including offences commonly referred to as spiking. It repeals outdated provisions in the Offences against the Person Act 1861, specifically sections 22 and 23, and replaces section 24 with a more comprehensive and clear offence.

Spiking can have a devastating and long-lasting impact on victims, both physically and psychologically. Victims often experience immediate symptoms, such as nausea, disorientation, memory loss and the loss of consciousness, placing them at serious risk of harm, including assault or injury.

Beyond the immediate physical danger, the psychological effects can be profound and enduring. Many victims report anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and a persistent sense of vulnerability or fear, particularly in social situations. The trauma is often compounded by the fact that victims may be unable to recall events clearly, leading to feelings of confusion, helplessness and self-doubt. Furthermore, the social stigma and lack of visible support can discourage victims from reporting incidents, deepening the emotional toll.

Spiking undermines a person’s basic sense of safety, and its impact can ripple far beyond the initial incident, affecting relationships, social confidence and overall mental health. Between May 2022 and April 2023, the police received 6,732 reports of spiking incidents, including 957 involving needle spiking. On average, around 561 reports were made each month.

Despite the volume of reports, gathering reliable national data on spiking remains challenging. There is currently no comprehensive dataset that accurately reflects the prevalence of the crime. Although the Ministry of Justice records data on certain offences, it logs only the principal offence for which a person is convicted and sentenced. Since spiking can fall under a variety of criminal charges, it is difficult to determine how often it leads to prosecution or conviction. The police do collect incident-level data, and some campaign groups conduct surveys, but these sources do not provide a full picture of how widespread, or effectively prosecuted, spiking is.

Under proposed new section 24 of the 1861 Act, it is an offence to unlawfully administer or cause another person to be administered a harmful substance, with a “harmful substance” being defined as

“any poison or other destructive or noxious thing”,

with the intent to injure, aggrieve, or annoy. This modernised wording explicitly covers a broader range of harmful conduct, including situations in which harmful substances are covertly introduced into a person’s drink or otherwise ingested without their knowledge or consent, which has been an issue of growing public concern in recent years.

The offence carries serious penalties. On summary conviction in a magistrates court in England and Wales, an offender may face up to the general maximum term of imprisonment or a fine, or both. In Northern Ireland, the summary conviction maximum is six months’ imprisonment or a fine up to the statutory limit, or both. On indictment, the maximum penalty increases to 10 years’ imprisonment or a fine, or both. By updating this area of law, the Government will ensure that the criminal justice system has a more robust and relevant tool to tackle spiking and related offences, enhancing victim protection and enabling tougher sentences where appropriate.

The charity Stamp Out Spiking, which has long campaigned for a dedicated spiking offence, described the proposed new offence as

“a rallying call to empower victims”

to report incidents. However, the charity also emphasised that the new law is just one element of a broader solution. It stressed that effective collaboration between police, transport providers, venues and support organisations such as Stamp Out Spiking is essential to creating safer environments and rebuilding public confidence in nightlife and public spaces. Does the Minister accept that legislation alone is not enough and that a co-ordinated strategy involving education, prevention and enforcement is needed to truly tackle spiking? Will she commit to furthering the delivery of a joined-up approach to tackling spiking?

Amendment 44 expands the scope of intent behind the offence of administering harmful substances, including by spiking. By inserting the words “take revenge on, prank” after “aggrieve”, the amendment makes it clear that the offence applies not only when a person administers a harmful substance with the intention to injure, aggrieve or annoy, but when the intent is to take revenge or play a prank. That broadens the legal coverage of the offence to reflect real-world cases in which spiking is carried out as an act of retaliation or as a so-called joke. It would ensure that such behaviour is recognised as criminal regardless of whether the perpetrator believed it to be harmless or amusing.

Take the example of Gillian Reilly, a nursing student who experienced a harrowing incident when a friend spiked her drink as a laugh during a celebration at her university’s students’ union bar. Initially attributing her symptoms—dizziness, sharp stomach pains and violent nausea—to overconsumption of alcohol, she soon realised that something was amiss. Her condition deteriorated to the point where she feared for her life. She said:

“I felt so unwell I honestly thought I was going to die.”

The revelation that a friend was responsible for the spiking was particularly shocking, highlighting that threats can come from familiar individuals, not just strangers. The incident underscores the severe physical and psychological impacts of spiking, and emphasises the need for increased awareness and preventive measures, particularly in university settings.

The Alcohol Education Trust said that spiking cases always surge during the first term of the new academic year, but that suspected incidents had reached frightening new levels, with the National Police Chiefs’ Council revealing that there were 198 spiking incidents, including 24 via injection, across the UK in just two months.

The Drinkaware monitor survey from 2022 showed that, in most cases, no additional crime had occurred after an individual was drugged. However, where an additional crime did take place, 8.4% involved so-called pranks. That suggests that such a mentality is relevant to the intentions behind the offence. If we are to legislate on this matter, we must ensure that robust laws are in place to support effective prosecution.

Today, with clause 73, we are saying clearly and finally that spiking is a crime. Spiking is a violation, and it will not be tolerated. For too long, this country has failed to name it for what we know it is. Until now, victims have had to navigate a patchwork of old laws dating back to the 19th century—sections 23 and 24 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. What is going on there?

Those provisions criminalised the behaviour, but they never used the word. They never gave victims the clarity or the recognition they deserved. This clause changes that. It repeals those outdated offences and replaces them with the single, modern offence of administering a harmful substance, including by spiking.

I cannot overstate how important naming the offence is; it draws a clear legal and cultural line in the sand. Spiking is not just some nuisance behaviour. It is not a prank. It is an act of control, violation and harm, and it comes in many forms. Whether it be drink spiking, needle spiking, vape spiking or even food spiking, it is a predatory act and it can happen to anyone.

Some of us may know someone who has been spiked—a friend, a colleague or someone we care about—and yet, how often is there justice? How often do we know who did it? The Home Office tells us that, between May 2022 and April 2023, the police received 6,732 reports of spiking, with nearly 1,000 involving needles. That is over 500 reports a month. However, Stamp Out Spiking, the UK’s leading anti-spiking charity, from which we heard in the evidence session, says that over 97% of victims do not even report it to the police. Why? They are not sure that the law will help, and for years there was no offence with the word “spiking” in it—that ends today.

I pay tribute to my local Gravesham street pastors who walk the streets of Gravesend town centre on Friday and Saturday nights, giving out anti-spiking devices, educating partygoers, looking after people and providing comfort and support.

I, too, welcome clause 73. Does my hon. Friend agree that more needs to be done to prevent spiking? The Government need to work with other partners, such as the police, venues and transport, as set out in their plans for spiking in November last year. Does my hon. Friend agree that that provides a more holistic approach, beyond just what is in clause 73?

I absolutely agree. We must also work with the voluntary sector, including Stamp Out Spiking, and in education and youth services we must shout from the rooftops that this behaviour is not acceptable and is seriously damaging.

Let us be honest: in December 2022 the Conservative Government said that there was

“no gap in the existing law”

and refused to act. It was only after public pressure, and the publication of a damning report under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, that they changed course. It has now fallen to this Government to finish the job, and I am proud that we are doing so. The new offence will be triable either way, with a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison, which applies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. For the first time, it sends a clear message: if an individual spikes someone and violates their autonomy, safety and night out, the law will hold them to account.

The Bill represents a broader cultural shift—one we have already seen in its response to stalking, intimate image abuse and violence against women and girls. With clause 73 we are putting our foot down and saying, “No more blurred lines, no more excuses and no more evasion. Spiking is illegal, full stop.”

I was not going to speak, but reflecting on the Conservative amendments, particularly amendment 44, took me back to our evidence session. There was a particularly helpful contribution from Colin Mackie of Spike Aware UK, who talked about his campaign on spiking having picked up on revenge and pranking. He was asked a particularly good question by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East about the words used in the Bill, particularly “annoy”. The ideas of pranking and revenge came out of his evidence, so will the Minister consider accepting amendment 44?

I also want to pick up the wider point about the need to work with all those involved, such as by working with not only nightclubs but bouncers, so that their qualifications require them to reflect on whether someone is out of control and drunk or has actually been spiked. We also need training at A&Es so that evidence can be taken and preserved if spiking is found to be the cause, rather than somebody just having had too much to drink. The clause is a good measure—it reflects the campaigning from Colin Mackie and groups like Spike Aware UK—but we should reflect on the wording and whether it is sensible to include amendment 44.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I rise to speak to Opposition amendments 44 and 45 and to address directly what I consider to be a major loophole in this proposed law, which has really good intent behind it. There are two elements to the spiking loophole. I can envisage a defendant getting away with administering a harmful substance by saying that he or she did not intend to injure, aggrieve or annoy. Furthermore, they may claim that it was intended merely as a prank, but the act was so obviously reckless and stupid that they should nevertheless be captured by the provision.

As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam just mentioned, we heard really good evidence on this issue. I pose the rhetorical question: what is the point of evidence sessions if we do not take on powerful and direct testimony from somebody whose family were affected in the most tragic way? “Pranking” was the word used in that session, and we heard that it is on the rise. Spiking can be done with the worst intent—to cause serious harm—but clearly any law should cover someone who intends a prank with a harmful substance.

The idea behind broadening the offence beyond merely intent—we are no longer necessarily talking about pranking, but about the intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy—to recklessness has plenty of foundation and precedent in law. In fact, we have just debated that point with clause 57, relating to exposure. Under the new law relating to exposure, someone commits an offence if they expose their genitals for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification. There are two reasons why clause 57 will capture someone under criminal law: if the person intends to be seen, or if they are reckless as to whether anyone sees them. When it comes to spiking, the idea should be the same: that a person who administers a harmful substance does so either with intent to injure, aggrieve, annoy or prank, or is reckless as to that being the effect of administering the substance.

Let us be clear: under clause 73, administering a harmful substance on its own is not a criminal offence. It requires something in the mind of a person—currently, only intent. I urge the Government to include reckless behaviour in respect of which, to a reasonable person, it should be obvious that injury, grievance or annoyance would result, even if that was not the intention.

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to the debate, which has been a good one, getting to the heart of the important issue of spiking, which needs to be tackled. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Stockton West for tabling amendments 44 and 45, which enable me to give a fuller answer to the question he raised at the end of the Committee’s evidence session and to explain the rationale for clause 73.

Clause 73 fulfils our manifesto commitment to crack down on spiking and bring perpetrators to justice. I reassure the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and my hon. Friends that the new offence is just one part of a package of measures designed to tackle this crime. Alongside the Safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley, I co-chair the cross-Government violence against women and girls strategy, which we will publish shortly. We will of course work with all the many agencies in this field—across the night-time economy, transport, the Department of Health and Social Care, the police and education sectors—to try to prevent this abhorrent crime and to support the victims who have sadly suffered.

The new offence is just one step in the Government’s commitment to halving violence against women and girls in a decade, and to making our streets safer. I should also say that although the majority of spiking victims are women, we should not forget—as Colin Mackie reminded us in evidence to the Committee—that men are victims too. Colin’s son, Greg, died after his drink was spiked with ecstasy. I pay tribute to Colin and Mandy Mackie from Spike Aware, and to the formidable Dawn Dines from Stamp Out Spiking for all her incredible campaigning over the years to get us to the point where we are clarifying this offence. I thank the many other organisations—my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham told us about the brilliant ones in Gravesend—for their work in this area to protect victims and stop these crimes happening.

I have a modicum of sympathy for how the Minister is addressing the words “prank” and “revenge”, although I do not necessarily agree with her. Will she address the issue of intent and recklessness, because that has a clear precedent in law, and indeed in the Bill itself?

I will happily do so. On being reckless, it would be for the court to decide and determine the case on the facts in terms of its interpretation of aggrieve, annoy and intent. It is also important to deal with amendment 45, which could cause a problem, and address the hon. Gentleman’s comments head on. The amendment would introduce the requirement that the person must act “knowingly or recklessly” before the offence of administering harmful substances is committed. That risks introducing confusion, rather than bringing clarity. For the offence to be made out, a person has to act with the specific intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy the other person. To additionally require a defendant to knowingly or recklessly act is logically inconsistent with the requirement that they act with a specific intention to injure, aggrieve or annoy the victim.

Having explained why it is not helpful to amend the clause in the way suggested, I will return to the details of the clause, which will help to provide clarity. Proposed new section 24(2) defines “harmful substance” as

“any poison or other destructive or noxious thing”.

By incorporating the language of the existing sections 23 and 24 offences, we aim to capture the broad range of substances that can, as established by existing case law, be illegal to administer.

Proposed new section 24 also modernises the law in other ways. It will become an offence triable either way, rather than an indictable only offence: this allows for less serious cases to be dealt with quickly in the magistrates court, allowing for justice to be served quicker. The penalty for the new offence will be 10 years, reflecting the seriousness with which the Government take this behaviour. That penalty is the same as for the existing section 23 offence, and an increase in the maximum penalty for the more commonly prosecuted section 24 offence. The new offence will extend to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Finally, Government amendments 16 and 19 add the new offence, as with the other offences in the Bill, to the list of serious offences that exclude a person from claiming as a defence that they committed the offence as the result of being subject to modern slavery.

In conclusion, the Government believe that the new offence to capture spiking will simplify the current legal landscape and be more readily understood by both the public and the police. It is part of our wider programme to increase public awareness of the illegality of spiking, encourage reporting and help the police to better respond to this abhorrent crime. I commend clause 73 to the Committee.

I will press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Government amendment 17.

Clause 75 stand part.

Although clauses 74 and 75 are separate clauses, I will speak to both at the same time for the benefit of the Committee, given that they are very much linked provisions. Encouraging or assisting self-harm remains a matter of great concern. I commend the continued work of organisations such as the Samaritans and the Molly Rose Foundation in campaigning for suicide and self-harm prevention. The Law Commission’s 2021 report on modernising communications recommended a criminal offence to target the issue. Section 184 of the Online Safety Act 2023 gave partial effect to that recommendation by introducing an offence of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm by means of communications only. The Government are now fully implementing the Law Commission’s recommendation by creating a broader offence that covers the encouragement or assistance of serious self-harm both by means of communication and in any other way. That could include direct assistance, such as giving someone a blade with which to seriously self-harm.

Clauses 74 and 75 achieve that aim by repealing the Online Safety Act offence, in so far as it extends to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and replaces it with the broader offence. The Committee can be assured that these clauses include two key elements that the Law Commission and this Government are confident constrain the offence to only the most culpable offending—namely, that the person’s act must be intended to encourage or assist the serious self-harm of another person, and that self-harm is serious if it amounts to grievous bodily harm. That ensures that the sharing of helpful and supportive material is not criminalised. To be clear, where there is no intent to encourage or assist serious self-harm, the offence is not committed.

As with the Online Safety Act offence, clause 74 provides that a person commits an offence if they do an act capable of encouraging or assisting the serious self-harm of another person and have the intention to do so. It specifies that the person committing the offence does not need to know or be able to identify who they have encouraged or assisted in their act, and an offence is committed regardless of whether serious self-harm of another person actually occurs.

The clause further provides that an act includes any conduct except conduct consisting only of omissions. The definition of “act” is intended to cover a series of acts, as well as a combination of acts and omissions, but not a stand-alone omission or a series of omissions. It also provides that encouraging the serious self-harm of a person includes putting pressure on a person to self-harm, whether by threatening them or otherwise. Serious self-harm is when the self-harm amounts to grievous bodily harm within the meaning of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. For example, a person may cause themselves serious self-harm by alternatively purging and starving themselves of food over a period of time. The offence is triable either way and carries a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment.

Clause 75 then provides that a person who arranges for someone else to do an act capable of encouraging or assisting the serious self-harm of another person is committing the offence. The clause also ensures that where an act is in fact not capable of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm, it will still be treated as so capable had the facts been as the defendant believed them to be at the time of the act, or had subsequent events happened in the way the defendant believed they would happen, or both. An example of that is if a person sends razor blades to another person with the intention that they will use them to seriously self-harm, but the blades, for whatever reason, fail to reach them.

Clause 75 clarifies that an internet service provider does not commit the offence by providing a means through which others can send, transmit or publish content that is capable of encouraging or assisting the serious self-harm of a person. Government amendment 17 adds

“encouraging or assisting serious self-harm”

to schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015, thereby removing the offence from the ambit of the statutory criminal defence in section 45 of the 2015 Act.

Clause 74 creates a new criminal offence targeting individuals who intentionally carry out acts capable of encouraging or assisting another person to seriously self-harm. Crucially, the offence goes beyond previous legislation, such as section 184 of the Online Safety Act 2023, by covering not just verbal or digital communications, but any form of direct or indirect action. That includes, for example, physically providing someone with an object like a blade to use for self-harm.

The new offence is based on a recommendation from the Law Commission, which proposed criminalising the intentional encouragement or assistance of serious self-harm. The proposal was modelled on the existing offence of encouraging or assisting suicide, as set out in the Suicide Act 1961. The Law Commission highlighted the need for any such offence to be carefully and narrowly defined to ensure that vulnerable individuals, particularly those who share self-harm content online, are not unintentionally criminalised.

Subsection (1) sets out the core of the offence. A person commits it if they carry out

“an act capable of encouraging or assisting the serious self-harm of another person”

and they did so with the intent that such harm would be caused. Subsection (2) clarifies that the offender does not need to know who the victim is. The offence still applies if the act is aimed at an unknown or unidentified individual, such as in the case of anonymous online posts targeting vulnerable people. Subsection (3) states that an offence is committed whether or not serious self-harm actually takes place. The focus is on the intent and the potential for harm, not the outcome.

Self-harm is a deeply concerning issue that affects people of all ages, but especially young people and those struggling with mental health challenges. It involves deliberately causing pain or injury to oneself as a way of coping with overwhelming emotional distress, anxiety, trauma or feelings of numbness and hopelessness. The physical risks of self-harm can be severe, ranging from permanent scarring and infections to life-threatening injuries and even accidental death. The psychological toll is often even more damaging. Those who self-harm frequently experience shame, isolation and a deepening of the very mental health struggles that led them to harm themselves in the first place.

It is not just the individuals who suffer. Families, friends, schools and communities are all affected. Loved ones often feel helpless or guilty, and support systems can become strained. In many cases, self-harm can escalate to suicidal ideation or attempts, making early intervention critical. The rise of online content that normalises or encourages self-harm has made the issue even more urgent. Vulnerable individuals can be influenced or manipulated into dangerous behaviours by others, sometimes even strangers, through social media or online forums. The law must recognise and respond to this modern reality to better protect those at risk. Tackling self-harm requires not just healthcare support and early intervention, but strong legal tools to prevent others from encouraging or facilitating this deeply harmful behaviour. Clause 74 takes an important step in that direction.

Clause 75 strengthens the framework around the offence of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm by closing potential loopholes in enforcement. It ensures that individuals who arrange for others to carry out a harmful act are equally accountable if those acts are carried out, even if indirectly. The provision also captures cases where the intended harm could not physically occur, such as when a person mistakenly believes a harmless item will cause harm, or when the planned outcome does not materialise as expected. That underlines that liability can arise from intention and belief, not just outcome.

Furthermore, the clause draws a clear boundary for internet service providers, confirming that they will not be held criminally responsible solely for providing the platform through which harmful content is transmitted. The provision aligns with broader legislative changes by removing overlapping measures in existing law, ensuring clarity and consistency in how such offences are addressed. I would be grateful if the Minister would outline what further steps might be under consideration to ensure that platforms and tech companies have a legal duty to report and remove harmful content, and that this provision is implemented alongside adequate mental health support.

I will speak briefly about the concern raised by a self-harm charity that has been in contact with us that it may fall within the scope of encouragement of self-harm, because when sufferers and victims—individuals who are engaging in self-harm—try to access support to reduce their dependence on the habit, they are often advised to moderate and change the behaviour. Does the Minister have any thoughts on the details of how charities involved in this incredibly important work to help people in extremely difficult situations would not, through treatment and other measures to mitigate and moderate particular practices, fall within scope of what is an incredibly well intentioned and important measure to stop the encouragement of them?

I am grateful to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for that question. The intention of this offence is not to capture that; it is for those who have a specific intent to cause or assist self-harm. We recognise, obviously, that there are organisations that do that work. They are not intended to be captured under this offence, and we are ensuring that guidance is available.

I want to respond to the comments of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, regarding online safety. He will be aware that Ofcom is in the process of implementing the guidance and codes of practice that will be operational under the Online Safety Act 2023 to ensure that platforms have to act to protect children, specifically, by removing this content where it is at risk of being seen by children. If platforms do not comply with the Act and with Ofcom’s codes of practice and guidance, they could be fined. Those fines are currently being dished out by Ofcom in relation to some of the harmful and illegal practices by social media platforms.

Of course, this issue is also being looked at, in terms of violence being carried out against women and girls, and children, under our broader strategy across Government. The Safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley, and I have met the tech Minister in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care to look at all these issues to ensure that we have the most holistic approach to tackling some of the horrific acts and harms that are proliferating and causing damage to women and girls, and children, so that we protect them all.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 74 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 75

Encouraging or assisting serious self-harm: supplementary

Amendment made: 17, in clause 75, page 90, line 20, at end insert—

“(6) In Schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (offences to which defence in section 45 does not apply), in paragraph 36D (inserted by section 17), after the entry for section 52 (inserted by section 52), insert—

‘section 74 (encouraging or assisting serious self-harm).’.”—(Alex Davies-Jones.)

This amendment excepts the offence of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm from the defence in section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

Clause 75, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 76

Child abduction

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 76 aims to fill a small but important gap in the law on child abduction in relation to the detention of a child abroad without appropriate consent. It is already an offence, under section 1 of the Child Abduction Act 1984, for one parent, or person with similar responsibility, to take or send a child under the age of 16 out of the UK without the consent of the other parent or person with responsibility or of the court.

In 2012, the court confirmed, in the case of Nicolaou v. Redbridge magistrates court, that it is not a criminal offence, for a parent who has consent to take a child abroad, to detain that child outside the UK for longer than the permitted period. In contrast, section 2 of the 1984 Act makes it an offence for a person other than a parent or person with similar responsibility to take or detain a child out of the control of any person entitled to lawful control, whether or not the child is taken out of the UK.

The Law Commission, in considering Nicolaou in its 2014 report “Simplification of Criminal Law: Kidnapping and Related Offences”, concluded that wrongful retention of a child abroad by a parent or person with similar responsibility should be an offence. That is what the clause seeks to do.

Disputes involving children retained abroad without appropriate consent can usually be resolved through civil dispute and family court processes, including under the 1980 Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction, rather than criminal law. The new child abduction offence aims to supplement such civil dispute mechanisms where the force of the criminal law is required.

Reunite International, the leading charity in this area, has called for legislative change to close the gap in the law, indicating that there appears to be an issue of children being detained abroad without appropriate consent. The charity says that about 40% of the cases to its helpline concern a child being wrongfully retained abroad. That suggests that parents realise that that is an easier route to abduct the child, with no criminal charges or police involvement.

The purpose of the clause in filling that gap in the law is to add to the suite of measures available to deter parents from illegally detaining children abroad. In effect, it will mean that a parent or person with similar responsibility who has detained a child abroad without appropriate consent could face extradition to the UK and a criminal sanction if, or when, they return to the UK.

Clause 76(2)(a) therefore amends section 1 of the 1984 Act to insert the new child abduction offence. That means that a person connected with a child under the age of 16 will commit an offence if the child is taken or sent out of the UK with the appropriate consent and, at any time after the child is taken or sent, the person detains the child outside the UK without the appropriate consent.

In inserting the new offence into section 1, other minor amendments, detailed in subsection (2)(b), (c) and (d), and subsection (4), are required to the 1984 Act so that the provisions in section 1 and the schedule properly apply to the new offence in the same way as the existing section 1 offence. Additionally, since the new offence by its very nature takes place outside the UK, at subsection (3) an amendment is made so that the new offence is not carved out from having extraterritorial jurisdiction in the relevant circumstances.

The clause will apply to England and Wales. The consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions will be required to prosecute, and the maximum penalty will be the same as that which applies to the taking or sending offence in section 1 of the 1984 Act, which is seven years’ imprisonment.

We have given considerable thought to whether it is right to potentially criminalise a parent for detaining their child abroad and how that will impact on the safe and prompt return of the child. The new offence, however, will criminalise only parents who intentionally keep the child out of the control of the other parent. Other important protections are also built into the offence. For example, the detaining parent will not commit the offence if the other parent has unreasonably refused to consent.

There is evidence that suggests that some parents are deliberately seeking to circumvent the law. We are therefore persuaded that it is necessary to fill the gap and to criminalise such behaviour. I stress again the importance of the Hague conventions as a route to ensure the safe return of children. The UK continues to work with other states parties to the 1980 Hague convention to improve its operation, including considering the impact of allegations and evidence of domestic abuse in judicial decision making. The new criminal law provision supplements the international civil remedies and deals with a small but important gap in the law. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Proposed new section 1(1A) of the 1984 Act addresses a deeply concerning and potentially damaging loophole by making it an offence for a person connected to a child to detain that child abroad after initially taking or sending them out of the UK with proper consent, unless they continue to have that consent. That ensures that consent must be maintained throughout and not just at the point of departure.

The 2012 judicial review highlighted a potential gap in the legal framework under section 1 of the Child Abduction Act 1984. The issue arose in situations where a parent lawfully took or sent a child out of the UK with the required consent, but then failed to return the child once the agreed period ended. The case involved Nicholas Nicolaou, who in 2007 arranged for his son to visit him in Cyprus for a limited time, in accordance with a court order. However, he did not return his son to the UK when the permitted visit expired.

Following unsuccessful attempts to resolve the matter through the family courts, a warrant was issued for Nicolaou’s arrest. Nicolaou challenged the warrant through judicial review, arguing that he had not committed an offence under section 1 of the 1984 Act. His reasoning was that his son had been taken out of the UK with the appropriate consent, and that section 1 covers only the act of removal, not the failure to return a child thereafter. The High Court upheld Nicolaou’s claim, agreeing that section 1 applies only to the removal of a child from the UK, and that what matters legally is whether consent was in place at the moment the child left the country. As a result, the High Court granted Nicolaou’s application for judicial review, exposing this serious loophole in the existing legislation.

I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 76 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 77

Safeguarding vulnerable groups: regulated activity

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Disclosure and Barring Service issues criminal record checks in England and Wales to support employers to make decisions about the suitability of individuals for particular roles. The DBS also maintains two lists of individuals whom it has barred from working in regulated activity: the adults’ and children’s barred lists. Regulated activity is defined in legislation and covers sensitive roles and activities working closely with children and vulnerable adults—for example, teaching and supervising children. Roles in regulated activity are eligible for the highest level of DBS check, namely the enhanced with barred lists check.

Under the current definition of regulated activity, there is an exemption for work that is subject to day-to-day supervision of another person. That means that people in roles that involve close work with children are not in regulated activity if they are working under supervision. That supervision exemption means that employers cannot check whether such people are on the children’s barred list, which creates a safeguarding risk. It means that somebody who the DBS considers to pose a risk of harm to children, such that they have been barred from working in regulated activity with them, could nevertheless work with them under supervision and without the employer’s knowledge. That cannot be right.

In the final report of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, it recommended that anyone engaging an individual to work or volunteer with children on a frequent basis should be able to check whether they have been barred by the DBS from working with children, including where the role is supervised. The Government agree.

Clause 77 therefore gives effect to that recommendation. It removes the supervision exemption so that these roles will be defined as regulated activity, regardless of whether they are supervised. That will allow employers to access enhanced DBS checks that include a check of the children’s barred list. Bringing those supervised roles into regulated activity will also make it an offence for a barred person to apply for or undertake those roles, and an offence for an employer to knowingly employ them in those roles. With this measure, we will reduce the risk of a barred person working with children in a supervised capacity.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 77 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Keir Mather.)

The Committee is now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent, and that tea and coffee are not allowed.

We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication, and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence session. In view of the time available, I hope we can take those matters formally without debate. The programme motion was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee of the Bill.

Ordered,

That—

1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 11.30 am on Thursday 24 April) meet—

(a) at 2.00 pm on Thursday 24 April;

(b) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 29 April;

(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 13 May;

(d) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Wednesday 14 May;

(e) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 15 May;

(f) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 20 May;

(g) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 22 May;

2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table;

3. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 19; Schedule 1; Clauses 20 to 37; Schedule 2; Clauses 38 to 47; Schedule 3; Clauses 48 to 61; Schedule 4; Clauses 62 to 72; Schedule 5; Clauses 73 to 76; Schedule 6; Clauses 77 to 93; new Clauses; new Schedules; Clauses 94 to 97; remaining proceedings on the Bill;

4. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 22 May.—(Matthew Pennycook.)

Resolved,

That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Matthew Pennycook.)

Copies of written evidence will be made available on the desk in the Committee Room.

Resolved,

That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Matthew Pennycook.)

We are now sitting in public again and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start hearing from the witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill?

I am a Hertfordshire county councillor until 1 May.

I was a planning consultant until the general election, but not any more. I am a chartered town planner member of the Royal Town Planning Institute and a chartered architect member of the Royal Institute of British Architects. I am a vice president of the Town and Country Planning Association, but that is an honorary position, so I have no pecuniary interest.

Until the election I was a commercial property solicitor acting for a number of residential and commercial property developers. I was also a North Warwickshire borough councillor until I resigned a couple of months ago.

I am also a member of the National Infrastructure Planning Association.

I was a local councillor until I resigned last May, but I am not sure whether I need to declare that. I am a vice president of the Local Government Association, which will be relevant for the panel this afternoon.

Until the general election I, too, was a solicitor and I had a practice for many years in the energy sector.

I thank all Members for declaring their interests, which have been noted.

Examination of Witnesses

Robbie Owen and Sir John Armitt gave evidence.

We will now hear oral evidence from Robbie Owen, board secretary and director at the National Infrastructure Planning Association and head of infrastructure planning at Pinsent Masons LLP, and Sir John Armitt CBE, former chair of the National Infrastructure Commission. Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I remind Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill. We must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed for this panel. We have until 12.05 pm. I call the Opposition spokesperson.

Q Sir John and Mr Owen, thank you very much for coming this morning. As you know, this is a huge piece of legislation, and we want to scrutinise it to the best of our ability. Thank you for the work that you do in your occupations.

We remain consistent in our concern about democratic accountability and processes, and about the balance between speeding up planning delivery and retaining the power of local people to make differences and have their say on nationally important critical infrastructure. First, do you think that these proposals strike the right balance between speeding up the delivery of national infrastructure projects and public accountability? Do you think that democratic and public accountability will remain at the heart of the delivery of that national infrastructure under the Bill’s proposals?

Sir John Armitt: Yes. I think this is a reasonable attempt to address the fundamental question of getting the balance right between taking forward the critical national infrastructure that the country needs and local interest. Consultation has always been an essential part of that, and the ability of people to express their views is important. Having said that, it is and will continue to be a very complex area. People on the receiving end of new infrastructure will naturally seek every mechanism in their legal right to challenge where they feel that they will be adversely affected. The Bill seeks to set out a number of remedies for that, and I think one could reasonably expect to see some acceleration, but just how much acceleration there will be in the process only time will tell.

Robbie Owen: I broadly agree with that; I think the Bill largely strikes the right balance. Let us not forget that even in the light of the amendments tabled by the Minister yesterday in relation to consultation, there will still be an extensive amount of consultation required—justifiably so—in relation to these projects, involving, among others, the local community. The examination of applications for consent takes place over a maximum of six months, which is a very long time, within which the local community can express their views. The Government are retaining the ability for local impact reports to be produced, which I think is important. I have no fundamental concern that democratic and public accountability will be lost by these changes. I actually think they do not quite go far enough in some respects, but we may come on to that later.

Q Thank you both for your time this morning. I also wanted to ask you about the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime. As you know, the objective of the Bill in this area—chapter 1 of part 1—is to provide for a more certain regime, but also to speed up the process through which applications are taken, because we have seen, as you are both aware, a deterioration in the performance of the system over recent years. We have done a huge amount of consultation on this legislation—statutory consultations, working papers, calls for evidence—but we are still very much in listening mode on whether any further changes are required. I want to get your views, picking up on the comments that you just made. In terms of the critical barriers to bringing forward major economic infrastructure, where do you think the Bill gets things right, and where does it not go far enough?

Sir John Armitt: The Bill seeks, to a large extent, to provide a regime of compensation to offset where people are going to be affected. That, in a sense, is no different from what we have seen in the housing sector in section 106, for example, for a very long time. The real challenge here is the ability of the process to actually slow things down. We know that judicial review is one of the big difficulties in this area. You could argue that the recent recommendations made for judicial review do not go that far. The only way in which it can be held back is where the court decides that the issue being raised is, perhaps not frivolous, but immaterial. But I would imagine that the nature of the legal system is such that people will find ways around that.

Judicial review constantly acts as a brake, and influences those who are developing projects to try to cross that bridge before they get there: you put in more mitigation than ideally you would wish, which raises the cost, and you potentially finish up with a more expensive project than ideally you would have had. That is the nature of people trying to second-guess what is going to be raised and how the judicial review will be handled.

I am not sure that the recommendations will go far enough to have a serious impact on that aspect, which is one of the central aspects of what has been holding up these schemes quite significantly. Each year of judicial review is likely to potentially add a year to the process, and that is why it is difficult to see that these changes will benefit the overall process by more than six to 12 months, at the end of the day. Robbie and I were talking about this before we came in; he is more of an expert in it, so I will turn to him for any other observations.

Robbie Owen: Minister, I absolutely support what is already in the Bill. I think that every provision on national infrastructure planning is appropriate, including what I hope will be added to the Bill through the amendments that you tabled yesterday, in relation to pre-application consultation and some other measures. As you say, those are all good measures that have followed extensive consultation and engagement.

There are two areas where I believe the Bill needs to go further, be bolder and be strengthened. The first relates to the further streamlining of the development consent order process. That should focus on allowing the standard process to be varied, on a case-by-case basis, where there is justification for doing so. That was trailed in your planning working paper in January; I encourage you and your officials to have another look at that, because there is a justification for giving some degree of flexibility to reflect the nature and requirements of individual projects and how the standard process might need to be adapted to them.

Secondly, we need to look again at the ability of the DCO process to be a one-stop shop for all the consents you need for construction of these big projects—that was the original intention back in 2008. All the discussions around that have yet to fully come to a conclusion. I note the review by Dan Corry, published a couple of weeks ago, but I do not think that it provides a full answer to allowing development consent orders to do more than they have been doing in practice, in terms of all these subsidiary consents, which, beyond the development consent order itself, are quite important for some of these big projects.

The other area where the Bill should and could go further relates to the whole area of judicial review. The changes that were announced in January, following the call for evidence off the back of the Banner review, are not particularly significant. They are really quite modest, and relate largely to the permission stage of judicial review. Approximately 70% of judicial review applications get permission and go forward, therefore we need to focus beyond the permission stage.

There are two other areas where the Bill could make some worthwhile changes. The first relates to the interaction between judicial review and national policy statements. As you will know, national policy statements are approved by Parliament, and the Bill contains some proposals to change that process. It has always struck me as strange that national policy statements can nevertheless still be, and are, judicially reviewed.

The final point on judicial review is that Parliament should be able, if it wishes, to use a simple one-clause Bill to confirm decisions to give development consent for projects of a critical national priority. This used to be the case: we used to have lots of provisional order confirmation Bills. I think that is a very good way for Parliament, where it wishes, to express its support for a big, critical project. That could easily be done through some amendments to the Bill.

I remind everybody that we only have another 15 minutes for this panel, so please be as succinct as possible.

Q Thank you, gentlemen, for the work you are doing. My question is around the balance of community engagement with affected communities. There is a lot of attention on that in the Bill. Could you comment on planning committees themselves? You have observed that they are a particular problem in the national infrastructure regime, as a minor point. More generally, there is a lot of attention and discussion about the pre-application process being one of the lengthiest stages. Do you have any observations on that? Where does the delay really sit in the national infrastructure regime?

Sir John Armitt: I would argue that local planning committees are not really professionally equipped to deal with NSIPs. As I said at the beginning, these are very significant projects. They are likely to be in the interests of a much broader area than that which any single planning committee is going to be taking an opinion from. The planning committee inevitably finishes up looking at things through a local lens, and I would argue that that is not really appropriate for projects of national significance. Clearly, their views can be taken, but one should recognise that local interest when doing so, and that should be set alongside the much broader considerations, recommendations and advice that could sometimes be received from much larger statutory bodies that clearly have a much more national interest.

Robbie Owen: Certainly, I do not see local planning committees as being particularly problematic so far as responding to proposals for national infrastructure projects is concerned. That is a segue into a broader point: improved guidance could be given by Ministers, not just to applicants about how they should go about their pre-application consultation and engagement, but to local authorities and other public bodies about how they should respond to proposals for national infrastructure.

Response performances, if I can put it that way, from local authorities differ markedly across the country. More uniform guidance would be really helpful there. The changes that the Government heralded yesterday in terms of pre-application consultation pave the way for a new set of guidance dealing with the pre-application period, because that is where most of the delay rests at the moment. As the Government said, and I agree with them, yesterday’s changes should really help to about halve the pre-application period, and that would be very welcome.

Q I thank our witnesses for coming. My question concerns growth and the timeline of the NSIP regime. We know there was a significant deterioration, as the Minister said, between 2012 and 2021, and the time taken to get development consent almost doubled. From 2.6 years in 2012, it rose to 4.2 years. Is there a target timeframe or average we should be getting to that you would like to see? One of the things my constituents will be most focused on is what this will do to growth in the economy. What impact do you think the Bill will have on overall economic growth?

Sir John Armitt: There are two things there: what should the target be, and will the Bill deliver it? I think the target clearly should be to try to get back to what we were handling and seeing back in 2010 to 2012. That was just over a two-year period. These projects are getting more complex and getting a lot larger—there are some very big ones coming down the line in the next 10 years—but if we could get back to that sort of level, clearly that would be welcome. Would the Bill deliver that degree of improvement? Frankly, I would be surprised.

Robbie Owen: We should not forget the role of national policy statements. They became rapidly yellowed at the edges in the late 2010s, which led to a dramatic increase in judicial review of decisions. The Bill does include a number of valuable proposals to improve how national policy statements are kept up to date. It is really important that they are, because they are the basis for decisions that are then taken on individual projects.

As a rule of thumb, we should really, at the very least, be aiming to be getting back to the performance levels in about 2015, which were approximately 12 to 18 months for pre-application and then around 15 to 18 months from application to decision. Obviously, if we could improve on that a little bit, that would be ideal, but if we could get back to that, that would be my rule of thumb.

I call shadow Minister Simmonds.

I am the shadow Minister.

Q I found the evidence you gave about the parliamentary process by which this might be streamlined really helpful, Mr Owen.

My question is for you both. One challenge for the planning system element of this Bill is that the local authority has a quasi-judicial role in administering planning law, and then statutory consultees and other organisations might be required to give consent for something, so the local authority has consented but Natural England, the Environment Agency or someone else needs to sign off. First, does the Bill strike the right balance in streamlining the different parts of that process, so that nationally significant infrastructure can make its way through quickly and efficiently?

Secondly, as well as judicial review, I am always conscious that a local authority may be subject to a maladministration complaint if it fails to take into account the legal obligations that Parliament has placed upon it. While the system may seem bureaucratic, the bottom line is that Parliament requires councils to go through that process when considering planning applications. Do you think there is a need to remove not so much the ability of others to challenge, but some of the requirements we place on local authorities, so that there are fewer loopholes and less complexity in administering that quasi-judicial role?

Sir John Armitt: That is a very complex question. I shall pass to my legal friend.

Robbie Owen: It is a complex question. On the balance and restricting this to national infrastructure, where the role of local authorities is among the role of many public bodies, as I touched on earlier, I do not think that we have yet got to a balance where the development consent order contains the principal consents and leaves subsidiary ones to be dealt with later.

I would like to see the Bill repeal section 150 of the Planning Act 2008 so that decisions can be taken on a case-by-case basis by the deciding Secretary of State on what they consider to be appropriate to put into the development consent order by way of other consents. I do not think it is appropriate for that decision to be subject to the veto of the relevant regulatory bodies, which it is at the moment. That is inappropriate.

If I understood the question on maladministration correctly, I am not sure that is a particularly relevant process for national infrastructure. My own experience is that it is quite ineffective generally. In terms of the role of local authorities in downstream supervision of the implementation of these projects, the answer is to make sure that the development consent order is very clear on the requirements and the conditions to the consent, which the local authority then needs to police and give approvals under. I think that is the way forward.

Q Robbie, you said you had no fundamental concerns democratically with the Bill. Could you give us a bit more on how you think the proposals will ensure continued meaningful engagement with affected communities and interested parties?

Robbie Owen: I would say two things. First, any right-minded applicant for a development consent order is clearly going to continue to consult formally and then engage informally with local communities, even with the changes that the Minister tabled yesterday. The role of the new guidance heralded by yesterday’s written statement is going to be critical in setting very clear guidelines in terms of what the Government think is appropriate by way of consultation and engagement. It is critical, though, that the guidance is not so specific that it almost undermines the effect of removing the provisions from the Act, as the amendments would do.

The second way in which the local community is involved is the public examination of proposals for up to six months—it normally is six months—once the application has been made and accepted. Compare that with the process for major planning applications, where communities may be given three minutes to address a planning committee: it is a much more inclusive process for local communities to take part in. Work is always ongoing to try to improve the usability and experience of the examination process, and hearings within that, and I support ongoing refinement there. But, fundamentally, those elements will completely remain—there is nothing in the Bill to remove them—and that is quite right.

Q Do you feel that the Bill will deliver a sufficiently strategic approach to national infrastructure? Are there elements still missing that you feel would enable that?

Sir John Armitt: It is worth saying first that the Government have announced that they intend to publish a 10-year infrastructure strategy later this year. That will be the first since 2020. We are working with Government Departments on that at the moment, but it is vital that there is a clear, long-term infrastructure strategy. As Robbie said, the other key ingredients to implement that strategy are the national policy statements related to the different sectors, and the regular updating of them.

We recently went almost 10 years without an update on the energy strategy. In rewriting that strategy, the challenge is that you start with a large strategic ambition that can be contained in half a page and, if you are not careful, you finish with 25 pages that follow on and set out all the ways in which that ambition must be satisfied while dealing with environmental, community or any other concerns. The challenge will remain that we are trying to do two or three things at once here: we are trying to deliver major economic growth and infrastructure that will enable us to be resilient, to deal with climate change, to reduce the impacts of carbon and so on, while also recognising that local people will always have concerns about the impact of that infrastructure on their lives, and the—in a sense—compensation that they may face from that.

We have a live debate at the moment about whether we should all pay a different rate for our electricity according to whether we are close to the generating infrastructure or not. There are many ways these issues could be addressed, and they will not be simple. We should not kid ourselves that we are going to wave a magic wand and all of a sudden everything will change. We are a very democratic society; we are not like others who can steamroller these things through. That is the major challenge, and I argue that that challenge sits, in the first place, with the promoter.

The promoter has to get out there and be willing to be open and frank about what they see as the opportunities, broad advantages and local challenges, and demonstrate a willingness to enter into relevant consultation with local people. At the end of the day, there will be people who do not change their minds. Noting some of the remarks that Robbie made, you will always need the Minister to have the ability to step in when appropriate and make the appropriate decision, given the scale of the challenge.

Order. We are nearing the end of the time allotted for this panel. These shall be the last questions.

Q These issues are very real for my constituents in Dartford because their lives have been blighted by congestion at the Dartford crossing, principally because the planning system has, over 15 years, failed to deliver the lower Thames crossing. I am delighted that that project now has a development consent order. In 2023, the National Infrastructure Commission wrote a review of the nationally significant infrastructure project regime. It found that delays were the result of a lack of clear policy, disproportionate consultation and the lack of a strategic approach to environmental mitigation. How much of that do you feel the Bill alleviates and addresses? It clearly needs to.

Sir John Armitt: In the circumstances, the Bill is a good first attempt to deal with those issues. As I have said, it is very complex—you are trying to trade off very different interests. That will not disappear overnight, and even with the new Bill people will seek to challenge its workings, but this is a good first attempt and, as we have both said, more needs to be done.

That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses for their evidence.

Examination of Witnesses

Dhara Vyas, Charlotte Mitchell, Beatrice Filkin and Christianna Logan gave evidence.

We will now hear oral evidence from Dhara Vyas, the chief executive officer at Energy UK; Charlotte Mitchell, the chief planning officer at the National Grid; Beatrice Filkin, the director for major projects and infrastructure at Ofgem; and Christianna Logan, the director of customers and stakeholders at Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks Transmission. I call the shadow Minister.

Q Thank you all for coming and giving evidence. I have only a few questions, because I know Back-Bench Members will want to ask questions and scrutinise the legislation. First, the legislation obviously aims to speed up grid connections. Charlotte Mitchell, could you outline to the Committee how much consultation you had, as an organisation, in the formulation of this legislation, and give us an overarching view of whether those connections would be sped up and whether you think the Government could go further to enable the elimination of some of the gridlock? How will the legislation in its current form ease the backlog of connections in the UK?

Charlotte Mitchell: The set of connection reforms underpinned by the Bill are really welcome. They will move us from a “first come, first served” system to a “first ready, first needed, first connected” approach. Under the “first come, first served” system, we have seen a proliferation of projects in the queue. To bring that to life, there are about 450 GW of capacity in the queue at the moment, and that is about three times what we would need to achieve net zero. It is fair to say that not all of those projects will come forward, and they certainly will not come forward at the pace at which we originally envisaged when they found their spot in the queue. That ultimately means that it is taking a really long time to connect the grid to new projects coming forward, and promoters of those projects are quoted decade-long connection timeframes.

We welcome the reforms; we have been part of the discussions and have had a seat at the table, with the National Energy System Operator leading the approach to the reforms. For us, it is really important that the legislation comes forward quickly enough that we can move across to that new system and refocus our resources and priorities on connecting those projects that are ready and have the highest need to be connected to the grid.

Q Thank you. My second question is for Dhara Vyas and, if necessary, Christianna Logan. I do not mean to leave Ofgem out, but I am focusing on just two issues, because I am aware that other Members will want to come in. You will be aware that the previous Government consulted on community benefits to infrastructure, and there was a proposal to allow direct payments, which the Government have continued.

Do you have any concern, or do you think that that is the result of the industry not doing enough to consult local people when infrastructure was delivered previously? Will an unintended consequence of direct payments to consumers be to undermine your members’ emphasis on making sure that community benefit and community consultation are done adequately?

Dhara Vyas: Thank you for the question. I do not think it is a failure of the industry. I think it is a series of consecutive failures of regulation and policy over the past decade, if not longer, that goes beyond the energy industry.

It is really welcome to have this unified vision in the energy space for infrastructure build-out, and that goes across the Department, the National Energy System Operator and Ofgem. It is critical that we use all the levers we have to engage with people. The reality is that transmission network operations is a very specific piece in the Bill, and that is the large stuff—the bigger stuff—but it has to be part of the broader conversation that we need to have with people about the placement of assets. Infrastructure is part of that, with substations and of course generation assets. It is about the changes we are going to be making to homes and businesses across the country, and it is also about the difference that investing in this will make for future generations.

So, to answer your question about whether it is specifically a failure of industry, I do not think so. It is a failure, and I think we share the blame, but I am really positive about the steps set out, both in this Bill and more broadly, for the energy policy space.

It is worth being really clear about the context, which is that we need twice as much transmission network build-out as we have had in the last 10 years. That is a huge scale of work, and we need speed in doing it. The reality is that different communities will have different priorities. For some communities, investment in community spaces might be the right conversation to have; for others it will be about direct payments, or investing in community ownership of assets. It is really about tailoring.

Last, and you will all know this far better than I do, while having a significant conversation about how you balance national equity and local diversity is not unusual, it is a newer conversation for the energy industry. As we navigate this, we and all my members intend to work very closely with partners, including Natural England and other environmental groups, as well as local and regional government. It is important that we are honest and open about this shift in the way of working and not fall into the trap of assuming that one size fits all.

Christianna Logan: Our research has shown that, in areas where we have previously developed projects, perceptions of the benefits of projects are much stronger and more positive. The big challenge for us now as an industry is the scale—the magnitude—of what we have to deliver, when in many cases, the local communities likely to be impacted have not seen this scale of infrastructure before.

We have developed a package of local benefits that come with these projects, whether that is local jobs, contracts for local supply chains or, in fact, new permanent homes that will initially be used to house workers on the project, but then used by communities for their own needs after the projects are completed. Community benefits are an important part of that package, but so too is the very real engagement that we do with local communities. We have made changes around things such as substation locations and overhead line routes as a direct result of that engagement. That is what is building trust around these projects.

As Dhara said, we all need to work together to increase understanding of the benefits that the projects bring. Our recently produced national campaign, on which we collaborated across the sector, will help with that. Our own media campaign in the north of Scotland has resulted in a double-digit shift from neutral to positive around these projects among those who have seen the campaign. We cannot achieve this on our own, as transmission owners; we need to work cross-party, cross-Government and cross-sector to be able to help people to understand the real imperative and benefit of undertaking these projects.

Q Thank you for that, and congratulations on the work that you are doing. I want to push slightly further—not push you, because you have answered the question, to be fair. Further down the line, do you have any concern that systematic decisions in companies such as yours will have an unconscious bias toward direct payments making it easier to get these projects through, and that the traditional community investment, which would be accountable to that community, will fall aside because the direct payment route is easier than genuine community benefits?

Christianna Logan: Genuine community benefits are the most important part of these projects. I think it would be risky to see direct payments as a silver bullet to reduce objection to projects. When you are delivering new infrastructure across hundreds of miles in these types of areas, there will be objections. In this endeavour, we all have to show courage to take forward well-designed projects that have been developed with local communities in mind, taking on board their challenges where we can, while recognising that that will require trade-offs and that we will not be able to appease all objections.

Just for the record, that is not my view. There are some concerns. I was not castigating you.

Q Good afternoon. Thank you for joining us. As a Government we have set out the ambitious clean power by 2030 plan, which involves significant roll-out of renewables. Key to that will be storage and our ambition to build the first long-duration storage in 40 years in this country. I would like to ask Beatrice and Ofgem, what is your sense of the importance of the mechanisms for doing that, particularly the cap and floor financing scheme; and how important is long-duration storage to the energy mix we are trying to build?

Beatrice Filkin: As you said yourself, Minister, we have not seen any large scale, long-duration energy storage built in this country for decades now. We know that the market is not willing to take on those risks at the moment and it is absolutely right that the Government are instructing us through this Bill to expand the regimes and protections.

We support the proposed introduction of a cap and floor regime for long-duration storage. We have seen NESO’s advice to you as part of the development of the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan—that increasing the amount of flexible storage on the system is critical to getting through your clean power targets. We are very keen to be part of supporting that. We think the cap and floor regime has proved its worth over the last decade or so through interconnectors, and obviously, we are adjusting it now with input from a wide range of stakeholders to make it appropriate for the long-duration storage schemes.

Q Christianna, this Bill has a significant amount of planning reform in England and Wales, but the key element in the energy space in chapter 2 is around the reforms to Scottish consenting. We have worked very closely with the Scottish Government to update the Electricity Act 1989. Can you give any sort of sense, from your extensive experience in this in Scotland, of how much those changes are necessary, or perhaps how much of the development is being held back by that planning reform not being updated at the moment?

Christianna Logan: We really welcome the powers in the Bill that create that framework to increase the timeliness and effectiveness of consenting in Scotland, particularly around introducing timescales for determinations and replacing automatic trigger of public local inquiries with a reporter-led process.

Public inquiries are one of the main causes of delay to consent decisions in Scotland, with the impact and cost of that borne ultimately by bill payers and local communities through local authority investment. We believe that to make the powers in this Bill effective in practice, the secondary legislation will be critical. We ask that the secondary legislation providing the details of implementation is delivered in parallel with the Bill, so that it can be laid as soon as decisions are made, and that within determination, timelines are set at 12 months to make sure that we can get timely delivery.

We welcome all the joint working between this Government and the Scottish Government, and we would like to see that continue for that secondary legislation. We welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to a 12-month determination for projects, but we are not yet seeing that in practice. For example, our Sky project, which is both an energy security and decarbonisation project, is still awaiting determination more than two and a half years on. That is why the ask is so important.

Finally, Dhara, picking up on the questions on connections reform and the wider push in the Bill on how we build network infrastructure more quickly and the ambition of that, how critical is it to the broader energy space—particularly on the questions of energy security, bringing down bills and the wider space on our energy mix going forward—that we build more network infrastructure and get the grid working? How critical is that aspect to delivering in the 2020s, and in the 2030s in particular, to meet the demand that we are going to see, and the Government’s other objective of bringing down bills?

Dhara Vyas: That is absolutely the right question to be asking, because we will not achieve any of it unless we unblock the issues we are seeing within the infrastructure space. The reality is that with these so-called zombie projects, at least half of them are ready to move on to the next stage. In large part, that is down to the work that has been happening as part of the connections reform project. It is really important that we keep on moving with the momentum we have right now, because gaining planning permission and making progress through the new milestones that the National Energy System Operator has set out is the next big challenge for us.

We are in a really difficult position right now. Bills and debt owed by customers to energy suppliers are at a record high. We are still really feeling and living in the long shadow of the cost of living crisis, which was partly down to the energy security crisis following the illegal invasion of Ukraine. Investing in an abundance of clean power will be completely pointless unless we have the infrastructure to move it around the country, and unless we invest in clean power, we will not ultimately bring down bills to the extent that we need to. The other part of that is demand. We will see demand increase by at least sixfold. We are going to have electrification of our homes and our transport, which brings us back full circle to the need to be able to move the electricity around.

Q I have a question for Christianna, Beatrice and Charlotte. To bring this to life, I am a Scottish MP, so if I am building a set of offshore wind farms in the north of Scotland, I also need to build transmission infrastructure from Scotland down to England. The holdouts of this involve connection queues, planning delays in Scotland and planning delays in England. The Bill, with the reforms in England and Scotland, seeks to reduce those delays. I want to unpick what that means for my constituents in terms of jobs and investment. How much money will be invested in the grid in Scotland over the next five to 10 years, because this Bill helps speed that investment up?

Christianna Logan: Our programme of projects to deliver for 2030 is a £22 billion investment. It is the biggest investment that we have seen in the north of Scotland probably since the second world war, so it is really significantyou’re your constituents. Our colleagues in ScottishPower have their investments in your area as well. Alongside that, there is a significant number of jobs—we expect around 6,000 jobs enabled through our investments in Scotland specifically. Just this year, we will be recruiting another 600 people into SSEN transmission to help with this transformation of our grid network.

All of that, as you say, is dependent on us getting consent to progress all these projects and the necessary regulatory approvals for the investments. We have been working very closely with Government and Ofgem on the reforms, and we believe that the proposals put forward in the Bill will take us forward in that regard. As I said earlier, the secondary legislation and the work with the Scottish Government will be critical to capturing those benefits.

Q Charlotte, some of the projects you are doing rely on Scottish infrastructure. Is it the same in England: more jobs, more activity?

Charlotte Mitchell: Yes, more jobs and more activity. Picking up on the point about consenting, we have similar yet different challenges in England and Wales. As you note, the Bill looks to streamline the NSIP regime. That is incredibly important for us at National Grid. We are very supportive of the measures in the Bill, and there are three in particular that I would like to namecheck as helping us to accelerate the projects that we need to move that power around, as we have been discussing.

The first one is the commitment to refresh the national policy statements every five years, or more frequently. We really welcome that, because it is incredibly important that we have policy stability for our projects. I would just caution that we do not update them so frequently that the policy landscape moves, but five years feels like the right cadence for refreshing those.

Another measure in the Bill that will help is the ability to opt out of the NSIP regime, where that is more appropriate for particular projects. At National Grid, for example, sometimes when we are upgrading a substation we need to move some overhead lines around. You can trip that threshold and end up in the NSIP regime, where really that does not feel like the spirit of the regime—that is not what it was set up to do. The ability to write to the Secretary of State and explain why it is not the most appropriate regime is really helpful for us, and we really welcome that measure.

The third one was spoken about by the previous panel: yesterday’s announcement of looking again at the consultation requirements and moving to a non-statutory footing for consultation on NSIP projects. Again, that will help us to engage in a more targeted, effective and proportionate way, so that we can bring projects forward while continuing to engage communities. That will help us to ensure that we have the right projects in the right places.

Thank you. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Q Thank you for coming and giving evidence today. Dhara, from our point of view, the compensation clause in the Bill is very welcome, but is there a case for a more standardised community benefit system across the whole industry, for people living next to wind farms, solar farms and so on? Would you like to expand on that?

Dhara Vyas: It is a fair question, but I would reiterate the point made in response to the earlier question about ensuring that community benefits are tailored to the community around the infrastructure. Different communities will want different things. In some of the conversations and in the guidance, there are explicit examples of proximity and the amount that would be paid out. The reality is that this is not a one-size-fits-all conversation, and nor should it be. We would be doing the country, and people across the country, a disservice if we took a one-size-fits-all approach to this.

It is right to have guardrails and guidance, but responding to what people need and want, and what is lacking in a community that the industry could potentially support and provide, will be the best route to bringing people with us on this fairly significant journey. In my view, it is important that there are parameters. We need the guidance from Government, and we certainly cannot do this alone—this is definitely something that we need to do in partnership—but to fully respond to and get holistic, close working with the communities that will be hosting infrastructure, we need to have that conversation. Having that conversation takes more effort from the industry, but it is the right approach.

Q I have a brief follow-up, if I may. Surely, the point here is a community benefit may be paid—that could be a standard—but that does not rule out or obviate the need for site-by-site, individual mitigation and discussion, does it?

Dhara Vyas: You are absolutely right, and I think that is where the guidance from the Department has been really welcome.

Q I was delighted recently to visit a National Grid substation at Hams Hall, in my North Warwickshire and Bedworth constituency. It is almost doubling in size to accommodate connections for High Speed 2, but people there also talked to me about the massive queue of projects that need connections if there is to be expansion right across the west midlands. Have you carried out an assessment of the backlog of connections? To what extent will these changes enable us to achieve our ambition of net zero by 2030?

Beatrice Filkin: I am very happy to take that question. We have had an ongoing process of reform to the approach to the connections queue with NESO and Government for quite a while now. We reached our conclusions last week and made a decision on how the reordering of the queue should work. As part of that, as Charlotte mentioned, we have been looking at how we move away from the idea that we had previously—a first come, first served application process—to looking at what we need as a country and which projects are most ready.

The decision we have taken on how that process will work now needs to be implemented by NESO. It will be implemented very rapidly over the next year, with the network operators, to give industry confidence and security that it can continue to invest to deliver clean power targets, as well as all the growth targets that we want.

One point that we did not touch on previously was that the demand connections are really important for the growth story. The queue connections reform deems all the connections that are already in the queue as needed, so they pass the first test. That is very important in making sure that we are prioritising access to our network, and that will enable growth in the country.

Charlotte Mitchell: Bringing forward the legislation at pace will enable us to move to the new system. It is important that measures in the Bill are brought forward quickly, so that we can move towards the new reordering and prioritisation.

Q As a follow-up, also at Hams Hall, JLR has a battery assembly plant, and its representatives told me that it could probably power the whole of the industrial estate there, but that there was no chance that it would be able to get a grid connection. Is there an estimate of those sorts of things, which are feasible and possible but have not entered your radar because they have not applied?

Beatrice Filkin: One of the purposes of the queue reform is to make sure that the projects that we need and are ready earliest get earlier access to the network. At the moment, we have a lot of projects in the queue that are at an early stage of development, and are not so critically needed by the strategic plans that we are setting out. Projects such as connections for demand or for factories are already in the queue and are deemed as needed. They will therefore be prioritised for the queue, and we expect their connection dates to improve as a result of the connections reform process.

Q It was not that long ago that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine resulted in a massive income shock because our energy system is not that secure. Building on the Minister’s question earlier, what impact will the Bill have, in terms of expediting connections to the grid, on securing our energy supply in future? Can you also say a bit about what impact it will have on economic growth?

Dhara Vyas: I think that the Bill is going to be crucial. It was as true for the previous Government as it is for this Government that clean energy and investment in clean power is seen as the safest and surest way to ensure the UK’s energy security. There is a programme of work for investing in clean power, but there is absolutely nothing to be gained from all of that net investment unless we can move it around the country. That is why this part of the energy industry is so crucial.

In terms of the impact on bills, the reality is that, at one point, energy bills were four times what they were in 2019. We are now seeing bill debt of £3.8 billion and growing. It is also important to note, generally speaking, that households are under more pressure now than they have been for well over a decade. I think more than half of households who go to Citizens Advice have a negative budget. Households are really feeling the pressure, and the conversation about energy bills has not really been off the front pages for the last four years.

As for being able to expedite the investments in clean power and make sure we are reducing the amount we are spending on curtailment costs, that should mean that in the future, if we experience an energy shock again, we will not spend the £40 billion that was spent in 2022-23 to support people. That is why this is so important.

Q Very quickly, can you say something about the benefits, in terms of economic growth, of electrifying the economy?

Dhara Vyas: I think it links neatly to the last question around demand. The reality is that we need to decarbonise business in a significant way. Right now, what businesses in this country are paying is among the highest of OECD countries, if not the first or second highest in that group. This is a big part of the discussion with the Department for Business and Trade around the industrial strategy.

Energy and the price of energy is hugely significant to business users, as well as to households. So while we need to be having conversations about linkage with Europe, we also need to be having significant conversations here about how we can speed up demand and connections for demand—and have that conversation for both homes and businesses. More broadly, we also need to be having a conversation about how we support businesses to consider how they can move off their dependence on gas.

Q I will follow up with some questions to Ofgem. You said earlier that we are moving from a first come, first served system to one where somebody is going to determine what should take priority and what should come before something else. Who is going to make that determination?

Beatrice Filkin: What has happened to date is that NESO has done some preparatory work assessing options. We have made a decision about how they should go about reordering the queue based on need and readiness —that is the decision we made last week. NESO now needs to implement that decision, which is what they will be doing rapidly over this year to make those choices.

For the reordering of the queue, it will prioritise the projects that were due to connect in the next year or two, first of all, and then the completion of all the projects that are needed for clean power by the beginning of 2026. That is the process. We are not walking away from that. We are regulating NESO, but also working with them on this process. We see this as a very critical enabler of clean power. Working through this year of that process, we will be a partner alongside them. That is also why we very much welcome the provisions in the Bill to provide the legislative security of what they are looking to do.

Q It will not be Ministers deciding what projects get priority and come forward; it will be Ofgem.

Beatrice Filkin: We have made a decision about the way in which NESO now prioritises the queue. They are doing that going forward. Our decision-making process was finished last week. That is the process by which they make those decisions. They are now going to implement that decision and do that re-ordering decision—individual decisions—over the year.

Q How do you determine what should get priority and what should not?

Beatrice Filkin: We have set out in our decision the way in which NESO should assess the queue. They will use the information that we set out last week—that guidance—to implement and take each individual project, weigh it up against the criteria, decide whether they meet the need and the readiness requirements and use that to sort through the queue. That is a process. They will operationalise our decision of last week.

Christianna Logan: On the practicalities of how that will be approached, NESO’s proposal is that the customers with connections contracts will provide evidence of their readiness to meet the criteria, in terms of things like submission of planning consents and land rights—ways that they can evidence they are progressing their projects at the pace necessary to achieve the 2030 goals and, as Beatrice said, against the strategic alignment of different technology types with the needs of the clean power plan. Customers will put forward their evidence that their projects are best placed. NESO will use that to assess which ones should go forward. Within that, there is some protection for projects that are already well progressed, so that we do not impact investments that are ready to be deployed to hit those targets.

We have another eight minutes allocated to this panel.

Q How will that affect the timeframe? I suppose the Government want projects to happen quickly, but you are now saying that there is another process to go through, so can you explain how that will affect the timeframe of projects?

Beatrice Filkin: What we set out in the decision last week sets off the piece of work that NESO are doing over this year. That helps projects, because as we have talked about, there are a number of projects in the queue that are either nowhere near ready or are not deemed needed for the overall strategic plan. So the process of sorting through the queue will speed up that very constrained access to the network to enable those projects that are needed and ready to join and connect to the network earlier.

Q I want to ask about coastal Scotland, and I declare an interest: my granddad and several of my cousins were trawlermen in Scotland. Offshore wind represents a big opportunity in Scotland for coastal communities and harbours, which have suffered economic decline over the years. Have I got that right?

Beatrice Filkin: Are you asking whether it provides an opportunity to local communities?

Yes.

Beatrice Filkin: Absolutely. We see this in terms of not only the build process, but the operations of these pieces of infrastructure.

Q So this Bill, which speeds up planning and consent for transmission and generation infrastructure, is really important for Scotland’s coastal communities. That must follow, mustn’t it?

Beatrice Filkin: Yes.

Christianna Logan: Investment in things like ports infrastructure comes directly as a result of the investment in these projects, and that investment is not secured until we achieve consents, whether that is networks or offshore wind as our customer. So absolutely there is a benefit. There is also the community benefit that will come as a result of these projects.

Beatrice Filkin: There are also the wider supply chain opportunities. Obviously, we want to see the international and UK supply chain relocating here and providing degrees of the supply chain directly for these projects from our home communities.

As we have a bit more time, there is a last question from Amanda Martin.

Q My question is a supplementary to that. John spoke about Scottish coastal towns. I am from Portsmouth and we have a ferry port that is working really hard to have clean power. Do you believe that unlocking some of the grid elements of power will help other coastal areas in England as well as in Scotland?

Dhara Vyas: Yes, because access to clean power should eventually result in lower bills. In making progress in this space, you ultimately unlock economic opportunities and growth and increase productivity. The dividends of this investment are felt right across the country.

That brings our second panel to a close. I thank the witnesses for their evidence.

Examination of Witness

Marian Spain gave evidence.

We will now hear evidence from Marian Spain, chief executive of Natural England. We have until 1 o’clock for this session. I call the shadow Minister.

May I call you Marian?

Marian Spain: Of course.

Q Thank you very much for coming and for the work you do. I am sure you will appreciate that this is one of the more controversial areas of the Bill, with Natural England taking on more responsibility under Government proposals. Many stakeholders have said they are concerned about the responsibility that Natural England will be taking on in terms of environmental delivery plans.

In particular, the Royal Town Planning Institute has said that it is concerned about whether you will be adequately resourced. The Institution of Civil Engineers is worried about a two-tier system and stakeholders and organisations being resourced adequately. The County Councils Network has also said that it remains concerned over the resourcing of Natural England. Do you believe that Natural England is adequately resourced and has the management structures and systems in place to cope with the extra responsibilities that it will take on?

Marian Spain: Yes. We very much welcome this Bill. We think this Bill is absolutely the right thing to give us the growth the nation needs, while not just protecting nature but giving the opportunity to restore nature. My answers will be in that context. This is a Bill we very much welcome, and it is something we have worked very closely with Government on.

In terms of resourcing, in principle, yes, the resourcing should be adequate. We have £14 million in this financial year to begin the preparatory work for the environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration fund. That will enable us to start on the first of those EDPs, and I can say a bit more about what we think those will be, if that is helpful. In future, the levy arrangement should allow us to fully recover our costs. It should allow us to recover the costs of doing the work on the ground and also the overheads that we will need to incur to work with developers to do the monitoring, reporting and so on.

I think the risk is in the early years of the scheme, when the levy is not yet flowing, but we need to get up front and do those delivery plans so that they are ready when the developers are ready to contribute. We are working with our parent Department, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and our colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on a bid for next year’s spending review. The limiting factor will be whether Government are able to put in initial preparatory money. For the district level licensing scheme, we had effectively a rolling fund—Government put money in up front that we then rolled over as the levy came in to fill the gap behind it.

Can I come back on that, briefly?

Very briefly. We have to keep this very tight.

Q That is fine. What impression are you getting from Government that they remain satisfied, and are you satisfied as chief executive, that the whole aim of this legislation in terms of EDPs will not be undermined by a gap in funding in the early stage, before you can recover the total costs? I am not criticising you, because you are waiting on Government funding, but you used the words “should” and “may”, and I want to push you on that. Have you started work at this precise time on the preparatory work for EDPs?

Marian Spain: To reiterate, the unknown that I cannot answer is the outcome of the spending review and how much the Government as a whole choose to invest in the next financial year. The other thing that this Bill and the other associated planning reforms coming forward will do is to allow Natural England to relieve some of its existing resources from lower impact work and move them into this. It is not all just about new resources.

I am confident that we can make that change. I am confident that this will be one of the most important things that Natural England does for the next five years or so. You had another question that I have forgotten.

Q Preparatory work on EDPs. Where are you on that?

Marian Spain: Work is under way now. As I mentioned earlier, we are doing two main things. We are thinking about the first two environmental delivery plans. This is an opportunity to mention that they are almost certain to be improving the existing nutrient mitigation scheme and turning that into a full-blown EDP and NRF system, and also consolidating the district level licensing scheme—the scheme for great crested newts that we set up five or six years ago. Those can be relatively quick wins, done within this calendar year we believe.

We are then looking at what the next EDPs are likely to be. That conversation is live at the moment with our colleagues. We are looking at three issues. We are looking at where development will most need it. Where are the development pressures? That might be major infrastructure or the new towns. Where are the places that are going to most need it? Where is it going to be most feasible—where do we believe we have sufficient evidence to have robust plans that will work and where is the meeting of those two points? That thinking about the EDPs is under way.

We are also using this year’s Government investment to set up the systems and the digital systems we will need. The systems developers will need to test their impact and decide if they want to participate. That is the systems we will use to handle the money and to do the essential transparency reporting and monitoring. That will be in place this financial year.

Q Marian, thank you for giving your time today and for the work that you and the organisation are doing to ensure that the new system will be operational shortly after the Bill gets Royal Assent.

Can I get you on the record in terms of the objectives of part 3 of the Bill? Is Natural England confident that the nature restoration fund will deliver better outcomes for the environment than the status quo? Specifically on the powers that will be available to Natural England in bringing forth EDPs, do you think the Bill gives you enough flexibility to consider a wide enough range of conservation measures to deliver those plans?

Marian Spain: We are confident that this will be an improvement on the current system. We have already run versions of the nature recovery fund for recreational impact, for great crested newts and for nutrient mitigation, so we have seen enough that these schemes can work. We are confident that they will work.

We are also clear that it is an improvement because at the moment the current arrangements are sub-optimal for developers and for nature. We see that developers are investing disproportionate amounts of time on data gathering that could be better done once and centrally. We see that investment in mitigation and compensation in the sequential scheme slows things down and does not always create the biggest impact. We also see that there is less transparency than the public and indeed developers themselves sometimes want about how the money is being spent. We are confident this will be an improvement.

The other important point to note is that many of the pressures nature is facing now, particularly water quality, air quality and recreation, are diffuse. They are not specific. They are widespread. They are cumulative. It is impossible for an individual developer to adequately consider, mitigate and compensate. We need to do that at much more of a scale. We think the measures in the Bill and the associated measures of having more robust spatial development strategies that look at nature and development together, and of having the plan up front that tells us what the impact will be and how to mitigate it, and then the fund to allow that discharge, is a major step forward.

It is unknown—well, it is not unknown, forgive me. It is a risk, of course, and people will be concerned that it will not be regressive and that it will not be a step back, but we think there are enough measures in the Bill that are clear that this is about improvements to nature—maintaining the current protections, but also allowing development to make its adequate contribution to restoration of nature.

Q You mentioned that you have already started some work on environmental delivery plans. Are you able to say a little more about how long you think individual plans will take to develop and come into force, and a little more on what you said about the criteria that you will use to decide where and what sort of areas will need them?

Marian Spain: I cannot yet give you specifics. This is thinking that is happening now. We have not yet made any decisions. I have mentioned that we are looking at feasibility, demand, and ability to deliver. I think that where we will look next, the areas that are at the top of our minds in our conversations with fellow officials, will be air quality; the impact of nitrogen deposition on nature, which we see as a major risk; water quality; water quantity —the availability of water for both nature and development is high on the list; and a certain number of protected species. The commoner species of bats are likely to be able to benefit from the measures—similar measures as for newts. It is not yet all protected species, and we do not yet know which, so I cannot give you a definitive answer. I think it will be the next financial year when we start to roll out those further plans.

It is also quite hard for me to give you any certainty about exactly how long the plans will take, because they will vary, of course. Some of them will be geographically defined; some will be subject defined; and some might be species defined. They will be varied and mixed. But we are conscious that we need to move quickly on this, because we need to give developers a better solution than they currently have.

Q I appreciate that there is a lot of uncertainty and you have been very honest about that. As a colleague of mine has already acknowledged, there is a huge amount of concern about the provisions in the Bill. What is it that gives you such assurance or confidence, given that we know so little about EDPs, that the Bill’s measures will not reduce the level of environmental protection given by existing environmental law?

Marian Spain: I suppose there are two parts to that answer. One is the success we have seen of the similar schemes already running; I could expand on that if you wanted any specifics. Also, the Bill contains a number of safeguards. I think the first thing that the Bill does is that it effectively maintains the mitigation hierarchy, because the best way to protect nature is to avoid damaging it in the first place. The obligations on developers and the legal protection for sites and species remain. The Bill does not remove those. The Bill maintains that obligation, but makes it easier and simpler for developers to discharge, and the fact that a developer will have to pay a levy will in itself make them think, “Am I better off avoiding this and therefore the cost, and building somewhere else?” There is a safeguard there.

The other really important safeguard is that the Secretary of State is the ultimate arbiter of whether an EDP will be adequate and will produce the net overall improvement. That is the other reason why it is hard to be very specific about EDPs—because until we start to develop them in earnest, it is hard to see. There will need to be a fairly robust evidence base for the Secretary of State to be confident that the measures will have a positive impact and we will have a net overall improvement.

Q Thank you, Marian, for coming along today; that is massively appreciated. I have heard a few things today about genuine community benefits being essential—they must be delivered—and partnerships and relationships being hugely important in order to be able to facilitate those. Everybody we have talked to, including you, has welcomed the Bill and said that it will take us forward. But if the community benefits are key, you now have a huge duty, as part of the Bill, to deliver and support those. I just wonder about the cultural change that needs to go on in relation to working with others and working in partnership. How prepared for that are you as an organisation?

Marian Spain: Nearly all our work is done in partnership anyway. Perhaps I will just expand on what I think the crucial partnerships are for the Bill to succeed. Actually, before I do, I will say one other thing. The Bill will require us to not produce the EDPs in isolation. They will require us to do public consultation. They will require us to work with others. We will need to work with the local planners. We are also highly likely to need to work with those who already have the data. That might be the voluntary sector; it might be the professional ecology sector that we rely on heavily to provide us with the data to have the confidence to recommend a robust plan to the Secretary of State.

The other part very much on my mind at the moment is that one of our jobs will be to give confidence to everybody who needs to be involved in making this work that the plans are robust and adequate and will have the impact intended. One thing that developers say to me is that they want confidence that if they are going to pay money, it will be well spent. A developer said to me the other day that the thing he finds most frustrating is that he puts money into the community infrastructure levy and he never sees what it is spent on, so I think there is something about giving developers confidence that if they participate, they can see they have done some good. Planners will need a fair degree of confidence that they are giving planning permission that is within the overall planning laws still.

We need our wildlife groups to work with us on this. We need to give them confidence, because they will own a lot of the land on which we will make the improvement. But as important—a group that we have not often talked about in these conversations—are the private landowners, who we will also need to have confidence that they are participating in a fair market where they will be adequately rewarded, should they choose to put their land in, and that they will also see that they are doing something for the public benefit.

The final group, if I dare say it, will be parliamentarians, who need to have confidence that these measures will contribute to the statutory climate and nature targets. It is all about how we work with all those groups to show that this is better.

Q It sounds as though you are saying that you are ready to work across the private, public and voluntary sectors to deliver that.

Marian Spain: We are already having those conversations as part of the preparatory work.

If we keep this really tight, we can get three more questions in.

Q It says on the front of the Bill that the Secretary of State has determined that

“the Bill will not have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by any existing environmental law.”

You have spoken about how you think that there will be improvements. Are you absolutely confident that that holds, and that there is no way in which the Bill could result in a reduction in environmental protection—for example, in relation to irreplaceable habitats?

Marian Spain: I am trying awfully hard not to say that that is something for Parliament to be keeping a close eye on as the Bill goes through. There are risks. This is a very different system, and it will be embedded in legislation—theoretically, in perpetuity.

Again with our colleagues from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, we are watching issues that are being raised by others, including by parliamentarians and the third sector. We are conscious that the Bill needs to have those robust safeguards, and there may be drafting amendments that make those even more robust. The basic premise of the Bill is clear, as I have said already—that basic idea that the plans can be approved by the Secretary of State only if he or she is satisfied.

The bit that we want to keep an open mind on, however, is the fact that we need to have a system that is robust enough and has those safeguards, but that also allows flexibility in how we operate it for years to come. Nature is changing in the way it responds to climate change. Society is recognising that it needs different things from nature, with nature-based solutions to climate change and more nature for health and wellbeing, as well as just the protection of rare species. There is something about getting that balance right to have a system that is workable in a place, and that is adaptable to what a community needs and to a particular development, but that maintains that overall aim to make nature better.

Q I think your position is clear from your response, but for the avoidance of doubt and in the time that we have remaining, is Natural England confident that this model will deliver better outcomes for nature overall?

Marian Spain: We are confident that the model works. The detail will come as we work through which topics and which situations we actually apply the environmental delivery plans to. It is perhaps also a version of the answer to a previous question; the plans themselves can rule things in and out. We may decide, for example, that a piece of ancient woodland cannot be replaced and would therefore not be subject to these measures, so that is another safeguard.

Q I have two specific questions about resourcing. The experience with section 106 agreements is often that, by the time the resource is aggregated to the point where it is spendable at scale, the cost of delivering what it was supposed to deliver has increased. You have described your expectation that the resource coming in will begin to cover the costs for Natural England in administering that. First, have you done any modelling on how the income and those rising costs will be managed? Secondly, particularly in the event of significant challenges to Natural England, how can we be assured that a significant amount of the contributions will not end up being absorbed into administrative and management costs, as opposed to being spent directly on the environmental mitigation for which they were first gathered?

Marian Spain: I cannot tell you about modelling that we are doing for the future—that work has only just started—but I can refer back to what we have already. For example, with district level licensing, the formula is quite simple: how much does it cost to build a pond and how much does it cost either Natural England or, in that scheme, a third party, including private businesses, to deliver that? That is what drives the levy and that is what developers pay. They pay the cost of administration and the cost of delivery, and that is the model we will use for this. Those costs will, of course, vary—there will not be a single cost—because it will depend on the complexity of the issue and possibly even the geography, land price and so on.

That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank Marian Spain for her evidence, and I thank all our other witnesses so far today for theirs.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gen Kitchen.)