Child Sexual Offender Data

Debate between Esther McVey and Iain Duncan Smith

Monday 1st June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for moving the motion, and I thank the many people who signed the petition, including 435 from my constituency, who helped to secure this important debate.

Although I welcome it, it is deeply disappointing that such a debate is needed. We are here only because of the outcry from the public, who are outraged that the Government and public institutions continue to shy away from questions of ethnicity, immigration status and religion. Baroness Casey’s “National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse” reported in June last year, and concluded that catastrophic systemic failures and institutional inaction had allowed grooming gangs to operate freely for many years. Recommendation 4 rightly stated that the Government should mandate

“the collection of ethnicity and nationality data for all suspects in child sexual abuse”.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I just want to point out a clear example of why this is necessary. In 2022, the Home Office asked police forces to collect ethnicity and other data to have a display of evidence. Out of 43 forces, only one complied. That is why it must be statutory and enforced; does my right hon. Friend not agree?

[Esther McVey]

That is shameful. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend brought that up; that is why it is essential that today’s debate rectifies that situation.

Missing from Baroness Casey’s recommendations was the vital need for data collection on religion and immigration status—factors that surely need to be understood so that if they are found to be related to higher offending rates, strategies for protecting children can be that much more targeted and effective. As Baroness Casey acknowledges in her audit, for too long the authorities have shied away from the ethnicity of people involved, and “blindness”, “ignorance” and “prejudice” led to repeated failures, over decades, to properly investigate cases.

If we had complete and consistent data, we would be able to answer more questions with greater accuracy. Are certain types of exploitation increasing? How are offenders operating? Are those from certain ethnic backgrounds more likely than others to commit certain sorts of crimes? If we understand what patterns exist, we can improve policing, bring more survivors the justice they deserve and stop these horrendous crimes happening again.

Other questions need to be answered, too. Why are institutions so adverse to collecting and reporting such data? The Jay report, published in 2014, documented a reluctance to discuss offender ethnicity openly. We know that the Labour-run councils of Rotherham—

Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Esther McVey and Iain Duncan Smith

Report stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am all in favour of public campaigns and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be a very good idea for people to know that what they were buying was illegal. I suspect many of them already do so. That notwithstanding, if such a campaign could be backed up by a penalty for selling illegal bikes in shops, that would be a far better way of dealing with it. Right now, lots of kids do not know that the bikes are illegal, and they go and take these things and they can pay for them, and that is where the danger comes from. We are shutting the door too late. These kids have gone on to the roads, they have created an accident and they have killed themselves. That is too late for us. What we need to do is get ahead of this and try to figure it out completely.

The final bit of this issue is the fact that people can change the monitors inside the boxes, even on the legal bikes, and lots of them do so. We see them going down the road at 30 mph, which is incredibly dangerous. I am a motorcyclist, I have to say, but Members should not go looking for the leather jacket; I left it at home.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Oh no!

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Don’t get excited—it’s not that great!

Motorcyclists have to be tested even more than car drivers. There are balancing tests and they have to know everything like that. This is absolutely critical, because it is a slightly more dangerous mode of transport—more exciting, yes, but more dangerous. Someone cannot buy a motorcycle in a shop and take it away unless they are able to show their licence and that they are qualified to ride that bike, and that really requires instruction, but people can buy e-bikes—these electric vehicles—without any sort of licence. It seems bizarre that that should be allowed. Even though we want people not to use petrol, diesel and all the rest of it because of the environment, this goes beyond that.