Regulated and Other Activities (Mandatory Reporting of Child Sexual Abuse) Bill [HL]

Second Reading

10:06:00

Moved by

That the Bill be now read a second time. Relevant document: 11th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee

My Lords, it is a privilege to open this debate. I draw noble Lords’ attention to my registered interests. I am president of the Local Government Association and chair of the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award and Sport Wales, and have other interests as listed. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Brinton, for their tireless work on this topic and their Bills in 2014 and 2018 respectively. I put on record my thanks to Tom Perry and Jonathan West from Mandate Now. I also thank Thirtyone:eight, one of many organisations that have mandatory reporting in their manifestos. I thank Barnardo’s, the NSPCC, the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse, the honourable Jess Phillips, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, and their team. I thank Professor Alexis Jay, who I met this week, and the many other people who have spoken in support of either this Bill or mandatory reporting in a wider context, including all those who have pointed out potential gaps, asked questions and provided thoughtful suggestions to improve the Bill. I am also sincerely grateful to my private office for its extensive support. Although there is widespread support for some form of mandatory reporting, the devil is in the detail. As legislators, one of our roles is to protect the most vulnerable in our society. Protecting children from sexual abuse should therefore be of the highest priority. Because of this, it is crucial for this debate to happen today. I come at this issue from my own background in sport. In 2017, after being asked by the then Sports Minister, Tracey Crouch, I produced an independent report, Duty of Care in Sport. While it is really important to note that there are many incredible, caring coaches who have very positive relationships with young people, there are cases in which individuals in organisations knew or suspected child sexual abuse but did not report for several reasons. These may include that the individual was scared to report over fears of losing their job or was worried about their reputation. In one case it was, “I know his wife and family, and I don’t want to do that to them”. I have also heard, “The abuser is a good coach”. No number of gold medals will ever make this okay. While there have been many improvements for safeguards in sport, as there have been in other regulated activities, there is still more that needs to be done. However, this issue is something that has been debated for many years. As the impact of child abuse has gained more media traction in recent months because of the appalling and sickening reports that we have seen, it only highlights the extent of change that needs to happen. The treatment that those young women experienced was abhorrent, and the impact of it will be felt for decades to come. Since Rotherham and other child abuse scandals, there have been legislative changes across England, Scotland and Wales. However, in 2022 the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, IICSA, concluded that it was “endemic” and had permeated all sections of society. Victims covered by this inquiry have been waiting a long time and need to know how the Government will report back to them on the next steps. I am pleased that yesterday Yvette Cooper announced government funding for local inquiries into grooming gangs. However, today I hope we can look to the future. We must continue to learn from past mistakes. While we cannot say that child sexual abuse will stop with this Bill, stricter legislation on reporting will give those children stronger protections than they currently have. A well-designed mandatory reporting law is a key component of an effective safeguarding system. The Bill is about how we protect more of our children going forward. It is slightly ironic that the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 introduced mandatory reporting for money laundering under the regulated sector, so for the past 23 years this country has protected money in ways that it has not protected our children. The Bill imposes a duty, subject to criminal sanction, for the providers of regulated and other activities, or “mandated reporters”, to report to the local authority where they know or reasonably suspect a child in their care to be subject to sexual abuse, at a time that is practicable. Regulated and other activities include such areas as education, healthcare and other settings, and these activities are listed in the Schedule to the Bill. The Bill does not seek to criminalise the general public who do not report suspected child sexual abuse but rather calls for those in positions of authority over children to speak up and protect them. I will now cover the issue of who is the mandatory reporter. They are someone who is in a position of trust over the child, or an individual who operates in a setting where an activity takes place. They might also be staff employed in a managerial or general welfare role within the activity. This person is then deemed to have direct contact with a child, whether or not the child has been attended by them. A good example of this is a head teacher: they do not necessarily have direct contact with the child on a daily basis in the same way as a classroom teacher, but they are still in a position of trust and safeguarding. A head teacher would therefore have a duty to report. If an oral account of sexual abuse is made by a child—that is the most common form of reporting—to a mandated reporter, the reporter must then confirm the account in writing no later than seven days thereafter. As I mentioned, they would then need to file the report with any of the three local authority points of contact listed in Clause 1. It is as simple as that. Sadly, the current mindset in some cases of child sexual abuse is that upward reporting in an institution is good enough. It is not. The Bill will ensure that reporting upwards is no longer sufficient. As a safeguard, under Clause 2(7) the Secretary of State—it has been pointed out that clarification is needed on which Secretary of State—may issue a “suspension document” or suspend the duty to report where the child’s welfare and safety would be compromised if a report were to take place. Under Clause 2(8) the Secretary of State may also exempt specified organisations that work with children generally, or medical officers. This would include the protection of confidential specialist support services for children. Finally, Clause 2(9) confers a power on the Secretary of State by regulations to amend the Schedule by adding to the activities, or varying or deleting an activity set out in the Schedule. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s 11th report of the 2024-25 Session said: “Despite being a Henry VIII power, the Bill does not make provision for the regulations to be made by statutory instrument. There is also no parliamentary scrutiny attached to the power. Accordingly, we recommend that, if the Bill proceeds to its further stages, it should be amended so that regulations under clause 2(9) are required to be made by statutory instrument subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure”. I appreciate these helpful comments as we progress the Bill. In March 2020 the Office for National Statistics estimated that 3.1 million adults in England and Wales had experienced sexual abuse before the age of 16. In October 2022 IICSA estimated that more than one in six girls and one in 20 boys are being sexually abused in the UK each year. On average, it takes victims 26 years to disclose abuse. The Local Government Association—LGA—estimates that only one in three children who were sexually abused by an adult told someone. According to the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, it is estimated that 85% of child sexual abuse goes undetected and unreported. The list of statistics could continue, with reports offering varying numbers, but the bottom line is that child sexual abuse is real, it is happening and it needs to be stopped. Our system is failing the victims of child sexual abuse, and changes need to be made. A concern that has been raised is that people might be worried about wrongly reporting a suspected case of abuse. However, the Bill safeguards anyone who reports in good faith. Evidence from Mandate Now estimates that seven out of eight victims are not known to the authorities at the time of reporting. The key to detection is for mandated reporters to report their suspicions so that cases can be investigated by those with the training and authority to act. Any Bill should ensure the protection of those who report. It is not an individual’s responsibility to decide whether abuse has taken place, and early detection is the key. Justice is not in the hands of the mandatory reporter; it is in the wider child safeguarding system. Points have been raised on malicious reporting. It is currently illegal to maliciously report child sexual abuse, and the Bill would not change that. But evidence from Australia shows that, although there was a rise in reporting after the introduction of mandatory reporting laws, there was no detected proportional rise in malicious reporting. A briefing from the LGA indicates that very few children tell anyone that they are being sexually abused at the time it happens because of the taboo associated with it. Then, if children do tell someone, it is most commonly family and friends, not necessarily people who would be mandatory reporters under the Bill. Too frequently, there is a lack of understanding surrounding child sexual abuse across professions and organisations working with children, so raising public awareness and providing culturally sensitive training and support for all are essential. We need professionals to feel confident in identifying signs of child sexual abuse and reporting it. In both the United States and Australia, reporting laws have been accompanied by training for mandated reporters, which has improved the quality of initial reports. But there also needs to be improved sex education for children, including how to identify sexual abuse. The CSA report demonstrated that some communities may be less able to name their experience as abuse because of a lack of knowledge about sex and consent. When children are educated in understanding the signposts for abuse, they are more likely to report it to people who will be able to help them. Evidence from Western Australia has shown that, where mandatory reporting was introduced, the number of reports that were made increased by a factor of 3.7. Professor Ben Mathews carried out a study in Western Australia in 2009 that looked at the impacts of mandatory reporting. His research showed that in the three years before mandatory reporting was introduced there were 662 reports per year, compared with 2,448 reports per year in the four years after it was introduced. Importantly, the number of substantiated investigations doubled, indicating that the introduction of mandatory reporting effectively ensures that more cases are recorded by the authorities. It has been raised that mandatory reporting will put additional pressure on a system that is already stretched. The physical and psychological effects of child sexual abuse cause generational trauma. It destroys lives and has devastating effects on families and communities. Last week, in Prime Minister’s Questions, Sir Keir Starmer told the other place that one of the “central recommendations” of IICSA was mandatory reporting, and he reminded the other place that he first called for it 11 years ago. We are heading towards three years on from the inquiry, and victims deserve an answer. IICSA changemakers have been in touch with me. They believe that: “Effective and timely reporting is a vital part of a well functioning child protection system. That said, mandatory reporting on its own is not a panacea for improving the prevention of, reported rates, considered response and care of victims and survivors of child sexual abuse”. A significant number of people support some version of mandatory reporting. What we need to do as legislators is ensure that the right protections are in place. The time has come to further legislate to protect our children. The real question is: when and how will action be taken? I beg to move.

10:19:00

My Lords, I entirely back this Bill—the spirit of it but also the detail. The Government would be foolish not to do likewise. When I got elected as an MP, the first thing that I did was to convene an inquiry into heroin addiction in my own area. I spoke personally to more than half of the 600 heroin addicts whom I represented as their MP—over half—and every single one had suffered some form of major trauma in their early years. That is a separate issue, but my point is that the consequences of any form of child abuse are major and, indeed, well beyond that child when they become an adult. There is one pertinent point that has been rather lost in the last few weeks. The term “survivor” has been used. My experience is that very many who were badly abused as children have not survived; either they are not alive, or they are in a position where they are really not capable of doing anything coherent in advocating for themselves. When I took up issues relating to child abuse as an MP, which I did—I spent 30 days representing people at that inquiry—I dealt with people who were incapable of knowing exactly what had happened to them, because the trauma had been so great. I dealt with people whom I was unable to see, because of how the trauma had impacted on how they are, who were being cared for by others, sometimes by the state and sometimes by private institutions. I dealt with people who had been inside prison because the actions that they had taken—and they were evil actions sometimes—had a direct correlation with what had happened. So this is not some kind of minor issue, and this Bill deals with only one of the 20 recommendations of that inquiry. If the Government—any Government, including this one—fail to implement those 20 recommendations, they will be held to account, and they should be. I will be one of those holding any Government, including this Government, to account. Four minutes is not a long time, but I shall make a couple of other points that need to made, because they may not be made by others. There is a lot of talk about girls; I dealt with boys as well. On the definition of children in sports, including in football, one thing that I found—and I think I had an influence, although I am sure that football would say that it did it itself and it was just a coincidence of timing—was about the grooming of 16 and 17 year-old girls by football coaches. That was another issue that I had to deal with. Age is also important, and that was one of the complications of that inquiry—the 16 to 19 year-olds, and who is and is not a child. That is fundamental, and certainly everyone aged 18 and under needs to be incorporated into everything. Finally, I knocked on doors, electioneering, and people would say to me, “John, can I have a word?”. They would tell me what had happened to them, and they would say, “I’m not going to do anything about it”. These were people who had been married for 40 years and had not told their partner, but they told me. They said, “We’re telling you, because you’re doing something about it, and this can be of use to you”. They were not isolated examples. That was more the norm than not the norm, where I was the first who was told, and they said, “We’re not going to do anything about it—we’d like you to do something about it”. That is our responsibility.

10:24:00

My Lords, I warmly commend the noble Baroness for her tenacity in bringing forward this Bill. There is enormous respect and support for what she is doing. I want to touch on the context. It was 50 years ago that we had the first public inquiry into child physical abuse, with the Maria Colwell case, when Maria Colwell was beaten and killed by her stepfather. Since then, we have had any number of inquiries on physical abuse, and we do not need any more. The lessons are always the same; why are they not implemented, and why are the dots not joined? With the reports of Herbert Laming, now the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and William Utting, the lessons are the same. Then we came upon child sexual abuse, which frankly was unthinkable. I think that the House fails to realise that this was not a concept that people even considered, and we are not so far along the line in understanding how addictive it is. In the 1970s, I was asked to review the literature on paedophilia at the Institute of Psychiatry at the Maudsley. The view was that the trauma of reporting in a court case was so much more damaging to a family than actually trying to give them a little bit of counselling. Attitudes have changed beyond belief, and we should not judge the past by the present. Why are people so resistant to reporting? I have personal evidence. I started working for Frank Field at the Child Poverty Action Group; then I wanted to become a psychiatric social worker, so I went as an unqualified social worker to a special boarding school for the Inner London Education Authority. I discovered that the headmaster spent all his time hanging around the girls’ bedrooms, the lavatories and bathrooms. This was horrific. I was 23, it was my first job—I wanted my reputation, so what could I do? I could do no other. I went to the head of my service, the school social work service for the Inner London Education Authority, but I was told, “No, Virginia—if they think that social workers are going to be reporting on things, they won’t allow social workers in the schools”. That was too much for me. My formidable aunt, Peggy Jay, a GLC member, said, “Go and see Lena Jeger”, who was a wonderful Labour woman. I went to see her—and what happened? The man was given a good reference and went to a school in Sevenoaks, Tunbridge Wells. I could do no other. My friend Patrick Mayhew—the late Lord Mayhew—was the MP, and I said, “If you ever hear anything, you must do something”. What happened? The man went off to a school in Canada. We need to understand the resistance to reporting. It is damaging for the sport—and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is going to speak. You do not want people to think that athletics is full of sex abuse or that a school is full of sex abuse. You do not want people to feel that the Church is full of sex abuse—so we should just be sympathetic to the resistance. On my next point, we must be careful of false reporting. We all remember the late Lord Brittan and the horrors that he had in the last years of his life—and Lord Bramall. I used to work with a young man who was very disturbed and had seen more than anyone should have done at 15. The first thing he did when he went to a children’s home was to accuse somebody of touching him up. What happens? The person immediately gets suspended. We all know about this from constituents in our schools. False accusations mean instant dismissal and a reputation destroyed, and it is almost impossible for that individual to get back. I am not condoning anything—the trauma, the loss of innocence, the loss of a childhood from child sexual abuse, as the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said. So many people in our prisons and so many drug addicts have had these terrible experiences. But, again, the IICSA story was such a dog’s breakfast. It had all the wrong chairmen. They should have stayed with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and they finally got to Alexis Jay, who I hope will be a Baroness. She is a wise woman, who at last has sorted it out in an intelligent and practical way—and our job is to implement these recommendations.

My Lords, while I appreciate how passionately we feel about this issue, the first two speakers have gone about 30 seconds over the advisory speaking time, so could noble Lords please be mindful of the advisory speaking time of four minutes?

10:29:00

My Lords, I support the Bill and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on this important issue. I declare an interest as vice-president of Barnardo’s, which has been supporting victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and exploitation across the UK for more than 25 years and now hosts the independent Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse. With the support of Barnardo’s, I have long campaigned for more services and greater capacity in the workforce to support victims and survivors of child sexual abuse. From the data we have, experts believe that at least 500,000 children under 18 are sexually abused in England and Wales every year, but the real total is likely to be much higher. The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse set out wide-ranging recommendations which must be implemented as a matter of urgency. Survivors must be listened to and services must be adequately funded. Action is long overdue. A duty to report child sexual abuse was a cornerstone recommendation of the independent inquiry led by Professor Alexis Jay. Adults working directly with children have a special responsibility to act when they are concerned about their safety. They must be clear about their responsibilities, and confident and supported to deliver them. In addition, there must be sanctions for concealing or covering up the sexual abuse of children. The Home Secretary has now committed publicly to introduce this duty in law, along with a new victims’ and survivors’ panel, which I support wholeheartedly. However, victims and survivors have been waiting a long time for action since the review and they must not be left to wait any longer. We need to make sure that children can access specialist, confidential services, where they can build relationships with trusted adults. After experiencing the terrible trauma of sexual abuse, many children need time and space to reach a point where they can share their experiences in full, in a way that means action can be taken to keep them safe and, importantly, to bring abusers to justice. We must make sure that professionals can still take the time, when needed, to build these relationships ahead of reporting to others. If the law gets this wrong, it risks actively harming efforts to reduce sexual abuse—the exact opposite of what this Bill is hoping to achieve. Without clear protections, essential services such as NSPCC Childline, and the Shore service operated by the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, will not be able to continue operating. We must ensure that these services can continue their valuable work. The introduction of any duty to report must be accompanied by funding for services and training to support practitioners, including volunteers, working with children. Mandated reporters must have the knowledge to identify and respond to concerns and to support children through the process. That requires high-quality resources and investment, not only from organisations but from government, to ensure that those working with children can access training and develop their skills and understanding. Being a victim of abuse has a devastating effect on children that often stays with them long into adulthood. As I always say, childhood lasts a lifetime. I urge the Government to support this Bill for the sake of all the children who have been or are being sexually abused today.

10:33:00

My Lords, I support this significant Bill tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who has articulated very clearly why it is important. First, I want to recognise, on behalf of the Church of England, our own shocking failures in safeguarding and take this opportunity to apologise to victims and survivors of Church abuse. I fully support the introduction of mandatory reporting of child sex abuse and of other abuse, in all contexts. I note the Government’s commitment to doing so in their upcoming police and crime Bill. Today’s debate gives us another opportunity for this important discussion. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for bringing the Bill forward, and to Members of your Lordships’ House for their contributions, which I know at times will not be easy. I have spoken of the need in the Church of England for a reset in safeguarding. This must include a genuinely survivor-focused approach, with independence and mandatory reporting at its heart. Proposals will be brought forward to the Church of England’s General Synod in February, including the introduction of a mandatory reporting requirement in the statutory safeguarding code on managing allegations. We on these Benches want to continue to work with the Government to support the legislation they bring forward on mandatory reporting, but it must include legally precise definitions of the person to whom the duty applies. This Bill will need some amendment to offer that precision. However, I strongly support its principle and stand ready to work with the Government on this vital safeguarding reform, which, as we have already heard, is long overdue.

10:35:00

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on bringing this to the House today. It is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. I want to speak briefly from the perspective of education. I hope and believe that there are no schools that are quite like the ones we heard described from the Benches opposite, but I realise that there are bad actors all over the place. I believe that, in general, child protection and the duty of care is taken seriously by all teachers—certainly by all the teachers I know. It is a significant responsibility. We know there is a great deal of mental ill-health and distress in schools at the moment, but schools are clearly an obvious place to ensure that there is mandatory reporting of child sex abuse. This implies proper training for all school staff—not just teachers but all staff who work in schools, whether they are in an admin or support capacity. We can never know to whom a child might report something; it could be a school secretary or somebody else. Regrettably, we have heard that often it is reported to no one at all. Such training must be high-quality, and it has to be repeated. We know that there is a high turnover of teachers and other school staff, so this has to be an ongoing programme to make sure that all people in schools understand their responsibilities and the things for which they might need to look out. I add, as the noble Baroness did, that this goes hand in hand with making sure that we have high-quality sex and relationships education, so that children and young people understand what is right and what is not right. I am pleased that the Bill ensures that there is no penalty if the reporting turns out not to have revealed a case. Head teachers in particular, who hold in their hands the responsibility for a school, will find it difficult to report if they feel that that will have a devastating effect on their school. Equally, they obviously want to make sure that they report properly. Of course, it is not the head teacher, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said, who knows what is going on in a child’s life on a daily basis; it is the individual teacher. I am pleased to support the Bill. I hope and believe that, even if we do not hear something positive from the Front Bench, we will ensure that mandatory reporting does occur, and occurs in a context of proper training for all those who work in good faith with young people, so that we can move towards a significant reduction in this appalling behaviour by adults. Some 85% of this behaviour goes unreported, as we heard from the noble Baroness. We have to find spaces for people who have been subject to such abuse to be able to bring it forward. I support the Bill.

10:39:00

My Lords, the importance of mandatory reporting of sexual abuse in sport has been campaigned for by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and me for many decades. Our work together on safeguarding in sport goes back to the 1990s, and I warmly congratulate her on introducing the Bill. I also celebrate her lifetime commitment on behalf of those young people and their parents who love sport and expect the best for their children. I thank the right reverend Prelate for an important and very moving contribution to today’s debate. We know there is a lack of communication between sporting bodies, police and local authorities around child sexual abuse, safeguarding and the need for mandatory reporting to place an obligation on individuals and the bodies delivering sport and recreation to report concerns of sexual abuse to the appropriate authorities. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and I have both campaigned for a sports ombudsman, in part to fulfil that role. The Government’s guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, recognised that in paid and volunteer sport staff needed to be aware of their responsibilities for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children—and they are manifold. However, we must take cognisance of the Whyte review, which exposed a problem that extends far beyond gymnastics. We read with sickening realism the tragedy of sexual abuse that took place within our national game of football, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mann. In her report, Anne Whyte found an “unacceptable” culture and concluded that between 2008 and 2020, there was a failure to put the welfare of participants at the centre of gymnastics, particularly elite gymnastics. There was also a culture that meant the gymnastics community felt unable to raise their concerns. I wonder how many more sporting scandals will occur before we have legislation for mandatory reporting on the statute book. We must never lose sight in sport of the position of authority and control which the sports coach exercises: emotional, physical and verbal abuse, weight-shaming, physical isolation and grooming have too often been used, justified and hidden under a sickening mantra of “Well, that’s what it takes to be the best”. It is not. It must never be tolerated. Women in sport were right to fight, believe in and call for an independent body for safeguarding and duty of care in sport. The Lords National Plan for Sport and Recreation Committee was right in its recommendation that: “Given the potential for abuse in sport and recreation settings, we recommend that the Minister for Sport, Health and Wellbeing consult and work with the sector to introduce mandatory reporting in sport and recreation settings”. The proposal came from widespread evidence that the time is right to act now. I appreciate that Private Members’ Bills are important in their own right. However, they are also important because they can trigger responses from government. This is one vital area of safeguarding that needs addressing, either here or in another Bill. I feel nothing but a sense of urgency underpinned by humility and respect in speaking to this subject in support of the Bill from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson.

10:43:00

My Lords, I strongly support the Bill and I warmly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on bringing it forward. I also pay tribute to the tireless work of Tom Perry and all at Mandate Now on behalf of victims of child sexual abuse. It is clear from the IICSA report that a mandatory reporting duty is essential now. Over the years, I have been informed by the work of Professor Ben Mathews of Queensland University of Technology in Australia. Ben is the world expert on mandatory reporting duties in legislation; he is certainly not the devil but is well across the detail. Ben has conducted analyses of different models from around the world to identify strengths and weaknesses from legal, theoretical and empirical perspectives. These inform his conclusions about optimal legislative features for a mandatory reporting duty for child sexual abuse. I base my comments today on this work. Does the Bill before us match up to these criteria? Well, yes, most of them. First, does it adopt a sound definition of the concept of child sexual abuse, operationalised through connected operational definitions, including in associated educational materials? No, it does not, but it needs to add it in the Schedule. Secondly, does it define a child as including all individuals under the age of 18? Yes. Thirdly, does it clearly list the designated occupational groups of reporters? Yes. Fourthly, does it specify the state of mind activating the duty? This should include “knowledge” and “suspicion on reasonable grounds”. Yes. Fifthly, does it apply to cases of suspected and known past abuse, to presently occurring abuse and to cases where the reporter suspects the abuse is likely to happen? No, only past and current acts are included. Sixthly, does it specify what details the report must include? No. Seventhly, does it specify to whom the report must be made? Yes. Eighthly, does it specify that a report should be made immediately? No; it says as soon as practicable, which is reasonable. Ninthly, does it clearly set out that where an expert liaison officer exists, the reporter may discuss their suspicion with that person to inform their decision about whether to report? No, but perhaps it should be put in guidance. Tenthly, does it state that a report is not required where the reporter knows a report about the same incident has already been made? Yes. Eleventhly, does it state that a report is not required where the reporter knows or believes a child is engaging with another young person in genuinely consensual sexual activity? That is not included here. Twelfthly, does it protect the reporter’s identity? This is essential to reassure reporters of confidentiality. Yes. Thirteenthly, does it confer immunity from liability for making a report in good faith? Yes. Fourteenthly, does it prohibit reprisals against reporters? Yes. There are five other items on the list which I will give to the Minister as I do not have time to go through them all. However, all in all, this Bill covers most of the bases and it is a very good foundation for legislation. Will the Government base their promised amendment to the Serious Crime Act on this Bill and on Ben Mathews’ checklist, which I will give him?

10:47:00

My Lords, this Bill raises a crucial issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is absolutely right to pursue it, despite the promises of the Government that at some point they will bring in legislation that will deal with it. The question is when? As noble Lords have already said, this issue is urgent; it does not need to wait for a thought process for months or more than that. I bitterly regret not remaining as chairman of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. However, I had burning family issues that meant I could not do it. I have always will felt very guilty that I did not carry it out, though I probably would not have done as good a job as Alexis Jay. I did an inquiry, the Cleveland child abuse inquiry, and wrote a report in 1988. The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, was absolutely right, because there are false allegations. Having been a practitioner and a judge for many years, both trying such cases and acting for parties, I discovered that there were false allegations and some of them came through my court. We need to remember, as has already been said, that it is not only girls but also boys and babies. I have had a significant number of cases of babies being sexually abused—it is horrifying but not unusual. One has to bear in mind that these cases take place within the family, by family members and by outsiders. That is important. However, the large majority of cases are within the family. I was twice a school governor, of a boys’ school and a girls’ school, where I was responsible for pastoral care. In each school, I discussed with the head teacher whether allegations being made should be pursued. That is not easy for the head teacher of a school. One of the important aspects of having mandatory reporting by agencies is that it should give encouragement to other ordinary people to bring these issues up, such as other members of the family, neighbours, people going to the school, or other people who recognise that a child is not doing well and are worried about that child. If we have mandatory reporting, as we should have, we ought to have an awareness campaign that it is going on and there should be encouragement for people to report, particularly neighbours. We have had a very recent example in the press where the neighbours were concerned about a little girl of 10, Sara Sharif, and they did not do anything. They quite properly would have been right to have gone to someone in authority and said “Look, we’re concerned about what’s happening”. So this is extremely important. I hope that the Government realise that this cannot wait—I am sure they do; they have the best of intentions—and I ask them to support this Bill.

10:50:00

My Lords, I recognise that your Lordships’ House is in pretty well universal agreement, and I count myself part of that supportive chorus in saying that mandatory reporting is critical for the accountability for and prevention of child sexual abuse and the safeguarding of our children. I have questions about the Bill, but no questions whatever about the seriousness, rigour and passion that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, brings to her campaigning on this and other issues that come before your Lordships’ House. So, although I have questions, they are offered in a constructive, not to say supportive, fashion. The Government say that mandatory reporting will be part of the crime and policing Bill planned for the spring. This will, I suspect, preclude them from accepting this Bill, preferring to introduce measures as part of their own legislation. However, I suggest that my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint, the Minister, finds a way to embrace this Bill, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, because it makes a substantial contribution to that ambition of the Government, and we should work together with the noble Baroness to ensure that the Bill is reflected in the eventual legislation as quickly as possible. As part of a previous life practising law, largely child law, in Scotland, I have some experience of these issues, albeit in a—very—different jurisdiction. However, I am conscious that there are other Members of your Lordships’ House who have more direct and substantive experience of this jurisdiction. I will therefore take up as little time as possible—well, I have little time anyway—to make the two points I want to make. I will focus first on the provisions under Clause 2(1), which stipulates that “if the report under section 1 is made orally, the maker of the report must confirm the report in writing no later than seven days thereafter”. Clause 3(1) makes a failure to do so an offence. In principle, I see nothing wrong in that, but I worry about its ability to survive a test of the real world. Imagine the following scenario: a newly qualified teaching assistant or other member of staff in their general welfare role, as defined by Clause 2(6)(a), wishing to pass on a suspicion of sexual abuse, makes an oral report under conditions of high emotion. Some six days later, they then have to sit down and attempt to write a letter to the local authority-designated officer to support their claim. It seems possible, if not likely, that there, the delay in the change of medium might lead to discrepancies between the two accounts, which could become significant later on and which could be challenged in some other circumstances. The production of such a letter is not something I would do without legal support—I say that even with many years’ experience of practising law. I suspect that any difference between oral and written affirmation would be fraught with legal jeopardy at some point in the future. If written evidence is necessary, as I believe those who helped draft the legislation think it is, would it not be better to impose the duty of producing such written testimony on the person who receives it, whether the local authority-designated officer or an employee of the local authority children’s services? My other question centres around Clause 2(7), which describes exceptional cases in which a Secretary of State can suspend or rescind temporarily the duty to refer. I am not seeking to score points here, but what “exceptional” circumstances is this provision designed to cover? I am not short of imagination, but, even after several days of devising hypothetical scenarios to meet this case, I have thus far been unable to conceive of circumstances in which it would be better for a child’s “welfare, safety or protection” to continue to be abused rather than to have that stopped. As I say, I know those who drafted the Bill would have done so with specific circumstances in mind and, just as a point of information, I would be grateful if they could be outlined.

10:54:00

My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for her tenacity in pursuing this Private Member’s Bill. I served on the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House looking at statutory inquiries and had the privilege and duty of giving evidence to IICSA while a Minister in the Department for Education. The Select Committee stated that too many recommendations from statutory inquiries are not responded to or, even if they are accepted, they are not acted on. When victims give evidence as they do in such inquiries, it is disrespectful at least, and possibly harmful, to treat recommendations in this manner. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, outlined, this recommendation is nearly three years old. Could His Majesty’s Government make sure that all past recommendations of all statutory inquiries are looked at now? If they have been accepted, when will they be enacted, even if this new Government take a different view? Surely it is better for victims to know that than have this grey area where there has been acceptance but they are not sure what is going to happen? While there is now widespread agreement on enacting this recommendation, effective definition of this duty is harder than it might seem. The last Government’s attempts might not have actually created a criminal offence. I know that this is a Private Member’s Bill, with all the constraints this brings, but I wonder whether the limitation to humans having knowledge of child abuse now needs updating. Much of the knowledge of or disclosure by children who have been harmed may in fact be sitting on online platforms, as they increasingly disclose in that way. So, when His Majesty’s Government consider this mandatory reporting duty, could we please be assured that the duties to report on corporations and online platforms under the Online Safety Act align with human beings’ responsibility to report such harm under mandatory reporting? Also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, outlined, there is no definition of child sexual abuse in the Bill. Again, with much happening online, such as deepfakes and the plethora of offences, these are now not straightforward issues. What if a group of teenagers come across images on their parents’ devices and happen to mention that casually in the hearing of a youth group leader or teacher? Is that child abuse to report? A proper definition will limit the number of misguided or false reports. While I welcome the creation of a separate detriment offence in Section 3(2), if someone does not report child abuse as they have suffered a significant detriment, and is charged with the offence under Section 3(1), they do not seem to be able to raise that detriment or the threats they suffered as a defence. Is that really just? While we expect people to put the seriousness of child sex abuse disclosures above the reputation of institutions and their own personal promotion, et cetera, if they are being threatened with significant detriment, should they still be guilty of an offence if they succumb to that pressure? Should the magistrates not at least have a discretion to take that into account or are His Majesty’s Government expecting that the common-law defence of duress will be raised in those circumstances? I would also be grateful if His Majesty’s Government could confirm whether these offences are going to be relevant for that person’s own DBS check. Whether they have that defence that they can raise is very pertinent, because it could affect their career in an ongoing way if it is relevant to their DBS clearance. I was surprised to read in the IICSA report that it asked for information from local authorities about the level of disclosure of child sex abuse and was told that the data is not collected. If local authorities are given this duty, surely they should have to collect the data and be given the resources to do so. With over 82,000 people currently barred from working with children, sadly, this is not a historic issue.

10:58:00

My Lords, I cannot speak too highly of the efforts of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson; they must be applauded. My intention is to raise a narrow aspect of the issue; namely, what has happened since 4 July last year. I am not an expert and I do not recall anything like the present situation in my 27 years in the Commons. My interest and curiosity were alerted by a letter in the Times on 18 October last year from Richard Scorer and Kim Harrison, joint heads of abuse law at Slater and Gordon Lawyers UK. It pointed out that, in the two years from October 2022, nothing had been done regarding the IICSA report and there was no sign of the present Government addressing the failure. I therefore tabled a Written Question—HL1773—which was answered on 24 October by my noble friend Lord Hanson. It was an excellent Answer and full of empathy, but it did not say that the recommendations would be implemented. It said that the Home Office was working across government “to identify how best to deliver against the recommendations … The lessons learned from” the report “will provide a fundamental basis for this work … and we hope to … get started … soon”. I checked the King’s Speech, but there was no reference to it. I was aware of the First Reading of this Private Member’s Bill, so I parked it. Then, earlier this month, Elon Musk raised the issue, doing so in a crude, misleading and immoral way. Initially, it was clear that he had no knowledge of the UK legal or parliamentary system, but that changed. He went directly for a Government Minister, Jess Phillips, who has an excellent record and now requires extra security. He went for the Prime Minister, who has not so far responded directly to Musk by name; even though an examination of his record as a prosecutor is excellent, he appeared to be pushed on to the back foot. Musk has to be taken head on; he has massive weaknesses but is never seriously challenged. As Ian Hislop said in a recent interview, we should have cottoned on to how bad a person he was following the allegations he made towards those helping the young boys trapped in the Thailand caves in 2018. While the world went to help, Musk had no moral compass. It is strange that he failed to spot Jeffrey Epstein committing offences against young people in his own adopted country. Ros Atkins, the BBC analysis editor, looked at 24 hours of Musk comments on Twitter on Monday 6 January—48% of the 153 posts were about the UK—and he found them wanting in accuracy. The conclusion was that Musk’s concern about grooming gangs does not extend to being truthful when discussing them. I am not at all clear why the Government are not being bold on Musk—turning the other cheek will not work. Why was the IICSA report not in the King’s Speech? I asked our Library to check Hansard from both the Commons and the Lords, from 4 July to the end of December, on the issue of Professor Jay’s report. There are very few instances: a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood; a Question from Shaun Davies MP; a Question from me; and a Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. There have been other Questions on child sexual abuse relating to specific locations, the Church of England, devolution, the Met Police—but there were only four on the report. The excellent Library staff also checked debates with a mention of the IICSA report. Speakers included the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester on the King’s Speech; the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in an Oral Question; the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, on the Second Reading of the home school education Bill; and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, in the debate on social cohesion. Those are the recorded questions. As to the answers, not a single one states clearly that the Government accept, and intend to implement, all 20 recommendations made by Professor Jay, between 4 July and the end of December. The same phrases—the line to take that I quoted earlier—are used throughout. They all avoid specific commitments; that is, until 6 January, when the Home Secretary made commitments to implement three key recommendations. I expect my noble friend the Minister to say something today about the other 17. It is crystal clear that urgent action on them—alongside more detailed inquiries, as called for by the MP for Rotherham, Sarah Champion—should take place. The PM needs to boldly take on Musk by name and defend all his Ministers. Appeasement to a bully invites more bullying. This House supports and thanks the Minister for Safeguarding, Jess Phillips, for the excellent work she has done and is doing. The UK is not in a world-leading position on this issue, and we need to get there fast.

11:03:00

My Lords, the sooner Musk goes to Mars the better. I hugely congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on bringing this important issue to the Floor of the House. A number of countries have introduced mandatory reporting. Of course, the results have varied depending on the country, the scope of the law and its enforcement, and the systems in place to support investigations and victims—and we can learn from their experiences. However, what is clear is that, where this has become the law, there has been a significant increase in the number of reported cases of sexual abuse. That clearly indicates that the very introduction of such laws raises awareness and encourages reporting by professionals, particularly teachers, doctors and social workers. There are many examples of where mandatory reporting can be part of a strong safeguarding system. It can identify inappropriate relations, where a child is receiving excessive attention from an adult. It can notice signs of abuse. It can identify online exploitation, where a teacher or school counsellor becomes aware that a student is being coerced by an adult into sharing explicit images online. It can identify familial abuse, where a child confides in a social worker about being abused by an older sibling, cousin, parent or family friend. It can identify behavioural changes, where a child suddenly displays extreme changes in behaviour, such as aggression, withdrawal or fear of certain individuals. It can note what a child discloses during therapy, when a child shows signs of neglect or when a child is overheard describing sexual acts involving themselves and an adult. It can come across evidence of institutional abuse. The examples go on and on. However, there are also challenges, which several Members have raised. When the many reports come in—because I trust that this legislation will be passed—they will not all meet the threshold for substantiated abuse, and therefore there will be a strain on resources. There is also the fear that mandatory reporting could deter victims or their families from seeking help; for example, in a healthcare setting, patients and/or their parents might withhold information from doctors out of concern that it will trigger a report. As has been raised, it can lead to false or unsubstantiated claims, which can cause immense harm to innocent accused individuals. There are examples of overreporting, when professionals report cases out of a fear of legal consequences for failing to report, even when abuse is unlikely. There is also a danger that in situ—in healthcare, counselling, children’s social services, et cetera—mandatory reporting may harm trust between professionals and clients, especially if the clients fear legal or social repercussions. There are issues around breaches of confidentiality, retaliation and a fear of reporting, the risks of mismanagement where there is insufficient training, and harm to children where they are removed with insufficient cause. However, it is the case that mandatory reporting laws have helped foster a societal shift towards recognising the seriousness of child sexual abuse, and awareness campaigns and the legal mandate have reduced tolerance for abuse in settings such as schools and religious and sports organisations. I hugely welcome the Bill. While there are things to watch out for with the introduction of mandatory reporting, which will come, the Government absolutely must address the challenges and fund—I emphasise: fund—the training that mandatory reporting will inevitably bring with it.

11:07:00

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, as we all do, for bringing forward this most important Bill, which I am sure will go through to full Committee and be passed. Why is it so important? I served as chair of the Sexual Violence in Conflict Select Committee a while ago. We took evidence from all over the globe by Zoom. Our clerks were diligent, and we brought in more evidence of sexual abuse in conflict than has ever been gathered before. The single determinant was fascinating: it was that victims needed their societies to know that this had happened to them; in other words, this reporting is crucial. All over the globe, the ladies who have been abused, as well as the few men—most of the men get killed when this happens, while the ladies manage to survive; they are still alive, but heavily damaged—then want their society to know what has happened to them. Curiously, they did not necessarily need it to go to court. What they needed to know was that their society accepted that something totally unacceptable had happened to them and that it was recognised. So this reporting is absolutely vital. However, it also brings problems. There are more societies than not where the reporting of sexual abuse of a female has damaged her for life. This is extremely difficult. In certain faiths, religions and societies, once a girl is known to have been abused, she is dead wood. She can be abused again and again, because she is already gone. Therefore, I wonder about something that has not yet been raised as prominently as I would suggest is necessary, from my experience: that parents are brought in. Initially it is the parents who will teach the child, girl or boy, who to worry about, how to behave, how to avoid them, and what they should be concerned about. We have magnificent teachers in this House, but we have not discussed the core people in a child’s life: the mother and father, and how they can help—how they can distinguish between good and bad and teach the child from very early on who they should be worried about. I remember when I was a child that there was a gentleman, and we were all taught as children, “Don’t go near that man when you are going out for a walk”. It is the mother who knows this and senses it. It is the maternal instinct that shelters the child at the beginning. Therefore, my suggestion is that we might think about Saturday morning teaching for parents in schools, for example. There is a lot of Saturday morning teaching on other subjects, which is fantastic. What about how to protect your child? My final point is that as a society, we have in my opinion given very mixed messages on what a child is. We demand that doctors give certain sorts of drugs to children of 13, 14 and 15. Are they a child if they can have access to contraceptives, for example? What is the definition of a child in the United Kingdom? As we look at this whole subject, with the upcoming debates on these dreadful happenings in other parts of the UK, we will have to discuss what we define as a child in the first place. But so far, I welcome the Bill with the warmest possible support. It will make a huge difference to many children in the future.

11:11:00

My noble friend Baroness Grey-Thompson’s Bill is overdue and critically important, and she has worked tirelessly on it. I will address healthcare settings where, sadly, abuse has been shown to occur. We all remember the horror of Jimmy Savile’s catalogue of abuse that went back years, and the sense of disbelief that it could have gone on under the very noses of those in a position of trust. The 2020 Truth Project revealed how vulnerabilities are heightened in the context of healthcare. The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse revealed that 83% of those sexually abused in healthcare contexts reported it as sexual abuse by a healthcare professional. Furthermore, 48% reported that someone else in the institution knew about the sexual abuse. Many of the children who were sexually abused were unaware of whether other children were also being abused, and factors such as power dynamics were used by perpetrators to exercise that abuse. Characteristics of the healthcare context used by perpetrators to abuse included routine access to children, the power and authority they have as healthcare practitioners, children’s respect for adults’ authority, their lack of knowledge of normal examinations, and cultures of abuse that happen in some institutions. There are many reasons why children, or anyone, would not report, including not knowing that the behaviours are not okay, the fear of not being believed, feelings of shame and embarrassment, or having no one to whom they can disclose. A key finding is that vulnerabilities are heightened in the context of healthcare due to the unique nature of the position of trust and authority occupied by healthcare practitioners. In addition, although many disclosed the sexual abuse to trusted adults such as parents or healthcare professionals during childhood, very few were believed and some were dismissed by healthcare professionals as sick, “crazy” or deluded. For children to describe what happened and to later be able to give evidence against a perpetrator, they need a great deal of support, but not all victims have access to that. Back in the 1980s, I was a GP to three children’s homes. Despite suspicions, shamefully, we did not know how to help the children feel safe to disclose, and then one Christmas, the children themselves burned down one of the homes and all our suspicions became confirmed. Since then, all too often I have had patients with different problems say, “I never told anyone before” and then disclose deep trauma, often sexual abuse. Those who become aware of abuse do not know where to go with their suspicions, or the best way to support the child, and they are often fearful of being accused of making a false accusation or fear recriminatory accusations from the abuser themselves, or from others. The no-detriment clause in the Bill is essential. It takes courage to report suspicions of something that you wish did not exist. That is why the system of taking knowledge of abuse to the local authority seems the safest option for both the victim and the reporter. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has helpfully produced Ben Mathews’ checklist as a great help for the Government in taking this forward. I am sure that all in this House hope that the Bill will become formally adopted in the principle in which it is written.

11:16:00

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, and note that when I was president of the Liberal Democrats I gave evidence to IICSA about historic abuse and how we tackle complaints these days. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who addressed healthcare settings and the shocking data that 40% of other healthcare professionals knew what was going on; I also thank her for her frankness in describing her experience as a GP for children’s homes. That also reflects the right reverend Prelate’s saying that it is time for a reset; we must admit when we ourselves have got things wrong. I want to start by commending the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on laying this Private Member’s Bill, which would make reporting and associated activities mandatory in order to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation; and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, who has championed mandatory reporting for many years, and who spoke with such authority today. In addition, I want to pay tribute to Mandate Now for its campaigning over many years, particularly Tom Perry, who retired as director last year, and Jonathan West, who has picked up the mantle. Both they and others have been fighting for years to ensure that there is a clear and formal route to reporting to the authorities, that staff and volunteers responsible for safeguarding understand their roles, and that they and their colleagues are trained to recognise concerns and what they must then do. Only with all these elements in place can we avoid cases where people have known what was going on but have done nothing to report it to a designated person. Only with all these elements in place will we have a well-designed mandatory reporting system. In 1993, when I was a very new joint chair of education in Cambridgeshire, we received a complaint from a parent about a caretaker in a primary school. Upon investigation, it emerged that there had been sporadic complaints over the years but the head just did not believe them. Had those first suspicions been reported via mandatory reporting, many young girls would not have been abused over subsequent decades. The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, led by Alexis Jay, catalogued the appalling consequences of this type of abuse, especially when perpetrated by those in a position of trust or power over the child and others. The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, was right to point out how many inquiries and reports into child physical and sexual abuse we have had over 50 years, and yet still things happen. What is the gap? There is clearly still a problem. The 13th recommendation of the IICSA inquiry was for mandatory reporting, which would bring us nearer to the vast majority of other nations. A survey three years ago of 62 nations found that 80% of those participating had some form of mandatory reporting. With no statutory offence of failing to report suspicions, it is not clear who will have the power to investigate or even talk to the Disclosure and Barring Service. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, told us that on average, it takes someone abused as a child 26 years to disclose. This means that other adults who interact with the child must be able to report suspicions, which can then be investigated by an outside professional, whether it is the LADO in the local authority or the police. I say to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that this means that false reporting, too, can be examined by professionals, who might recognise earlier that it is false reporting, rare though that is. Unfortunately, the current proposals offered by IICSA in its recommendation 13 are weak and unlikely to affect reporting rates. I ask the Minister why the Government are not going to follow the examples of Australia, Canada and others, where adults in schools and other settings report that they are now much more confident in raising suspicions to ensure investigation because of the mandatory reporting frameworks. Mandatory reporting helps professional adults responsible for children by giving them a clear framework for taking such action. By the way, as others have mentioned, this is not just a schools issue. It should cover, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said, regulated activities such as sports, ballet, drama, Scouts and Guides, and faith groups’ youth activities. We are seeing far too many scandals outside schools. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was right to point out that elite sports have a very particular problem. The noble Baronesses, Lady Benjamin and Lady Featherstone, were right to talk about resources being critical. Local government funds for children’s services are inadequate at present, perhaps contributing to delays in uncovering and dealing with cases. The right reverend Prelate talked movingly about the Church of England having to have a complete reset in its approach to safeguarding, and that is very welcome. I believe this needs to happen in many other settings too, in particular in sports and children’s and youth activities. The noble Baroness, Lady Blower, spoke of ensuring that staff are aware of child sexual activity and have proper training for that. She is right to mention a need for a new dialogue with children and young people. For too many years, it has focused on stranger danger, and we know that the vast bulk of child sexual abuse is committed by somebody known to children and young people. Teachers in Western Australia who were unhappy with the principle of mandatory reporting prior to its introduction now say that it has given them more confidence to report suspicions and that they would not be ignored by the school or, worse, punished for reporting difficult evidence. Professor Ben Matthews from Queensland University of Technology, who is a world expert in mandatory reporting and how it works in practice, gave detailed evidence in 2019 to IICSA and provided it with his model Bill, which has now been used successfully in many countries around the world. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for using her time today to use Ben Matthews’s checklist against this Bill; it is an excellent base to use. IICSA focused on historic abuse, and we delude ourselves if we think that it is not happening except in group settings. The vast majority of abuse is not outside the home; it is inside the home, by someone very close to the child. That is why the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, was right to focus on signs of behaviour noticed by teachers at school, nursery or in other settings. Suspicions must always be reported to designated people who are experts in investigating what has happened. If there is any chance of someone not reporting suspected abuse to a designated person, we will continue to have appalling cases where abusers are not caught and then repeat and repeat their foul abuse on other children. The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, helpfully pointed out that online groups and forums may now be a place where abuse is disclosed or alluded to. We need to plan how to cover that in legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, with her Select Committee experience, was right to say that reporting is the first step for victims to ensure that their communities know what has happened. One message that we keep hearing in all the cases emerging at the moment is how the victims feel re-victimised when it continues to happen and the processes for getting the information out just do not work. I hope that the Government will look very carefully at the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, taking on board her concerns and those of others about the weaknesses of the IICSA model, and either support this Bill or produce their own. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, is right, and the Government are moving quickly to do this. I welcome that, but hope that they will use Professor Matthews’s checklist. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, outlined what has happened, and indeed what has not happened, since the general election last year. Children cannot stop abuse; adults can. That is why we need mandatory reporting for abuse. That is why we need this Bill.

11:24:00

My Lords, I am delighted to speak to this Bill today. Over many years, I have been involved with the investigation of the sexual abuse of babies through to paedophilia, and this goes on right underneath the noses of the people who are meant to protect these children. I welcome the Bill and commend the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for her tireless work on this issue and for bringing the Bill to the House. The Bill is both a moral imperative and a practical necessity, and it addresses one of the greatest and gravest breaches of trust in our society: the failure to protect children from the atrocious crime of sexual abuse, whether that is in sport, education or elsewhere. I am sure that many noble Lords will have an opinion on this subject, with the sickening news on grooming gangs. I do not wish to waver drastically from the subject of the noble Baroness’s Bill, and will focus on its contents rather than the broader political issues. However, I must reiterate my plea to the Minister that a full-scale inquiry into child sexual exploitation is called for. I ask the Minister to join the Mayor of Manchester in calling for a national statutory inquiry into grooming gangs. We should all understand the importance of safeguarding our communities and the necessity of ensuring that every child has the opportunity to grow up safe and secure. This Bill embodies those principles. It seeks to enshrine in law a duty to report suspected child sexual abuse, placing the protection of our most vulnerable above all else. It thoughtfully protects mandated reporters from detriment, which will undoubtedly ensure that whistleblowers in institutions where abuse is prevalent are encouraged to come forward. Finally, it creates a criminal offence of failing to report prescribed concerns. This Bill shows just how seriously His Majesty’s Government should take the issue of child sexual abuse. The Bill will help rebuild trust in the institutions that serve our communities, be they schools, places of worship, sports clubs, healthcare providers or any other setting. Recent scandals have exposed not just the horrifying prevalence of child sexual abuse but the systematic failures to act when abuse was suspected or known. Mandatory reporting will ensure that those entrusted with the care of children understand their responsibility to act when they suspect wrongdoing. The introduction of mandatory reporting is about fostering a culture of vigilance. It is about ensuring that no child’s cry for help goes unheard and no perpetrator is left to abuse again. That is at the heart of the Bill, as emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. We fully recognise that there is a duty on those with positions of responsibility to shield the innocent from harm. Like schoolteachers, priests and doctors, we in this House have a duty of care over the vulnerable. It comes with the position of trust that has been placed on us as legislators. I ask the Minister to commit to protecting children by supporting the noble Baroness’s Bill. Child sexual abuse leaves lasting scars, not only on the victims but on families and communities. By ensuring swift intervention, this Bill will help mitigate the long-term damage caused by abuse, offering victims the opportunity to receive support and justice sooner. Moreover, it reinforces the principle that communities must stand together in defence of their children. The duty to report is not a bureaucratic imposition; it is an ethical obligation that unites us all in the common cause of protecting the young. This Bill will enhance the UK’s standing as a global leader in child protection. By enacting mandatory reporting, we send a clear message: the United Kingdom will not tolerate the abuse of children and will hold those who turn a blind eye accountable. The Bill is a vital step forward in our collective duty to protect the innocent. It provides a robust framework to ensure that those who work with children understand their responsibilities and act decisively to safeguard the welfare of children. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has said, child sexual abuse is real and it is happening. I urge all noble Lords to support the Bill. Let us demonstrate our unwavering commitment to the safety and well-being of our children. Let us act decisively to ensure that silence can no longer shield abusers from justice.

11:29:00

My Lords, child sexual abuse is a despicable crime. This Government are committed to taking action to keep children safe online, in our communities and around the world. In line with our commitment to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade, this Government will also work to improve the response to, and outcomes of, child sexual abuse for women, children and girls. In that spirit I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for bringing forward the Bill. Through her, I also thank a range of voluntary organisations including Mandate Now and Barnardo’s, which were mentioned, for their support for the Bill and the proposals brought forward today. Timing is all. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, will know that I can give notice that the Government are reflecting very seriously on these matters. I stress again that this Government are firmly committed to tackling all forms of child sexual abuse, whether it happens online or in the community. That is why we want to take swift action on delivering against the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, about which I will talk in a moment. I want to start with the really important points mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Some 3.1 million adults have been subjected to child sexual abuse, according to the figures she brought forward today. The consequences of that were ably outlined by my noble friend Lord Mann and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson of Winterbourne, in relation to the impact on people not just at the time but throughout their lives. The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, mentioned resistance to reporting, which is extremely important as well. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, showed how in sport, in the health service and in healthcare, child abuse is prevalent and needs to be tackled. This mandating of reporting will have a great impact on our ability to reduce that. My noble friend Lord Rooker mentioned that he has done a good trawl of what has happened since 4 July last year. I hope to reassure him by saying that not all that happens in government is public at any particular point in time. A great deal of work had been done by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and by the Minister, Jess Phillips, up to the time when external forces—as I shall call them—put out comments around this issue over the Christmas and new year period. My noble friend will note that yesterday, through my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, the Government set out a clear timetable for taking forward the 20 recommendations from the final IICSA report. We will report to both Houses of Parliament before Easter, including on the issues mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, in her contribution. Four of the recommendations in the IICSA report were specifically for my department, the Home Office. Yesterday, again, we gave a commitment that we have been working on these issues—having been a Minister, my noble friend Lord Rooker knows what these things are like—not just in the past 10 days but for many months. We have accepted the four recommendations specifically for the Home Office, which include mandatory reporting—the subject of today’s Bill—and disclosure and barring. Work is under way to deliver those commitments in a legislative form, which will come before the House shortly. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned gangs. I want to respond to him on that issue. In the Statement made yesterday by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary—I suspect it might be repeated in this House shortly, if the Opposition so wish—there were clear commitments to take forward work on gangs and grooming, including funding and inquiries. It also included the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, taking forward further examination of data issues, which have been mentioned in today’s debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley—I pay tribute to the work that she has done—shared with me an amendment that she brought forward some 10 years ago. It shows great foresight, as I would expect from someone born in the same part of Liverpool as I was. She brought forward a checklist. Again, we will bring forward our proposals in due course; she can then check her list against the proposals from the Government. The international work informed the work of IICSA, which she mentioned. My noble friend Lord Browne talked about the intention of this legislation, and his points are worthy of consideration in relation to this Bill. I fully appreciate the work that has gone into the Bill. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on her tireless efforts in bringing this duty forward, which I fully appreciate. As I have mentioned, the Government are committed to delivering the inquiry’s recommendations on mandatory reporting. I hope we can agree that any new duty must ensure that the words of children who are seeking help are heard and that we must apply the strongest possible measures to anyone who seeks to cover up this type of abuse. I pay tribute to the work of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, both previously and today, in raising the importance of public awareness of individuals’ ability to bring forward recommendations and undertake mandatory reporting provisions. The Minister for Safeguarding, my friend Jess Phillips, is committed to working closely with survivor and expert groups on bringing forward legislation, and will continue to do so. I hope we can draw on the noble and learned Baroness’s expertise in that final commitment. I give her the commitment that I have just given to my noble friend Lord Rooker. She asked, “When?”, and I say to her, “Very soon. Watch out in the next few weeks. When it comes, recognise that the work has been ongoing and was happening prior to any contributions from individuals who talk about this, with not much knowledge, from places outside the United Kingdom”. The 20 recommendations made by the inquiry’s final report were referenced by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Benjamin, Lady Brinton, Lady Nicholson and Lady Berridge. They will be taken forward and reported to both Houses by Easter this year. My noble friend Lady Blower made some extremely important points about training, support and back-up for the people who will deal with this issue. This requires some long-term work. I know that Members of this House are impatient and want things to happen but I also know that they want things to be done correctly, with this Government addressing these issues in a way that makes intervention effective. So I say to my noble friend—and to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, who mentioned funding, and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, who discussed how we can enact these things—that there will be an impact assessment with the legislation that we bring forward. Therefore, there will be a delivery mechanism and delivery plan behind the legislation that we bring forward. In developing their recommendation on mandatory reporting, the Government will consider very strongly all the issues that have been brought forward in this House today. The 20 recommendations are complex and require long-term work but, again, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said yesterday that there will be a clear timetable for progress against the inquiry’s recommendations by Easter. I hope that is helpful. I say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London that we are happy and content to work with the Church in looking at its experiences, about which she spoke openly and honestly today. We want in particular to look at how mandatory reporting can be undertaken in the context of the Church, where, as with Members of Parliament and others, confidences are often expressed and comments made. It is not just in teaching and other capacities that this is undertaken: the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, mentioned family and parental support, which is an interesting area in terms of how we look at these issues in a realistic way. I want to touch on the issue of false allegations, which has been a seam through these discussions. The noble Baronesses, Lady Bottomley, Lady Berridge and Lady Featherstone, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, all mentioned false allegations. Although they are thankfully rare, the experience of our former colleague Lord Brittan and others have shown that they have a devastating effect on the accused individual, as well as harming how we approach genuine victims and survivors. I will be very clear with the House today: when the Government bring forward a duty of mandatory reporting, sharing information with the appropriate agencies will be part of it. However, it will be for the agencies to determine guilt or innocence accordingly, and it will be for the agencies to take forward appropriate action to support and safeguard the child involved. The contribution that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has made today is timely, important and on the button in relation to the absolute requirement of Parliament to help safeguard children in the future. As she knows, her Bill will progress and potentially go into Committee at some point in the future. It will have its discussions in this House and potentially progress to the House of Commons at some point. However, I give her this clear assurance, and I hope she accepts it as such: this Government will introduce measures that the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Brinton, and others can test. They will be introduced in legislation shortly, and we hope will be put on the statute book, and they will meet the obligations of the IICSA recommendations in their potential impact and the desire of this House to ensure that we safeguard and protect children. Those measures will be introduced soon. Whatever happens to the Private Member’s Bill, I hope that the House, whatever its views and considerations on the clauses brought forward in the Government’s wider legislation, gives the government Bill a fair wind to ensure that we protect children. The one clear message from the House today has been that we want action to ensure that mandatory reporting takes place. I give your Lordships the assurance from the Dispatch Box that action will happen.

11:42:00

My Lords, I thank everyone in your Lordships’ Chamber for the thoughtful and powerful nature of the debate. It is apparent that there is widescale support for a form of mandatory reporting. I will pick up a few specific points. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton; I have had the most significant contact on this clause and under which circumstances there could be exemption. Personally, I saw the ability to apply exemptions as a safety net, but I look forward to exploring this in more detail. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. We are both very privileged to have seen the best of sport, but our experience also gives some indication of why people have previously not reported. That should be a thing of the past. The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, raised some important points on the continuing threat of people still not reporting. We should not let that go under the radar. The noble Baroness’s experience in online safety is also vital as we move forward, as we must not devise legislation—this or a government Bill—that is out of date before it is completed, but ensure that it is fit for the future. It seems that we have been overtaken slightly by recent announcements. I again thank the honourable Jess Phillips and the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, for meeting yesterday. They recognise that there are decades of experience in your Lordships’ Chamber which is on hand to move this forward. I look forward to working with His Majesty’s Government, whether on this or another Bill, to get the right legislation on the statute book. In closing, I repeat the words of the IICSA Changemakers: “Effective and timely reporting is a vital part of a well functioning child protection system”. Finally, I thank all those who have taken part in the debate today and those who have contributed from outside. Many are waiting for answers. I welcome the Minister’s “soon”. I recognise that it is necessary parliamentary language, but your Lordships’ Chamber understands what that means. We will all be pressing for sooner rather than later. I welcome all suggestions to ensure that we create watertight, effective legislation to protect our children. We will keep pressing mandatory reporting in its entirety. Today, we have a duty to move at the right but speedy pace, with the right legislation, to further protect our children for generations to come.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.