Director of Labour Market Enforcement Annual Strategy 2025-26

Jess Phillips Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

Alongside my hon Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment Rights, Competition and Markets (Justin Madders), I am publishing today the labour market enforcement annual strategy for 2025-26, submitted by the DLME Margaret Beels OBE. The strategy will be available on www.gov.uk.

The Director’s role was created by the Immigration Act 2016 to bring better focus and strategic co-ordination to the enforcement of labour market legislation by the three enforcement bodies which are responsible for state enforcement of specific employment rights:

The Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate (EAS);

His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs National Minimum and Living Wage enforcement team (HMRC NMW/NLW team); and

The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA).

Under Section 2 of The Act, the Director is required to prepare an annual labour market enforcement strategy, which assesses the scale and nature of non-compliance in the labour market and sets priorities for future enforcement by the three enforcement bodies and the allocation of resources needed to deliver those priorities. The annual strategy, once approved, is laid before Parliament.

The Director is a statutory office-holder independent from Government, but accountable to the Department for Business and Trade’s Secretary of State and the Home Secretary.

In line with the obligations under the Act, Margaret Beels submitted this strategy for 2025-26 on 31 March 2025.

This strategy continues from the 2024-25 strategy by reinforcing the same four themes to provide an assessment of the scale and nature of non-compliance: improving the radar picture; improving focus and effectiveness; engage and support; and better joined-up thinking. The strategy also notes sectors where the risk level has changed and assesses that agriculture, hand car washes, construction and adult social care are the highest risk sectors for non-compliance.

The strategy also includes an additional theme on the Fair Work Agency (FWA) and the opportunities arising from implementing the FWA.

The creation of the FWA is central to this Government’s mission to grow living standards in every part of the UK by the end of this Parliament. It will bring together, in one place, the labour market state enforcement functions and the strategic oversight role currently undertaken by the DLME. This will address current fragmentation and improve accountability and effectiveness. In doing so it will level the playing field for the vast majority of employers who do right by their workers and ensure that those who don’t no longer have the leeway to exploit their workers.

The Government will carefully examine the recommendations emerging both from the strategy and the accompanying engagement with stakeholders, and will take these into account in the formulation of detailed plans for the FWA, as well as ongoing policy development on tackling illegal working and labour market exploitation.

I thank the DLME for her strategy and in particular her commitment to supporting the creation of this important new body.

[HCWS863]

Identification of Victims of Modern Slavery: Call for Evidence

Jess Phillips Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

The national referral mechanism is the framework used in the UK to formally identify and support victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, in line with the UK’s legal obligations. Effective identification of victims of modern slavery in the UK is critical for ensuring that victims can be protected and provided with appropriate assistance and support towards their recovery from exploitation.

The Government are taking steps to improve this identification system, such as by recruiting new staff to reduce lengthy decision-making times, which has reduced the backlog to half the size it was at its peak. The Government have also updated the form used by first responders to refer potential victims of modern slavery into the NRM to make it easier to upload information and to include more trauma-informed language.

While progress has been made, the Government recognise the need to do more by designing an effective identification system that is fit for the future. That is why I am pleased to announce that the Government today are publishing a public call for evidence on identification of victims of modern slavery.

This was something that I committed to on 27 March 2025 in a House of Commons debate marking the 10th anniversary of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

The call for evidence focuses on definitions of a victim of modern slavery, identification and decision-making processes, and future-proofing the modern slavery system. A key aim is to strengthen the system, both now and for the future, ensuring that it effectively serves victims of modern slavery and is resilient to future changes.

The call for evidence on identification of victims of modern slavery—  https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/identification-of-victims-of-modern-slavery  —will run for a 12-week period and provides a valuable opportunity for the public and a wide range of groups with experience of the NRM to have their say, including victims and survivors of modern slavery, NGOs, police, local authorities and researchers.

A copy of the call for evidence will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on gov.uk.

[HCWS826]

Oral Answers to Questions

Jess Phillips Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

5. What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on protecting domestic abuse victims from the perpetrators of that abuse with whom they share a joint tenancy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

The Renters’ Rights Bill will allow individuals to end joint tenancies, supporting domestic abuse victims to leave their abuser if they share a home. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has announced a £30 million increase to the domestic abuse safe accommodation grant, raising the total funding in 2025-26 to £160 million.

[Alison Hume]

My constituent Molly is trapped in the house where she was violently attacked in front of her children. She is confined to living upstairs, because going into the room downstairs triggers her post-traumatic stress disorder. Despite the perpetrator of this abuse rightfully being in prison and having a restraining order of five years, Molly’s landlord has told her that they cannot take him off the lease, so she cannot move. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are taking steps to ensure that victims of domestic abuse, like Molly, can move on with their lives?

[Jess Phillips]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising Molly’s case—our hearts go out to her and her children for the trauma they are living with. Her case raises many issues, including the need for early intervention in domestic abuse cases, the need to improve therapeutic support for victims and, as my hon. Friend has said, the desperate need for reform of the rules around property rights in cases of economic and domestic abuse, so that women are not trapped. I cannot give my hon. Friend immediate answers on all those issues today, but I can promise that they will all be included in our upcoming strategy on violence against women and girls.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

While I have every sympathy with Molly and the millions of women who experience domestic abuse, according to the ManKind Initiative, one in five men are also victims of domestic abuse. My constituents Mark and Adam are victims of serial female abusers who engage in not only psychological, physical and financial abuse, but sexual abuse as well. What is being done to make sure there is space for men in refuges, and that there is training for police to ensure they believe these men? Often, they are burly chaps who have been in the Army, and people simply do not believe that they have been victims, which only compounds the problems they face.

[Jess Phillips]

We often refer to violence against women and girls, as the term refers to a group of crimes that are majoritively suffered by women at the hands of men, but of course men are also victims—both from other men and from women. The £30 million of extra funding that I mentioned in answer to the substantive question is for councils to provide accommodation in cases of domestic abuse under part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. Local areas should be looking at the needs in their area and acting accordingly.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

6. What recent assessment she has made of trends in the incidence of fraud.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

14. Whether she has had discussions with the Scottish Government on the national inquiry into grooming gangs.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

As the hon. Member will be aware, child protection and policing are devolved to the Scottish Government. We regularly engage with them on a range of issues, including the national inquiry into group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse that was announced by the Government. On 26 June, officials met to discuss the Government’s approach to the national inquiry, its remit and the expectation that relevant findings and lessons learned will be shared with the devolved Administrations, and we will continue to discuss this matter with our Scottish counterparts to ensure a comprehensive UK-wide response.

[John Lamont]

Senior Scottish advocate Sandra Brown has said that grooming gangs could be operating in every town and city in Scotland. This scandal affects the whole of the United Kingdom, so when will the Government extend the grooming gangs inquiry to Scotland? Surely all victims across all parts of the United Kingdom deserve justice.

[Jess Phillips]

Of course. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but he should take up that issue with the Scottish Government, as it is devolved. As I have said, we will make sure that all learning is passed on to the devolved Administrations.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

The comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) relate to the question of whether it will be a national inquiry, rather than a co-ordination of a few local inquiries. All the victims and survivors deserve justice, so can the Minister please confirm for us today that every town and city with a grooming and rape gang will be part of the inquiry, including and especially where local authorities may not wish to be part of it?

[Jess Phillips]

To the hon. Lady’s question, whether a local authority wishes to take part is not up for debate. The inquiry will be decided by the chair of the inquiry, as would happen in a statutory independent inquiry, and that work will go on. When we have inquiries, we have to make sure that we actually live by the recommendations of those inquiries. That is why I ask the hon. Lady why she voted against mandatory reporting and making grooming an aggravated factor—those were recommendations from the last inquiry—when she was asked to vote for them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

T8.   The nationally recognised BRAVE—Building Resilience and Valuing Emotions—programme supported adult survivors of domestic abuse in Berkshire, but after our Conservative police and crime commissioner cut its funding by 25%, the scheme was left unviable. Does the Minister share my deep disappointment about this cut?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

Yes, I do. I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the important work that BRAVE has done in Berkshire. Grassroots organisations are at the heart of work to support domestic abuse victims and the communities they live in. Tackling domestic abuse is at the heart of the Government’s mission and, I should hope, the mission of every police and crime commissioner.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

The Mercure hotel in Stanwell in my constituency is used to house asylum seekers, and I have had multiple reports of asylum seekers there working illegally. Will the Department please put that on immigration enforcement’s radar, so that it can take the appropriate action?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

T10. To what extent does the Minister agree that reform of the European convention on human rights, which can block us from deporting some foreign criminals, including paedophiles, should be a priority for the Government?

[Jess Phillips]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it should be for Parliament and the Government to decide who has a right to remain in our country. As set out in our immigration White Paper, we intend to clarify these issues and the application of article 8 rights in the UK.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Less than three weeks ago, the Home Secretary whipped her Back Benchers against new clause 43 to the Crime and Policing Bill, which had cross-party support and would have criminalised the harassment of women and girls. Her Ministers promised at the Dispatch Box and elsewhere that the new clause was not necessary because the matter would be dealt with in the violence against women and girls strategy, which was meant to come out before the recess. We now hear that it is not coming out before the recess. Did Ministers misspeak at the Dispatch Box, or are they incompetent?

[Jess Phillips]

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to read the National Audit Office’s report on the previous Government’s violence against women and girls strategy, he will see that the strategy was found totally wanting.

[Mike Martin]

What about your strategy?

[Jess Phillips]

I will come to it. It was also undeliverable and untested. I want to ensure that the violence against women and girls strategy that goes out in this Government’s name is the best it can possibly be.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

One of my constituents found that, despite taking precautions, their identity had been assumed, and their PIN for online banking was changed. That was repeated across other accounts, and thousands of pounds were stolen. What steps is the Department taking to combat sophisticated cyber-crime and ensure that, in particular, older constituents like mine remain protected?

Crime and Policing Bill

Jess Phillips Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Nick Timothy]

I do not know whether the Minister is allowed to intervene, but she would be welcome to do so. [Interruption.] She has been here longer than I have.

[Jess Phillips]

We did discuss whether or not I was allowed to intervene. I have been involved with cases of harassment and malicious communications involving antisemitism and anti-Jewish hatred. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that criticising Jewish people should be allowed?

[Nick Timothy]

No, I think the Minister has misunderstood my point. Actually, I was about to move on to a related issue, which is that hating people and discriminating against them on the basis that they are Muslims, or indeed members of different religious groups, is already a crime. If someone were harassing Jewish people in the way that the Minister has just described, that would be a criminal offence, even if my amendment passed. However, as I was saying, Islamophobia is a made-up and nonsensical concept that elides the protection of individuals from hatred with the protection of ideas and beliefs, and—in my view—is therefore completely unacceptable in principle.

Prostitution and Sex Trafficking: Demand

Jess Phillips Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) for securing the debate. The depth of her knowledge and passion about this issue was obvious as she spoke. The men she spoke of in her opening remarks, and the reviews that she read out—she could have read out some that were considerably worse, so the House may appreciate the editing—are utterly despicable. Those men disgust me in their attitude towards women generally, and the suggestion that they should be able to pay for somebody’s horror and then give them a bad review should not sit well with anyone.

Like my hon. Friend, I have a long-standing interest in these issues. I have worked for many years with women trafficked for sex, women sold into sexual slavery from childhood and women forced into sexual exploitation essentially through their circumstances. Today, I still very regularly meet such people. I met some women who were in that situation, or had been in it historically, just last week. We all want to be driven by their voices. I am deeply grateful to everyone who continues to advocate for action to tackle demand for prostitution and sex trafficking and for better support for victims and survivors to recover. The idea that people should be criminalised for it is something that worries us all.

Before I respond to some of the specific points, it is worth outlining that sexual exploitation can take different forms. The trafficking of individuals for sexual exploitation is modern slavery. The demand for sexual services is undoubtedly driving that horrific crime. The profit that criminals are making from that exploitation makes it even more sickening. For too long, women and vulnerable people have been trapped in sexual exploitation under the guise of prostitution. The daily abuse that they suffer is truly horrific, and my hon. Friend spoke to that.

Any individual who wants to leave prostitution, or who has been sexually exploited, must be given the opportunities to find routes out and to recover. Let us be clear about the scale of this problem; the nature of it makes it difficult to accurately estimate the numbers, but it is something that we have looked at. Research commissioned by the Home Office and conducted by the University of Bristol found that it is not possible to produce a single prevalence estimate for prostitution; however, it assessed a number of existing estimates made over the last 25 years, which range from 35,882 to 104,964 people.

We know that potential victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation make up a large proportion of referrals to the national referral mechanism, which is the framework for identifying and referring potential victims of modern slavery to appropriate support. The most recent statistics show that in 2024 sexual exploitation either partly or wholly accounted for 3,266, or 17%, of all referrals. Of those who are sexually exploited, the majority were female, at 79%. However, prosecutions under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 do not reflect that.

I am determined to see more trafficking offenders brought to justice. In my modern slavery action plan, I have set out actions we will take together with criminal justice system partners to improve criminal justice outcomes for all modern slavery offences, including the trafficking of individuals for sexual exploitation. Prostitution offences and modern slavery are complex and multifaceted crimes, which are often linked to other offending, and people are often victims of multiple elements. Because of that, we have a multifaceted approach, including the tackling violence against women and girls strategy, a commitment to halve violence against women and girls crimes within a decade, and our modern slavery action plan. We will continue to tackle the threat from all angles.

It is clear that much more must be done. We must go further to prevent sexual exploitation by supporting law enforcement to identify and prosecute exploiters and by disrupting the sexual exploitation that is facilitated by online platforms, as hon. Members have mentioned. More broadly, through Safer Streets, we have committed to halving violence against women and girls in a decade. That effort will be underpinned by the new VAWG strategy to be published this year. I do not want to step on its toes and say what will be in it, as it has not yet been published. I would also probably be fired if I did—actually, I do not think I would be. For the first time, adult sexual exploitation, and the proper understanding of it, will be reflected. As we develop the new strategy and work to tackle modern slavery, we are considering how to tackle the issues raised today and ensure that victims and survivors are supported to recover.

I suspect that everyone in this Chamber is aware of the ongoing debates about the legislative approaches that have been mentioned. I look forward to having further conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi)—I have already spoken to her many times about this—when the Crime and Policing Bill reaches Report stage next week. Anyone who has worked with me on such issues knows that my primary focus is on outcomes that improve lives.

I want to stress this clearly: legislation alone does nothing. It is illegal to commit domestic abuse—welcome to the world. Twenty-five per cent of referrals to the national referral mechanism come from children being forced into slavery for drug trafficking, but drugs are illegal. The idea that we can write something into legislation that, in and of itself, will solve this problem overnight is absolutely for the birds. The illegality of drugs has not stopped the trafficking of children for drugs in our country, so we have to look at legislative models and at what will actually work. I am only interested in actual outcomes.

As the Minister, I will use every lever available to me to clamp down on sexual exploitation. The Government’s position will be informed by the views of victims and survivors, the voluntary and community sector, which works directly with victims and survivors, the police and others.

In the time I have left, I want to talk about adult service websites. As Members are aware, the online space is a significant enabler of sexual exploitation, and our response needs to reflect that. Online platforms must be responsible and held accountable for the content on their sites, and must take proactive steps to prevent criminals from using their sites. We are implementing the Online Safety Act 2023, which sets out priority offences, including sexual exploitation and human trafficking offences. Online platforms now have a duty to assess the risk of illegal harms on their services. As of 17 March, they need to implement safety measures to protect users from illegal content, such as that set out in Ofcom’s codes of practice, or face significant penalties.

We are going further. Clause 13 of the Crime and Policing Bill will equip law enforcement with new tools to disrupt sexual exploitation that is facilitated through online platforms. Law enforcement will be able to apply to the courts for an order to suspend the IP and domain names for the specified period of up to 12 months when they are being used for serious crime, including offences relating to sexual exploitation—it will not take us very long to find one that is. We are in the foothills of this legislation being rolled out, but I look forward to some clear action being taken.

The Government are further supporting law enforcement to tackle the drivers of trafficking and sexual exploitation through operational activity aimed at tackling modern slavery threats and targeting prolific perpetrators. The Government will keep policies to tackle online enablers of sexual exploitation under review. We want to ensure online companies fulfil their duty to eradicate exploitation from their sites, and we will take further action to achieve that if necessary.

To those sites—those of us who have worked in this area know what they are—I say this. We are coming for you; the law is not on your side. You must be cleaned up or further regulation will have to come. We cannot have sites on which people can buy and sell human beings.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith for securing this debate, and I look forward to the debates that we will have as the legislation progresses.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jess Phillips Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

8. What steps her Department is taking to help tackle violence against women and girls.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

We are already taking significant steps to make sure that violence against women and girls is treated as the national emergency that it is. That includes launching our domestic abuse protection orders, and investing almost £20 million this year in specialist services for victims and in projects to help prevent VAWG and improve our response to it. Later this year, we will publish our cross-Government VAWG strategy, which will set out our long-term plan to tackle the crisis.

[Joe Morris]

For some families of victims, further review of release decisions can provide some solace, but it cannot do so for my constituent Doreen Soulsby. Her daughter’s murderer was released before the Victims and Courts Bill passed through this place. Will the Minister meet Doreen and me to discuss clause 61 of the Bill and the release of life prisoners?

[Jess Phillips]

Yes, of course. As my hon. Friend knows, I have had a strong bond with Doreen for many years. Of course I would be delighted to meet him and her.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

Research undertaken by Women for Refugee Women has found that banning work for women seeking asylum leads many women, sadly, to stay in unwanted and abusive relationships. Will the Minister consider lifting the ban on asylum seekers working, and will she specifically include women seeking asylum in the Government’s upcoming strategy to tackle violence against women and girls?

[Jess Phillips]

It is well beyond my remit as safeguarding Minister to make asylum policy, but I can absolutely guarantee the hon. Lady that migrant women and their experiences will be part of the violence against women and girls strategy; this issue has received some of the money from the recent uplift in victim services. Working together with by-and-for services across the country, we will always take account of the experiences of all women and girls in our country.

[Mr Speaker]

I call shadow Minister Katie Lam.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

On 28 April, the Minister was clear with this House that the framework for local grooming gang inquiries and Baroness Casey’s audit would both be published in May. It is now June. Presumably there is a new timeline for publishing them, so will the Minister share it with us, please?

[Jess Phillips]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question and I apologise for the month’s wait. I waited 14 years for anyone to do anything. Baroness Casey has requested a short extension to her work from the Home Secretary, and the Home Secretary has informed the Home Affairs Committee of this. We expect the report very shortly, and when we have it, the Government will respond to it, and will lay out their plans with all the evidence in hand.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

9. What steps her Department is taking to help tackle knife crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

12. If she will establish a national statutory inquiry into rape gangs.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

Child sexual exploitation and abuse are the most horrific crimes, and the Government are taking decisive action to ensure that victims and survivors of grooming gangs get the justice that they deserve. We are delivering on the key recommendations of the seven-year independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, including the recommendation on mandatory reporting; we have asked all police forces in England and Wales to review historical cases in which no further action was taken, and to reopen investigations; and we have commissioned Baroness Louise Casey to conduct a national audit of the nature and scale of grooming gangs and this offending in this country. We will leave no stone unturned in the pursuit of truth and justice.

[Graham Stuart]

Senior figures in the Catholic Church and the Church of England were found to have conspired to cover up child abuse by priests. Senior figures in the Labour party are now opposing local inquiries in places such as Bradford, London and Wales, and Ministers here oppose a national rape inquiry. We have also heard from a former Labour Member of Parliament, Simon Danczuk, that he was told not to raise the issue of the ethnicity of some of the perpetrators. When will Labour put aside its electoral interests and stand on the side of the abused?

[Jess Phillips]

The idea that I or the Prime Minister have ever put anything other than the interests of the victims of grooming gangs at the heart of everything that we have ever worked for is, frankly, for the birds. We have increased the number of arrests of the perpetrators that the right hon. Gentleman talks about. We will continue to pursue these violent, abusive, vicious abusers through the courts—through justice—and I will continue to take my counsel not from him but from the victims in this country.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

15. Whether her proposal to increase the standard qualifying period for settlement to 10 years would apply retrospectively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)]

At a recent roundtable on violence against women and girls hosted by the Mayor of West Yorkshire, we heard from local organisations that do outstanding work but are hampered by short-term funding, as well as from a brave survivor who shared her experiences. They specifically asked for the Government to commit to strategic investment. Will the Minister review contracts with the sector so they are multi-year and take a long-term view of service delivery and preventive work?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

My hon. Friend makes an important point that short-term funding massively hampers the sector. The vast majority of violence against women and girls funding comes from local authorities and, in fact, other Departments, but I will absolutely commit to looking at how the Home Office manages its contracts to ensure sustainability.

Crime and Policing Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Jess Phillips Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Vickers]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would introduce a new statutory offence of soliciting prostitution in exchange for rent by inserting proposed new section 52A into the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It would criminalise the act of causing, inciting or attempting to cause or incite someone to engage in prostitution in return for free accommodation or discounted rent. The clause makes this a hybrid offence: on summary conviction, the penalty is up to six months’ imprisonment or a fine; on indictment, it is up to seven years’ imprisonment. It would also allow for a banning order under the Housing and Planning Act 2016, preventing convicted offenders from acting as landlords.

The “sex for rent” arrangement—where landlords exchange accommodation for free or at a discount in return for sexual relations with tenants—is a problem that has become increasingly common for house hunters in England, particularly in London. In response to this emerging issue, the last Government launched a call for evidence, which closed in the summer of 2023. It sought views on relevant characteristics, circumstances and any additional protective or preventive measures that respondents considered necessary. Given the seriousness of the issue, it would be helpful to know whether the Government intend to publish the findings from this call for evidence, as some of the data could inform debates such as this one.

According to research by polling company YouGov carried out on behalf of the housing charity Shelter, nearly one in 50 women in England have been propositioned for sex for rent in the last five years, with 30,000 women offered such housing arrangements between March 2020 and January 2021. Many victims of sex-for-rent schemes feel trapped, ashamed or powerless to report the abuse due to their dependency on accommodation. By clearly defining this as a criminal offence and providing real consequences for offenders, including banning orders, this clause sends a strong message: exploitation through coercive housing arrangements will not be tolerated.

The charity National Ugly Mugs, an organisation that works towards ending all violence towards sex workers, gave the case study of a tenant who, during the pandemic facing financial hardship, was approached by her landlord with a proposal to reduce her rent and utility costs in exchange for sexual acts and explicit images. Unable to afford alternative accommodation at the time, she felt she had little choice but to agree. Since then, the landlord has regularly turned up at the property uninvited and intoxicated, demanding sex and refusing to leave. She has lived under the constant threat of eviction and homelessness if she does not comply with his demands. The new clause represents a crucial advance in safeguarding vulnerable individuals from exploitation within the housing sector. By explicitly criminalising the act of soliciting sexual services in exchange for accommodation, it addresses a significant gap in the current legal framework.

The new clause would not only reinforce the seriousness of such offences through stringent penalties, but would empower authorities to impose banning orders, thereby preventing convicted individuals from further exploiting their position as landlords. This measure would send a clear and unequivocal message that leveraging housing and security for sexual gain is a reprehensible abuse of power that will not be tolerated. It would underscore a commitment to protecting the dignity and rights of tenants, ensuring that all individuals have access to safe and respectful living conditions.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

New clause 41, tabled by the hon. Member for Stockton West, would make it an offence to provide free or discounted rent in exchange for sex. I reassure the hon. Member that the Government firmly believe that the exploitation and abuse that can occur through so-called sex-for-rent arrangements has no place in our society. However, we have existing offences that can and have been used to prosecute this practice, including causing or controlling prostitution for gain.

I know the hon. Member will appreciate that this is a complex issue. I reassure the Committee that the Government will continue working closely with the voluntary and community sector, the police and others to ensure that the safeguarding of women remains at the heart of our approach. We are carefully considering these issues as part of our wider work on violence against women and girls. We are working to publish the new cross-government violence against women and girls strategy later this year. We will be considering all forms of adult sexual exploitation and the findings from the previous Government’s consultation on sex for rent as part of that.

Given that commitment, I hope the hon. Member will be content to withdraw the new clause, although I very much doubt that he will. On that note, I have tabled many Opposition amendments, but I very rarely pushed them to a vote. On this new clause, as on any others, the hon. Member or any other Members of his party are very welcome to approach us for a meeting, or to come and talk to any of us about how to progress this or any issue. I do not wish to school them on opposition, but that is a much more likely way of achieving the ultimate aim. In this instance, his aim is the same as mine—protecting people who are sexually exploited. To date, no approaches have been made, but they are always welcome.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Antisocial Behaviour: Dudley

Jess Phillips Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss—I always say that, but it actually is a pleasure. Let me start by thanking all the Members who have come today and contributed. I am especially grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for securing the debate. As a fellow midlands MP, I am delighted that her constituents have someone fighting so diligently on their behalf.

Just because I have a bit of time, I have a good Dudley-related antisocial behaviour story from my childhood—or rather, from the ’70s, before I was born. My mum and dad lived in the Black Country at the time. When the younger of my two older brothers bit my elder brother, my mum said that if he was going to behave like an animal, he would have to go with them, and she drove him to Dudley zoo and left him there. It was the ’70s, Ms Furniss—things were different in the ’70s. He is fine, to be clear, but I like my mother’s direct action with antisocial behaviour, doling out immediate action to prevent it. I do not think he ever bit my brother again.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley and others have powerfully set out how antisocial behaviour remains a constant menace in communities around the country. Whether in Dudley or anywhere else, it has a damaging effect on people and places, which is why we are pushing strongly to tackle it. I know this is an area of focus for the Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson). My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley mentioned her support for some of the efforts in the Crime and Policing Bill; the Policing Minister will currently be on her feet in that Bill Committee, which is why I am here today and not her—it is not just because it is a midlands matter.

Antisocial behaviour has a strong local dimension, which came through in various contributions from my hon. Friend and colleagues in neighbouring areas, and it manifests itself in different ways. I will come to specific points shortly, but before I do, I want to set out the national context, because it is such a widespread problem. We heard, as we so often do, from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, that this is a problem in Northern Ireland, as it is in Wales, the west midlands and everywhere. We all know from our interactions with constituents that antisocial behaviour causes distress, concern and fear among residents, communities and businesses. It plagues town centres and neighbourhoods. It spoils people’s enjoyment of parks and other spaces.

Let us get it right: antisocial behaviour is not low level, trivial or minor. To minimise it in that way is an insult to the many people who suffer every day as a result of the selfish actions of others. As a constituency Member of Parliament, I am not sure that anything is brought to me as much as antisocial behaviour. It could come from a neighbour—I especially like it when both neighbours come to me, although that is tricky to deal with at times—or from other people in the local community. This is genuinely a problem that can make people move out of their family homes. This not low level: it is incredibly serious. Antisocial behaviour eats away at people’s sense of security and local pride, and it needs to be dealt with as the serious threat that it is.

For too long, the response has been weak and ineffective, and this Government are putting that right. The Prime Minister has placed safer streets at the heart of his plan for change. Through that mission, we are determined to address the scourge of antisocial behaviour. We are backing up our words with action, including by restoring and strengthening neighbourhood policing, which has been badly eroded in recent years. We are also introducing the respect orders mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley.

My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) mentioned cannabis. I am sure that everybody here has heard the same complaints about kids and adults constantly smoking cannabis outside their houses. That is why tackling illegal drugs is key to delivering the Government’s mission to make our streets safer, to halve knife crime, to crack down on antisocial behaviour and to go after the gangs who are luring young people into violence and crime.

We know from the crime survey for England and Wales that people using or dealing drugs is among the top three antisocial behaviour issues that people most commonly think is a problem in their area. I have been door-knocking in streets not too far away from Dudley where people were openly dealing drugs. For quite some time it has felt like there is no deterrent, and that has to change. Half of crimes such as shoplifting and burglary are driven by drugs, which is why the Government are determined to crack down on ASB and drug misuse.

The police have a critical role to play in cracking down on drug misuse and antisocial behaviour, and when individuals are found in possession of drugs, they must face appropriate sanctions. We are working with the police and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to support and increase voluntary referrals into treatment. We firmly believe that diverting those who use illegal drugs into interventions such as drug treatment services is the key to reducing drug misuse, drug-related crimes and reoffending.

We support the use of drug testing on arrest and out-of-court resolutions, to ensure that individuals who commit drug-related offences are given the opportunity to change their behaviour by diverting them to meaningful and appropriate interventions. The whole tone of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley was not about demonising some of those who might perpetrate such crimes, but about recognising that this is a societal problem that requires a multifaceted approach. Through the Crime and Policing Bill, we are taking forward proposals to expand both the trigger offences that can lead to a drugs test and the range of drugs that can be tested for—I was in the Bill Committee as we discussed that this morning.

Beyond enforcement, we know that treatment works to reduce reoffending. Giving offenders greater access to treatment services helps to break the underlying cause of their reoffending and increases public safety. We are committed to ensuring that anyone with a drug problem can access the help and support they need, and we recognise the need for evidence-based, high-quality treatment. The prevention of drug and alcohol-related harm is vital for saving lives and making our streets safer. As my hon. Friend said, this work will not be done by just the Home Office—it has to be a cross-Government endeavour—and the Department of Health and Social Care continues to invest in improvements to local treatment services for children and young people, and for adults with drug or alcohol problems, to ensure that those in need can access high-quality help and support.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the need for hotspot policing. If we are to make preventing crime and antisocial behaviour a top priority, we have to put our money where our mouth is. That is why I was very impressed to hear about the great work being done through the hotspot action funding, such as deploying police and other uniformed presence to target areas with the hottest crimes in order to clamp down on antisocial behaviour and serious violence. As part of the Government’s plan for change, and to support making the country’s streets safer, £66.3 million has been available for hotspot policing action in 2025-26, and West Midlands police have been allocated £3.7 million of that funding. This will ensure an enhanced uniformed presence in the town centres and neighbourhoods across the country with the densest concentration of knife crime and ASB.

Young people were mentioned a number of times. I used to do some youth work in Upper Gornal, and I got really good at table tennis—I have lost the skills now, I am afraid to say. We understand that no single agency holds all the levers to tackle antisocial behaviour, and that effective multi-agency working is crucial. We are committed to intervening earlier to stop young people being drawn into crime, and an essential part of achieving that will be carried out through the Young Futures programme. We will establish a network of Young Futures hubs and prevention partnerships across England and Wales, to intervene earlier and to ensure that children and young people are offered support in a more systematic way, as well as creating more opportunities for young people in their communities through the provision of open access to mental health and careers support.

My hon. Friend mentioned the trailblazers scheme. I, too, hope that it will come to Dudley and that the west midlands will be able to exhaust all the support we can. I cannot make her any promises about Sedgley library from the Dispatch Box, but I am with her in her campaign to maintain the library.

My hon. Friend also talked about respect orders. We recognise that the powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 do not currently go far enough, so we are putting that right by introducing respect orders in the Crime and Policing Bill, to help to ensure that our communities are free from harm. Under the new measures, persistent adult perpetrators of antisocial behaviour will face tough restrictions, including bans on entering the areas where they have behaved antisocially, such as town centres or other public places.

On the questions my hon. Friend asked towards the end of her speech, in expecting the Policing Minister to respond to the debate and not me, I suspect she might have been more explicit in stating that Birmingham gets all the money in the west midlands. [Interruption.] I hear from a sedentary position that that feels true to other people. I appreciate my hon. Friend’s diligent diplomacy because I am the Minister. It is funny: I spend a lot of time in my day job bashing London for getting all the money, so it is nice to get some just deserts. When it comes to the metrics that get used to ensure that funding is given out fairly, I can imagine what it feels like in a town next to a large city. When there is a behemoth like Birmingham next door, I imagine it can feel as though Birmingham gets the money.

While I am in the Home Office, I will always use my voice to stand up for extra resources for the whole of the West Midlands police force area. It is safe to say that the Home Secretary, a Member of Parliament who represents towns that surround a big city, is only too aware of the plight of towns. I absolutely hear the calls from my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, although obviously I also think Birmingham should get some money for services. I am not suggesting we should get rid of all of our resources and give them to Dudley, but I am happy to share.

I will wrap up by thanking everyone who has contributed to the debate, which has been yet another reminder of the strength of feeling around this issue and the harm that antisocial behaviour causes in communities across the country. It has been a pleasure for me to be among those who sound like me, which is not an experience I often get; it has been a pleasure to take part in this wholly west midlands-related debate. Whether in Dudley or anywhere else, decent, law-abiding people rightly want this problem gripped. The Government agree with them and we are determined to deliver the safer streets that they want and deserve.

Question put and agreed to.

Crime and Policing Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Jess Phillips Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Clause 86 introduces a new criminal offence for a person

“wearing or otherwise using an item that conceals their identity or another person’s identity”

in a public place that has been designated by the police. It is a defence for a person to prove that they wore or used the item for a purpose related to either the health of the person or others, religious observance or the person’s work. Clause 87 provides that

“A constable whose rank is at least that of inspector may designate a locality in England or Wales that is in their police area for a specified period not exceeding 24 hours if they reasonably believe that—

(a) a public assembly, or public procession, which constitutes a protest may take place or is taking place in the locality,

(b) the protest is likely to involve or has involved the commission of offences, and

(c) it is expedient, in order to prevent or limit the commission of offences, to designate the locality”.

Earlier we heard evidence—the hon. Members for Windsor and for Sutton and Cheam raised this example—about people, perhaps from the Hong Kong community, protesting against the Chinese authorities, and how this provision could affect those who legitimately want to cover their faces because of the reprisals and repercussions that might be threatened against their families back in Hong Kong. I want to be clear: this measure does not create an offence of concealing identity at every protest. The offence applies only to a protest in a locality designated by the police, and they can designate a locality only where they reasonably believe that

“the protest is likely to involve or has involved the commission of offences,”

and that

“it is expedient, in order to prevent or limit the commission of offences, to designate the locality”.

The majority of protests are peaceful and would not be captured by these clauses. The use of these powers and the management of protests is also an operational decision for the police, and we would expect them to consider the nature of the protest, including those who are likely to be present, before deciding to designate an area using this power. I hope that deals with the point raised about protestors from the Hong Kong community, and of course others.

As I have set out, the constable at the rank of inspector who designates a locality must ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to notify the public that the designation has been made, the offences created under clause 86, the locality and the period for which the designation will be enforced. Clause 88 sets out the procedure for designation, including what must be specified. Clause 91 is the interpretation section for part 9 of the Bill.

In recent years, as a number of Members have said, the police have faced significant challenges in policing large-scale protests. While the majority of those attending these protests are exercising their rights peacefully and within the confines of the law, unfortunately we have seen a minority of individuals behave in a criminal manner while hiding their identity. It is vital that the police are able to identify those who commit criminal offences during the course of these protests, because those who commit criminal offences should face justice for their crimes and because preventing criminality at protests ensures that peaceful protestors and the wider community are protected from harm.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

The shadow Minister spoke about an incident that happened in my constituency. I want to assure everybody that the people who committed those criminal offences, which were not part of any protest, were held accountable and sent to prison.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

It is always good to hear when people are held accountable for their criminal actions and punished accordingly, so I am very pleased to hear that.

I want to explain fully how clause 86 will work. At the moment, the police have existing powers to require individuals to remove disguises in designated localities where criminality is likely, but those powers have not always worked in the way that we all want them to, with individuals complying with directions to remove disguises, but then later putting them back on. In a large protest, it is difficult to prevent that from occurring, which is why the new offence makes it a criminal offence to conceal an identity as soon as the locality has been designated.

I want to make it clear that the police have to take all reasonable steps to notify the public that a designation has been made, including the nature of the offence, the locality to which the designation applies and the period during which the designation will be enforced. A designation must be in writing, except for where that is not reasonably practicable, such as in a live and rapidly moving public order situation, in which case the police can make an oral designation instead and record that in writing as soon as reasonably practicable. The maximum penalty for this offence is one month’s imprisonment or a level 3 fine not exceeding £1,000.

Let me turn to the amendments in this group. Amendment 51 seeks to limit the defences in clause 86 to those who have given written notice to the police or, if not reasonably practicable, oral notice. While I understand the motivation behind the amendment, we believe that clause 86 already provides a sufficient and specific statutory defence for individuals who wear or use identity-concealing items for purposes related to health, religious observance or work. Crucially, this defence is subject to a reverse burden of proof, which means that the individual must prove on the balance of probabilities that their use of such an item was for one of these legitimate purposes. This mechanism already ensures that only those with genuine reasons can rely on the defence without placing an undue burden on the prosecution.

Introducing a requirement to notify the police in writing or orally would add an unnecessary and impractical layer of and risk excluding individuals with legitimate defences simply because they did not, or could not, provide prior notice, and could result in the criminalisation of innocent people on procedural grounds. The current legal framework strikes an appropriate balance between public safety and individual rights. Amendment 51 would undermine that balance without offering meaningful enforcement benefits.

New clause 34 seeks to import directly into the Public Order Act 1986 the provisions of the Public Order Act 1986 (Serious Disruption to the Life of the Community) Regulations 2023. The shadow Minister has indicated that the rationale for the new clause is to seek to mitigate the effects of the Supreme Court’s Ziegler judgment in June 2021.

The 2023 regulations amended and clarified the meaning of

“serious disruption to the life of the community”

for the purposes of the police’s powers to imposes conditions on protests under the 1986 Act. They did so by amending the examples of cases that may constitute serious disruption, specifying that the cumulative impact of protests in the same area, and all relevant disruption, may be considered by police, even when it is not protest-related, when they assess the impact of a particular protest for the purpose of imposing conditions. The serious disruption regulations also defined the term “community”. The example of cases that may constitute serious disruption aligned the use of the term with the definition provided in section 34 of the Public Order Act 2023.

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Ziegler case established that the protection afforded to protesters by articles 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights extends to circumstances in which the disruption caused by protesters is the intentional obstruction of others. However, the extent of the disruption, and whether it was intentional, are relevant factors in the assessment of proportionality.

Let me take the subjects in turn. First, the shadow Minister will be aware that Liberty successfully challenged the serious disruption regulations in May 2024. This Government disagreed with the High Court’s ruling in that case, particularly in relation to the Court’s finding on consultation. Accordingly, we have appealed the Court’s decision, and await the Court of Appeal’s judgment, which is expected shortly.

Secondly, the provisions in the serious disruption regulations are not discernibly impacted by the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Ziegler case. That judgment relates to the reasonable excuse defence, and more recent case law, such as R v. Hallam and Others, has since made clear the limitations of such a defence.

I recognise the positive intention of new clause 34 to ensure that the changes made by the serious disruption regulations remain available to police forces in their policing of protests, but we consider that we cannot seek to address the issue—should there be one—until the Court of Appeal’s judgment is received. In short, it would be inappropriate to pre-empt the Court of Appeal’s judgment. In the meantime, the regulations remain in force until the judgment is handed down. It remains open to the Court of Appeal to overturn the High Court’s quashing order, should the judges find in favour of the Government. We will consider our response to the Court of Appeal’s judgment once it is available.

New clause 53 seeks to insert a statutory right to peaceful protest into the Public Order Act 1986, by requiring public authorities to respect, protect and facilitate the right to protest. The rights that it outlines are already firmly established in UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998, and public authorities must act in a way that is compatible with a convention right. Introducing a parallel provision risks legal duplication, confusion and inconsistent interpretation, potentially complicating the enforcement of public order. Rather than adding legal clarity, the new clause might create uncertainty without offering any new protections.

I hope that I have been able to persuade Opposition Members that their amendments are not necessary or are premature. I ask that the hon. Member for Windsor withdraws amendment 51.

Child Rape Gangs

Jess Phillips Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the child rape gangs scandal.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

The shadow Home Secretary was away when I updated the House on the Government’s response to the independent national inquiry into child sexual abuse, and on the action that we are taking to investigate and tackle child grooming gangs across the country. As I have said many times, people up and down this country are understandably horrified by the appalling crimes committed by despicable grooming gangs. Children were subjected to the most unthinkable sexual violence. Frontline services, local authorities and elected politicians turned away or even blamed the children, rather than their rapists. I know this because I speak to victims week in, week out, and I have done so for decades.

This Government are determined to get to the truth of both historical and current grooming gangs, to ensure that perpetrators are punished and to deliver justice and accountability for victims and survivors. That is why we are pressing ahead with the key recommendations of the independent inquiry, including the mandatory duty to report. Baroness Casey, who conducted a no-holds-barred review into grooming gangs’ offending in Rotherham, is currently overseeing a national audit of group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse. The audit will identify what further work is needed. It is looking at the scale, nature and profile of group-based abuse, including the characteristics of offenders. It will conclude in the coming weeks, and I have already committed to publishing the findings.

The Home Secretary and I have always been clear that the first priority in tackling this heinous offending is getting perpetrators behind bars, and getting justice for the victims and survivors. That is why all police forces in England and Wales have been asked to review historical grooming gangs investigations that were closed with no further action, and to pursue new lines of inquiry and reopen investigations where appropriate.

We are also going further than ever before to support local areas to hold independent local inquiries, which can drive action and accountability at a local level. That is what inquiries in Telford, Manchester and Rotherham have delivered effectively, and that is the approach we would like to see rolled out elsewhere. In January, we said that we would support five local inquiries. We are moving ahead with that commitment, and we have confirmed that funding will be made available to Oldham council as part of this work. We are currently working with a range of experts to develop a best practice local inquiries framework, so that local areas that conduct inquiries do so in a way that actually delivers justice, accountability and truth, commanding the support of victims and survivors.

Our focus is on delivering meaningful, tangible change for victims and survivors. That means delivering on the key recommendations of Professor Jay’s national inquiry, getting perpetrators behind bars and, most importantly of all, protecting children today.

[Chris Philp]

The whole nation is shocked by the rape gangs scandal. Thousands of young teenage girls were systematically raped over years by men of predominantly Pakistani heritage—girls such as Jane, who was repeatedly gang raped at the age of just 12. The police found her being abused by an illegal immigrant, but instead of arresting the illegal immigrant, they arrested her. That is sick. The last Government took action by setting up the wider Jay inquiry and the grooming gangs taskforce, but the truth is that that is not enough.

There is now clear evidence that those in authority covered up these rapes because the perpetrators were mainly of Pakistani heritage. Last week, I met retired Detective Chief Inspector John Piekos. In Bradford, he witnessed the abuse of a young girl in a car, but he was then instructed by a chief superintendent to drop the matter in order to avoid antagonising Bradford’s Muslim community. Covering up the rape of young girls for that reason is one of the most immoral things I have ever heard, yet not a single person—not one—has ever been held to account for these cover-ups.

That is why we need a national statutory public inquiry that can compel the production of evidence. Even last year, authorities in Manchester were still covering up, leading the chairs of the local Manchester inquiry to resign. Five local inquiries, which cannot compel the production of evidence, just will not do. Fifty towns were affected, not five. Bradford, where some of the worst abuse occurred, is refusing to co-operate with any inquiry at all. There has never been an inquiry in Bradford, because the council is refusing to participate.

The Home Secretary promised on 16 January that Baroness Casey would complete a rapid audit within three months. Three months have now passed and we have heard nothing whatsoever. The Government said there would be five local inquiries, but we know nothing about four of them. The man charged with setting them up, Tom Crowther, told the Home Affairs Committee on 1 April that he had been sidelined by the Minister over there, and “did not know” what was going on.

Finally, I recently met Marlon West, whose daughter was trafficked, abused and raped by mainly Asian men, including in Bradford. He said that this Government should be ashamed of themselves, and they should hold a national inquiry. Jane, who was trafficked and gang raped at 12, also wants a statutory national inquiry. Labour Mayor Andy Burnham, Harriet Harman and the Labour MP for Rotherham—the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion)—all agree. So will the Minister do what they, and Marlon and Jane, are all begging for, and hold a national inquiry so that those who covered up this scandal are at last held to account?

[Jess Phillips]

I thank the shadow Home Secretary. I do not need to read out the things found in other local inquiries to know, because I speak to the victims. I spoke to some of the victims of grooming gangs this morning, and I will speak to some more tomorrow. I have spoken to them from Oxford, from Birmingham, from Rochdale, from Rotherham and from Oldham. I know exactly the issue of the cover-up, as does everybody already, because of the many local inquiries that have told us this happened and the national inquiry that has told us there were cover-ups.

What we must focus on is making sure, as happened in Telford, that there is a local process of accountability that actually changes things on the ground, and that is what I will do. I have been trying to change things on the ground all my life, since the very first time I met a girl who had been ignored. I will continue to do that, and do what is right for the victims.

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

I genuinely welcome the renewed focus on this issue in this Parliament. In the Home Affairs Committee we have heard evidence from Professor Jay about her report, which made a number of recommendations in November 2022. She then set out her efforts in trying to get the previous Conservative Government to act on any of those recommendations for a period of over 90 weeks. She spoke about begging two Home Secretaries to take action. She spoke about talking to a chief of staff to one of the former Tory Prime Ministers, who ignored her. Does the Minister agree with me that rather than words now, action is far more important?

[Jess Phillips]

I absolutely agree that action is what is needed, which is exactly why the Home Secretary has written to all police forces in England and Wales seeking to ensure that more arrests are made in these cases. The grooming gangs taskforce has in the past nine months made 597 arrests, surpassing the entire previous year, because we are so heavily focused on ensuring that these people end up behind bars. I think Professor Jay was ignored by the previous Government, and had we had mandatory reporting 10 years ago, when the current Home Secretary asked for it, perhaps more people would have been held accountable.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

No child should ever endure sexual exploitation or abuse. Such horrific and unacceptable crimes must have no place in our society. Victims and survivors of these crimes must be at the centre of our thoughts whenever we discuss these matters. We owe it to them not just to offer words of support, but to deliver justice and bring offenders to account. That also means taking firm preventive action to protect future generations from such harm. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, led by Professor Alexis Jay, published its recommendations in 2022. Will the Minister please set out a clear timetable for the full implementation of the Jay inquiry’s recommendations? Does the Minister agree that a duty of candour, via a Hillsborough law, would bring transparency and accountability to any future inquiry? Will the Government commit to a timetable for delivering that?

[Jess Phillips]

I thank the hon. Lady, and I agree with her that inquiries are only worth anything if we crack on. That is why, when I came to this House before the recess, I said it would go alongside the publishing of an action plan on the recommendations of the Jay report and Jay’s work into grooming gangs. That has all been published as part of a Government plan, but it is only the beginning. Actually, this is going to take years and years. On the duty of candour, it seems appalling that we have to ask people to tell the truth, yet here we are. Of course, that is what we must be striving for, as the hon. Lady says, on behalf of the victims and survivors.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

As we have heard, when Alexis Jay came to the Home Affairs Committee, she told how she had pushed and pushed for the implementation of her long and wide-ranging report, but heard nothing back from the previous Government. I welcome today’s urgent question, because this issue requires an urgency that we did not see from the previous Government. As someone who has worked on protecting the victims of child trafficking I know we need local responses, but there is an element for national co-ordination. Before recess, the Minister announced the creation of the child protection authority. Can she tell us more about the remit and the role that organisation will have in ensuring that, nationwide, we clamp down on this horrific crime?

[Jess Phillips]

Yes. As was outlined in Professor Alexis Jay’s report, the need for an overreaching authority to ensure accountability across the child protection system was made very clear. As we roll out the new authority, we are consulting many experts on what exactly it needs to look like and ensuring that we get the very best possible. I am sick of hearing lessons learned in a serious case review about a child rape, a child rape gang or a child death. There needs to be genuine accountability and things need to change.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I agree with the Minister that policy must be victim-centred and that we must put victims at the heart of everything we do. Could she provide more information on when we will know about the remaining four locations? What will she do to ensure that the councils that are reluctant to be part of this work are compelled to do so?

[Jess Phillips]

We have committed to five, but I expect to go further.

[Chris Philp]

When?

[Jess Phillips]

I will answer the question of when. The framework for what local authorities will be tasked with will be released later in May, as will Baroness Casey’s review, which I have committed to publishing. All those things will be dependent on each other. I cannot stand here and say exactly what that will look like, because I do not know what Baroness Casey will say about any particular area and what I might need to focus on. I will go on the basis of facts—something that does not happen very often in this debate, I have to say. I will follow the facts; wherever they tell me that there are victims who need help, that is where I will go.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)]

Before being elected to this place, I worked for a national social work organisation, and I know my hon. Friend the Minister similarly worked with victims of crime before entering this place. It is so important that we keep those victims at the forefront of our considerations. In the light of that, how does the Minister envisage the child protection authority working, and how will victims of crime be supported by it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

As my hon. Friend points out, I have spoken to and worked with victims of crime for many years. What they want, fundamentally, is for the things that happened to them not to happen to children today. That is the change they wish to see more than anything—more than they want any sort of justice. Ensuring that the new authority does that, and that it is not just words on paper, will therefore be absolutely vital and will deliver that fundamental victims’ need. When we consult experts on the child protection authority, we will ensure that organisations such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which has panels of specialist victims groups to assist its work, will be part of that.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

In February, a brave group of victims and a leading child abuse lawyer wrote to the Home Secretary warning her that the rape gangs scandal across the Bradford district is likely to be one of the most significant of its kind in the UK, and that leaders in Bradford are deliberately seeking to avoid the commissioning of an in-depth inquiry for fear of unearthing a significant problem. The letter, which still sits with the Home Secretary, outlines the dreadful deadlock that we are in across the Bradford district, where there is overwhelming victim-led support for a full inquiry, but a council unwilling to commission one. Does the Minister believe that victims and families across Keighley and the wider Bradford district deserve a full rape gangs inquiry, and if not, why not? If she believes they do deserve an inquiry, what powers will she use to overrule Bradford council if it continues to ignore victims’ wishes?

[Jess Phillips]

Once again, I praise the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue over a number of years; others have come to it more recently. We have a meeting in our diary, so I will make him an offer: I would very much like to meet the victims he is talking about. I will gladly sit down with them. I want the hon. Gentleman to know that he has my guarantee that, if in the work Baroness Casey is doing around problem profiling and police forces across the country local authorities are found to have problems, I will pursue them.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

On Friday, in Rochdale, I met Jayne Ward and her colleagues from St Mary’s sexual assault referral centre in Manchester, which is staffed by former police officers, nurses and social workers who are all committed to helping victims and survivors particularly in areas such as Rochdale which have suffered from grooming gang abuse. They told me that their priorities are cutting the courts backlog which means that cases are having to wait until March 2027 to go to trial, longer-term funding commitments to help groups such as theirs, and a wider recognition that most sexual abuse and child rape is perpetrated not by strangers, but by family and friends. Does the Minister agree that those should be our priorities, too?

[Jess Phillips]

I agree with every one of the asks of that sexual assault referral centre. I am working closely with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), to try to do all those things. Unfortunately, we cannot mend a very broken system overnight. It is very important for me to say, though, that the cases of grooming gangs that I have come across are horrible—some of the worst I have ever seen—yet sometimes we forget how harrowing it is for children who have been raped by their fathers, their stepfathers or people in children’s institutions. There is no hierarchy; they all deserve our love, care and dedication to taking action for them.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

Thousands of young, white, British working-class girls have been raped, tortured and abused by Pakistani grooming gangs, yet the Minister refuses to support a full national public inquiry. What I want to know is: is she part of the cover-up?

[Hon. Members]

Shame!

[Jess Phillips]

That does not deserve a response—and I actually quite like the hon. Gentleman. I have spent my entire career helping—[Interruption.] I wonder how many victims of grooming gangs he has sat and held hands with in court, and for how many he has gone round to their house in the morning to get them out of bed to get them into a courtroom. There is no way that I would be part of any cover-up. I will do everything I can, under a Home Secretary who will do everything she can, to ensure that those who are responsible are held accountable.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

I thank the three incredible, formidable women on the Front Bench—the Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones)—who have not just learned that this is an issue but have been working and campaigning on it for their entire lives and come to this place to create change. Since 2022, there has been an 88% increase in online grooming, and 81% of those groomed are young women and girls. Does the Minister think that the social media companies are doing enough? Does she think that the police understand the nature of online grooming enough to be able to protect young people from it?

[Jess Phillips]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. We often talk about historic cover-ups and failings, but we must also keep our eye on exactly where grooming is going on now and will take place in the future. She points out, completely rightly, that there is an ongoing grooming issue. Through the taskforce and work with various security departments, I have seen great examples of quite how focused police enforcement is on that. Do I think that social media companies could be doing more? The answer will always be yes.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

The Minister said in her opening answer that she is determined to get to the truth. She also listed people who could be caught up in cover-ups such as politicians, police and councillors. There are five potential inquiries and up to 50 child grooming gangs; how will it work if those councils do not have funding? More importantly, what if the councils do not want to take part? She said that she will do everything she possibly can. She could change the law—with backing from the Opposition—so that people are compelled to give evidence in such cases. Will she consider doing that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

As I said, I will consider the situation as it unfolds. What I would say is with the amount of money that the Government are allocating for local inquiries—[Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the shadow Home Secretary said, “It’s not enough,” but it is millions more than the zero that the previous Government allocated. When Oldham and Telford wrote to the previous Government to ask for help, answer came there none. I will follow the leads that are left for me.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

Group-based sexual abuse is among the most heinous of crimes, and our priority must always be to listen to victims and survivors. I recently attended an event organised by West Yorkshire’s Mayor Tracy Brabin and the deputy Mayor and police and crime commissioner, Alison Lowe, where I had the opportunity to meet victims and survivors, as well as fantastic organisations such as Rape Crisis Bradford. I commend the Under-Secretary for her brave and tireless work to get justice for victims and survivors and to challenge those who have failed them, and for her commitment to implement the Jay inquiry in full. Can she assure me and my constituents that, as well as taking action to bring perpetrators to justice, she will support work to prevent such heinous crimes from happening again in the future?

[Jess Phillips]

Absolutely, and I say with the voice of the victims I have worked with over the years and have spoken to even today that the fundamental that they want is that children who come forward today—to their teacher, their social worker or whoever it is—do not suffer as they did. Keeping our eye on making sure that people are held accountable for the past will deliver justice only if we also look at the now.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

The Minister has outlined money for local inquiries. Is she able to comment on what resources will be made available for people who might come forward as a result of those local inquiries? Obviously, there is a backlog in provision of mental health support, talking therapies and all sorts of resources that people who have been through these horrific experiences may require, which are often provided by local authorities, health bodies and charities whose funding is under pressure. Will she elaborate on that and how she will make sure that victims are at its heart?

[Jess Phillips]

I absolutely agree. I remember working in a Rape Crisis centre when the Jimmy Savile scandal was revealed and it was like being hit by a tsunami—the phone lines lit up. As I said before Easter in response to the Jay inquiry, making sure that we have robust mental health support for children who are victims is really important. I also announced that the Home Office would double the amount of money it provides for adult historic rape victims, in recognition that we may bring more people forward and therefore need to improve access to support.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for all her work and commitment over many, many years. Will she confirm that the Government are committed to building trust with victims and survivors of child exploitation and abuse? My heart goes out to them. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s focus on tackling violence against women and girls will turn the tide and shed a light, as sunlight is the best disinfectant?

[Jess Phillips]

Absolutely. There are systemic problems with how women and girls are treated, and sometimes cover-ups are ignored. I am afraid to say that there is still a cultural sense of women feeling that they will not be believed if they come forward. We have to look fundamentally at all the systems across Government, which is what I and my colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who is leading on the violence against women and girls strategy, will do.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

The Government are blocking a national inquiry into the rape gangs and say instead that we should have five local inquiries, but we know there have been 50 places where these things have happened. In some of those places, such as Bradford, the council is blocking a local inquiry. We also know that local authorities often do not have the powers they need to requisition evidence and summon witnesses. Indeed, this whole story began when representatives of Oldham council wrote to the Minister after the election asking for the national powers that the council needed. Why did the Minister refuse to meet them?

[Jess Phillips]

I appreciate that that is where the whole story began for the hon. Gentleman, but it is not where the whole story began. Oldham council had written, I believe, twice before to the previous Government—

[Neil O’Brien]

No, it had not.

[Jess Phillips]

It had written to the previous Government, as had Telford. So, for me, this story started many years—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. To say it is simply untrue is to suggest something about the Minister. We have to get this right—

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure if there has been a mistake, the Minister will correct that.

[Jess Phillips]

I will check the record and make sure, but what I am absolutely certain of is the number of times that Telford council wrote and asked. I am aware that Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford, Oxford, or any of the places that have had an inquiry, were never given a single bean by the previous Government to do that work, and yet here we are and we will do it.

[Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)]

Communities across Heywood and Middleton North, however resilient, still bear the scars of these appalling and cowardly acts. I am grateful to the Minister for her continued engagement and resolve in addressing the cruel legacy of those crimes. What steps are being taken by her Department to learn from the healthcare practitioners, support workers and others who were active at the time of these crimes and initial inquiries to ensure that they can provide their insights and expertise to inform the commendable present-day efforts to secure justice for the women and girls?

[Jess Phillips]

I commend my hon. Friend’s work, and I know she is coming to see me with some of those healthcare workers. Sara Rowbotham—a woman I know well who works in sexual health services—was one of the whistleblowers in the Rochdale case. We absolutely need to ensure that, as we make progress, we listen to anybody who interacts with children and that people have space to come forward and speak up. The mandatory duty to report will go some way, but changing the culture to ensure that people are listened to and heard—in the health setting they know that better than in most—is definitely something that we will learn.

[Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)]

Despite multiple promises of inquiries from political parties across this House, it seems the only operational investigation will be the rape gang inquiry that I have privately launched. It has garnered cross-party support, and I implore MPs from any political persuasion to align with our cause. Will the Minister commit today to engaging in a co-operative manner with the investigation and make herself available to answer questions from our expert panel?

[Jess Phillips]

I delight in the hon. Gentleman’s interest, and what I would say to every single Member of this House is that I will work with absolutely anybody to make this better. I am more than happy to meet him and talk about any level of co-operation, because if people are genuinely here to try to stop the grooming gangs in this country, I am genuinely here to help.

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

I welcome that the Minister has kindly confirmed today that the Casey review will be published in May. Given that it will explain the next stages of the process, and while she obviously cannot preface the review, could she elaborate on whether she expects the review to include a framework for conducting the local inquiries?

[Jess Phillips]

I absolutely do not expect it to do that. Baroness Casey is seeking to do an audit of the problem profiles around the country, looking at exactly where the data does or does not exist and where there are failings. It was intended to be a rapid audit. The framework for good local inquiries is being worked on by a series of experts, including Tom Crowther and Alexis Jay. Details of the fund that local authorities can apply to will also be published by the end of May.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I am sure the Minister shares my concern that, to date, no one has been convicted of covering up these horrendous crimes, including sexual abuse and gang rape. What is the plan to ensure that people are held to account, because it is quite clear, as the Minister said in her earlier remarks, that the cover-ups perpetuated the crimes, not just historically but potentially continuing to this very day?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. I wish to see people who covered this up held accountable within the law and the frameworks that exist. If people have concerns about things and would like to bring specific cases to me, the police have the power to investigate those things. Had mandatory reporting laws existed sooner, we might have been in a better situation, but I completely agree that it is appalling that no one has been held to account.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her continued hard work on this issue. I welcome the commitment to introduce mandatory reporting for suspected sexual abuse, which was recommended 11 years ago by the current Prime Minister when he was the outgoing Director of Public Prosecutions, and accepted by the then Prime Minister, David Cameron. However, we had to go through four more Tory Prime Ministers and seven more Tory Home Secretaries before this Labour Government could implement it. I assure my hon. Friend that she has my full support on this matter, and I urge her to continue her good work.

[Jess Phillips]

Thank you.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

Child sexual exploitation is a vile and despicable crime that cuts across all sections of our society. It is perpetrated by individuals with blackened souls who come from all races, creeds, religions and backgrounds. All law-abiding citizens want justice for the victims of those horrific acts. Does the Minister agree that our focus must be on supporting the victims of exploitation and stopping the perpetrators, but that that must be done in such a way that does not fan the flames of hate towards innocent groups of people who, like all law-abiding citizens, condemn such acts?

[Jess Phillips]

Of course I agree. I want the perpetrators to be held accountable. What I can say without any doubt is that, as local inquiries have told us, people have covered things up, whether asked to or not, for seemingly multicultural reasons. That cannot stand. That said, we will always follow the facts to ensure that we completely and utterly deal with it.

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

I strongly welcome the Home Secretary’s commissioning of Baroness Casey to conduct the national audit. Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), can the Minister confirm whether the growing prevalence of online group-based sexual exploitation of children will form part of the report, and will she provide an update on the Home Office response to that growing crime?

[Jess Phillips]

Group-based grooming, which includes some terrible examples of British children being groomed from abroad and vice versa, is something that we are acutely aware of. Whether it forms part of what Baroness Casey finds, I will leave to her to say. I will say, however, that it absolutely forms part of the strategy of work that the Government have laid out for preventing child sexual abuse.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

I am concerned that some of the people involved in local authority inquiries could be the very same individuals who have covered up these heinous crimes for years. Why is the Minister so unwilling to seek justice for the victims of these child rape gangs through a national statutory inquiry?

[Jess Phillips]

I want to be clear that local inquiries must be independent. The chair of Telford inquiry was independent, and Professor Alexis Jay chaired the Rotherham inquiry. They are independent inquiries and they are not run by local authorities.

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

Last week I caught up with SafeStep, a remarkable charity in my constituency that supports victims and survivors of child sexual exploitation and abuse. We discussed the many ways in which trauma remains with victims and survivors, and how important accountability is for them as they rebuild their lives. My constituents who have suffered this appalling abuse need closure and change. I pay tribute to the Minister for her vital and persistent work to that end, including the establishment of the five local inquiries. Will she give further examples of what areas such as mine can do to ensure that the vile perpetrators are brought to justice?

[Jess Phillips]

The grooming gangs taskforce will work with local police force areas. The whole point is that it works operationally with local police forces to ensure best practice. That has led to 1,100 more arrests for group-based child sexual abuse since the taskforce was set up. There is a huge amount of resource in that centre. I encourage local areas and local police forces always to be working with the taskforce.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Surely there is something fundamentally flawed with the process of local inquiries if the option of holding the inquiry rests with the defaulting authority. Is there not equally something out of kilter with the Government’s approach to public inquiries when at this moment they are about to spend up to tens of millions of pounds on a public inquiry to meet the political demands of the Finucane family while denying a national inquiry to this national scandal of child rape gangs?

[Jess Phillips]

I will not answer the second point, which I think strays slightly from this urgent question, but what I will say is that I wonder if the hon. and learned Gentleman has read the 200-page document of the national inquiry into group-based child sexual abuse that already exists and has statutory powers. If he or anyone in the House has not read it, I encourage them to do that.

[Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her responses. As has often been said in this Chamber, child sexual abuse happens across all sectors of society, to girls and to boys, and there is no hierarchy of victims. As the Minister has already said, every single one of those young people comes into contact on a daily basis with professionals who have the power to change their lives for the better. What work is being done in advance of the mandatory reporting to work with the professional bodies who register those professionals to ensure that this can happen?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning boys and giving me the opportunity to say the following. I made a promise to one of the Oldham victims when I met her that I would always say that grooming gangs could happen to boys and girls, because it was her son who had lost his life, so I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to do that. There will be a delay in the preparation and rolling out of mandatory reporting exactly because we must make sure the guidance and the regulation that sits behind it and the training that will have to be put in place are right. We need that not so much for social workers and others who already have that sort of training, but there will also be sports coaches and volunteers, because huge numbers of institutions work with children, and getting this right is more important than rushing ahead with it.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

My constituents are horrified by the Government’s failure to order a national inquiry into the child rape gang scandal. Does the Minister share the concerns raised by Sir Trevor Phillips that the decisions made by the Government appear to be obviously political and designed to avoid offending Muslim voters of Pakistani origin?

[Jess Phillips]

I do not agree with that. Politically, the easiest thing for me to have done in this situation would have been to capitulate, but I do not think it is the right thing to do. I genuinely believe that from my years of work and speaking to the victims and working in Telford with those victims about what changed afterwards. I would not do it—I would not stand here if I did not believe it. And as for the idea that I am trying to protect something of myself, this process has, I have to say, not been protecting of me and, frankly, that is an absolutely disgraceful thing to say.

[James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Reform)]

This is clearly a deeply distressing topic that affects the whole House, and I fully accept that the Minister is affected as much as anyone. That being said, it is not clear to me why we would not do absolutely everything within our power to get to the bottom of this, and that includes a full national inquiry with all the powers that come with it. Will the Minister please explain to me why we will not have that inquiry, and why she sees having one as capitulating?

[Jess Phillips]

What we have proposed is better because it is about acting now in areas where it is needed. We have already had a national inquiry, which took seven years and wrote a 200-page dossier on group-based sexual abuse—[Interruption.] There was a 200-page dossier specifically on that, and it took two years just to do that, and it made really good recommendations. I genuinely believe that the best thing for me to do is crack on with them.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

Will the Minister provide assurances from the Dispatch Box as to how the Government will compel councils—like Bradford, which has refused to participate in this inquiry or in a local inquiry—to take part? It may seem self-evident, but councils that are liable for child protection and that are found at fault are probably not going to want to participate in a local inquiry. That is why we are asking for a national inquiry. Will the Minister please set out what the Government are going to do to compel those councils to give evidence so that justice can be served for the victims?

[Jess Phillips]

I will wait for the review being undertaken by Baroness Casey and look at what it tells me, and then I will act on that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her honest answers. She has spoken a number of times on this issue, and I thank her for her care and consideration of the matter. She will know that I always try to be respectful but my question is one that has to be asked. It remains clear that there is a public perception that the Government are drawing a line under actions that simply do not deserve to be forgotten. In order to learn the lessons of these dreadful actions, we need a full and open investigation. The Government must pacify the general public. We have an obligation to society, and even more so to the vulnerable. Will the Minister confirm the investigation that the public and Members of this House believe the scale of these issues warrants?

[Jess Phillips]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s desire to always be respectful. I shall pay it back in kind and say that there is absolutely no way that the Government wish for the past to be forgotten or for a line to be drawn. That is absolutely the opposite of what I want. I want every single perpetrator rounded up and locked up; I want every single victim to feel supported; and I want everybody who covered these actions up to be held accountable for that—[Interruption.] I can hear chuntering from the shadow Home Secretary, who does not always show respect. There is this idea that people are held accountable by public inquiries, but that is not the case; nobody has gone to prison following the Hillsborough inquiry. Has anyone gone to prison as a result of the infected blood inquiry? No. Hon. Members should be careful about what they are promising can be achieved.