Parliament has recognised that the risk posed by the most serious offenders does not end at the prison gates
The campaign for a child cruelty register has revealed something important about how Parliament really works: meaningful legal change does not depend solely on who sits on the government benches. Opposition MPs can identify gaps in the law, build coalitions across parties, and ultimately shift government policy. Despite the way Westminster is often portrayed, cross-party collaboration remains one of the most effective engines of legislative progress.
The gap in the law came to light through the work of my constituent, Paula Hudgell. Few realised that individuals convicted of the most serious offences against children can effectively disappear once their sentences end. After release, there is no long-term mechanism to track them, no requirement to notify authorities of their whereabouts, and no system to ensure that the risks they pose remain visible.
Paula’s determination is rooted in the appalling abuse suffered by her adopted son, Tony. At just 41 days old, he was subjected to such extreme violence by his birth parents that both of his legs later had to be amputated. They were sentenced to 10 years at Maidstone Crown Court but released after serving eight. Their supervision will end when their licence expires, even though the risk they pose may not.
Experience shows that offenders can relocate, change identities and disengage from services to avoid scrutiny. Without a statutory framework for monitoring, authorities are left without the tools they need to assess risk or intervene early.
A child cruelty register, modelled on the Sex Offenders Register, would help to close this loophole. It would introduce mandatory notification requirements, make breaches a criminal offence and allow police and probation services to manage and monitor high-risk individuals over the long term. It would give families and communities confidence that serious offenders cannot simply vanish.
The campaign has demonstrated how Parliament can function at its best. Before Christmas, Conservative MPs tabled an amendment to the Sentencing Bill to create such a register. Labour MPs voted against it at that stage, but that was not the end of the story. The same amendment was later tabled to the Crime and Policing Bill in the House of Lords, and discussions continued across party lines.
Through our sustained engagement with Home Office ministers, justice ministers, Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy and, crucially, through constructive dialogue with colleagues cross-party in both Houses, the government has now accepted the principle of our proposal and tabled its own amendment to introduce a child cruelty register. This is a clear example of how opposition-led initiatives can shape government legislation when the case is strong and the collaboration is genuine.
There is still work to do. I remain concerned that the list of offences proposed by the government does not capture all serious violent child cruelty cases, and I will continue to press for a more comprehensive register. But a fundamental shift has been secured: Parliament has recognised that the risk posed by the most serious offenders does not end at the prison gates, and neither should oversight.
This change in the law will help ensure that those who pose an ongoing danger to children remain visible to the authorities. Tony’s experience should never be repeated. Protecting the most vulnerable is a responsibility shared across Parliament, and this campaign shows that, despite public scepticism, cross-party co-operation remains not only possible but essential to achieving it.
This article was published on the 18th March 2026 in Politics Home, and can be found here: https://www.politicshome.com/opinion/article/new-register-protect-child…
