Crime and Policing Bill

Written evidence submitted by Every Child Protected Against Trafficking (ECPAT ) (CPB08)

Introduction

UK is a leading children’s rights organisation working to ensure children can enjoy their rights to protection from trafficking and transnational child sexual exploitation. We campaign for and support children everywhere to uphold their rights to live free from abuse and exploitation through an integrated model involving research, policy, training, and direct practice. Our vision is ‘Children everywhere are free from exploitation, trafficking and modern slavery.’ We promote and uphold children’s rights to protection, provision, and participation in the UK and outside of the UK.

Executive Summary

1. ECPAT UK welcomes the Government’s efforts to address child criminal exploitation (CCE) and child sexual exploitation and abuse within the Crime and Policing Bill. While many provisions take important steps toward strengthening protections for children, we urge the Government to go further in ensuring that all children are safeguarded from exploitation such as:

· Addressing the sentencing disparity with the Modern Slavery Act in the new Child Criminal Exploitation Offence

· Introducing a statutory definition of ‘Child Exploitation’

· Protecting children from criminalisation under the ‘controlling another’s home for criminal purposes offence’

· Ensuring the new ‘grooming as an aggravating factor’ clause applies to transnational child sex offenders

2. The Crime and Policing Bill introduces a range of measures aimed at supporting the delivery of the Government’s Safer Streets Mission to halve knife crime and violence against women and girls ("VAWG"). One of its key provisions is the creation of a standalone offence of Child Criminal Exploitation (CCE), which seeks to address the growing concern of children being exploited into criminal activity. This offence recognises the significant power imbalance between perpetrators and victims, acknowledging that children cannot consent to their own exploitation. The Government’s decision to introduce this new offence reflects a commitment to improving justice outcomes, closing enforcement gaps, and ensuring that exploiters face appropriate legal consequences.

3. Alongside this, the Bill introduces new civil preventative orders designed to disrupt criminal exploitation before it occurs and prevent its recurrence. The Bill introduces very welcome measures to protect children such as a new mandatory reporting duty for professionals in regulated sectors, requiring them to report suspected child sexual abuse and expands existing offences and enforcement powers, including new measures to criminalise AI-generated child sexual abuse material and extend liability to those administering or moderating online platforms that facilitate such content.

4. However, while the Bill represents an important step forward, additional provisions are needed to maximise its effectiveness. We urge the government to respect ensure that this legislation delivers on its ambition to protect children from exploitation and hold perpetrators to account.

Clause 17: Offence of Child Criminal Exploitation

5. The We welcome the introduction of a specific offence of Child Criminal Exploitation (CCE) and the Government’s commitment to tackling this serious child protection issue. Recognising CCE in law is a vital step towards improving protection for children and ensuring that those who exploit children for criminal gain are held to account. However, more remains to be done to ensure that this legislation is as effective as possible. To strengthen this legislation, we call for sentencing parity with the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the introduction of a clear statutory definition of child exploitation, ensuring a unified and robust approach to tackling this abuse.

Sentencing Disparity – Modern Slavery Act vs. Child Criminal Exploitation Offence

6. A key concern is the disparity in sentencing between offences prosecuted under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and those brought under the proposed CCE offence, which risks undermining the severity of this form of exploitation. The proposed sentencing for Child Criminal Exploitation is 10 years, shorter than the penalties under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 which are life imprisonment, creating a perverse incentive where those who exploit children for criminality may face a lesser sentence than those prosecuted under modern slavery legislation. This undermines the severity of the offence and risks weakening deterrence against those that systematically exploit children.

7. Enforcement of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, as noted by the Home Affairs Committee 2023 report on Human Trafficking, "remains woefully inadequate", with worryingly low levels of law enforcement responses to them in comparison to the number of children who are exploited". [1] Child trafficking remains a low-risk, high-profit crime, and the persistently low prosecution and conviction rates for child trafficking and exploitation offences do not converge with the high numbers of children being referred into the NRM. Data provided by some police forces to the Insight team of the Modern Slavery and Organised Immigration Crime Unit (MSOIC Unit) showed that in October 2024, police in England and Wales were dealing with at least 2612 live modern slavery investigations with most of these (59%) primarily involved tackling criminal exploitation. [2] In November, the CPS provided data to the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner on human trafficking flagged offences cross-referenced with child abuse-flagged offences for England and Wales which showed a decrease in prosecutions and convictions between 2021 and 2023. In 2021, there were 32 prosecutions and 23 convictions, this decreased to 19 prosecutions and 15 convictions in 2022. [3] Prosecutions remained the same in 2023 with 13 convictions. The introduction of a new specific child criminal exploitation offence can address the low numbers of prosecutions.

Introducing a statutory definition of Child Exploitation

1. The current legal and policy frameworks surrounding child exploitation, including child criminal exploitation (CCE), child sexual exploitation (CSE), and child labour exploitation are inconsistent and lack precise definitions. This ambiguity leads to disparities in how different forms of exploitation are identified and addressed across regions. Additionally, key terms such as "trafficking" and "exploitation" are often misinterpreted or applied inconsistently, further complicating the response of safeguarding professionals and law enforcement. [4] Without clear and universally accepted definitions, there is a risk that some children may not be recognized as victims and may not receive the necessary support and protection.

2. Research featured by the British Psychological Society (BPS) identifies significant inconsistencies in defining child exploitation. [5]  The review points to two overarching themes-relational vulnerability and power imbalance-as central to exploitation, advocating for a generalized definition that can be universally applied. The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) also reports confusion in professional judgments due to varying definitions and applications of terms like "exchange" in the context of CSE. This inconsistency has led to misclassification and inadequate responses to exploitation cases. [6]  ​The lack of clear definitions adversely affects practitioners' ability to identify and support victims. A study from Liverpool John Moores University discusses how ambiguous definitions and inappropriate language can lead to victim-blaming and hinder service provision. The authors call for precise definitions and careful language use to improve support for CSE victims. [7]

3. To address these issues, experts recommend introducing statutory definitions in primary legislation. The IICSA emphasizes the necessity of regularly reviewing definitions to reflect the evolving nature of exploitation, including online grooming, and to ensure a child-centred approach that accurately captures the harm experienced. [8]  ​ ensure that all forms of child exploitation are effectively tackled, the Government must align any new CCE offence with international legal standards. While addressing child criminal exploitation is crucial, it cannot be considered in isolation from the broader issue of trafficking and other forms of exploitation. Traffickers and criminal networks use various coercive and deceptive tactics to manipulate children into exploitative situations, often spanning multiple forms of abuse. By failing to recognize these interconnected vulnerabilities, legislation risks leaving significant gaps in protection. A holistic approach is essential to safeguarding children from all forms of exploitation, ensuring that perpetrators are held accountable, and that victims receive appropriate legal, social, and rehabilitative support.

4. To provide safeguarding professionals and law enforcement agencies with a clear and enforceable framework, the Government should introduce statutory definitions of child exploitation in primary legislation. These definitions should be compliant with international law and should reinforce the fundamental principle that a child cannot consent to their own exploitation. A comprehensive statutory definition would:

· Ensure uniformity in identifying and responding to child exploitation cases across all jurisdictions.

· Recognize the interconnections between different forms of exploitation, preventing fragmented or incomplete responses.

· Establish a clear legal basis for holding perpetrators accountable while prioritising the welfare and rights of child victims.

· Strengthen the ability of safeguarding professionals, including social workers, law enforcement, and the judiciary to protect children effectively.

5. By embedding these definitions in law, children will be treated as victims first and foremost, rather than being criminalised or overlooked due to inconsistencies in legal interpretation. A broad, inclusive definition of child exploitation is necessary to reflect the evolving methods used by traffickers and exploiters while ensuring that every child receives the protection and justice they deserve.

Clause 32: Controlling another’s home for criminal purposes

6. This clause introduces a new offence of cuckooing, targeting individuals who take control of another person’s home for criminal purposes, such as drug dealing, exploitation, or other illicit activities. While this is an important step in protecting vulnerable people, the bill fails to explicitly exclude children from prosecution under this offence. Many young people are exploited for criminal purposes including by occupying such properties. Without clear safeguards, there is a real risk that exploited children-who should be recognised as victims-could instead face criminalisation.

7. Despite the Government’s stated intention to target those at the top of the criminal hierarchy, the way the offence is drafted makes it highly likely that children will be prosecuted. The broad interpretation of control-covering entry, occupation, deliveries, and use of the dwelling-means that a child exploited into staying at or running drugs from a property could be treated as a perpetrator rather than a victim. This risks undermining efforts to protect exploited young people and instead entrenching their involvement in the criminal justice system. Without explicit protections within the bill, the very children this legislation should safeguard may end up being unfairly prosecuted.

Clause 43: Grooming as an Aggravating Factor

8. The Bill rightly recognises grooming as an aggravating factor in sentencing through Clause 43, ensuring that offenders who groom children specified child sexual offences face harsher penalties. However, it remains unclear whether this provision extends to extraterritorial powers under Section 72 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which enables UK nationals to be prosecuted for child sexual offences committed abroad. Given the serious and widespread nature of transnational child sexual abuse, it is vital that those who groom children outside the UK for these purposes are subject to the same legal consequences as those offending domestically.

9. If Clause 43 does not extend to extraterritorial offences, this creates a significant gap in protection, allowing perpetrators to evade aggravated sentencing by targeting children abroad. This omission would mean that individuals who groom children or their families overseas for sexual exploitation or engage in preparatory acts to abuse children in another jurisdiction, are not held to the same standard as domestic offenders. To ensure consistency in safeguarding all children, regardless of location, we call on the Government to clarify whether the extraterritorial provision under Section 72 is included in Clause 43. If it is not, we urge an amendment to close this loophole and strengthen protections against child sexual exploitation on a global scale.

March 2025