🚨 Crime and Policing Bill (Seventh sitting)

• The Crime and Policing Bill continues to be scrutinised line by line, focusing on new offences related to cuckooing and child sexual abuse image generators.

• Cuckooing is now a stand-alone offence, defined as criminals taking over vulnerable individuals’ homes for illegal activities. It targets the elderly, disabled, and those with addiction or mental health issues.

• The new offence of cuckooing carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison, a fine, or both. It aims to protect victims by empowering police to intervene early and decisively.

• Clause 32 criminalises controlling someone’s home for criminal purposes without consent. It includes a wide definition of “dwelling” and outlines various forms of control.

• Clause 33 clarifies terms used in the cuckooing offence, including definitions of dwelling, control, and consent. Consent cannot be given by those under 18, without capacity, or under coercion.

• Clause 34 allows the Home Secretary to amend the list of criminal activities linked to cuckooing, ensuring the law remains relevant to emerging criminal tactics.

• Amendment 5 was proposed to presume incapacity to consent in certain exploitative situations, but was not adopted due to potential confusion and implications.

• Clause 35 designates child criminal exploitation and cuckooing as lifestyle offences under the Proceeds of Crime Act, allowing for asset confiscation, and ensures special measures for vulnerable victims and witnesses in court.

• Clause 36 makes it illegal to possess, make, or distribute child sexual abuse image generators, with penalties up to five years in prison. It addresses the use of AI in creating child sexual abuse material.

• Clause 37 extends the paedophile manual offence to include possession of advice on using AI to produce child sexual abuse images, with a maximum penalty of three years.

• Clause 38 introduces a new offence for online facilitation of child sexual exploitation and abuse, with a maximum penalty of 10 years. It targets networking among offenders.

• Clauses 39 and 40 apply the online facilitation offence extraterritorially to British nationals and extend it to corporate entities.

• Clause 41 imposes notification requirements on those convicted of online facilitation to manage the risk of reoffending.

• The government is committed to working with law enforcement and tech companies to detect and prevent the use of AI in child sexual abuse.

The session of the Crime and Policing Bill displayed a moderate level of disagreement, predominantly centered around clarifications and suggestions for amendments, rather than outright opposition to the proposed legislative measures. This is evident in several ways throughout the transcript:

1. Amendment 5 Discussion: There was a notable disagreement over amendment 5, proposed by Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD), which aimed to clarify when a person is presumed unable to give valid consent in situations involving potential exploitation. Despite support from Anna Sabine for the amendment, the Minister, Dame Diana Johnson, argued against it, citing potential confusion and the risk of setting an unhelpful precedent by implying that vulnerable individuals inherently lack capacity (pg. 59, line 9). The debate was substantive but remained respectful and focused on the legal implications rather than purely ideological differences.

2. Clarifications and Questions: Most disagreements were framed as questions seeking clarification or proposing improvements to the bill’s text. For instance, Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con) questioned whether garages and outhouses were covered under clause 33(2), and Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con) inquired about the scope of criminal activities defined in clause 32 and the definition of ‘control’ in clause 33(4) (pg. 52, lines 21-24; pg. 53, lines 10-13). These were attempts to ensure the legislation’s efficacy, not overt opposition.

3. Constructive Feedback: Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con) provided detailed feedback on the potential legal challenges and practical application of clauses, such as concerns over overreliance on witness protection schemes during the discussion of clause 35 (pg. 66, line 30). Although raising valid concerns, the tone remained constructive and aimed at enhancing the legislation rather than undermining it.

4. Cross-party Support with Minor Critiques: The session showcased a strong overall support for the Bill’s objectives, with members from both sides of the House expressing approval, often alongside minor critiques or requests for assurance on specific aspects. For example, even while questioning the scope of clause 38, Harriet Cross affirmed her support for the clause targeting online facilitation of child sexual exploitation and abuse, indicating general alignment with the Bill’s intent (pg. 72, lines 11-14).

5. Absence of Major Political Divide: There was an absence of major ideological or political divides in the session. Members from Labour and Conservative parties alike acknowledged the need for the new offences and protections introduced in the Bill, focusing instead on fine-tuning and ensuring the legislation meets its goals effectively and fairly.

Despite these disagreements, the session did not descend into significant contention or opposition against the fundamental aims of the Bill, justifying a rating of 2. The disagreements were specific, technical, and aimed at improving the legislation rather than blocking its passage.