More on mandatory reporting
In reply to a written question from Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon, Con) asking the Home Secretary whether the mandatory reporting law in the Crime and Policing Act will apply to information heard during religious confession, Satvir Kaur, Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Home Office, answered as follows:
“This Government remains firmly committed to tackling all forms of child sexual abuse. The new mandatory reporting duty we are working to implement will be a vital step in safeguarding children more effectively across a range of institutions and settings.
The Crime and Policing Act 2026 does not provide any exemption from mandatory reporting on the basis of religious practice, or the setting in which information is received. In defining who is subject to the duty, the Act makes specific provision for those providing religious instruction to children beyond the regulated activity framework in Schedule 12. The Act also makes clear how the duty interacts with any wider expectations of confidentiality that a reporter may be subject to. Section 85 makes clear that submitting a report under the mandatory reporting duty does not breach any obligation of confidence owed by the person making the report. This ensures that individuals who are subject to the duty can make reports as required by law.
We will continue to engage across government and with stakeholders to help manage the implementation of the new duty to ensure readiness and compliance for when the duty comes into effect in 2027.”
Tackling antisemitism
On Tuesday, there was a debate in Westminster Hall on the safety of the Jewish community.
Replying to it, Sarah Jones, Home Office Minister of State for Policing and Crime, said that the Government regarded tackling antisemitism as an ongoing programme and would take further measures where required. Work under the Protecting What Matters programme included expanding the disruptions team monitoring extremist influence, strengthening measures to prevent extremists entering the UK, embedding the 2024 extremism definition and engagement principles across Government, and publishing the first annual State of Extremism report at the end of 2026.
Work was also under way on antisemitism in universities through training, Office for Students guidance, University Jewish Chaplaincy services and cross-departmental action. The Government had sanctioned the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in its entirety and 550 Iranian individuals, placed Iran on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme and was targeting associated criminal and financial networks. She confirmed that Sir David Bell’s review into antisemitism in schools and colleges in England would be published in autumn 2026.
The Government had provided an additional £25m in April for police patrols and disruption activity and had announced more than £250m in additional police funding over three years. Antisemitism training would be rolled out across policing, £85.8m would provide 300 dedicated Metropolitan Police personnel, and further funding would go to several other police force areas. The Government would take whatever further action was necessary to ensure Jewish communities could live safely and openly.
The House of Commons Library published a research briefing in advance of the debate.
Supreme Court
Lord Briggs of Westbourne, 71, is to become the next President of the UK Supreme Court. He will take up his new role in January, when the current President, Lord Reed of Allermuir, retires. He will be the court’s fifth President since it was established in 2009.
Quick links
- Samuel L Bray, University of Chicago Law School: Scandal as a Concept in Anglican Canon Law. [With thanks to Religion Clause.]
- Jason Loch, A Venerable Puzzle: Andy Burnham, the Premiership, and the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829.
- David Torrance, Research Briefings: Historic restrictions on members of the Catholic and Jewish faiths.
The Hansard Society reports that more than 6,000 written questions were tabled in the Commons after the summer recess: at least 33% more than last summer’s final total. It asks, “With each answer estimated to cost the Government £219, and the top five MPs responsible for 42% of the questions, are all these questions a good use of parliamentary and civil service resources? And should Parliament impose a cap on the number MPs can submit during a recess?”
6,000 x £219 = £1,314,000. So even if we occasionally find an answer useful: a firm “no” to the first and an equally firm “yes” to the second.
Re Questions and whether there should be a cap on the number of questions MPs can submit during a recess, there is an interesting comparison with the General Synod of the Church of England. Standing Order 112(2) provides as follows:
(2) A member may table—
(a) up to two original questions for answer at any one group of sessions in
accordance with SO 114;
(b) up to two questions for written answer between groups of sessions in accordance with SO 117.
If MPs were limited to asking two written questions during a recess and all MPs exercised that right (not something which happens at General Synod) the total number of questions would be a maximum of 1,300 (650 x 2).and, based on the figure given, the cost of answering them £284,700.
I note that £219 is what each question is ‘estimated’ to cost the Government to answer. It would be interesting to know how this figure (which must be an average) was calculated. It would also be interesting to know the estimated cost of answering General Synod questions. Perhaps a new member will ask that question at the inaugural group of sessions in November. But remembering, as Bishop Pete Broadbent pointed out in a debate in Synod in February 2019, “Three words: democracy, accountability and transparency. Question time is where you get the chance, from people who are not involved in all the things that go on in the powerhouses of Synod, to be able to exercise some democracy. It also allows you to hold people to account.”
Thank you David for your Comment and the comparison with General Synod. In the Parliamentary context, 2520 questions between 5 MPs seems excessive in terms of the time they each devote to the issues raised. The Hansard Society report comments:
“A lower quota (of tabled questions) would undoubtedly affect the parliamentary activity of a small number of Members, but the vast majority would be unaffected. In the final six months of 2025, only eight Members tabled more than 10 WPQs per sitting day and only 21 tabled more than five. Provided that their questions were distributed more evenly across sitting days, most Members could therefore remain within a reduced quota of 10 — or even five — questions per day”.
dp