(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Blencathra
“Retail crime: deterrent action by shopkeepers(1) Where shopkeepers or retail outlets of any kind have obtained video or photographic evidence of theft of goods from their shop or store and the alleged thief has not been caught at the time, then they may—(a) a. circulate that photographic evidence to—(i) any other retailers they consider appropriate,(ii) their Head Offices or security control centres,(iii) any organisations engaged by them in deterring shop theft or arresting thieves, and(iv) any trade body or publication which is relevant to their business;(b) publish the photographs prominently in their stores or shops;(c) publish the videos and or photographs on social media.(2) Where shopkeepers or retail outlets of any kind have obtained video or photographic evidence of theft of goods from their shop or store and the alleged thief has not been caught at the time then they must—(a) retain securely the original or hard copy of the evidence which must be time and date stamped;(b) ensure that the evidence is not edited in any way;(c) send a digital copy of the evidence to the appropriate police force as soon as reasonably practical, but they may collate that and any other occurrences and send them as a bundle;(d) supply information about the nature and value of the goods they believe were stolen;(e) store any other evidence relating to the alleged theft including any eye witness accounts.(3) When the police receive any evidence or information under subsection (2)(c) and (d) they must undertake the following steps—(a) log and record all the evidence they received;(b) do a facial check on the Police National Database;(c) do a check on the passport and immigration databases;(d) check the photos, videos and reports received against any other reports to see if there is a pattern or repeat thieving.(4) When it seems to the police that—(a) there are other similar examples of the person stealing from shops,(b) there is a pattern of offending,(c) the alleged thief is acting in concert with others, and(d) there is evidence that that shop or retail outlet is regularly targeted,the police must initiate a full investigation with an objective of arresting the thief or thieves and bringing them to trial.(5) Where a person accused of being a shop thief has had information published under subsection (1) and it is later proven that the person was innocent or a photograph of the wrong person was published, then that person is entitled to compensation by the shop or retail outlet which published it.(6) The compensation under subsection (5) is £300 per day for each day that the information was wrongly published.(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend any of the provisions of this section.”Member's explanatory statement
There has been a rise in theft from shops and complaints from store owners that the police are not doing enough to stop it. These provisions aim to deter shop thieves and make it easier for the police to take action because the shop owners will have provided sufficiently reliable video and other evidence to justify full investigations and prosecutions.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, as well as moving my Amendment 216A, I shall speak to my Amendments 216B and 216C. These are three large proposed new clauses, and I assure the Committee that I will not be speaking to any other groups of amendments tonight.
Why have I tabled these when there are already laws on shoplifting? I am doing it because theft from shops is now completely out of control, and we need new laws, powers and penalties. The first thing which has to change is the terminology. I disagree with my noble friends and the Minister in the last discussion calling it “shoplifting”, since this diminishes the enormity of the criminal rackets now operating. It sounds rather like the legitimate “grab and go” takeaway food we see in shops, although I assume people are supposed to pay for it before they go. This is not shoplifting; it is shop theft, with some organised on a massive scale as conspiracy to steal.
My amendments address the concerns of the British Retail Consortium following its annual survey published in January this year. It showed that losses from customer theft reached a record £2.2 billion in 2023-24 and that we have record crime levels, despite retailers spending £1.8 billion on prevention. That is a total cost of £4 billion. Retailers want the police to take retail crime more seriously, improve response times, use technology and data sharing to target prolific and organised offenders, and ensure that those responsible are brought to justice.
Key actions retailers advocate for include improved police attendance. Retailers want police to prioritise attending incidents, especially when an offender has been detained by staff, violence has been used or key evidence such as forensics need immediate attention and collection.
Retailers want effective investigations. They ask for all reasonable lines of inquiry to be pursued, including collecting and using CCTV footage, eyewitness statements and forensic evidence to identify and prosecute offenders.
Retailers want the targeting of prolific offenders. They want a proactive approach to identify and focus resources on the small number of repeat offenders responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime. This includes using criminal behaviour orders and, for serious cases, electronic monitoring.
Retailers want better data sharing and intelligence. Businesses are keen to share data and intelligence through partnerships and platforms, such as Project Pegasus and the Disc system, to help police forces build a national picture of organised crime groups and link up crimes for unknown offenders across different locations.
Retailers want easier and consistent reporting, with a streamlined, consistent and easy way to report all incidents, as underreporting due to complex systems and a perceived lack of police response is a major issue.
Retailers also want visible deterrence. They support “hot spot patrolling” and high-visibility policing in high-crime locations to deter potential thieves and provide reassurance to staff and customers.
Retailers want tougher sentencing and legal measures. The industry advocates for a robust judicial response, including the introduction of specific laws such as a stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker—which I am pleased to see we are going to have—to signal that these crimes are unacceptable and will not go unpunished.
Finally, retailers want collaboration. Overall, shops want stronger collaboration between the police, the criminal justice system and businesses to address the root causes of offending and ensure that staff are supported in providing evidence and attending court.
I am arrogant enough to say that my proposed new clauses address all these concerns and are related. The first would give shopkeepers and retail outlets the powers to deter shop thieves. The second would give powers to arrest and detain them. The third would tackle organised shop theft as conspiracy.
Let me explain my proposed new clause described in Amendment 216A. The Information Commissioner’s Office has suggested that it is inappropriate to publish photos of known thieves because it may infringe their data protection rights. What nonsense—it is a great deterrent, and my subsections (5) and (6) would provide for compensation if a shop makes a mistake and publishes the wrong photograph. Retailers such as M&S, Boots, Morrisons and Greggs are now contributing data, including photos and CCTV footage, of repeat offenders to a national database which is shared with the police and used internally by security staff—for example, on “Banned” boards in staff-only areas—to prevent entry. That is a compliant method which seeks to get round, or comply with, the Information Commissioner’s guidance.
The other thing shops must do—and I suggest they will do—is make it easy for the police to prosecute. The police will naturally not respond to a phone call that says that some anonymous bloke stole from a shop and made a getaway and they do not know who it is; I would not respond to that myself. However, if the shops keep all photographic and video evidence—although it will be digital these days—timed and dated and of court evidential quality, with statements from the observers, then the police will think it worth while to investigate; at least, they will have no reason not to do so. Following on from that, my proposed new clause says that, if the retailers have done all these things and have good evidence which has a good chance of catching and convicting thieves, then the police must take investigative action along the lines in my subsections (3) and (4). I submit that these measures will lead not only to more just convictions but also to deterrence.
My proposed new clause described in Amendment 216B moves on from deterrence to detention. Retail outlets must have the power to arrest and detain suspects under proper controls, but very few now do so because they are afraid of the consequences of getting it wrong. Even when they get it right, criminals will sue for wrongful arrest or excessive force, no matter how untrue that is. My proposed new clause sets out powers for shops to arrest and detain shop thieves, but with very strict conditions as set out in subsection (2). I will not go through all of them, but they are tough conditions on shops and security guards which guarantee that evidence is retained, and the rights of the suspect are properly guaranteed, just the same as if he or she had been arrested and detained by the most woke police force in the country.
The security staff must be properly trained, use minimal necessary force and wear cameras all the time to capture the action. When a suspect is detained in a secure room, it must be covered by cameras at all times and they must be told why they have been arrested. There must be no intimate body searches and there must be female security staff for female suspects, et cetera. It is of prime importance that the police must be called as soon as possible.
When the shop has complied with all those requirements, the police must then respond and do their duty. If the shop has done a gold-plated job of collecting the evidence and handling the suspect properly, then the police must take their responsibility seriously and there would be no question of releasing the suspect on the spot. Of course, they can release or charge them when they have reviewed the evidence at the police station and interviewed the suspect.
Noble Lords may point out that this regime may be perfect for the big retailers and big shops but will not work for the corner shops and smaller retailers. I accept that, but it is highly likely that individuals who steal from small shops will also steal from large multiples, as the type of store selected often depends on the specific motivation and perceived opportunity of the thief rather than a strict adherence to only one type. Ultimately, shop-thieves tend to be generalists in terms of store format, seeking out environments with low security and high opportunity. Large multiples often have more security resources, such as CCTV and security guards, but their sheer size and high footfall can also make them easier targets in certain areas. Small shops may have less sophisticated security, making them a target for burglars or opportunistic thieves, but owners often know their “regulars”, which can act as a deterrent for some. We have got to remove the fear of shops and staff doing their own arrests, and that means professionalising their arresting and detention regime and then empowering them.
A few weeks ago, I was in the large Boots down at Cardinal Place in Victoria when I saw a guy in a hoodie come in. He went to a cosmetics shelf, opened a carrier bag and was scooping the shelf contents into it. He then started to go out. I started shouting, “Stop that guy. He is thieving. Stop him! Stop him!” and I charged after him in my chair. He began to run, so I powered up to warp speed but lost him when he went down into the Underground. I went back into Boots, sought out the one and only person on duty and said, “Call the manager. Look at the video tapes”. The response was that there was nothing they could do and there was no point in interfering, as it was just one of those things.
That is not good enough and we are all paying the price through the increased cost of goods to cover theft losses. I might even go so far as to say that Sycamore Partners, the private equity firm that owns Boots, has possibly decided that it can make more profit from letting people steal things than employing enough staff to stop them stealing in the first place. I only surmise; I do not know that for a fact.
Some 10 minutes later, when I was in M&S, an American woman rushed up to me and said she had chased the man who had stolen my shopping, but she had lost him in the Underground. I explained that it was not my shopping but thanked a United States tourist for trying to do what no Brit in the area had tried to.
I am no Mr Jenrick, waging a one-man fight against criminals in London, but a few months ago I was in a small retail outlet in a large supermarket, only a few hundred yards from here, where I saw a man stuffing his jacket pockets full of things, a few yards away from a security guard. I shouted to the guard that someone was thieving. The guy gave me a mouthful of abuse and then walked past the guard, giving him two fingers.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I will not detain the House very long. I speak as somebody who for most of their adult life was a retailer, until the good people of the Uxbridge constituency sent me into the other place—but I continued to be a retailer, behind the counter and also having to deal with putative shoplifters.
I fully support what my noble friend Lord Blencathra is putting forward. He put it very well: “shoplifting” makes it sound not so important; “shop theft” is important and has to be tackled. The measures to support retail staff are very welcome. Shop theft is very frightening for staff, who are very often younger people or women. When they see people stealing, they often do not know what to do. If they knew they had some back-up, it would be of great reassurance. With that, I will sit down and hear what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, the amendments in this group, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, put forward a number of alternative approaches to reduce shoplifting. However, they fail to address practical realities and risk creating more issues than they resolve.
The proposal in Amendment 216A would allow shopkeepers to circulate photographic evidence of suspects, including on social media. This raises significant questions about privacy and misidentification. If the accused turns out to be innocent, the shop must pay compensation, but this is fundamentally unworkable and could cause serious harm to innocent people, damaging reputations in ways that money cannot fix.
The noble Lord himself said that this is likely to be able to be worked only in large stores rather than small shops, but the shops most affected by theft are small businesses run by one or two people. Shopkeepers in my area are busy enough running their shops without spending hours reviewing camera footage, creating digital copies and ensuring timestamps.
Clarifying the arrest powers of security staff, as proposed in Amendment 216B, may seem helpful, but increasing their authority to arrest and detain risks misuse and legal challenge. Security staff do not have the same training or accountability as police officers, increasing the chance of wrongful or disproportionate arrest. Video evidence and procedural protections are helpful but not adequate substitutes for professional policing standards.
Finally, Amendment 216C proposes a new offence of conspiracy to commit theft. The noble Lord is right to point to the growing involvement of organised crime. The police have said that international criminals are targeting UK shops in what a Co-op boss describes as “organised looting”. However, I disagree with the noble Lord in respect to the solution he proposes. It seems likely to disproportionately target those committing relatively minor thefts, potentially imposing severe sentences on them of up to 10 years, while doing little to address those orchestrating and controlling those criminal activities.
Shoplifting is undoubtedly out of control, and a new direction is desperately needed. The Liberal Democrats believe the current epidemic is the result of years of ineffective police resourcing, which has left local forces overstretched, underresourced and unable to focus on solving crimes such as shoplifting—I stress the words “unable to” rather than “unwilling to”. We want to see a return to genuine neighbourhood policing, with more police visibility and a staffed police counter in every community. That is why I have tabled Amendments 429 and 430 later on in the Bill.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support the intention behind the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. He is absolutely right to refer to it as theft. It is theft, under Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968. He is right that there is no such offence as shoplifting.
We have all heard the same stories from businesses, large and small: prolific offenders walking out with hundreds of pounds of stock in broad daylight; staff frightened or, in many cases, not allowed to intervene; police too stretched to attend; and, time and again, the same individuals returning to commit offence after offence because they believe, with some justification, that nothing will happen to them.
My noble friend’s first amendment in this group deals with the ability to share clear evidence of theft with those who need to see it. At present, retailers might be reluctant or legally uncertain about whether they can circulate images of offenders, even to neighbouring stores, to their own head office or to crime reduction bodies. Yet, these are precisely the channels that allow patterns of offending to be identified and prolific offenders to be caught.
The amendments set out a lawful, proportionate system. Images can be shared where a theft has occurred, provided the originals are preserved, time-stamped, unedited and sent to the police. This ensures the integrity of evidence and prevents misuse. Importantly, it provides a remedy and compensation if a photograph of the wrong individual is mistakenly published. My only concern here is that being required to pay £300 per day in compensation might deter the shop owner from circulating the evidence.
I am particularly supportive of Amendment 216B. We know that a number of retailers have told their staff to not intervene when they see a person shoplifting. This has led to numerous instances of brazen theft, whereby people walk into a shop, grab armfuls of products and walk out in full sight of security guards and staff. Such scenes make a mockery of law and order. The amendment permits the lawful detention of suspected thieves by trained security staff. Shopkeepers should not have to look on helplessly while brazen thieves simply walk out of the store. What my noble friend proposes is eminently sensible: properly trained staff equipped with body-worn cameras, using only minimum force, operating under strict rules and with constant video recording. This is not a free-for-all; it is the opposite. It is a controlled, transparent, safeguarded process that both protects the rights of suspects and gives retailers the ability to intervene proportionately when theft is happening before their eyes.
The amendment also places obligations on the police when they are called. They must attend promptly, take custody of the suspect, secure the evidence and make decisions based on a full review, not a hurried assessment at the store door. This is entirely right. Retail staff are repeatedly told to detain no one because the police will not come. The amendment would send the opposite message. When retailers correctly do their part, the police must do theirs.
Finally, Amendment 216C addresses a growing and deeply troubling phenomenon, whereby organised gangs loot shops, raid entire streets or retail parks and steal thousands of pounds-worth of goods. These are not opportunists; they are organised criminals. Yet, the system too often charges them with individual, low-value thefts rather than with conspiracy or organised crime offences. The amendment establishes that, where there is reliable evidence of at least 10 thefts involving two or more individuals, a full investigation with conspiracy charges must be instigated where appropriate. The sentencing framework my noble friend proposes is proportionate and targeted: higher penalties for organised groups of five or more and the automatic confiscation of vehicles or property used in the crime. These are necessary deterrents: the current penalties are not.
Taken together, these amendments represent a robust but balanced response to an urgent and worsening problem. They support shopkeepers, empower security staff and assist the police with the collection of evidence.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by, in part, sharing the aspirations of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I agree with him. It is not shoplifting; it is shop theft. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on that same point. When I began my working career 45 years ago after university with the Co-op on a management training course, we called it “leakage”. I found that term offensive then, and I find it offensive now. It is shop theft. So I agree with him that there needs to be an effort made by the Government to tackle this issue.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, the Home Office is working with police representatives through the National Police Chiefs’ Council to make it easier for retailers to report crime. The current Policing Minister and the previous Policing Minister are now both supporting a Tackling Retail Crime Together strategy launched by the chief constables and industry. We had a summer of action on shop theft, which involved visible policing on the streets and targeting hotspot areas.
This winter, the Home Secretary plans for police forces across England and Wales to partner with local businesses, local councils and police and crime commissioners to target shop theft and anti-social behaviour during the peak retail season. There are plans to put 13,000 extra boots on the ground, from neighbourhood policing through to special constables and PCSOs. The measures in Clause 39, which we debated earlier, try to raise the level of importance of shop theft. As a Government, we recognise that we want to take action on that.
Where I disagree with the noble Lord is on some of these proposals. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Randall, who, again, has great experience of the retail world, I take the issue of shop theft extremely seriously. Probably like him, I am one of the few people in the Chamber tonight who have apprehended a shoplifter and reported them to the police, along with the manager of the shop, and I have been present at the shop theft interview as part of my duties. It was shop theft then and it is shop theft now, and it should not be tolerated, whatever the level of that shop theft.
On the measures the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, brings forward, such as Amendment 216A, which seeks to enable deterrent actions by shopkeepers through the use of video or photographic evidence, it is important that we have evidence such as that supplied by CCTV. Widespread introduction and publication, which is one of the objectives of the noble Lord’s amendment, would meet the objectives of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. However, it would potentially impinge on the rights of individuals, who may or may not be guilty, and could well incite vigilante action and undermine the fundamental presumption of “innocent until proven guilty”. I have no objection to CCTV, but the noble Lord needs to be careful with that, which is the reason why I cannot support the amendment.
Before I move on to the noble Lord’s other amendments, let me say that I appreciated his support for Operation Opal. Retailers are able to refer cases of organised retail crime to Operation Opal, and the national police acquisitive crime intelligence unit then investigates. It is unnecessary to specify that in the legislation because it is an operational issue, but again, it shows the importance we place on the issue of shop theft.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I did not think my amendment was creating considerable extra powers of arrest for the security guards, but it seems that the current power largely mirrors a lot of things that I put in this amendment. My question then is, why are so many shops scared to use it? I appreciate that the retail unit or outlet has to determine whether they let the security guards arrest people, but there is certainly a fear among many security guards in this respect, and many shops say, “We can’t let you arrest people”. We must, somehow or other empower, them to do so.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
There is a genuine fear about what the response would be, and I understand that. The days when I—and potentially the noble Lord, Lord Randall—stopped a shop theft in a retail premises were a long time ago. The climate was different, and now there is the carrying of knives and the threat of violence. That might be a fear, and it is up to individual shops to determine their own policy. Clause 37, which deals with attacks on retail workers and will apply to a whole range of retail staff, adds an extra protection. It will be up to individual shops, but it is important that those two measures are seen as coterminous. Protection of retail staff in the event of shop theft and assault is a further measure to support action on shop theft. However, it is ultimately for individual stores to determine their policy.
The noble Lord also raised the issue of multiple thefts and planning for thefts. I find it objectionable to see criminal gangs organising mass hits on shops, but that is already a factor that aggravates the seriousness of the theft offence. If, therefore, there is evidence that multiple parties were involved in a theft, each of those parties could and should be charged with theft, as well as conspiracy to commit theft. The amendment would require the police to consider charging with conspiracy to commit theft if there is evidence that two more people are involved. I know that the noble Lord knows I am going to say this, but it is for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to decide on relevant charges, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. I do not want to put on statute what charges the police or CPS should bring, but again, the potential is there should they wish to do so.
I will touch briefly on the sentencing aspects of the amendment. At present the maximum penalty for theft is seven years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty for robbery is life imprisonment. Conspiracy to commit theft or robbery has the same maximum penalty as the base offence. The effect of this amendment, therefore, would be to create a form of conspiracy to commit theft offence that would potentially have, if fewer than five people were acting together, a lower maximum penalty than theft or conspiracy to commit theft have now.
As we discussed previously, the amendment also introduces minimum sentences. I made it plain in our debates on Monday that minimum sentences are rare in law. Parliament has set them in statute only exceptionally. They are not appropriate in this instance. Sentencing guidelines for theft, which courts are required to follow unless it is not in the interests of justice to do so, already highlight when considering the culpability of an offender factors such as involvement of others through “coercion, intimidation or exploitation”. The issue of
“sophisticated nature of offence/significant planning”
is also relevant. The other aggravating factors that the court must consider include taking account of previous convictions.
Therefore, I cannot accept the noble Lord’s amendment, for my reasons and those that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, has mentioned. However, I do not want him to leave the Committee tonight thinking that this Government are not committed to tackling shop theft. We are, through the measures that we have taken and are encouraging police to take, through the measures in this Bill to change the definition of shop theft in Clause 39 and in providing protection for retail workers in Clause 37.
Shop theft is shop theft. It costs all of us resource on our bills. It costs businesses resource. It is money which should be invested in the local economy rather than going into the pockets of people who opportunistically, individually, for whatever reason—from poverty to organised criminal gangs, from drug abuse to alcohol abuse—commit shop theft in many of our stores. I want to make sure that we do all we can to reduce it and to provide deterrents to it. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, including my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge and, for his full support for my amendments, my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower.
The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said that if someone is stealing from their shop, shopkeepers do not have time to go through the video cameras to get the evidence. If a shopkeeper has someone stealing from their shop and cannot be bothered to look at the TV cameras to see the evidence for it, he cannot complain about shop theft. If he has the evidence, for goodness’ sake, he should use it. I do not think that the noble Baroness read my amendments on all the protections that I have built in for those who do want to arrest criminals. The Minister set out in his excellent speech all the powers of citizen’s arrest that a security guard or a shopkeeper can have, but the noble Baroness said that no one should have the power to arrest except a policeman who is properly trained. That is rather bizarre, to use a word that was used earlier about my amendments.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
The noble Lord is misinterpreting what I said. I did not say that it was not possible to look at CCTV coverage. I said that if you are a small shopkeeper and the shop is being run by one or two people, you are not going to sit there and do everything that the noble Lord has suggested in that amendment—date stamp things, take photographs, make sure that everything is absolutely hunky-dory, that it is handed over in a file. That is just pie in the sky. It will not work. If the noble Lord is going to quote me, can he please quote me correctly?
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I said in my speech that I understood that small shops would have difficulty with this, but also that the people who steal from small shops in the main also steal from the big shops. If one can prevent them from stealing from the big shops and arrest them there, we will also bear down on the theft from the smaller shops. Of course, smaller shops have a more difficult problem, but it will not be solved by just putting more policemen on the beat.
Of course, the police have to prioritise. In London, in particular, they have to put terrorists at the top of the list, along with rape, murder and serious violence, so shop theft will inevitably be lower down. I was familiar with the Oxford Street experiment a few years ago; I do not know whether it is ongoing. There, the shops discovered that if one shop—say, Debenhams or Selfridges—phoned up and complained, it was no good. If they co-operated among themselves, they could get enough evidence together to justify the Met then coming along and grabbing some people who were working in a concerted effort to steal from their shops. They also discovered that, if they gave the police a gift-wrapped package of good evidential material, then the police would take it seriously. That is the key message here. It is bogus to suggest that just having more police will deal with this problem.
I liked what the Minister said. I have no criticism whatever of the Government on this. We are on the same side. I liked his strong words that this is not shoplifting, it is theft. I also liked his saying that we must make it easier for the shops to report crime, and that is what I have been suggesting. He did not support publication of photographs; I understand his nervousness there. However, I hope he does support the co-operation between shops and others to share all the photographs they have internally between their own security staff and the shops, and possibly any police liaison units, so that they can develop a full picture of what is going on. That makes it easier as the guys move from one shop on Oxford Street to somewhere else; they can move in and grab them in the act.
I am sorry that I suggested lower penalties. I am not sure that I am getting soft in my old age; I did not intend to lower penalties at all. Of course, even with the maximum the Minister has suggested, this will still be halved when the person is sent to prison. All penalties are halved. Again, I take the view that there is no harm having minimum sentences for this.
As I say, I am grateful for the words of the Minister. We cannot stop here. I am not sure that we can come back to this on Report, but we have constantly to bear down on shop theft. It is completely out of control. It has been getting out of control for many years. All Governments keep nibbling away at it, but we are not managing to crack down on it. I hope that, over the next few years, we will look at all aspects of trying to deal with this. If some of the ideas in my proposed three new clauses were considered workable, I would have no qualms with the Government grabbing them and implementing further measures. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment defines “the relevant part” of the United Kingdom for the purposes of this clause and Clause 41 as the part of the United Kingdom in which the person aged 18 or over engages in conduct towards or in respect of a child.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, the government amendments to the child criminal exploitation offence in Clauses 40 and 41 are intended to provide legal certainty and further tighten the grip of the law against those who seek to draw children into criminality.
At the request of the Scottish Government and Northern Ireland Department of Justice, the child criminal exploitation offence was extended UK-wide in the other place. As the offence is committed where an adult intentionally takes action to cause a child to commit criminal conduct, it is now necessary to provide further clarification about where the child’s conduct must be criminal. This is owing to the fact that the criminal law is devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and a child’s conduct that is criminal in one may not be criminalised in another.
Perpetrators who exploit children for criminal purposes do not care about the UK’s internal borders, so it is right that we ensure that this new offence prevents them from taking advantage of them. Government Amendments 217, 220, 221 and 223 to 230 ensure that it does not matter whether the intended conduct of the child is criminal in the part of the UK where the adult is acting to exploit them or the part of the UK where they intend the child to act. If it is criminal in either one, the perpetrator can be prosecuted. If it is not criminal in either one, the offence is not committed.
Amendment 231 puts beyond doubt that a perpetrator commits the child criminal exploitation offence where the child they have exploited is under the age of criminal responsibility. Even though a child under 10 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, or under 12 in Scotland, cannot technically commit an offence or be prosecuted for it, they can still be exploited, and it is right that this offence says so clearly and explicitly on the face of the Bill.
Amendments 487, 493 and 510 make consequential amendments to the general provisions at the back of the Bill. Together, these amendments demonstrate the Government’s unwavering commitment to leave no space for perpetrators who target children for criminal purposes to expose loopholes or to escape to.
There are a series of other amendments in this group; the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, have Amendments 218, 219, 222 and 222A. I want to listen to what noble Lords say and will respond to any comments on those amendments at the end of my comments. I beg to move.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group, as the Minister has explained, are about child criminal exploitation. This is something that, quite honestly, when I started my career, we did not think of—it is something that I think we all became aware of in the last decade, particularly during Covid. I declare my interest as having worked with Action for Children and its previous iteration, National Children’s Home, for many years—most of my life, really. I was in its governance for 10 years and have been a long-term ambassador ever since.
Action for Children has worked with a number of children who have been criminally exploited. Some of them we would talk to when they had been picked up during Covid, for example, and exploited by being made to carry drugs and move them around the country. The threat that they and their families are frequently under is unbelievable and harmful to them, their future and family cohesion. Even where I lived in County Durham, where the police used to say we were among the safest in the country at one stage, the grandson of some friends of mine, who was bored and had been left just playing on his computer, went into the small town and met up with his mates, but they were spotted and the exploiters got them involved in drugs. The result was massive mental health problems and lots of suicide attempts. The family have worked and are still working to try to bring some reality back to their lives, make them safe and enable them to continue to grow, learn and develop. I cannot tell your Lordships how excruciating the life of the family has been. I know this is an important issue, and I am relieved that the Government are looking at it and seeking to address it in the Bill.
It is important that the Government are introducing a new criminal offence of criminally exploiting a child, along with other measures, to deal with those perpetrators. That is a positive move that has my full support. However, Action for Children thinks that there needs to be a means of protecting the child victim, whatever happens to the perpetrator—because sometimes it is difficult to find and catch the perpetrator. One of my later amendments deals with introducing another measure to protect the child even more, but I shall deal with the amendments in this group first.
Amendment 218 simply tries to be clearer about what is involved in the exploitation of children in these circumstances. I just want to make sure that all of us recognise that this is something that police forces are only just now coming to terms with handling. In the past, they have not had to think of the child as both a perpetrator and a victim. How do they do something totally outside their normal activity? Instead of simply treating the child as a perpetrator of a crime, they can now recognise that that crime has come about because of the manner of the exploitation of the child. Because this is new, and because police forces and others in the criminal justice system have not dealt with this sort of thing for very long and are really not sure how to handle it, we thought that it would be useful for Parliament to discuss it and consider putting more detail about what has happened to the child in the Bill. That is what this amendment is, and I would be interested to know what others and the Minister think. Being more specific, I recognise there are problems with that in any legislation, but I also think that, because this is so new in many senses in the criminal law, we really need to be a bit more forthright in how we describe what can happen.
Amendment 219 really relates to the fact that, as the Bill stands, a child would need to be coerced into criminal actions, but very often the actions of the child may not in themselves, if you just saw the instance, be criminal. For example, they may have been asked to carry money—but actually that is exploiting them and leading them into danger, which will have subsequent consequences. Again, it is very difficult to work out how you handle people. This is simply about trying to make sure that even if the act, such as holding or carrying money, is not in itself illegal, it is none the less part of the exploitation that makes the life of the child virtually impossible because of the threats around whether they carry the money and whether the offender gets the consequences of the child carrying the money in the way they want. That then becomes very serious for the child, even if the act itself was not illegal. This amendment will make it clear that an action that supports or facilitates criminal activity, while not being a crime itself, should none the less be taken into account. I think that would be helpful to the police, prosecutors and the courts as well.
Amendment 222 is just about how we determine that a child is 18 or not. There is a lot of debate on that in a series of areas of work at the moment, many of which my noble friend on the Front Bench will be pleased he does not have to deal with. Well, I suppose he does have to yes, in the Home Office. There is a big debate around migrants: how do we actually know how old the child is?
This amendment has been tabled because we are concerned that there would be a defence in the Bill that the perpetrator thought the child looked 18. We must think about that, because we need to know that children are children until they are 18 and that young people are still exploitable. We have to take account of this and say, “That is wrong, and you cannot do it”. Simply saying “I thought they were 18” is not a good enough excuse. I know so many young people who are leaving care at around that age. Criminals may believe that it is okay to exploit them, because yesterday was their 18th birthday, and they are now out of the foster care or children’s home that they had been in. That happens, and it is unacceptable not to think about it, at least, when we are looking at this provision. We need to understand what this order is about, and what we can do to make sure that we more effectively protect children than we have been able to do in the past.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 222 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, which she has so ably explained. All the amendments in this group seem to be a good idea. I also acknowledge the help of the Children’s Commissioner and the children’s coalition.
This is a very simple amendment: there is a concern that the offence of child-criminal exploitation, as written in the Bill, gives the perpetrator a defence if he or she reasonably believes that the child is over 18. We understand that this is a common part of legislation around other forms of abuse and exploitation; we believe that it will hinder the prosecution of perpetrators. During the Jay review into child criminal exploitation, many witnesses pointed to the role of adultification and racism in the criminalisation of children. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 is clear that children cannot consent to their own exploitation. However, the Jay review found that perceptions of children’s complicity in their exploitation meant that some groups of children, and black boys in particular, were not receiving an adequate safeguarding response. We strongly recommend that this part of Clause 40 is removed. It is a small piece of text that would have a profound effect on young victims.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I was happy to put my name to Amendments 218, 219 and 222. The Minister mentioned that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has Amendment 222A. She apologises for not being here this evening, but said that she thought that the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, were so much better than her own, that she would not move them anyway—so that deals with that.
I am a governor of Coram, and used to be a trustee there. Coram is very involved in some of the activities that we are talking about. The Jay review is like a gut punch to the stomach. I had heard of it; I had not actually read it, but did so last night, and did not have a particularly undisturbed night’s sleep. What it contains is pretty horrifying.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches we welcome the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, which strengthen and clarify key issues. Amendment 218 from the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, would define how children are affected by child criminal exploitation. This should help police and reduce the chances of inconsistent decisions. It is necessary because, as seen with other crimes where the police or CPS have latitude to define such matters, it often works to the detriment of the child or young person.
Amendment 219 is equally helpful. It would make provision for the occasion when a child has committed something that may not be illegal, but which might lead them into future criminal behaviour. The way that child criminal exploitation works is often very similar to grooming. Without support and education, a child or young person may end up in trouble.
Amendment 222 from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and recommended by the Children’s Commissioner, clarifies that a perpetrator of child criminal exploitation does not have to believe that the child or young person was under 18. This makes sense as Clause 40 currently provides an easy get-out for perpetrators to say, “But I thought they were 18”. The Joe Dix Foundation welcomes this new stand-alone offence but has also called for a national register for all perpetrators who are convicted of child criminal exploitation. Can I ask the Minister whether this is something the Government might consider?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate. The group largely seeks to clarify the Bill as it stands and that is important when we are addressing child exploitation. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, for the amendments tabled in his name. I know we may not always see eye to eye at the Dispatch Box, but I can wholly support the principle behind his amendments in this group.
It may seem like semantics to clarify that offences may differ in different parts of the United Kingdom, but it is an important point. We must ensure that the legislation allows crimes to be prosecuted only where they are crimes. His Amendments 217 and 220, and the many consequential amendments, aim to ensure that this is the case. Similarly, his Amendments 487 and 493 extend the devolutionary power to make regulations for the area of child criminal exploitation. It is right that this is consistent. Those who create the laws should have the legislative right to make provisions within their remit.
We also broadly support the principles behind the other amendments in this group, which aim to give more protections to children. Amendments 218 and 219, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, seek further to define what constitutes child criminal exploitation and extend the provisions to actions that may support criminal activity while not being criminal themselves.
Amendments 222 and 222A aim to narrow the scope of reasonable excuses that offenders can give when claiming to believe that the child was over the age of 18. The sentiment behind these amendments is a noble one. Whether the adult believed they were a child is largely inconsequential to the exploited child. Therefore, if the adult is not to be prosecuted, the court must be absolutely certain that they did not believe the child was under 18. That being said, I am slightly wary of completely disapplying reasonable excuse as a defence. It would take away the opportunity of defence in the very rare cases where the adult had a genuine and proven reason to believe the child was an adult. As I say, this is very rare, and it is still criminal exploitation, but we must still account for it.
Overall, this group is sensible, procedural and necessary; I therefore offer my support to the Minister’s intentions.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top for their amendments, and to the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for putting his name to them and for his supportive comments.
Before I lose the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, about a national register, I will just say that the Police National Computer and the child criminal exploitation prevention orders can impose notification requirements on persons subject to orders requiring them to inform the local police of their name and address. I had that on my phone before I peered at my notes, and I did not want to lose that point.
I will start by welcoming Clause 40. It is a positive, forward-looking clause that will help support the reduction of child exploitation. I am grateful for the amendments that have been tabled, and I am also grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for the amendments I have tabled.
Amendment 218, tabled by my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, would require that, for the child criminal exploitation offence to have been committed, the perpetrator had used
“threats, physical force, intimidation, persuasion or any other means”
against the child. In doing so, my noble friend seeks to illustrate the ways in which children can be criminally exploited. However, I put it to her that, in specifying the required means by which an adult gets a child to commit criminal conduct, the way in which the amendment is phased risks narrowing the application of the offence, because the prosecution would have to additionally prove those means of exploitation took place. Currently, the child criminal exploitation offence does not require proof that the child was subjected to threats, physical force, intimidation or any other harmful ways in which the child’s compliance was obtained by their exploiter. This is because, as a Government, we are very clear that children cannot consent to their own exploitation, so the offence could be committed regardless of whether and how the child was compelled to engage in the intended criminal activity.
Although my noble friend’s amendment includes the words “any other means”, which mitigates against any narrowing of the scope of the offence, I do not consider it necessary to include an illustrative, non-exhaustive list in this way. It would cause courts potentially to wonder about its purpose as a legal test and may have the unintended consequence of limiting the circumstances in which the child exploitation offence may be made out. I want my noble friend to think about that. I suggest to her that the prosecution wants to get the best case, and, by accepting her amendment, we might end up narrowing the potential success of legislating against this offence.
My noble friend also tabled Amendment 219, which would more specifically capture adults who intend to cause a child
“to engage in actions that support or facilitate”
crime. My noble friend indicated in her speech that the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the offence of child exploitation also includes causing a child to commit an action which, while not itself illegal, can lead to future criminal behaviour. We have looked at this amendment in some detail, but I consider the objective is already met by subsection (1)(a)(iii) of the clause, which captures where the adult does something to the child now to facilitate or make it easier to cause the child to commit a criminal act in the future—the noble Baroness can find this on page 59 of the Bill as currently drafted. I hope she will look at that and reflect on it as part of these discussions, before any further discussion takes place on Report.
Furthermore, actions that support or facilitate crime may already amount to an offence, such as the offence under the Serious Crime Act 2007. Where an adult intentionally causes a child to commit an offence, the child criminal exploitation offence may be committed.
I am grateful for the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, in support of his Amendment 222. This amendment seeks to remove the requirement that, for the child criminal exploitation offence to be committed, it must be proved that the defendant does not reasonably believe that the victim is aged 18 or over. My noble friend Lady Armstrong mentioned the issue of migrants—we are currently examining facial recognition issues in relation to migrants, and we had a discussion about that in the other Bill that I am taking through the House at this moment on immigration very recently. But she makes a very important point. I sympathise with the noble Lord’s desire to ensure that all adults who target children to draw them into crime can be caught by this offence, but that is precisely why the reasonable belief test is important—to ensure that perpetrators who deliberately and intentionally target children to commit crime are correctly identified and prosecuted. If there was no requirement to prove a lack of reasonable belief that the alleged victim was a child, it would risk criminalising people as exploiters of children who genuinely did not intend or contemplate involving a minor in criminality.
We must remember that the child criminal exploitation offence requires no proof of harmful behaviours against the child, such as coercion, force or threats. This goes back to the first point that I mentioned in response to my noble friend’s first amendment. It is committed simply when an adult engages in any contact or conduct towards or in respect of a child intending to cause them to commit a crime. The exploitative nature of this offence is the imbalance of power, which is exercised by an adult in deliberately and purposely seeking to involve a child in crime. Where that is not a factor in a case, as demonstrated by what they believed about the child’s age, there are other more appropriate offences that might be charged. For example, where a person encourages or assists someone to commit an offence regardless of their age, there is already an offence under the Serious Crime Act 2007.
Again, I welcome the discussion that we have had this evening, I welcome the contribution of Action for Children, and I welcome the discussion that we have had from the Children’s Commissioner for England, who called for this amendment due to concerns that perpetrators will seek to take advantage of considerations around the reasonable belief of age to undermine the credibility of victims and potentially escape prosecution. I welcome those contributions to the debate. I want to give them, with my colleagues in the Home Office, serious consideration. However, I make the point to the noble Lord that at the moment we do not consider reasonable belief of age to be a loophole, as is suggested—and in support of that I make a number of points.
First, there is a test of reasonable belief that does not necessarily require that the defendants have specific knowledge about the victim’s age, which would be a higher burden. Secondly, a perpetrator’s claim as to their belief alone will not be enough to escape prosecution, as prosecutors can and, I hope, would establish either that they did not believe the victim was 18 or, even if they did, that that belief was not reasonable. Thirdly, it only applies to children aged 13 to 17, not the most vulnerable children aged under 13. Finally, it follows established precedent in other offences, where the core offending relates to an adult’s conduct towards a child—for example, to child sexual exploitation offences in the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for referring to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, on Amendment 222A—she is not here today. It is commendable that someone has looked at other amendments and decided not to move their own; it is a very un-egotistical way of approaching this business.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Russell, says “Cross-Bench”. I will take that as a bonus point for the Cross Benches. It is a noble approach to take towards the amendment. So I will not deliberate on those points as I would potentially have done, but I ask the noble Lord simply to pass on my thanks to the noble Baroness for her self-awareness on that issue, which is commendable.
I hope that, with those comments, my noble friend and other noble Lords will not press their amendments, will reflect on what I have said and, if need be, will consider this outside the Committee. I commend the amendments in my name to the Committee.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends sub-paragraph (ii) so that it covers the child doing anything outside the relevant part of the United Kingdom, if the child doing that thing in that relevant part would constitute an offence.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends sub-paragraph (iii) so that it covers facilitating the causing of the child to do anything outside the relevant part of the United Kingdom, if the child doing that thing in that relevant part would constitute an offence.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(1A) In subsection (1)(a) “offence” means an offence under the law of a part of the United Kingdom.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that in subsection (1)(a), references to an offence are to an offence under the law of a part of the United Kingdom.
“(c) a reference to a “part” of the United Kingdom is to—(i) England and Wales,(ii) Scotland, or(iii) Northern Ireland.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the definition of “offence” (in consequence of my amendment of this clause at page 60, line 3) and defines “part” of the United Kingdom for the purposes of this clause and Clause 41.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 40 at page 59, line 31.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 40 at page 59, line 31.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 40 at page 59, line 31.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 40 at page 59, line 35.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 40 at page 59, line 35.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is partly a drafting change, and partly consequential on my amendments of Clause 40 at page 59, lines 31 and 35.
“(7) In this section—(a) a reference to a child doing an act which would amount to the commission of an offence includes the child doing an act which would amount to the commission of the offence if the child were aged 10 or over (or, in Scotland, were aged 12 or over);(b) a reference to a child doing an act which, if done in a part of the United Kingdom, would amount to the commission of an offence includes the child doing an act which would amount to the commission of the offence if (in addition to it being done in that part of the United Kingdom) the child were aged 10 or over (or, in Scotland, were aged 12 or over).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that an adult may commit an offence under clause 40 (child criminal exploitation) in respect of a child who is under the age of criminal responsibility.
Lord Hampton
“Meaning of exploitation: modern slavery(1) Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (meaning of exploitation) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (6) insert—“(7) Something is done to or in respect of the person which involves the commission of an offence under section 40 of the Crime and Policing Act 2025 (child criminal exploitation).”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause seeks to ensure criminally exploited children continue to be identified under the modern slavery framework.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 232 is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I admit that I am using an old amendment list, so some other people might also have added their names, and I apologise if I have missed them.
My proposed new clause amends Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to explicitly include child criminal exploitation within the definition of “exploitation”, aligning it with new provisions in the Crime and Policing Bill. Clause 40 of the Bill creates a new offence of child criminal exploitation. The offence rightly focuses on the prosecution of perpetrators. It is vital that we do not lose sight of the child victims of criminal exploitation. We must ensure that there is a consistent definition that can be used to identify children formally, so that every child gets the support they need to escape this abuse.
This amendment is also essential to close a serious legal gap that leaves criminally exploited children at risk of prosecution rather than protection. Without corresponding changes to the Modern Slavery Act 2015, legal protections remain inconsistent and inadequate. Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which provides a statutory defence for victims of exploitation, does not currently cover criminal exploitation explicitly. This leads to inconsistent application across the criminal justice system. Evidence from the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner and ECPAT UK shows that police and prosecutors frequently struggle to apply the existing statutory defence to children exploited into criminal activity.
Children often continue to be treated as perpetrators rather than victims, despite clear indicators of exploitation for criminality. In 2024 alone, over 2,891 children were referred to the national referral mechanism as potential child victims of criminal exploitation. Yet many of these children still end up in courtrooms, not safeguarding systems. Young people exploited for criminality are particularly vulnerable to being prosecuted for offences committed as a result of their exploitation. This undermines the UK’s obligations under international law, including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings, which requires states to facilitate the non-prosecution of trafficked children for offences committed as a result of the exploitation.
Including child criminal exploitation within the definition of exploitation in the Modern Slavery Act is essential to ensure that children are formally recognised as victims under the UK’s framework for identification, allowing them to access the full range of protections and entitlements under the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, including specialist support.
We have the opportunity to fix this now by ensuring that legal definitions and protections are harmonised. Without this amendment, we risk embedding a two-tier system which recognises exploitation in theory but fails to protect child victims in practice. Clear, consistent legislation will empower professionals to intervene earlier, prevent inappropriate prosecutions and ensure that exploited children receive the safeguarding support they need. This is a targeted, evidence-led amendment that strengthens the Bill and ensures that our legal framework reflects both the reality of child exploitation and our responsibility to protect those at most at risk. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, Amendments 232A and 262A are in my name. I have also signed Amendment 232, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and Amendment 263, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has given an excellent explanation of his amendment, so I will just say that I agree with him.
Both my amendments provide a defence for victims of child criminal exploitation and cuckooing who are coerced into committing offences. Both amendments have a simple purpose: to ensure that victims of exploitation are not treated as criminals for acts they were compelled to commit. The amendments are supported by academics and charities such as the Children’s Society.
The Bill, as it comes before the House, creates two new offences in Clause 56: child criminal exploitation and cuckooing. These are important steps. They recognise forms of exploitation that front-line workers, police officers and charities have been grappling with for years. However, the Bill currently does only half the job. It recognises the exploitation, but not the victim. Unlike the long-established offences of modern slavery and human trafficking, these new offences do not come with a bespoke defence for victims who commit unlawful acts as a direct result of their exploitation. Unless a victim can prove duress—a notoriously high bar—their only option is to argue that what happened to them also amounted to slavery, servitude, forced labour or trafficking under the Modern Slavery Act. That is a legal contortion, and it is simply impossible for many victims.
It leads to outcomes that I do not believe this House would wish to endorse. For example, a child forced by older criminals to store drugs or weapons, a young person threatened into carrying out low-level offending under fear of violence, or someone whose home has been taken over by a gang who is then compelled to assist in their criminal activities would all be vulnerable to finding themselves before a court, even though their exploiters are the ones truly at fault.
We have been here before. When Parliament passed the Modern Slavery Act in 2015, we accepted, rightly, that victims sometimes commit offences because they see no realistic alternative. Section 45 of that Act created a defence for those victims, carefully limited, and subject to important exclusions. It has not opened any floodgates. It has provided protection only where the courts are satisfied that the offence was the direct consequence of the exploitation, and that a reasonable person in the same situation and with the same relevant characteristics would have acted in the same way.
These amendments have the aim of applying the same principle to the new offences that we are creating today. The amendment on child criminal exploitation mirrors the structure of Section 45. It would not excuse all behaviour and would not allow serious offences listed in Schedule 4. It would apply only where the prosecution cannot disprove that the child acted because they were compelled to do so, that the compulsion arose directly from their exploitation and that a reasonable child of the same age, sex and vulnerabilities would have seen no realistic alternative. In other words, this is a defence grounded in both common sense and compassion.
The same is true of the amendment concerning victims of cuckooing. Anyone familiar with this phenomenon—and many police forces now are—knows that victims have often been threatened, groomed, manipulated or assaulted. They may be obliged to let their home be used for criminal activity, and they may then be forced to play a role within that activity. The amendment would make clear that, where the compulsion arises directly from the cuckooing, those victims should not be criminalised for acts they were compelled to perform.
These defences would not apply in most cases. They would apply only when the court is satisfied that the offending was the direct result of the exploiter’s conduct, not incidental. They offer a fair and proportionate safeguard. They would also prevent the injustice, indeed the absurdity, of Parliament recognising exploitation on the one hand, while punishing its victims on the other. When vulnerable children or exploited adults are used as tools by criminal networks, the criminal justice system should not compound their suffering by treating them as willing participants. These amendments would complete the logic of the Bill and would ensure that the law protects those who need protection most. I hope that the Minister will look at these amendments and see the validity of what I have explained.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I should start by declaring my interest in the register as the chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation, which probably these days should have changed its name to the Modern Slavery Foundation, because that is in fact what we are really dealing with. It was the late, great Lord Field of Birkenhead who first came up with the expression “modern slavery” and I think it is something we should have as a tribute to the late noble Lord, who was a fantastic Member of this and the other House.
I welcome the Government’s intention to address criminal exploitation through the child criminal exploitation offence and cuckooing offence and commend them for doing so; it is very important. However, the offences will not apply to the exploitation of vulnerable young adults over the age of 18 or with issues of cognitive impairment, as far as I can see. I am not a lawyer, as I explained in the last group; I have more skills on marking things down in a sale—and thank goodness we did not have Black Friday in my day.
This is a probing amendment. I believe—I have the figure here—that, in 2024, 774 young adults aged 18 to 24 were referred to the national referral mechanism for criminal exploitation, including alongside other forms of modern slavery, and that 65% of all victims referred were in that age group. As far as I can see, they are not covered and perhaps they should be. What I do not understand—I am very willing to be lectured and taught on this—is what happens if this criminal child exploitation has started for somebody at, say, the age of 15 and a half but does not come to light until they are 18 or 19, which could easily happen. Will they be treated in a different way? As I mentioned very briefly, there are obviously young adults who have cognitive impairment and who in effect—I am sure that this is not the correct expression—have the mental age of a child.
I fully support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones; I think the noble Baroness, Lady Jones also put her name to my amendment. I fully support them and I think that this should go into the Modern Slavery Act, for all the reasons that have been given. I would, however, like some clarification on what can be done about those young adults and where the law we are creating is going to put them.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate and to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for introducing this group. These amendments speak to deeply serious issues concerning child criminal exploitation and the protection and coercion of vulnerable people who are manipulated into criminality. The stories behind these legislative questions are tragic and demand considered and compassionate policy-making.
Amendment 232 from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, would ensure that children criminally exploited under Clause 40 continue to be identified within the modern slavery framework. The intention behind this amendment is clearly to safeguard exploited young people who are groomed and coerced into offending, and we on these Benches recognise the importance of ensuring that systems designed to protect victims do not inadvertently overlook those most in need of support. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response to this amendment.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this short but very important debate on the issues of child criminal exploitation and the interface with our modern slavery law. It is a vital issue on which I think all of us across the Committee wish to ensure we are taking coherent action.
Amendments 232 from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and Amendment 263 from the noble Lord, Lord Randall, seek to include child exploitation within the meaning of exploitation in Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Amendment 263 also seeks to add cuckooing and broader adult criminal exploitation to the meaning of exploitation under Section 3.
Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 already recognises the securing of services by use of threats, force or deception, and the use of children and vulnerable people to provide services and benefits. Such services and benefits may include criminal activity. Therefore, criminal exploitation is already captured by the broad terms of the existing modern slavery legislation. This is as good a point as any to pick up a specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, in moving his amendment about alignment with our international law obligations. I say to him that the Government are satisfied that the Modern Slavery Act 2015 adequately protects victims of modern slavery in line with our international law obligations. Exploited victims, including of child criminal exploitation, may benefit from the statutory defence under Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
I understand the noble Lord’s intentions in expanding the meaning of exploitation; that is, to ensure that victims of criminal exploitation are not prosecuted for offences committed as a result of their exploitation. The statutory defence in Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act, to which I just referred, is there to protect slavery and trafficking victims. Where a victim of criminal exploitation meets the definition of a victim of modern slavery or human trafficking, they may have access to the statutory defence, as they do now.
Similarly, Amendments 232 and 262A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, seek to provide a stand-alone defence for victims of child criminal exploitation and cuckooing who have committed offences as a result of their exploitation. Again, I appreciate the noble Baroness’s desire to protect victims of exploitation from prosecution, but we consider the Section 45 defence already provides the necessary protection. Furthermore, when victims of child criminal exploitation or cuckooing are aged under 18, these amendments would require evidence of compulsion, whereas the Section 45 defence does not require evidence that a child has been compelled to commit an offence, only that they have done so as a direct consequence of their exploitation. These amendments may therefore—I accept completely inadvertently—provide a more limited defence for victims of child criminal exploitation than is clearly the intention.
Beyond a statutory defence, whether to charge a person is an operational decision for police and prosecutors, who must consider the facts on a case-by-case basis. They will apply operational discretion and consider whether potential existing defences in the common law, such as duress, are relevant, or whether it is in the public interest to prosecute.
In speaking to his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Randall, raised the issue of why we are limiting the list of victims to children aged under 18 and talked about vulnerable adults and those with cognitive impairment, or those who pass the threshold into adulthood over the course of their exploitation. Let me try to address those points. The offence is aimed at stopping adults from exploiting children, and we consider this is justified because children require special treatment and protections from harm. Vulnerable adults would remain protected by existing offences, including under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The cuckooing offence would also seek to recognise the harm caused by the takeover of a person’s home for criminal purposes. This is often the home of a vulnerable person, such as an individual living with substance addiction or physical or mental disabilities. Cuckooing is a particularly insidious and harmful form of adult exploitation, which not only causes harm to the victim but often facilitates violence and exploitative forms of drug dealing, and drives anti-social behaviour in communities. I hope that gives the noble Lord some comfort.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
I apologise for not being clear on this. If, for example, there were two members of a family and they were victims of this offence, and one was 17 and one was 19, would there be discrimination in how they were dealt with?
Lord Katz (Lab)
Like the noble Lord, I am not a lawyer and I do not have his fantastic experience in the retail sector as an alternative. But to be clear, as I understand it, we have to draw a line somewhere, so there would be a differentiation in what protection was available under which bits of the Modern Slavery Act, or the new offences, depending on whether they were 17 or 19. We are trying to make it clear that we consider that there are alternative protections for those over the age of 18. In child criminal exploitation, we draw the line of childhood as being under 18 in these cases, and the focus of that is usually children well under the age of 18. The point is taken that at any discrete boundary there will be some cliff-edge consequences, but we consider that vulnerable adults would remain protected by existing offences, including under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The whole point of the cuckooing offence is that it is about taking over a person’s home for criminal purposes, and often that could be a vulnerable person, most probably a vulnerable adult, whether through existing mental health issues, substance addiction, or whatever. I hope that has clarified the matter to an extent at least.
It is probably worth stressing before I conclude that, in trying to give the offences we are introducing in the Bill as great a utility as possible, there will be guidance for prosecutors stating that, where a suspect is a potential victim of modern slavery, in so far as is possible, a charging decision should not be made until a trafficking decision has been taken. This protects potential victims of modern slavery and human trafficking from being charged and prosecuted until it has been determined whether they are a victim.
We are working with criminal justice partners, as outlined in the modern slavery action plan, to develop a national framework for the investigation of modern slavery. This will include guidance for front-line officers on the Section 45 defence to support the early identification of potential victims of modern slavery and prevent criminal proceedings from being brought against victims.
It is intended that guidance on the potential availability of the Section 45 defence under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 for victims of child criminal exploitation will be included in the statutory guidance which will accompany the new offence. In so far as we are able, we will try to give a good framework, through guidance, as to the order in which decisions around charging should be taken, to avoid some of the consequences we have been discussing in the debate on this group of amendments.
As I said at the start of my remarks, we are all coming at this from the right place, with the right motivation. I welcome the fact that everyone who has spoken has welcomed the Government’s intention to create the new offences around child criminal exploitation and cuckooing; these are gaps we need to fill in the statute book. However, these amendments are not necessary, and nor are they the right approach. We want to avoid the unintended consequences they might well bring. Therefore, I hope, in light of this explanation, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, in my introduction I failed to acknowledge the help of the Children’s Society in their facts.
I, too, thank noble Lords who took part in this very important and fairly short debate. I trust the Minister, but the legal issues he was talking about were way over my head, so I might go and look at Hansard, get a bit of advice and maybe come back to this on Report. However, at this point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.