House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before we start today’s business, I remind colleagues that the advisory speaking time is four minutes. The advisory speaking time enables all colleagues to participate fairly in the House. I ask colleagues to stick to that, because those in later business will be detained later if people do not.
Regulated and Other Activities (Mandatory Reporting of Child Sexual Abuse) Bill [HL]
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Grey-Thompson
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Relevant document: 11th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
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.
Lord Mann (Lab)
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.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
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.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
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?
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
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.
The Lord Bishop of London
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.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
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.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
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.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
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?
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
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.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
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.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
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.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
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.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
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.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
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.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
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.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
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.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
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.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
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.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
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.
Arrangement of Business
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before we move on to the next debate, I remind colleagues that the advisory speaking time for speeches in this debate is four minutes. I hope your Lordships can stick to that, because we have business going on after this debate and it will enable the House to rise at a reasonable time.
Consumer Products (Control of Biocides) Bill [HL]
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I begin by thanking all those who have helped draft this Bill. I specifically highlight the contributions of all the cross-sectoral stakeholders who took part in the round table I hosted last year. I will also single out Jen Mills at the Legislation Office, who was instrumental in shaping the Bill into a deliverable form, alongside Pete Kennedy for his work on the legal grounding. I also thank Dr Paul-Enguerrand Fady at the Centre for Long-Term Resilience, who conceived of this Bill, has been advocating for it since he joined my office in 2021 and continues to support it; and a succession of British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy interns who have helped me to this point. It is a great pleasure to see so many noble Lords here; I thank you all.
I will start by explaining the motivation and rationale behind bringing forward the Bill. It aims to curtail the general sale and subsequent spread on to human bodies and into the environment of consumer products intended for human use that contain biocides. Noble Lords will hear me repeat this phrase, “consumer products intended for human use” several times today. It is an important phrase to convey the narrow scope of the targeted and well-evidenced policy interventions contained in the Bill.
For the purpose of the Bill, biocides are chemicals that have an antimicrobial effect—they kill bacteria and other micro-organisms. It may strike members of the public tuning into this debate as strange to want to spare bacteria; after all, the public have been told for many years that “killing 99.9% of bacteria” is a desirable feature of many products. Your Lordships will probably see an advert today saying just that, but this could not be more wrong. It is high time we reclaimed the narrative around bacteria on our bodies, in our bodies and in our environments.
I will be clear about one thing: the Bill does not, in any way, shape or form restrict the ability of qualified medical professionals to provide medicines to patients in need. It also in no way impacts on veterinary treatments or products for animals. It concerns consumer products intended for human use and only those. There are very valid use cases for biocide-containing products, such as mouthwashes with chlorhexidine sold by a qualified pharmacist to patients suffering from mouth ulcers; octenidine-containing soaps prescribed by dermatologists to patients suffering from a range of skin conditions; silver-impregnated dressings for wound care; and more. I reiterate that the passage of the Bill into law would have no effect whatever on the use of these products in medicine. My aim is to protect the ongoing functioning of these products in medicine by curtailing their commercial availability and overuse.
We are behind the times when it comes to regulating biocides in consumer products intended for human use. In 2016, almost a decade ago, the United States Food and Drug Administration banned 19 biocides from hand soaps and handwashes. Why? Very simply, in the words of one FDA official:
“There’s no data demonstrating that these drugs provide additional protection from diseases and infections”.
This official went on to say that
“some data suggests that antibacterial ingredients may do more harm than good over the long-term”.
This is a key point to which I will return.
The FDA has continued its campaign to educate Americans on the non-superiority of biocide-containing consumer products. As recently as last month, it published a press release titled “Skip the Antibacterial Soap; Use Plain Soap and Water”. It did this because a decade later, despite all the follow-up studies commissioned by the industry, the fact remains, as the FDA states,
“there isn’t sufficient evidence to show that over-the-counter … antibacterial soaps are better at preventing illness than washing with plain soap and water”.
The FDA chose to limit the scope of its advice to soaps—I have not. Antibacterial hand sanitisers, mouthwashes and oral products are also in the scope of the Bill. As an article published today in the Daily Mirror, coinciding with this Second Reading, outlines, biocides are found in many consumer products intended for human use, and members of the public are often unwittingly purchasing and using these products, with potentially negative effects.
It is widely recognised that there is no advantage in these biocides being present in soaps. Noble Lords may wonder whether that is the full extent of my grievance— it is not. I have worked closely with the Women’s Environmental Network—often known as WEN—which runs the brilliant Environmenstrual campaign. As a politician, feminism is one of my first politics. I was horrified when WEN highlighted to me that period products are being laced with silver and sold to women on the basis that periods make them smell bad. This is an example of the pernicious kind of advertising that underpins the sale of many biocide-containing products intended for human use. Consumers are shamed and made to feel dirty for having normal, natural microbiomes or carrying out normal bodily functions such as sweating or menstruating.
Swedish government research has shown that up to 90% of the silver in treated articles for reusable menstrual products flows out into waterways after only 10 washes. This is a pointless and dangerous use of biocides that is spreading fast into clothing products often marketed as high-tech, desirable and expensive—a trend that urgently needs to be addressed.
The use of biocides leads to a rise in resistance to biocides—a form of antimicrobial resistance, or AMR. Added to commercial use undermining the medical use of the same biocides is the threat of cross-resistance. That is when exposure to one antimicrobial, such as the biocide in mouthwash, leads to resistance to a different antimicrobial, such as the antibiotic of last resort for a critically ill patient. There is a detailed case study on this, which I prepared with Dr Fady and Dr Katy Stokes, in the briefing paper for the Bill. It is available on the BSAC website if noble Lords would like more information.
In 2022, I was the first to raise the issue of cross-resistance in this place in over a quarter of a century. That such a pernicious issue has been discussed only nine times across both Chambers since its first mention in 1973 shows that we are not taking cross-resistance seriously. But health authorities in this country are aware of the risk, with scientists at the UKHSA describing biocide resistance as
“a new scourge of the infectious disease world”
because of the problem of cross-resistance.
Thanks in large part to the determined, concentrated work of Dame Sally Davies, many Members of your Lordships’ House will have at least heard of antimicrobial resistance. Perhaps noble Lords read the large article in the Observer this month. But the real urgency and scale of this problem has not yet really struck in government, in the corridors or departments of the Civil Service, or among the general public. Every 11 seconds, someone falls ill with a resistant infection. Every three minutes, someone in the world dies from AMR. By the time we finish this Second Reading in about 90 minutes, there will have been 30 deaths from AMR globally. The British charity Nesta said in 2019 that that was the first year in which
“we’ll all know someone with a drug-resistant infection”.
Whether that is an untreatable recurrent urinary tract infection, a recalcitrant diabetic foot ulcer, or simply a chest infection that does not respond to the first round of antibiotics, it is almost certain that Nesta’s analysis was correct.
Beyond undermining our antibiotics, the widespread availability of biocide-containing consumer products for human use poses another threat: microbiotoxicity. That is a fancy way of saying damage to the human microbiome—the community of microorganisms living on and inside us. We are increasingly starting to understand the importance of these microorganisms in health and disease. In the Mental Health Bill, I spoke about the gut-brain axis and our slowly dawning understanding of the importance of the microbiome in mental illness.
Impact on other bodily systems is also becoming clearer. Research has shown, for example, that wiping out the oral microbiome with chlorhexidine mouthwashes risks increasing blood pressure, which has consequences for the risk of heart disease.
Alongside brilliant scientists and clinicians, I recently published a letter to the editor in the Journal of Infection calling for the recognition of the human microbiome as an organ system. I would be happy to circulate this to any noble Lords interested.
I should address the environmental angle. The unimpeded flow of biocides into our waterways is undoubtedly a bad thing. As was confirmed to me this week at a meeting of the Pharma Pollution Hub, a new and exciting initiative engaging with this crucial issue, we have yet to be able to model exactly how all the various chemicals mixing together in our waterways and water are affecting our environment. This is known as the “cocktail effect” and entails complex dynamics and interrelationships that are extremely difficult to quantify. A fundamental truth, however, is that the fewer chemicals and biocides there are in our waterways—I would add microplastics—the less they can interact and exert their effects on our aquatic species, our entire ecosystems and, of course, ultimately, our bodies.
If for no other reason than the precautionary principle, to which the previous Government committed us through the Environment Act, I hope noble Lords can see the sense in the Bill trying to curtail the amount of biocides ending up in our environment. I will postpone to another day comments on the soil microbiomes that are crucial to our food security. I have not run through the clauses and mechanisms of the Bill because the excellent Library briefing does that very clearly and I wanted to take some time to set out what are still not widely familiar scientific principles.
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for taking part in this debate at my request. I apologise for possibly messing up his Friday. The Bill seeks to take what I believe is a novel approach to product regulation and I particularly value his thoughts on the approach taken, although it is based on the model from several other Bills.
We have what is known colourfully as a whack-a-mole problem when it comes to chemicals regulation. A novel chemical is produced, tested by the manufacturer in the ways it chooses, then put on to the market. As problems emerge, campaigners speak out, companies resist, and, usually decades later, that single chemical is eventually banned. A new chemical, possibly similar, often worse in its impacts, is then devised, and we go back through the same cycle. We have seen this with PFAS, the forever chemicals that are of such public concern. The Bill seeks to set us on a new path—to modestly and practically start to tackle the exceeding of the planetary boundaries for novel entities that has turned our rivers, seas and environments into such a dangerous cocktail of substances.
I say to the Minister that we are, of course, debating this Bill while the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill is going through your Lordships’ House, so there is an opportunity for the Government to pick this up holus-bolus and incorporate it into that Bill. I live in hope.
Finally, I often say that the first duty of the state is to ensure the health of its citizens. My vision of the Green Party is that we are a party of public health—of one health. Although the Bill embodies many of the principles we in the Green Party uphold, it is absolutely not a partisan Bill. It is in everyone’s best interest to prevent harm to human health and to the health of our environment. I beg to move.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to support this Bill, and to have the opportunity not merely to applaud its intentions and drafting but to pay tribute to its sponsor, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
When I read the Bill, I was reminded of an interview with Bill Frankland, the pioneering immunologist, who recalled his time in 1936 studying under Sir Alexander Fleming at Imperial College. Fleming, who was born and educated at both primary and secondary level in my former constituency, in Ayrshire in the west of Scotland, recounted in a lecture his discovery of penicillin. He ended it with a warning that penicillin would change the face of medicine, but that
“doctors will overuse it … bacteria have to survive—they are very, very clever—they will become resistant to it”.
If the father of antibiotic medicine was making this case at that distance, how much more urgent is it that we act today and as fast as possible? We are, as the noble Baroness made clear in her excellent opening speech, in a perilous situation. Antibiotics are one of the most extraordinary and transformative products of human ingenuity, but their efficacy is being undermined, not merely by the extraordinary adaptive qualities of bacteria but by the failure of humans effectively to regulate their own behaviour.
Despite its less than poetic title, the Bill is about human behaviour where collective and individual rights find themselves in conflict. Peer-reviewed scientific literature has shown us repeatedly that the use of antibacterial soap containing biocides offers no advantage whatever to the average consumer compared with normal soap, but marketing has convinced consumers that it is in some way preferable.
That is why Clause 6 is important. It aims purely to align perception with reality and ensure that implicit but misleading claims that a consumer product containing biocides is more effective than one without should be an offence, unless the biocidal consumer products advisory board, to be created under Clause 3, deems that claim true and verifiable.
It cannot be right that commercial imperatives that mandate the inclusion of unnecessary biocides in commercial products are allowed to trump the interest of everyone on the planet to ensure that antimicrobial resistance is controlled. I do not set myself up as a scientific expert of any sort, but it is precisely because I am not a scientist that I believe we should take precautionary measures in the face of uncertainty, even from scientists whose insight into the impact of biocides dwarfs my own.
Crucially, once antimicrobial resistance is established, it is irreversible. That fact only reinforces my belief that the precautionary principle that animates the Bill should be adhered to. Even the US, which often takes a more buccaneering approach to questions of capitalism than we do in the United Kingdom, has begun banning the use of biocides in washes and soaps, with the FDA having issued guidance not to buy antimicrobial soaps, as we have heard.
In my contribution to the debate on the Private Member’s Bill that preceded this one, I was forced to have recourse to humility, conceding that other noble Lords from all sides of the House had more expertise and direct experience of the matter in question than I did. I may be breaking a personal record in conceding that twice in a row. I therefore look forward to listening to the remainder of the debate and becoming better informed.
I started this short contribution with a reference to Alexander Fleming. I will make a further one. In 2008, on the 80th anniversary of the discovery of penicillin, I invited Professor Hugh Pennington, the emeritus professor of bacteriology at the University of Aberdeen and then the leading bacteriologist in the country, to speak to schoolchildren in my constituency. He told them that life on this planet is a competition between the bugs and us—humans. The bugs have been around for 3.5 billion years; we have been around for only 300,000 years. We are likely to lose if we are not careful.
In short, because this Bill is on the side of Homo sapiens, I support its aims and, whether in this form or the form of future government Bills, I very much look forward to seeing them given legislative expression as soon as possible.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on her success in the ballot for Private Members’ Bills and on bringing forward this Bill this Session. Her Bill gives the House the opportunity to consider the implications of the use of biocides in consumer products and reflect on the crucial importance of controlling and containing antimicrobial resistance—something to which the noble Lord, Lord Browne, just cogently referred.
My noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, when Prime Minister, was determined to tackle the threat to human health posed by AMR. Way back in 2014, he stated:
“Resistance to antibiotics is now a very real and worrying threat, as bacteria mutate to become immune to their effects … If we fail to act, we are looking at an almost unthinkable scenario where antibiotics no longer work and we are cast back into the dark ages of medicine where treatable infections and injuries will kill once again”.
I am therefore pleased that the Labour Government support the previous Conservative Government’s 20-year vision for tackling AMR, which aims to control and contain it by 2040. I hope the Government will work closely at an international level on these matters to continue to press forward with a coherent global response. That should mean working not only with nations and the World Health Organization but with business and the world of science.
The noble Baroness proposes in her Bill to constrain further the use of biocides in some consumer products. She is justifiably concerned about the impact on AMR that could result from biocide resistance. When legislation is brought forward to restrict the manufacture and sale of goods on the basis of perceived public health safety, it is right that one should examine whether measures are already in place that can protect the public. I therefore note that biocidal active substances and biocidal products are already regulated by the Health and Safety Executive under the GB Biocidal Products Regulations. Of course, many consumer products are regulated by the General Product Safety Regulations 2005. Defra, the Environment Agency and the UK Health Security Agency all have a locus in this matter.
It is always difficult to draft legislation that seeks to protect public health by banning something without also having a negative impact on innovation and imposing the requirement on business to comply with new, complex regulatory processes. Sometimes it is right to do so, but the devil is always in the detail.
I note that Clause 3 would create yet another quango: the biocidal consumer products advisory board. We need more information about that in the Bill. I note that the Government, in just over five months, have already established a raft of advisory bodies—quangos galore. I really had hoped not to see more.
It would be helpful to explore in Committee some of the interesting but vague terms used in the Bill. I think of the wording “real-world conditions” in Clause 2—I would love to find out how those can be legally defined. I look forward to the opportunity in Committee to have time to give more and better consideration to what can be an important Bill.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness and to hear her concerns about there being too many advisory bodies and quangos. There is always a difficulty in knowing what they do and how they report. However, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on bringing the Bill forward.
Perhaps I might add another quote from Sir Alexander Fleming. When he received the Nobel prize for discovering penicillin, which he did at the medical school that I went to, St Mary’s, he said:
“It is not difficult to make microbes resistant to penicillin in the laboratory by exposing them to concentrations not sufficient to kill them”.
That lesson might apply much more widely because, sadly, it applies to our armamentarium of antibiotics, and we now face a world where multiple resistance is becoming the norm. Professor MacLellan’s recent, fascinating lecture at the Royal Society described the urgent need to develop vaccines against some of the major bacterial killers. In 2022, 7.7 million deaths were attributable to bacterial infections worldwide, of which 80% were linked to antimicrobial resistance.
With rising antibiotic use, resistance is increasing, but biocides are not the solution. Biocides are a diverse group of poisonous substances, including preservatives, insecticides, disinfectants and pesticides, used for the control of organisms that are harmful to human or animal health or that cause damage to natural or manufactured products. The problem is that these chemicals are themselves harmful, both directly and by producing the cross-resistance and co-resistance to antimicrobials already referred to. When bacteria develop cross-resistance, their general defence mechanism is against multiple threats, both the biocides in consumer products and the antibiotics we use to fight infection. Meanwhile, co-resistance takes place when resistant genes are genetically linked. So there are two mechanisms, at least, and exposure to common biocides can inadvertently promote antibiotic resistance.
These manufactured chemicals are subject to little legal constraint, as already outlined, and almost no post-marketing surveillance. Fewer than 20% overall have been tested for toxicity, yet many cross the placenta, and chemical exposure seems even more harmful to children than to adults. Biocides act by damaging the cell wall of an organism, but that is not discriminatory. They also damage the cell wall of our own body’s living cells that they come into contact with. That is often our skin and the delicate cells of our respiratory tract. If the skin is irritated, a contact dermatitis develops; this is an eczema-like response that is itchy and sore, and the skin cracks, breaking the natural barrier function of the skin and allowing bacteria to enter and infect underlying tissues. An allergic response is separate and can also develop, as in allergic dermatitis and in asthma, which can be life-threatening. We all have protective commensal bacteria on our skin and in our gut and mucous membranes, but when they are damaged by biocides, harm results. Many cosmetics and some period products are being marketed as biocidal, but without the appropriate risk-assessment evidence.
The Bill would establish a biocidal consumer products advisory board, which I would welcome, to review scientific and social evidence on the use of biocides in consumer products, with a particular focus on microbiotoxicity. With rising incidence of childhood cancers, neurodevelopmental disorders, autism, allergies and childhood obesity, not to mention the rising infection rate, it is becoming negligent, to ignore the possible role of manufactured chemicals in our daily lives—hence the importance of the precautionary approach outlined in the Bill.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for her comprehensive introduction of the Bill, which brings forward issues that the House and the Government should take seriously. The world faces any number of threats to human health, but one of the more long-term threats we face continues to be antimicrobial resistance—AMR—which is the risk that in future bacteria will be resistant to antibiotics.
I thank the Royal Society of Biology for the briefing that it provided for this debate. I should add that I am a fellow and emphasise that the briefing does not represent the formal position of the RSB but is what you might call a rapid reaction summary based on relevant external reports from RSB member organisations and external bodies. Nevertheless, it is a very helpful briefing to have received.
We know a lot more than we used to about what is called the human microbiome, yet perhaps people do not fully understand yet how complex it is and how vital it is to our health. The microbiome is the collection of microbes in our intestines that affect our digestion, immune system, brain health and more. The Royal Society of Biology points out that “perspectives are complex” on the use of biocides. Why is that? It is because the use presents both opportunities and risks. The use case for biocides includes their contribution to the protection of public health through infection control by reducing the spread of harmful pathogens—for example, in health facilities and food production—but among the potential risks is that the use of biocides can contribute to the development of AMR and hence significant global public health risks.
Whatever one’s view on the Bill, the fact remains that biocides are found in consumer products intended for human use. These products range from soaps to mouthwashes to clothes to period products. I add in passing that some biocidal products do not list on the packet ingredients such as products containing nanosilver, about which there is growing concern, especially in relation to feminine hygiene products.
Why does any of this matter? It matters because there is evidence to suggest that the uncontrolled use of biocides may be increasing AMR. I have noticed that in the scientific literature there is great emphasis on the need for a deeper understanding of the interaction with and impact of pesticides, insecticides and biocides on the microbial communities. We do not want to find that the increased use of biocides accidentally damages the highly complex world of microorganisms. On this basis, I think there is a case that the complexity of biocides risks calls for a precautionary approach.
I want to mention one other aspect of the broader debate about AMR. I am a member of your Lordships’ Science and Technology Committee, and on Tuesday this week, we had a really interesting presentation about bacteriophages, which are viruses that can control and kill bacteria, including some of the most deadly known to humankind, such as sepsis. It may be stretching the boundaries of today’s debate to refer to phages, but I will be interested in anything that the noble Baroness says in her winding-up remarks about their relevance to the broader impact and objectives of her Bill.
To return to the Bill, I pass on to the House the advice of the Royal Society of Biology:
“There are challenges to ensuring the responsible use of biocides, especially in terms of regulation, adoption, and education, which can limit their effectiveness”.
On this basis, I hope that my noble friend the Minister, even if he is not in a position formally to convey government support for this Bill at this moment, will nevertheless take back to the relevant department some of the questions that arise. I shall briefly mention four.
First, will the Government be prepared to take a detailed look at the use of biocides in consumer products? Secondly, will the Government consider establishing their own biocidal consumer products advisory board or something similar to keep under review the scientific evidence? Thirdly, will the Government at least consent to the proposition that if there are grounds to believe that a biocidal product is deemed to present a danger, steps can be taken to ban its sale or use? Finally, will the Government undertake to report to Parliament regularly on the impact of biocides in consumer products? These seem perfectly sensible questions to ask, and whether or not this Bill makes progress I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for bringing it to the attention of the House.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for introducing this Bill, and I thank those who preceded me for enhancing a little my scientific education. I shall comment not on the science of the Bill but on an important general development, which is making certain that the law keeps pace with our greater knowledge of science and adapts itself. Therefore, I want to speak about Clause 2, not so much about its detailed wording, because I see the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, made about particular words, as that is not the purpose of a Second Reading debate. It is important because paragraphs (b) and (c) raise issues that we have to grapple with.
Our criminal law was developed over the centuries in times when punishments were particularly harsh and trials were fast. Steps were gradually taken to try to ameliorate that harshness and make the conviction of someone for a criminal offence fairer and more just. It became an important part of our criminal law that where the resources of the state were vast, it was for the state to establish the elements of the offence and prove them beyond reasonable doubt or making sure.
Parliament has for some time taken a slightly different approach, which I want to mention because it is akin to this provision, and the law generally proceeds by building on what has gone in the past. For some time, it has been the policy of Parliament, accepted by the courts, to transfer certain matters, where they lie particularly within the knowledge of the defendant before the court, to the defendant raising and establishing evidence of that issue. In most cases, because of the provisions of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the burden of disproving the defence and showing that the offence is established is left to the state and the prosecution, the burden on the defence being merely evidential. However, there are certain circumstances where the legal burden rests upon the defendant to establish a particular defence.
I say that this provision is akin to that, and it is on that that we should build. It seems to me that this provision has at least four particularly important advantages. First, it places the responsibility at the outset firmly upon the manufacturer, and that is critical. Secondly, it ought to ensure that the manufacturer keeps what he is doing under review to ensure that it is safe. Thirdly, there is far too much regulation, and industry should think: is this sort of provision of self-responsibility not better placed on the manufacturer? That may be harsh and the consequences down the line may be severe, but is this not a better way forward? Fourthly, it is realistic to realise that the state is not equipped, certainly in the area of criminal justice, with the resources that it once had.
I therefore welcome this type of provision. I hope we shall see more provisions of this kind, because we constantly need to rethink and evaluate the regulatory burden that is placed and what the criminal law can do to reduce that burden.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, from cosmetics and personal care items to treated clothing, biocides are increasingly found in products that we all use regularly. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for tabling this Bill to enable us to consider that in more detail.
While biocides have their place in specific essential applications, their widespread and often unnecessary inclusion in everyday products poses a significant threat to public health, contributing to the growing global crisis of antimicrobial resistance. We have heard today about the current impact on resistant diseases. The World Health Organization has identified AMR as one of the most urgent health crises of our time; unless we take action, it could lead to an estimated 10 million deaths annually by 2050.
Biocides and consumer goods, especially those that are not strictly necessary, contribute to this alarming trend. Many products containing biocides do not deliver any real health benefit and may in fact do more harm than good, undermining their effectiveness in driving antimicrobial resistance. Just one example is the concern around the use of silver, as we heard today, as an antimicrobial agent in period pants, where high levels could have health and environmental implications. In addition to the problems highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in her introduction, the US Food and Drug Administration found that nanosilver can kill lactobacillus, the healthy bacteria in the vagina that helps fight off infection. That can put women more at risk of harmful bacteria, potentially leading to an increased risk of bacterial infections and pregnancy complications. In the UK there are currently no legal limits on how much silver can be added to period pants, and manufacturers do not have to declare the presence of silver on their packaging or website.
We are seeing other countries take measures to ban some biocides from consumer products, and it is right that we are looking at our regulatory system carefully to ensure that it is fit for purpose. Of course we must protect against regulation that would stifle innovation or limit products that genuinely benefit consumer health, and there certainly are legitimate uses for biocides, as we have heard. I am reassured that the Bill provides specific exemptions for proven medical products.
Clause 3 would establish a biocidal consumer products advisory board to advise Ministers on biocides. I share my noble friend Lady Anelay’s aversion to quangos, but I am also a great believer in expert advice, particularly on complex scientific matters such as this. I am interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on this. Does he agree that this expert advice would be beneficial to Ministers when making decisions in this area?
Clause 6 looks to address the issues around the marketing of false or unproved claims. Consumers must have transparency from manufacturers. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, that the responsibility for this should be considered to be put at the manufacturers’ door. We regularly see messages about the importance of antibacterial or antimicrobial properties in consumer products, and we have the right to know what ingredients are in the products we buy and if they genuinely offer significant health benefits. We should also have the option to choose products that are free from unnecessary chemicals. While there is existing consumer protection against misleading and deceptive commercial practices, I can certainly see the case for more specific guidance here.
As my noble friend Lady Anelay set out, there are existing protections for consumers and we must be very careful not to overregulate, duplicate or complicate the existing regulation. But we must move towards responsible biocide use, ensuring that they are used only when they are truly necessary and excluding them from products that do not require antimicrobial action. The Bill gives us the opportunity to consider our current framework and whether we should be strengthening regulations around the use of biocides in consumer goods, to ensure that the products marketed for daily use are safe and effective but do not contribute to AMR. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, it is a long time since the only good microbe was considered to be a dead microbe, but, even as I sat here in my office in Parliament, I noticed that we have been issued with an antimicrobial spray that claims that it kills 99.9% of bacteria. I will come back to that spray in a bit.
Our understanding of the microbial world has changed enormously in recent decades, and it is bound to continue to do so. Many people are now aware of the complexities and the importance of our gut microbiome. Far fewer know about our skin microbiome or the vaginal microbiome, yet researchers are uncovering their importance as well. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, just mentioned, research evidence that douching and other practices that affect the vaginal microbiome can increase the risks of infections and potentially affect fertility is coming to light. Our microbiomes are delicate systems, intricately linked with our health. The idea, then, that any product such as wipes, sprays, clothes or, worst of all, sanitary products containing chemicals explicitly to kill microbes should be marketed to consumers at all, let alone without clear labelling of what they contain and what those substances are doing, seems extraordinary to me.
In fact, it seems so extraordinary that I looked at the Health and Safety Executive’s guidance on biocidal products authorisation. I took the spray from my parliamentary office and looked at the ingredients. It has a proud union flag on it and comes from a British manufacturer. It lists the active ingredient, which I checked against the HSE spreadsheet of biocidal chemicals. It was categorised as not approved for any use in the UK. This was literally the first product I checked and, once I started looking, I found that it was far from an isolated case. Many similar antimicrobial sprays and wipes for sale on our high street seem to contain substances on that not approved list. Maybe this is a problem of enforcement, but, as a confused consumer, I continued to investigate. Next, I looked at treated articles, such as odour-reducing socks. The first pair I found advertised claimed to contain real silver fibres. I checked, and silver is labelled as not authorised on the HSE’s biocidal regulation spreadsheet, and apparently cannot be used to treat products.
I asked whether I might be misunderstanding the regulations. It seems not entirely clear whether treated articles come under HSE biocides regulation or under the General Product Safety Regulations, but I would have thought that if the HSE did not authorise the use of the active chemicals then they should not be used in any consumer products. Perhaps this is, again, just a failure of enforcement, but maybe it is a lack of clarity in existing regulations.
Some silver compounds in that long spreadsheet list are still under review by the HSE, so perhaps that is what the socks contained. That led me to find out what effects are considered when a substance is reviewed under these regulations. There is a lot of paperwork, but I cannot see anything showing that the effects on the microbiome or the consequences of those effects are considered, presumably because the microbiome has not been a recognised part of our biology for long enough to make it into legislation. Of course, the HSE is not responsible for assessing environmental effects. Overall, this seems to indicate that the current regulations are inconsistent, out of date and possibly poorly enforced.
My impression as a consumer is that this is an area that needs looking into. Products appear to be on sale in Britain that raise concerns about their effects on individuals and the environment, and there are likely effects on our microbiomes and on the environment that it seems are not even being assessed. I ask the Minister to consider the whole matter of consumer antimicrobial products and what can be done to ensure that they are well regulated. Meanwhile, I am certainly not going to be using that spray in my office.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon. Her experience in explaining science was much in evidence in her contribution today. I thank and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on putting forward the Bill and securing today’s Second Reading. She remains unafraid to raise issues that many would prefer we did not speak about, even if there are threats to our own safety and well-being. The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, reminded us that antimicrobial resistance is growing and a danger to us all.
Other noble Lords have already covered the purpose of the Bill. As the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, noted, it is to limit the wide use of biocide-containing products, including soaps, mouthwashes and clothes. Why is this necessary? As other noble Lords have said, clinical specialists are saying loud and clear that these consumer products pose a threat to public health. This is not melodramatic. Over the last few years, we have had a number of Questions and debates in your Lordships’ House on the risk of AMR. We know that the NHS is very concerned about this, recommending that GPs think very carefully before prescribing antibiotics because of the risk of antimicrobial resistance.
The Bill does not address medicinal uses of antibiotics. It proposes to curtail the use of antimicrobial products that we have in our homes. We are bombarded with marketing and advertising for them every single day. As the briefing from the Centre for Long-Term Resilience says, using an antibacterial soap provides no advantage to the average consumer and use by the general public, who have no special medical need for them, can undermine the effectiveness of antibiotics when they are needed.
The example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, about checking antimicrobial products using unapproved biocides was very helpful. I hope the Minister will ensure that is looked at. I am reminded that, during debates on the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill and an SI two years ago, I raised the issue of what has happened after Brexit and the UK Health and Safety Executive’s delays in getting the chemical database for products ready. I wonder whether this issue is being looked at in relation to the UK’s new database.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, spoke of the importance of the UK working internationally on this matter. The World Health Organization has been warning of inappropriate overuse of biocides for over a decade. If we do not reduce our use of unnecessary antimicrobial products, we risk resistant bacteria causing severe disease that cannot be treated. Yesterday it was reported that Klebsiella pneumoniae, a dangerous bacterium responsible for pneumonia, has been discovered in Ukraine. Experts there are particularly alarmed because the bacterium is resistant to drugs. Scientists believe it poses a significant threat to public health.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, with her medical expertise, spoke of research. Our doctors and scientists are warning us but the makers of consumer products are not listening, and they are the first who should listen.
Those living with immunosuppression understand the risks all too well. Those with my condition, who take regular immune suppressing medication, have a real concern about bacterial resistance to drugs. That tends to focus the mind. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, referred to Bill Frankland. I was treated by him over 50 years ago. He was an excellent immunologist and, very unusually, he recognised my first autoimmune disease long before any of the other medics did. I am eternally grateful to him for that.
The description given by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, of the use of silver in reusable menstrual products is very worrying. There is no general information available for girls and women on this issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, told us that other countries are beginning to take action on some of these biocides—so should the UK.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, talked about the medical problems already faced by the general public as biocides enter our bodies and the long-term invisible health issues that we and future generations face. As a society, we appear to be walking blindfolded into a new world of invisible and long-term damage to our bodies.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, reminded us that we need to remember the consequences of any legislation on the law and the role of Parliament. His view is that the Bill is about being clear where responsibility lies—helpfully, with the manufacturers.
I think the Bill from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is the first attempt to limit the use of these antimicrobial products. I think she is starting an important debate that needs to be heard, especially by the companies manufacturing and advertising these products. Will the Minister at the very least have a round table to get the manufacturers together with the Health and Safety Executive to cover the issues raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Freeman? We also need a wider public campaign because we all need to understand that, far from being helpful products, they could make the UK a less safe place.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for bringing her Private Member’s Bill to your Lordships’ House. Consumer product regulation is a key topic in the world we live in, and we share her passion for protecting the environment from unnecessary harm. The noble Baroness set out in clear and concise detail why she feels the Bill is necessary. His Majesty’s Official Opposition do not wish in any way to detract from the noble Baroness’s good intentions, but it is only fair and reasonable that I am also clear on our behalf that we are unable to support the Bill.
As currently drafted, the Bill has an extremely broad application. Although the offence of selling cosmetic and personal care products containing biocides is well defined, Clauses 3 and 4 grant very wide powers over consumer products to the Secretary of State and the proposed biocidal consumer products advisory board. It appears that the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about the use of biocides understandably inform this drafting, but we feel that the broad and wide definition of these powers could lead to unintended overreach.
We are also concerned that the Bill takes too exacting an approach to regulation, and there are two strands to our concerns. First, the Bill sets the fine level for the sale and marketing of a cosmetic product containing biocides at “level 5”. By our understanding, that could result in an unlimited fine. It is conceivable that some reputable and legitimate firms may be discouraged from entering the cosmetic and personal care market with a technically unlimited level of liability. We would welcome the opportunity to hear from the Minister—that is, if the Government are supportive of the Bill—and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in her closing speech, about what risk assessment impacts have been conducted on the impact to SME businesses. These firms are the lifeblood of the UK economy, and we really wish them to succeed for both job creation and tax receipts for the Exchequer. But, realistically, they will not have the same capacity as larger companies to ensure compliance with such an approach.
In addition to the unlimited company liability, the same offences would also apply to officers of a company. To be absolutely clear, we appreciate and understand that this approach is appropriate and right in the case of serious criminal activity and certain regulated sectors of the economy. That is not in doubt. However, we remain to be convinced that it is appropriate here. Should an offence be committed by a company, not only would that company be liable and fined but potentially so would the officers of the company. This is not the correct time to evaluate in detail how and whether those officers would realistically be liable in an industry that is already regulated by the Health and Safety Executive under the GB Biocidal Products Regulations, trading standards services, and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. For good order, no crime should be acceptable. But, notwithstanding what I have referred to on the point of serious criminal activity and heavily regulated sectors, it should merit further discussion as to whether it is in the public interest to prosecute both a business and an individual for the same offence in this situation.
Secondly, and continuing on the theme of overreaching regulation, the Bill proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seeks to establish yet another regulatory board. Perhaps I might quote the Prime Minister:
“We will rip up the bureaucracy that blocks investment. We will march through the institutions and make sure that every regulator in this country—especially our economic and competition regulators—take growth as seriously as this room does”.
That was also referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg.
I refer also to Thomas Brown, one of our excellent authors from the House of Lords Library, who refers in his research briefing on this Bill to
“the independent scientific advisory group on chemical safety … the Health and Safety Executive … under the GB Biocidal Products Regulation … trading standards services … the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency … the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 … the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008”
and
“the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Environment Agency and the UK Health Security Agency joint research programme on AMR”.
With all due respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and with what I have just highlighted as a backdrop, perhaps we should ask ourselves whether we do not already have a deep portfolio of both regulators and regulations in this space, without the need to create yet another regulatory body.
To conclude, while we accept and respect the strength of the views and sentiment of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, towards the use of biocides in consumer products, for the reasons I have set out, I am afraid that we will not be supporting this Bill.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, before I was asked to respond to this Private Member’s Bill debate for the Government, I had absolutely no clue about biocides. I must admit that I have been a sucker for the 99.9% claim on every bit of packaging and every product in my flat in London. After hearing the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, speak about the range of biocides that are in some of these products, I think that I shall go back this afternoon and look at every single product and see whether I should keep it in the flat.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for the discussion that her Bill has generated, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed in this debate. I also thank the noble Baroness for the briefing, articles and various reports that she kindly sent to me. I must admit that I read Dr Fady’s briefing note last night.
The Government recognise the intent of the Bill and the importance of ensuring that consumer products, including those containing biocides, remain safe. While the Government have reservations about the Bill, this should not be taken as dismissal of the concerns raised or the intent of the Bill. Rather, government believes that cosmetics regulation and biocidal products regulation, in addition to so many other regulations, provide long-standing regulatory frameworks that ensure that products containing biocides are safe. We believe that the Bill will create duplication in an area that is already well regulated and understood by industry, as mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.
If products have a primary biocidal function, they will fall under the biocidal products regulation. These products must meet consumer safety and environmental protection requirements before being placed on the market in Great Britain. There is a very strict two-stage process that a biocidal product will go through: the active substance must be approved, which costs a lot of money, and the biocidal product in which the substance is used must be authorised.
As mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady Sugg, and many other noble Lords, there is existing legislation on biocides. The Biocidal Products Regulations broadly define biocides as substances intended to control harmful organisms. The legislation covers something like 22 product types in four main groups, including preservatives, disinfectants and pest control products. This definition is well understood and has been used by regulators, stakeholders and manufacturers for some time. This Bill introduces a separate and conflicting definition of a biocide, which applies only to substances with antimicrobial effects. This cuts across the established definition, undermining rather than strengthening the existing robust, evidence-based regulatory regime.
Furthermore, the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association, which represents something like 85% of the industry in the UK in this area, does not support the Bill, precisely because the UK Cosmetics Regulation is already robust, evidence-led and fit for purpose. The provisions in the Bill would result in additional complexity for industry seeking to comply with regulations, as well as potential difficulties in enforcement, without any additional safety benefits. The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, is absolutely right that we do not want to impose additional regulation on SMEs, which are really the drivers of growth in the country.
Biocides may also be found within cosmetics, usually as preservatives. The Cosmetics Regulation applies to products with a primary cosmetic purpose, as opposed to the Biocidal Products Regulation. It outlines a robust set of safety requirements for cosmetics. Annexe 5 lists which preservatives, including biocides, may be used in cosmetics, subject to any specified conditions. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, we must keep pace with technology developments and evidence, which is precisely why the Secretary of State has the power to amend the Cosmetics Regulation to restrict or prohibit the use of substances in cosmetics, subject to conditions: for example, where there is sufficient scientific evidence indicating a potential risk to human health.
The noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, mentioned the HSE’s spreadsheet of biocides that are unauthorised. I will take that back to the department for clarification and ask why this is not enforced.
The Office for Product Safety and Standards, the OPSS, and Ministers use expert advice from the Scientific Advisory Group on Chemical Safety in Consumer Products to inform policy decisions and amendments to the Cosmetic Regulation, as indicated by the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay, Lady Finlay and Lady Sugg. We do not want a new scientific advisory board. Having said that, the Government will listen to any scientific evidence and act appropriately.
The Government consider that the Biocidal Consumer Products Advisory Board, proposed in the Bill, would duplicate the purpose and work of the well-established SAG-CS. We consider such a board to be unnecessary and think it could, in fact, create significant confusion. Other regulations, such as the Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals Regulations, REACH for short, also apply to the use of chemicals to ensure that human health and the environment are protected. I will take back to the department the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about the database and whether we have kept it up to date.
The Bill proposes that marketing, including implicit claims relating to the efficacy of a consumer product containing biocidal ingredients, can be made only if proven to the satisfaction of the Biocidal Consumer Products Advisory Board. The Government agree that manufacturers should not be able to make misleading claims. Accordingly, in addition to the Advertising Standards Authority, both the cosmetics regulation and the biocidal products regulation contain provisions that prohibit products from making misleading claims regarding functions or safety.
As mentioned earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in addition to the existing regulatory framework, the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which I introduced to the House on 4 September 2024, will ensure that the UK is better placed to address safety issues. The powers in that Bill will allow the Government to make regulations to reduce or mitigate the potential risks presented by products. This may include further regulating the use of chemicals in consumer products. As noble Lords know, the Bill completed Lords Committee stage in December and will, I hope, come back on Report some time in February.
Antimicrobial resistance, or AMR, which this Bill aims to address, is a complex issue that requires action across all sectors, and the UK is fully committed to tackling the threat of AMR. The 2024-29 national action plan, launched by the previous Government, is the second five-year plan within the UK’s 20-year vision to control, contain and mitigate AMR by 2040. Tackling AMR resistance requires a holistic approach across government, not just targeting biocides in one area. The Government’s approach is evidence-led.
The national action plan provides a unified strategic approach. It was informed by consultation with a wide range of stakeholders to identify and prioritise actions needed to tackle AMR. It also supports the co-ordinated action between England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and across sectors, that is necessary to tackle AMR.
In summary, I again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for initiating the debate. I respect the intent behind the Bill. Antimicrobial resistance is a complex and serious issue requiring work across all sectors. I also agree that we need to be able to address the potential risks that biocides may pose in cosmetics and personal care products. However, we already have in place for these products robust regulatory frameworks that seek to ensure consumer safety and are well understood by industry. Consequently, the Bill may cloud and confuse the existing regime, which is very well established—a concern also voiced by the industry, as I mentioned earlier. The Government therefore do not support the Bill in its current form. However, officials would be happy to meet with the noble Baroness to discuss the safety of these products and any scientific evidence that may warrant consideration of changes to the current requirements, within the current legislative framework. In addition, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that I will also ensure that officials organise roundtables with manufacturers.
In conclusion, I encourage the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to support the Government’s Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which will provide the powers needed to ensure we are better placed to address modern-day safety issues in order to protect consumers.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who have taken part in this extremely rich debate, both those who have brought their scientific expertise to the Chamber, and those who have concentrated hard while listening to that expertise. I doubt your Lordships’ House has seen a debate with more concentration of scientific evidence, but I posit that we need many more debates containing this level of science.
I am aware of all the people waiting for the next debate, but there are a couple of points really worth drawing out. The key question that has arisen is whether there is currently enough regulation, and here it is useful to triangulate three of the contributions from noble Lords.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady Sugg, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, all raised concerns about more regulation. I am very glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, was here, because his contribution indicated that this potentially marks a shift from the Government drawing up lots of detailed rules, which will always be lagging behind, to putting the responsibility on manufacturers to say, “Don’t mess things up”. That surely should be where the responsibility lies, and it would take away a lot of the complexities that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred to.
Here, it is useful to triangulate to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, which demonstrated clearly that the regulators are not in any way keeping up. The Minister suggested that there might be duplication and that the existing position is well regulated and understood. The speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, demonstrated otherwise and that the regulations are not fit for purpose. That also was also reflected in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, so triangulating those speeches is very useful.
I will deal briefly with some of the specific points made. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for raising concerns about toxicity to human bodies, which is not adequately covered. I have not gone into that area because it is supposedly already regulated, although it clearly is not, as the noble Baroness indicated. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, will be pleased to know that I will be hosting two events in the next two months, with academics from the University of Exeter, on bacteriophages. Bacteriophages as an alternative to antibiotic use are certainly part of the story of how we are going to tackle the problem of AMR, but I would posit that they are unlikely to be a total solution.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Sugg and Lady Brinton, and others, raised the issue of period products. The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, pointed out that silver damages the lactobacillus—the healthy bacteria. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill. As the noble Baroness said, people cannot know what they are buying now. That cannot be right, and we should be able to tackle that right now through that Bill.
The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, asked whether the level 5 unlimited fine is the right level. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, said that once we let the AMR genie out of the bottle, we cannot put it back. If a manufacturer that is a giant multinational company is responsible for letting loose a resistance gene that, essentially, gives rise to an AMR pandemic, a level 5 unlimited fine—which a court will of course consider with reference to the size of the company concerned—is the appropriate level.
I am aware of time, so I will offer some final thoughts. I really welcome the noble Lord, Lord Leong, saying that he was not dismissing the concerns that I brought forward today. I very much welcome the offer of further interaction, following up on the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, of a round table, and I look forward to further such discussion in considering the Production Regulation and Metrology Bill.
Finally, I am really glad that the Minister is going to go home and check his cupboards. I would suggest that this provides evidence that future action is needed.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, if I might briefly clarify, the unlimited fine I was referring to is obviously appropriate for large organisations, which have the ability to take that fine, but as was reiterated by the Minister, it is the SMEs we want to help. For them, an unlimited fine could make the difference between entering the market and not, which is why we need to take a measured approach.
Arrangement of Business
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before we move on to the next business, I remind colleagues that the advisory speaking time for speeches in this debate is four minutes. If your Lordships can respect that, they will enable colleagues speaking later to leave the House at a reasonable time.
Universal Credit (Standard Allowance Entitlement of Care Leavers) Bill [HL]
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, care leavers under the age of 25 who are claiming universal credit receive the same rate as their peers, who are far more likely to be able to access support from their parents. That means that young people under 25 receive £81.77 less in universal credit per month compared to those over 25—a 21% reduction. This Bill would complement proposals by providing increased financial support for care leavers currently living on the lowest incomes. It would mean that care leavers claiming universal credit would see their monthly payment increase to a total of £393.45. That monthly figure is not dissimilar to the daily allowance that Members of your Lordships’ House can claim; it is not a huge sum to live on.
I thank those who have made time to participate in this debate on a Friday—not least the Minister and shadow Minister, with whom we had constructive conversations in advance—and the group of care-experienced young people, facilitated by the charity Become, who were very generous with their time and shared some extremely perceptive insights with me and my right reverend friend the Bishop of Derby about the differences that this policy change would make to their lives. They have agreed that we can name them in our speeches today.
There are over 92,000 care leavers in England under the age of 25. This cohort of young adults is in particular need of further support, including through the social security system. This Bill would equalise the standard allowance for universal credit for care leavers under the age of 25, but that is just one of a number of steps that could be made to ensure that young care leavers receive the support they need to flourish. I hope that, in this debate, there will be an opportunity for noble Lords to explore those, and perhaps other, steps and for us to commit ourselves to supporting young adults leaving care.
I will set out the problem. Many of the young people we talked to last week spoke about the additional support that they would have benefited from, particularly leading up to the age of 18. Research shows over and again that being in care is one of the key adverse childhood experiences that can exacerbate problems in later life. You often go into care because of other things that are on that list of key adverse childhood experiences. No matter how well the state has performed its role as a corporate parent in those formative years—whether through foster parents or a children’s home—young care leavers are still likely to have had significant adverse experiences, and so they merit a higher level of support as they enter those early years of adulthood.
At the same time, we know—many of us have personal experience of this—that financial dependence on older relatives continues longer into adulthood than in previous decades. While around half of 24 year-olds still live with their parents, less than one-fifth of all care leavers in that 19 to 21 age group live with a parent, relative or foster carer. To put it bluntly, most young care leavers do not have the financial cushion of the “bank of mum and dad” or any equivalent. Some foster carers manage to provide an important bridging facility through the Staying Put and Staying Close schemes, but for a very large number of young care leavers there is no family home to go back to. The state has been their family, so it should accept some ongoing responsibility, which is what I am trying to achieve through this Bill.
Moreover, young care leavers are significantly more likely not to be in education, employment or training compared to the general population. In fact, they are three times more likely: 39% of care leavers aged 19 to 21 are what we call NEETs, compared with an estimated 13% of all young people in that age range. That is almost two in every five, compared with a figure of about one in eight.
The benefits system does not currently recognise the specific circumstances that have led a young person to be taken into care or recognise their unique issues that they will face throughout their life. It is vital, for example, that staff at job centres can identify care leavers and are equipped to respond to their particular needs. We have also learned from the conversations we have had that care leavers are three times more likely to be sanctioned in the benefit system than their peers. One young woman, Louise, explained that it was not a simple process. She had to work through pages and pages of information; there was no proper guide and no help if she missed an appointment because of morning sickness during her pregnancy, and job coaches who she was assigned to did not know what a care leaver was.
It is now almost a decade since the Children’s Society produced its research on sanctions for care leavers. Will the Department for Work and Pensions look into whether under-25s who present as care leavers are disproportionately affected by benefit sanctions? Some young care leavers, as a result of sanctions combined with the lower rate, are left with something closer to £200 a month—£50 a week. That cannot be enough to live on. Equalising universal credit is one small thing the state could do to perhaps exercise its extended parental role and put those young care leavers on a path that is a bit closer to that of their peers. The Bill is a way of achieving that.
There was universal agreement among the care leavers who met us last week that the under-25 rate is not sufficient to meet their needs. Many are struggling to pay bills. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Trussell Trust have shown that that reduced rate means that young people are left with about half of what is needed to afford essentials such as food, water and clothing, even though under-25s are the age group at greatest risk of experiencing destitution. Chereece, who met us, noted that care leavers are much more likely to be living independently from a younger age. After gas, electric bills, TV licence and so on, she had about £60 per month—for food. As a result, she was visiting food banks to survive, could not meet up with friends and could barely even travel. Again, when you do not have family behind you, to be able to travel to meet up and maintain such relationships as you have been able to form is really important.
Some local authorities help: there is a discretionary rule that they can exempt care leavers from council tax in those early years, and the majority of local authorities do that. But, of course, they may move to a different authority. We know that many care-experienced young people are in care homes in the poorest parts of the country; if they are going to get a job—and we want them to get jobs—they have to move to somewhere where it is easier to find work. However, the local authority in their new setting is much less likely to grant them exemption from council tax than where they were officially in care. So many whom we spoke to noted that if they just had the extra 21%—the over-25 rate of universal credit—it would have given them stability, avoided debt, and helped with their mental health.
We are not creating a new principle with the Bill. The local housing allowance system already recognises that care leavers are a special case, and they get the one-bedroom rate rather than the lower shared accommodation rate. So the principle that we could treat care leavers as a special case is already there in law; the Bill simply wants to extend it to the universal credit part of the welfare system.
How much will it cost? Barnardo’s and the Children’s Society have estimated that it would cost just under £25 million per year if we considered all care leavers under the age of 25 who are not in employment, education or training. It could be even less than that, because some will be in other households where others are earning. This small investment—it is small in national terms—could have significant human and financial benefits, reducing the risk of poverty, mental ill-health, homelessness and debt. Will the Department for Work and Pensions look at the data it holds on care leavers to assess what the cost would be of raising the standard allowance for this cohort? We are going with the charity figures because those are the only figures that we have.
I note a number of measures contained within the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, currently making its way through the Commons, that would support young care leavers. Perhaps that would be another way of bringing about this change. I would welcome any conversations with noble Lords about introducing such changes when that Bill makes its way to your Lordships’ House.
In conclusion, with targeted support through the social security system as they take their first steps into adulthood, young care leavers would have a basis from which to afford essential goods, maintain contact with their support networks and enter the world of work.
The moral case for making the change is strong. These are young people for whom the state has effectively been the corporate parent, and as the corporate parent the state can support them better into adulthood, in the same way that parents—including me, I declare an interest—have done for our own children, well into adulthood.
I look forward to hearing the speeches of other noble Lords today, not least from those who were in the care system or who have experienced being fostered, formally or informally, as children themselves, and to working with Peers across this House to facilitate this important change. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, we owe a debt to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for introducing this Bill and highlighting a significant problem.
It has been said today that many people come through the care system and move on to a full, successful life, but—and it is a big but—it is tougher for people who come out of the care system, and they deserve the support which is suggested by this Bill. I thank the charitable organisations for the briefings they have provided, which highlight the financial challenges faced by care leavers and certainly their entitlement to this additional support.
As the right reverend Prelate said, each year, 13,000 young people leave care in the UK, transitioning to independence far earlier than young people more generally, most of whom continue to receive some sort of support from their parents. Typically, and now increasingly, young people are living with their parents and retaining that support, unlike people from care backgrounds. Of course, the picture is mixed. Many foster parents keep supporting children even after the age of 18, but it is still more difficult for care leavers, and the system should recognise this.
As the right reverend Prelate mentioned, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has highlighted that the current rate of universal credit provides only about half of the level of what is required for food, shelter and clothing; the justification for paying them a lower rate of universal credit just is not there. The financial penalty disproportionately impacts care leavers, many of whom, because of the greater struggles they face, depend entirely on universal credit due to the problems they have had with education and employment opportunities. As has been mentioned, the statistics from 2024 show that around two-fifths of care leavers aged 19 to 21 are not in education, employment or training, compared with 13% of children more generally. Care leavers themselves have made clear how they struggle and what a significant difference this measure would make.
I argue that although we have a strong case in terms of costs and savings, I see this as a moral issue. We owe these young people the best possible start in life. They are entrusted to our care, and this Bill would give them the resources they need to meet our obligation towards them.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I support this important Bill and commend the right reverend Prelate for bringing forward this measure with such clarity and compassion.
As a society, we have a duty to ensure that young care leavers are given every opportunity to thrive, reach their full potential and contribute to their communities. Yet despite some positive steps in recent years, we know that care-experienced young people continue to face significant barriers. Many of these barriers are financial, and they are amplified by the unique circumstances of their lives.
Young people leaving care often find themselves living independently, without the safety net of family support that so many others rely on well into their 20s. The struggles they face are basic needs: paying for food, utilities and other essentials, while trying to take their first steps into adulthood. These challenges are compounded by the rising cost of living today. The Bill offers a simple but effective remedy. By equalising the standard allowance of universal credit, we can help ensure that care leavers aged 18 to 25 have access to the financial resources they need to build stable and independent lives. For a young person, that extra £81.77 per month can make the difference between surviving and thriving.
I have seen the transformative impact that support and guidance can have on the lives of care-experienced young people. Organisations such as First Star Scholars UK—I declare an interest as patron—are leading the way in this regard. First Star’s four-year programme for young people in care has achieved remarkable results, with its scholars now reaching national averages of GCSE attainment and university placements. Through life-skills programmes such as those offered by First Star Scholars, care-experienced young people are not only gaining qualifications but learning essential tools for independence, such as financial literacy.
These skills are vital in enabling care leavers to navigate adulthood with confidence, ambition and resilience, with a strong foundation to succeed, but financial stability is critical to that success. Without adequate support, care leavers face significantly poorer outcomes, including homelessness, unemployment and imprisonment. It is estimated that failing to invest in care leavers costs the taxpayer an additional £1 million per individual over their lifetime. Surely providing the financial support and programmes they need to thrive is both a moral and economic necessity.
The Bill represents a step forward towards fairness, dignity and opportunity for young care leavers. It is not just about financial support; it is about saying to these young people, “You matter. We believe in you, and we are committed to your success”. I urge the Government to support the Bill and ensure that care leavers, who have already faced so many challenges in their young lives, are given the chance to stand on an equal footing with their peers. We have the opportunity to help care-experienced young people realise their full potential and build a future they can be proud of.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I apologise that your Lordships’ House has already heard rather a lot from me today, given that I had the previous Private Member’s Bill, but I wanted to make one particular point here, which is why I put my name down on the list. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for bringing forward this humane, constructive and practical Bill, which I have no doubt at all would end up saving the Government money—not that that should be the main point, but it is worth highlighting. I also thank him for introducing it so clearly.
The chief comparative point I want to make is this. In Wales, a trial of something much more radical and much larger than this proposal is continuing. It is a trial of universal basic income for care leavers that has seen a total of 635 young people receive payments after tax of £1,280 a month for two years. This trial will continue until May 2025, and, unfortunately, anyone leaving care after that point will not be eligible for it. There will then be continuous careful academic study and reports on its impact.
I note that the Minister for Social Justice in Wales has said that there has already been fantastic feedback from participants. I was at a meeting where we heard some direct testimony from some of the care leavers who have benefited from this programme. One story that will stick with me is of a couple of care leavers who chose to leave their minimum wage jobs to take up apprenticeships so that they could establish themselves in their lives, establish a career and get training and education, which the current system did not allow them to do. It was only because they were able to access this trial that they could do that. While the proposal before us would not necessarily entirely achieve that aim, it kind of demonstrates the ways in which it could open up people’s horizons and possibilities.
It is also worth pointing out some recent global research, which shows how universal basic income can substantially improve the mental health of young people generally—but, obviously, of care leavers in particular. Potentially, that would mean enormous savings in costs for the NHS.
I will briefly raise a couple of other points. I note a study from Become, the national charity for children in care and young care leavers, which found that more than 9% of care leavers aged 18 to 25 were statutorily assessed as being homeless or facing homelessness in the past year. That is 10 times the rate of non-care-experienced children, and that is a huge failure. You emerge from the experiences of care and then they find yourself statutorily homeless—what a difficult position that is. Again, the right reverend Prelate’s Bill would not solve all of that, but it would be a step towards it.
There is one other point on which the Minister may wish to write. I note that Coram Voice, after a freedom of information request to 153 local authorities in England, found that care leavers were receiving vastly different levels of support. There is supposed to be a setting up home allowance of £3,000, but some councils are paying only £1,500. Can the Minister tell me what is happening to make sure that all care leavers are at least getting the setting up allowance that they obviously greatly need?
Finally, with reference to my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, I note a call from the LGA last year suggesting that care leavers should be exempt from council tax and prescription charges, as well as NHS dental charges and optician costs, to help them further, as the right reverend Prelate’s Bill does. Could the Minister respond to any of that?
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I commend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for securing this debate and for the passion that he put into his opening speech, which set out the landscape very starkly.
Striking out into the world on your own for the first time is exciting and daunting for anyone: the opportunity to carve your own path, with new-found independence, is a major step. On the other hand, learning to budget and keep on top of bills, remembering to put a wash on in time so that you are ready for work or college and managing to keep the fridge stocked, let alone keeping yourself healthy, all combine to form a huge learning curve for any young person. It is even more difficult for those without supportive families to fall back on, or for those who cannot stay at home for other reasons.
In most cases, local authorities act as corporate parents for care leavers, giving them the practical, social and emotional support that any good parent would give their child—from help to find the right accommodation to guiding them through job applications and interviews to making sure that they know where to turn if they are having trouble. However, local authorities cannot always meet the needs of young people in care, and that highlights the vital role of charities such as Barnardo’s, Become and the Children’s Society, which have combined to provide noble Lords with an excellent briefing for today’s debate.
In the offer to young people in care, I believe that the question to be asked should always be, “Would this be appropriate for my child?” Can we honestly say that decisions are always made in their best interests? If we cannot, as a society we are failing some of our most vulnerable people—people who need and deserve support to build their lives.
I do not intend to say much about universal credit. In fact, I am indebted to my noble friend Lady Sherlock, herself an ordained priest in the Church of England and now the Minister of State at the Department for Work and Pensions. She is the only person I have come across—and I have listened to quite a bit on this—who can explain universal credit in a manner that is understandable.
I understand the importance that universal credit has for care leavers. They are often expected to leave care before they are ready, and without the support they need to make a positive start to adulthood. According to Become, around 13,000 young people leave the care system in England each year and, as the right reverend Prelate said, it is estimated that there were around 90,000 care leavers aged 17 to 25 in England last year.
Young people have described leaving the care system as a cliff edge—being forced to leave home abruptly at 18, sometimes even younger, when crucial support, care and relationships fall away and they are expected to become independent overnight. I return to the question that I posed earlier and that every parent should ask: “Would this be appropriate for my child?” Of course, it is not appropriate for any child, and universal credit itself cannot solve the problems facing young people leaving care.
But what universal credit could do is better provide for them by allowing all care leavers from the age of 18 to receive the full standard allowance entitlement for those aged 25 or over. To deny that is to suggest that the essentials for living are somehow available more cheaply to those under the age of 25. That is clearly not the case. Again as the right reverend Prelate outlined, there are precedents in law for treating care leavers as a special case, and I believe this should be added to that. Care-experienced young people generally have more financial responsibilities than their non-care-experienced peers from a younger age, and without the same safety net to fall back on. So I urge my noble friend the Minister to give an undertaking that this problem will be addressed, to give young care leavers a better chance of successfully making their way in life—which, as I said, is something that they both need and deserve.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I congratulate my right reverend friend the Bishop of Manchester on bringing this Private Member’s Bill. I declare my interest as chair of the Children’s Society—a charity rooted in the Church of England and a key partner in the Church’s work to support care-experienced children and young people. I therefore welcome this Bill for the difference that it would make to care leavers.
As mentioned, last week we were privileged to hear directly from care leavers. I pay tribute to their resilience and I know that they are listening closely today. Their testimony reinforces my support for the Bill.
Three recurring themes emerge from our conversation: vulnerability, inconsistency and disempowerment. First, too many young people are made profoundly vulnerable as they leave care without a sufficient safety net around them. A recent survey by the National Leaving Care Benchmarking Forum found that 82% of care leavers struggled to afford food some or all the time.
We have heard how much more vulnerable care leavers are to the risk of homelessness. Our conversation evidenced how, without the familial networks on which others may rely, care leavers often do not have access to support while applying for universal credit. On leaving the children’s home where she had lived until turning 17, Helen shared with us that she did not start claiming universal credit for two years, because she was not aware that she was eligible. Leo was thrown into the deep end, as he described, without access to a professional adviser. He had to rely on the support staff at his hostel to learn about how to submit his claim.
Another theme is inconsistency. We have heard the difference experienced by care leavers following the Children’s Society’s Fighting for a Fairer Start campaign, which means that 80% of local authorities across England have now committed to exempt care leavers from council tax until they are 25. Aaliyah reported to us the traumatising experience of being in council tax arrears because she was in one of those areas that did not exempt care leavers. So I echo the request already made to the Minister to explore with colleagues in MHCLG whether exemption from council tax and other matters could become a universal entitlement for care leavers under the age of 25.
Finally, the current system disempowers care leavers. Rona now works in this sector. As a care leaver herself, she observes a contrast between the way in which some people engage with her, as a professional, and the claimant she is supporting. Young care leavers experience all too often an ill-informed disregard, distrust and hostility in these interactions. Last year, in a policy paper the Government committed to creating
“a culture change in which we realise our shared ambition to support children in care and care leavers”.
This must start with taking them seriously, giving due regard to their experience and perspective. I, too, welcome the introduction of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which aims to increase financial support for care leavers on the lowest incomes; I look forward to engaging closely with noble friends in this Chamber.
Navigating young adulthood is challenging enough. It is simply unacceptable to allow some of the most vulnerable young adults in our country to continue to face undue and unnecessary financial pressures just at the time when they are striving to build healthy, positive and productive lives. That is why I support this Bill.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, first, I must compliment the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester on bringing this Bill forward and eloquently supporting it in his opening speech.
I listened to my noble friend Lady Benjamin, who was right to stress the point about carers leaving for adulthood and the need for financial stability, which is not that clear. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, rightly spoke about the moral issue. We tend to deal in pounds and pence all the time, but there are morals as well; we ought to be aware of our moral responsibilities to those people in society who are less fortunate.
We on these Benches clearly support this Private Member’s Bill but, like so many Bills, it does not go far enough. That is easy to say, but we maybe start with small things and go on to more. Under-25s receive £81.77 less per month in universal credit, because the assumption is that they can call on support from family members, but do they in fact receive that support? Are they actually required to pay their very reduced universal credit into the family coffers? There are responsibilities for everybody, and the people leaving care have that problem.
What are we actually concerned about? We are concerned about people slipping through the holes in society. As has been said, this is a real moral issue. Again, I stress that we should extend the full rate of universal credit to under-25s from care—I would welcome this—but they should not receive less than the full rate anyway because people have costs. As my noble friend Lady Benjamin said, the idea is to give people both financial stability and the fact that they are paying for themselves.
There will, of course, be a cost to the public purse for Ministers, but so many of these assumed costs to the public purse are not the whole story. We saw this with the winter fuel allowance: here was a wonderful way to cut down benefits, via the winter fuel allowance, but a Government Minister said very clearly that they welcomed the big increase in people claiming supplementary benefits, which meant that they could then claim the winter fuel allowance, and therefore there was no economy of any size, if at all. Here, by depriving these young people of a small sum of money—and it is a small sum—we are not behaving in a moral manner.
I was rather taken by comments I read such as, “I would have had more stability and not been in debt if my mental health would have been better”, and “It would mean that care leavers may have food on the table and they are more likely to likely to be fed and more likely to be able to have some heating on in this freezing weather”. It could go towards food, and care leavers could be more motivated to go to college or even see a friend”.
Many care leavers have said they were resorting to borrowing money to enable them to meet essential costs. As most care leavers have limited credit histories and many are either out of work or in very low paid jobs, access to lower-cost credit is very limited. Many therefore find themselves resorting to high-cost lenders, often getting trapped into a debt cycle that is difficult to escape. This brings us back to the moral issue of not treating people as people whom we respect.
Support for the Bill should be very strong in your Lordships’ House. It is, as with so many Private Members’ Bills, a Bill of two pages. We do not have a lot of amendments, subsections, schedules and the like. In fact, there is very little in the Bill—it just says, basically, this is a moral issue and we should deal with it. That is how we should take it, and I hope the Government will make time for the Bill and do an impact study on how much would be saved and how much it would cost to be more expansive with universal credit for all youngsters under the age of 25. From these Benches, we support the Bill and hope that as it progresses it might cover wider areas of interest.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, let me thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for successfully bringing the important issue of universal credit allowances for care leavers before your Lordships’ House. Children who are in care have had an extremely challenging start in life, and it is the responsibility of those who have been more fortunate to do everything we can to ease that transition for care leavers from care to living independent, enriching and successful lives.
For many individuals, universal credit plays a key role in their transition out of the care system. To that end, care leavers over the age of 18 are already able to claim benefits on the same basis as other adults of that age. Those who are 16 or 17 years old and leave care cannot generally claim benefits, as the local authority remains responsible for meeting their needs for maintenance, accommodation and support, unless they are responsible for a child or have a limited capability for work, but awards will not include an amount to cover rent.
There are other measures in place to support care leavers, such as staying-put arrangements, which help former foster children to continue living in their foster homes as boarders and lodgers. They may also be eligible to claim housing costs for setting up home allowance, which is a grant local authorities can give to care leavers to help them get their new homes up and running, as well as education bursaries for those completing in full-time and higher education. Some local authorities provide financial gifts and bill exemptions.
As I flagged earlier, doing everything that we can for care leavers should be the top priority—that is not in question—but there appear to already be a number of financial assistance provisions in place. It merits further discussion of whether additional monetary assistance by itself would achieve the goal that all noble Lords share of improving outcomes for care leavers.
It is not a surprising statistic, but it is none the less hugely regrettable that care leavers are more likely to be at risk of poor educational outcomes, unemployment, homelessness, drug and alcohol dependency, offending and mental health issues. These are the key issues that require a laser focus. If we are able to address them with a holistic approach, many other issues will disappear. We might consider improving mental health support for care leavers or working with charities to give children in care and care leavers positive role models to emulate.
Having a roof over your head is the foundation stone of a stable environment. Additional assistance in finding a home may be particularly beneficial. To that end, I ask the Minister to what extent the household support allowance is supporting care leavers. We would also be particularly keen to see more assistance given to care leavers in finding long-term stable employment, which would strengthen the aim to deliver on our commitment to helping them by providing a consistent and reliable income stream from which they could make plans for the future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, very rightly mentioned qualifications. The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, mentioned training. What training are the Government providing to work coaches at jobcentres to give specialist employment support to care leavers? What steps is the department taking to recruit additional work coaches in order to specifically help care leavers? Would the Government consider committing to allowing care leavers to see the same work coach every time they engage with employment support services? Consistency of both approach and relationship can make a huge difference in the positive progress of an individual as they move forward on their journey into adult life.
There is also the question of regional disparity. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned different payouts from different councils. Is the Minister aware of outcomes for care leavers differing across regions? If that is the case, what action will the Government take to provide additional support to local authorities in regions, which could improve their outcomes?
Children in care and care leavers are some of the most vulnerable people in our society. It is our collective responsibility to do more to reduce this vulnerability. Additional financial assistance is one potential way of improving outcomes, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester is suggesting, but other measures may be necessary.
I turn now to the wording of the Bill and the fact that parliamentary oversight is essential. It is a concern for His Majesty’s Official Opposition that statutory instruments made under powers bestowed on the Secretary of State by the Bill will not automatically be scrutinised by this House. Given the likely potential cost of implementing the provisions in the Bill, an assessment must first be conducted to ascertain the cost to the taxpayer, particularly in light of the fact that there may well be more efficient and effective ways to deliver positive outcomes to support care leavers. It is indeed possible, as mentioned by many noble Lords, that there would be positive cost benefits, such as less homelessness and less dependence on local services, but until such an assessment has actually been made, we simply do not know.
In conclusion, there are measures in place to support care leavers as they take their first steps into the world, which we hope will lead to them becoming thriving, independent adults. However, as the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Manchester correctly identifies in this Bill, there is always more that can be done. We must consider all options, as a nuanced approach may prove more beneficial for care leavers, with things such as tailored work coaches, mental health support and mentors, to name but a few.
Please allow me to end by highlighting to all noble Lords that many children in care and care leavers deserve our support and protection from those who would do them harm. I am absolutely sure that every speaker in this debate wants that 100%. When later this year we see the results of the urgent national review, announced yesterday, into the scale of grooming gangs, we very much hope that positive action will be taken to stop this happening once and for all.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, it gives me enormous pleasure to respond on behalf of the Government. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for introducing the Bill, for his eloquent advocacy and for taking the time for the briefing we had. I am sure that all noble Lords pass our best wishes to my noble friend Lady Sherlock for a speedy return to her rightful place on this Bench.
I will be open and honest in saying that this subject is very close to my heart. Before I became leader of Leeds City Council, I was the executive member for children’s services on Leeds City Council and moved an inherited inadequate service to one with outstanding provision. My experience in local government, across the piece at the LGA, has stood me in good stead to have some understanding and has left me with the firm conviction that everyone in all our communities has a responsibility and a role to play in addressing the challenges facing care leavers. We have heard about many of these from Members across the House, and I thank everyone for their contributions. Every partner organisation and every sector, whether it is public agencies or the private sector, have a contribution to make. We have heard some brilliant examples of where work is being done to address the challenges.
What we have heard today, and what we all know, is that the adverse experiences faced by many care leavers can have a significant impact on their ability to transition into independent living. Without meaningful support, many struggle with financial, emotional and health challenges, and are often left lonely and isolated, without support from family—the mental health issues that have been brought up by noble Lords today.
On the long-term impact, we have had quite a good discussion about the increased number of NEETs. I suggest that there is another category that we need to take account of: the not knowns, the ones for whom we do not have any data. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, my noble friend Lord Davies and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, all raised issues around that.
To respond to the comments from my noble friend Lord Watson, again, it is about how we draw everyone’s experience together to make sure that we have a holistic package to support care leavers into independent living. I note the comment that was so well made by my noble friend Lord Davies about the financial stress that we are talking about.
We must emphasise in this debate that the Government offer a range of services and support for care leavers. First and foremost, of course, is ensuring that the benefit system meets their specific needs. Because care leavers are less likely to receive family support for accommodation, they can receive the higher local housing allowance one-bedroom rate of either housing benefit or universal credit, up to the age of 25. We provide staying-put arrangements whereby care leavers aged 18 to 21 who remain with former foster carers may be eligible for means-tested benefits.
We need to take into account that, in addition to the exemption from the shared accommodation rate, discretionary housing payments, administered by local authorities, can be paid to those entitled to housing benefit or the housing element of universal credit. Government guidance includes care leavers under 35 on the list of priority groups for that support.
I think we are all looking forward to the discussions on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which will make the Staying Close programme a national offer to applicable children up to the age of 25. Care leavers under 25 will also be exempt from rules that require a connection to a local area before accessing social housing. I am pleased to say that additional funding has been given to local authorities to provide extra support to care leavers at the highest risk of rough sleeping.
Care leavers receive priority access to universal credit alternative payment arrangements, offering greater flexibility for those who need it. To support the transition to the adult welfare system, care leavers’ single points of contact work with the local authority leaving care teams, and care leavers can prepare their universal credit application before they turn 18.
We know that the best way to support care leavers into independent living is through work, which is why the DWP works across and beyond government to offer bespoke educational and employment support. The Second Chance Learning scheme ensures that benefit support is available to care leavers aged 18 to 21 who want to catch up on missed education. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for her comments and the work that she is involved in with the first STAR Scholars.
We work to ensure that care leavers get the most out of the DWP’s youth offer, which includes tailored work coach support for those aged 16 to 24. Of course, the Government must lead by example, which is why it is so important that different departments are offering career opportunities to care leavers through schemes such as the Civil Service care leaver internship. I commend organisations such as the NHS and private companies that have outstanding practice in this area.
More widely, the Government have improved support for those in care so that they get the start in life they deserve and are prepared for adulthood. In addition, our focus has to be on early support and early intervention, which means intervening at the earliest possible moment when problems within families start to emerge. We want to move to a position where we can enable children to safely remain with their families, kinship carers or fostering families. We are putting in work to try to attract more foster carers to the system. We are also looking at fixing the care market so that it puts the needs of children first.
In response to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, statutory guidance requires local authorities to work with children in care aged 16 and 17 to develop a pathway plan setting out what support will be provided when they leave care. This includes how they will support the young person to develop their financial capability and money management skills. It is vital that care leavers, and their supporters, understand the full extent of the support available to them. This is the issue about consistency across the piece. We are working with partners in local authorities and elsewhere to raise awareness, including through factsheets to signpost how and where to access support. We know that this needs to be extensive, inclusive and continually updated.
In response to the consistency points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, there have been concerns about patchy support across local authorities. There are obligations on local authorities to meet the standards specified in the Children Act. Jobcentres work with local authority leaving care teams to support care leavers who need to claim benefits so that they can transition to jobcentre support and find employment. Gathering more effective data is, of course, a prerequisite to all of this work.
Councils already have powers to provide council tax discounts, including for care leavers. It is for councils themselves to determine whether a discount is appropriate. I note the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby about this.
The DWP has updated guidance and introduced additional support to help care leavers navigate the benefits system. There is a report on these issues from the Children’s Society that goes back a number of years, and I recognise there is a frustration here. There is a requirement, however, that before imposing sanctions, work coaches must speak to a care leaver’s single point of contact, who works with the local authority personal advisor to consider relevant information. We believe this has led to improvements, but reliable data is not yet available. Of course, we would welcome any further evidence of this from partners and noble Lords so that we can get a much more up-to-date picture.
Universal credit is an important part of the support available to care leavers on low incomes, as referenced by so many of the contributions today. My noble friend Lord Davies raised the specific issue of adequacy of universal credit. The fair repayment rate, to be introduced from April, will reduce the overall cap on universal credit deductions from 25% to 15%. This will make a contribution, but it does not address the wider points. We need to ensure that we get continual feedback and evidence on these issues.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester correctly identified the key point in the Bill that under-25s are paid slightly lower rates than the universal credit standard. Indeed, there are reasons why the standard allowance differs according to age. Younger workers typically receive lower wages, with the lower rates of standard allowance maintaining the incentive to find and progress in work. As we have heard, younger people are also generally more likely to live in some someone else’s household, with living costs decreasing significantly for under-25s. Of course—this is the point—care leavers are much less likely to live in someone else’s household.
However, as I have noted, the Government offer support and easements to help care leavers meet their additional needs. The point I need to make again is that it is not possible to make a reliable assessment at this point because data coverage on care leavers is still limited. This is not about cutting costs, however. We want to make sure that we do everything in our power to enable care leavers to move into long-term employment as we believe this is the is the best way to support their transition to independent living.
More generally, support for accommodation and other living costs is available to those most in need. For example, the Government have provided £742 million to extend the household support fund in England until 31 March 2026. Local authorities can also use discretionary housing payments to provide further assistance.
For these reasons, the Government do not believe the Bill is the best way to deliver all the support that we believe care leavers deserve. However, I assure noble Lords that the Government have committed to reviewing universal credit to ensure it tackles poverty and makes work pay, and we commit to listening carefully to all perspectives and to welcoming input from across the House, as has been expressed today. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, has requested that this be fed in; I hope he will come forward to feed his comments into the overall review that is being undertaken. It is critical that we get the widest possible background to support this review. Of course, we will continue to improve the support available to care leavers.
On future work, the youth guarantee announced in the Get Britain Working White Paper will be available to young people aged 18 to 21 in England, including care leavers, to ensure they can more easily access quality training opportunities and apprenticeships or help to find work. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, as I have referenced, will introduce a staying close duty, requiring local authorities to support care leavers to find accommodation and support services, and to publish plans for facilitating their transition into independent living.
This work is a cross-government priority. Indeed, a care leaver ministerial board, comprising Ministers from 12 government departments and chaired by the Education Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister, has now been established to identify what more can be done. As well as the voices of noble Lords, we have to make sure that we hear the voices of care leavers and young people generally and learn from those with lived experience to ensure that we are not in this Building passing judgment, when it is clear from the testimonies that we have heard today that it is so important that their experience is front and centre of any changes that we take forward.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referenced the Wales universal basic income. I acknowledge that comment; DWP officials are working closely with Welsh local authorities to ensure that transition can take place smoothly.
On the comments from the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, in exceptional circumstances 16 and 17 year-olds may claim universal credit in their own right, but there is no direct entitlement to universal credit for children under the age of 17. I do not have time to go into the detail, but I am happy to pick up on that at another point.
Again, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for bringing this matter to the House. I look forward very much to the continuing discussions. The Government share his commitment to supporting care leavers. We will continue to build on existing support to ensure that care leavers, and indeed all young people, receive the support that they need to live securely and independently into adulthood. I have not had time specifically to refer to the comments about mental health issues, but we know how significant that is—and I reference the work ongoing in this area.
One thing that we know in this area of work is that we all need a relentless focus. We know that too many of our vulnerable young people have been let down in the past. I emphasise that we remain committed to working closely with care leavers and those who support them to bring about the transformation that we need in the way that support is given to them.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate this afternoon, and thank them for the concern for care leavers that has come from all sides of this House.
Particularly in the past few minutes, we have heard that we do not have adequate data. Of course, waiting for data can be an excuse, so can we commit to collecting the data that we need so that we can have an informed debate—particularly as the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill goes forward? That may be a place where we can continue some of these conversations beyond the scope of this Bill. We have heard also that, while lots of statutory guidance exists, its application, in the Minister’s own words, is at best patchy. The advantage of tackling this matter through universal credit is that it takes away the postcode lottery.
I know that many noble Lords are here for the next debate, so I shall be brief. In my years with the Church Commissioners, I discovered that, when you are prepared to look at things in the long term, the moral and financial cases often point in the same direction. We have heard many noble Lords speak in this debate about the moral and financial case. If we improved universal credit rates for young care leavers, we would in the long term save money. I know that I do not have to be re-elected every five years and I can take a long-term view—but please can we recognise that, if we take a moral and financial case, they can both point in the same direction, particularly when we look long term?
Today sees the retirement of the reverend canon Dr Malcolm Brown, who has led the Church of England’s public affairs work nationally for something like 18 years. I want to thank him for his support of me and my friends on these Benches over so many years. I am glad to be able to put that on the record of your Lordships’ House. I also echo the Minister in wishing the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, who is just as gifted in the pulpit as she is in explaining universal credit, a speedy recovery.
I finish on the words of the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie. He said, “Would this be appropriate for my child?” With that question echoing in my heart, I beg to move.
Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, which is tabled in my name, I will speak in support of the other amendments in this group, all of which relate to Clause 1.
It is worth pointing out in a sentence that the present position under Appendix FM of the UK Immigration Rules is that a person granted refugee or protection status is entitled to make an application for family members to join in two circumstances. Depending on eligibility requirements, they must be a partner—that is, someone in a genuine relationship—or a child under the age of 18 who is not married or in a civil partnership. That is the present legal position. This Bill would have the effect of broadening that application, and we are going to look at that in a second.
At the Second Reading of this Bill, which was held on 18 October, I intervened on the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to ask whether she could inform the House of how many people she envisaged would be granted refugee family reunion status on an annual basis under this Bill. Her answer was:
“I will not go into that now; I do not have it in my speech. I am time-limited and conscious of other people’s need for that time. I will happily tell the noble Lord later”.—[Official Report, 18/10/24; col. 360.]
I have yet to be told how many people the noble Baroness envisages would be admitted on an annual basis under these measures.
Clause 1(1) provides that:
“The Secretary of State must, within 6 months … lay … a statement of changes in the … ‘immigration rules’”.
That would have the effect, as per the wording in subsection 1(3), of requiring that there be leave to
“enter and remain in the United Kingdom for family members of a person granted protection status”.
Nothing in that clause suggests that there is any control on the number of people who may be admitted.
The term “family members” is specifically defined in Clause (1)(5)(a), which provides that it includes a person’s
“parent …. spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner … child, including adopted child, who is either … under the age of 18 or … over the age of 18, but dependent on the person… sibling, including adoptive sibling”.
Clause (1)(5(b) states that it includes:
“such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to … the importance of maintaining family unity … the best interests of a child … the physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted protection status and another person … any risk to the physical, emotional or psychological wellbeing of a person who was granted protection status”,
and
“such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.
This is possibly the most expansive definition of “additional family member” that could be conceived.
My amendments are targeted to address that issue in the Bill. The reason for this is that, clearly, the admission of refugees’ additional family members to this country places a strain on domestic limited resources, including accommodation, financial support, education facilities and medical facilities. As the House of Lords Library briefing noted, since 2015, some 64,000 additional family members have been admitted under the present scheme. I suggest that, under these proposals, that number would be multiplied very many times.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I ask the noble Lord, who I think has also put forward Amendment 14, whether children who have been formally adopted are contained within the Immigration Rules?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Appendix FM, as I understand it—although I would have to check—does allow for an application to be considered by the Home Office in respect of a formally adopted child. But I am sure the Minister can confirm, or otherwise, in relation to that.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Given that the last Government did not set up safe, legal routes and actually encouraged the small boats, does the noble Lord have no shame in actually suggesting that this will do the same?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Well, I am afraid that the noble Baroness is wrong: there are a number of safe and legal routes, as she will hear in a moment from the Minister. We are part of the UK resettlement scheme and there are a number of other routes, including the Ukraine family scheme and the Hong Kong scheme: these are all safe and legal routes. So I have absolutely no shame in standing here and asserting that this Bill would be contrary to the interests of this country.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my amendments in group 1 and to support my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. I extend my apologies at the outset to your Lordships’ House for the fact that I was not able to be here on 18 October for Second Reading due to a long-standing family engagement.
Given that I have tabled a significant number of amendments, I think it would be helpful to explain why my noble friends and I are seeking to amend the Bill. First, I put on record my appreciation of the commitment and tenacity of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in seeking to get this measure on to the statute book on a number of occasions. Notwithstanding that, this is a very poorly drafted and ill thought through Bill, which is why 32 amendments have been tabled to it in Committee. It gives rise to wide-ranging ramifications in terms of public finances, the delivery of public services and community cohesion. It is a de facto legislative open door to unlimited immigration—let us be honest about that. If noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches wish to reject that analysis, I am more than happy to give way.
It is also inherently unfair on those seeking regular routes to indefinitely remain and to citizenship. Finally, more generally, I believe it is predicated on a mischaracterisation and a misunderstanding of whether the UK has indeed discharged its historic and current proper humanitarian and compassionate international duties to refugees. I think there is significant evidence that it has.
So, it is a bad Bill, but even now, at this late stage, I believe it can be improved. It is as well to say that the UK has a long and proud record of providing refuge to those fleeing persecution, including Jewish refugees in the 1930s and Ugandan Asians in the 1970s, some of whom came to my former constituency, Peterborough. Via bespoke humanitarian routes the UK actually resettled 31,000 refugees between 2012 and 2022, excluding the Afghan resettlement scheme and the Ukraine and Hong Kong programmes.
Indeed, in 2023, 62,000 grants of application for asylum were made, against 84,000 in-country applications, the second highest in the European league table. It equates to 76%: significantly higher than, for instance, Italy, Spain or France, and up from 33% in 2018. I accept that it has since dropped to around 67% but, with these numbers, the provision of basic accommodation, a weekly allowance, free healthcare and education for children is nevertheless a very significant drain on public resources, however laudable the aims are.
It would be appropriate to move to specifically consider the amendments that I have tabled in group 1. I draw your Lordships’ attention to my Amendments 3, 13, 18, 23, 26 and 27, which would all add sensible and reasonable safeguards to the Bill to ensure the integrity of our immigration system. Amendment 3 seeks to replace the proposed 21-day implementation period for changes to the Immigration Rules with a more measured timeframe of three months. Such a change reflects a pragmatic approach to policy-making, ensuring that any new rules governing refugee family reunion are implemented effectively and require sufficient time for consultation, preparation and operational adjustments, as well as for proper parliamentary scrutiny and oversight in this House and the other place.
A rushed 21-day period risks overwhelming local authorities, housing providers and other stakeholders, potentially undermining the system’s integrity. In my own home area of Peterborough, we have seen significant strains on the delivery of public services, particularly things such as GP surgeries, the provision of local authority and housing association housing, and primary school places. Three months provides a balanced compromise, enabling thorough preparation while allowing the Government to move forward in a timely manner. This measured approach ensures that the new policies will be robust and sustainable.
Amendment 13 seeks to remove “unmarried partner” from the scope of family reunion eligibility. This amendment aligns family reunion provisions with the established principles of the Immigration Rules, which prioritise formal marital or civil partnerships over less formal relationships. Quite frankly, in the real world, it would be almost impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an unmarried partner is a bona fide claimant under these rules, and that is one of the many holes in the Bill as drafted.
So this is a matter of both consistency and clarity. Recognising only spouses and civil partners provides clear criteria for eligibility, reducing the potential for fraudulent claims. It also upholds traditional values that recognise marriage and civil partnership as the cornerstone of a stable family unit as it goes forward towards citizenship and playing a meaningful and useful role in UK society. This amendment ensures that the UK’s immigration policies remain fair, transparent and in line with public expectations. In fact, if your Lordships consider comparative regimes across Europe and other jurisdictions, they will see that this is very much in line with the practices adopted in other countries.
Amendment 18 proposes reducing the age limit for siblings eligible for family reunion from 25 to 21 years old. There is of course significant scientific data that says that a human being is not fully developed—certainly, their brain is not fully developed—perhaps until their mid-20s, but that is contested. It is generally accepted across the world that you are an adult either at 18 or, in the case of some legislation, at 21. Such a change reflects the practical realities of adulthood and independence. At 21, individuals are generally expected to be self-sufficient and capable of making their own rational decisions and establishing their own lifestyle.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
It is an advisory time limit. I thank the noble Lord for that.
It would also be impossible to ascertain the veracity of a claim in foreign jurisdictions.
This amendment would ensure that family reunion rights were extended only to those whose adoptive status had been legally verified. Such a change would protect vulnerable children while ensuring that the system was not exploited; in fact, it would specifically protect children and young people from being trafficked for sexual or other exploitation.
Amendment 27 would introduce a requirement for medical health assessments for all applicants before their family reunion status was approved. This is a common-sense measure that ensures the health and well-being of those entering the UK. Early health assessments can identify any medical issues requiring treatment, ensuring that appropriate support is provided, and additionally, these assessments protect public health by identifying and addressing any communicable diseases. This policy is pursued by many countries across the world and is sensible and responsible. Such a policy is not only practical but humane, reflecting the UK’s commitment to safeguarding both incoming refugees and the wider community.
In conclusion, these amendments demonstrate a commitment to ensuring that the Bill is both compassionate and practical. They would uphold public confidence, protect national security, and promote fairness and transparency in the immigration system. I urge the Committee to support these thoughtful and necessary provisions.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, the speakers’ list for today states:
“Other speakers within each group are expected to keep within 10 minutes”.
If noble Lords could respect that, your Lordships’ House would probably appreciate it.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the amendments in my name in this group, and to support generally the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Jackson, who have already spoken on theirs.
My amendments are Amendments 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 25. Amendment 4 is designed to increase the time to a year. Amendment 7 would ensure that costs, numbers and funds were all understood by each of the bodies concerned—authorities and taxpayers—that fund the asylum system, and that they were itemised and publicly announced. Amendments 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17 and 19 are designed to tighten and clarify the provisions governing age and to tighten the provisions governing status, about which my noble friends Lord Jackson and Lord Murray have already spoken. Amendment 25 is designed to make entitlement transparent, by bringing the identity documents needed in line with existing immigration arrangements.
Amendment 4 would require one year to pass before the Secretary of State was required to provide for family reunion. Amendment 7 would ensure that costs and numbers in the arrangements for funding and accommodating family members under the Bill were fully understood and that we knew who was funding the Bill, whether already hard-pressed councils, the Exchequer or both were paying, and whether people and families covered by the Bill would have priority over other applicants for local authority housing and public services.
The other amendments aim to ensure that those covered are eligible to entitlement on clear grounds. We need a Bill to be clear about the grounds of age and status, and in accord with UK law.
My final amendment in this group, Amendment 25, aims to underpin the security arrangements for entitlement by way of specific requirements for identity under the Identity Documents Act 2010.
All amendments therefore aim to ensure that, given the very large and growing number of applicants each year, such a significant transfer of population—the entire family for each applicant, which has serious consequences, including financial and practical—is limited strictly to the immediate family, children under 18 at the time the Bill passes and parents of such children covered under the Bill. Even then, the potential cost will be significant, and it will add to the costs and demands on the already overstretched asylum system, the first focus of which must be on asylum seekers themselves. The priority must be to ensure that applications are processed quickly and efficiently. I am very glad the present Government are continuing their work to hurry up the processing.
Resources should therefore be spent on those seeking asylum. We should seek to introduce the necessary rules to supervise, limit and identify those strictly covered under the Bill and those who believe that they have an entitlement. There are complex arrangements here and they need to be clarified.
Local communities and organisations should be consulted, because we do not want to see unpleasantness and objections from local communities unprepared for housing groups of asylum seekers in small villages or towns across the country.
We have no certain idea of the numbers, and I would be grateful—I am waiting with interest—to hear the noble Baroness let us know what they are. However, we know how many people made asylum applications in the year ending September 2024—77,066 over the 12-month period, relating to 99,700 people. If the Bill proceeds and the numbers expand, we will have no idea of how many family members will be covered by the Bill in addition to those already covered in law.
We know that the costs are high. The asylum system itself costs £5 billion. It is the highest level of spending on record, and it is up by a third on the previous year. The costs of the UK asylum system were £5.38 billion in November 2024—the highest, as I have said, and 12 times higher than when these statistics were kept in this format in 2013-14.
The Home Office figure for asylum costs covers direct cash support and accommodation, wider staffing and other related migration and border activity, but not the operation of channel-crossing interceptions to the UK. We need to take account of the additional costs this measure would put on the system, in terms of both compliance and money, and whether this will take away from the rapid processing of existing asylum claims, which should be and rightly is one of the priorities this Government are focusing on. Adding family members could increase the number by a factor of anything from three upwards.
To conclude, there is no appetite in this country for further immigration of that magnitude. Our housing, education and health services are creaking at the seams, with continued pressures adding to the burden they and taxpayers face. We have already seen that the Government intend to raise tax even further, to the tune of £25 billion a year. Total immigration was in the region of 700,000 last year. Voters want it brought down.
For this reason, I urge the Government to accept my amendments and the other amendments in this group if they strengthen what I am proposing. It is in line with the Government’s promise to bring immigration down. For those for whom a statement is made that family reunion can take place, the amendments I propose will curtail it to immediate family. They require clarity and tighten up the arrangements for identifying those covered. They are in line with current UK arrangements. They would ensure that public authorities and voters are aware of the cost and that there is more time for authorities, local communities and the Government to ensure that nothing is rushed, because it will end up being a mess.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly on Amendment 19. Like my noble friend Lord Jackson, I apologise that I was not able to be here at Second Reading. I simply echo his earlier comments without going into any detail. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Lawlor for tabling Amendment 19 because I have a question and I would be grateful if the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, were able to address the drafting.
Earlier today, I made the familiar comment in a Second Reading that, however good a Bill is, the devil is in the detail. I would like to address just one part of the detail to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Amendment 19 seeks to
“Clause 1, page 2, line 9, leave out paragraph (b)”.
That paragraph refers to
“such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to—”
and it gives some exemptions. Rightly, of course, it talks about the best interests of a child. That is the crucial issue underpinning, I am sure, what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, wishes to do in bringing forward the Bill.
However, I am concerned about the drafting of Clause 1(5)(b)(iii). It applies to
“the physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted protection status and another person”.
This is a hugely wide lack of definition about who we are talking about. I am assuming we are talking in the first terms about a child. The person might be the child, but who is the other person?
It goes far wider than just a family connection: there is financial dependency. I feel that that particular part of this clause requires further investigation. I do not propose to extend the time today on that—I have some ideas myself about how the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, might be able to better present that part of this clause—but as it stands, I certainly would not be able to support that part of the Bill.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I oppose the amendments in this group introduced by their three proposers. I do so for five reasons.
The first is that I believe in putting the traffickers out of business, and studies show that about half of those in the camps in Calais are family reunion cases: they are people wishing to join members of their family here.
The second is that the principal virtue, in my book, of the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is that it deals with the anomaly where we, with the Swiss and Liechtenstein, are the only countries in Europe that do not allow a resident refugee child granted asylum status to sponsor family members to come into the country. Our position is an anomaly, which, in my view, is quite unworthy of us and quite unfitting with our pride in being a sanctuary country.
Thirdly, I oppose the amendments because they are unworkable. I think the intention is probably to make them unworkable, but in practice, they would be unworkable. A good example is Amendment 7, from the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, which would require the Secretary of State to publish in the initial statement and every six months how many people would be expected to come in under the Act and the approximate cost per person. We know the answer, actually. The Refugee Council study established that the numbers would be somewhere in the range of 240 to 750 a year, if we, as every other European country, except Liechtenstein and Switzerland, does, allowed a resident child granted asylum status to bring in family members. The range would be no more than 750—it might be as little as 240—and the cost would be about £1,000 a head.
So we are talking de minimis here on money but constructing extremely elaborate bureaucracy and laying requirements on local government—and central government, because we are talking about the accommodation requirements—to do an immense amount of reporting. This, for Members of this House who oppose overregulation and bureaucracy, is a rather surprising structure. I, of course, was a bureaucrat—a proud bureaucrat. I should be delighted to see many more bureaucrats given entertainment and occupation, but actually I think it is a very bad idea.
My fourth reason is that overspecifying, going into all the detail that this does, is itself a bad thing. I think it is correct that the Immigration Rules lay down the details and primary legislation should not. That is the right way of doing it, and all this heavy detail in here is making this a very peculiar piece of primary legislation and is overlapping with the existing Immigration Rules.
My fifth and last point, which relates to that one, is to ask the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth—because he is a distinguished lawyer and I am neither distinguished nor a lawyer—to think hard a contrario. If we set out such extraordinarily detailed specifications in primary legislation, what about the other Immigration Rules that do not simply copy primary legislation? Will it not be open to individuals to argue in the courts, against the authorities, that, because the specification in the Immigration Rules was not set out in primary legislation, it is in some way defective? I think it is very dangerous to get into a contrario territory, but I bow to the lawyers in this Committee who know more about it than I do.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, for his kindness in giving way. Do I understand his main point to be that real-time, empirical data is inimical to the formulation of good public policy? Is he actually saying that we should not collect data in order to make policy, for the future of our country, in respect of the provision of health services, housing and all the rest? That is a very odd argument to make, if I am perfectly honest.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I regret that I was not here for Second Reading, but my Green Party colleague, my noble friend Lady Bennett, was.
I absolutely oppose all these amendments. I have been at debates on a couple of Bills in this Session where the Conservative Peers have been, I would say, playing games. That does not show respect to your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
The noble Lord, Lord Murray, gave me a very sneaky answer earlier. If he is a distinguished lawyer, I can see how he might win cases by being sneaky like that. He knows very well—look, he is laughing.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
The noble Lord has had his say.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray, knows very well that when I say “safe and legal routes”, I mean for any and every nationality—not just the few that the previous Government thought were acceptable to come to Britain.
Also, if noble Lords are rude enough to go over the advisory time limit and show disrespect to the Committee, perhaps their microphones should be turned off.
On the other Bills I mentioned, the Conservatives have been filibustering. They have been making some of these Bills quite unpleasant to sit through when one cares about the issue at hand. Personally, I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, even though he did not give way to me. He is absolutely right that this is petty bickering; I really cannot stand it. We need safe and legal routes. The previous Government did not give us those routes for all nationalities, which means—
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
No; I will give way in a moment—perhaps.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
No. The previous Government actually encouraged the small boats. They encouraged people to come by routes that were not safe.
The Green Party supports this Bill. It is time to remove the barriers so that desperate children can be reunited with their families in safety.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I declare that I—along with Fiona Mactaggart, then an MP—wrote a report on children in northern France, Calais and Dunkirk some years ago. I find this whole group of amendments to the Bill extremely sad.
I want to concentrate on a legal issue, which I raise to some extent with the noble Lord, Lord Murray. I was certainly not an immigration lawyer but, as far as I understand the Immigration Rules, civil partners, who come up in Amendment 13, and adopted children, who come up in Amendment 14—both are referred to in Clause 1(5)—are already within the Immigration Rules. Consequently, if the noble Lord and the noble Baroness are right, they are trying to reduce the Immigration Rules, not increase them.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I was unable to attend Second Reading, but I have come in today especially because this debate is a very interesting one. I say to those who really want to hear a well-argued and well-reasoned debate that it is the convention of this House that, when someone seeks to intervene with a point and they ask the speaker to give way, that person should be heard. It is very sad to see the tone of this debate.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest in that I am supported by the RAMP organisation. At the outset, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, if I caught him correctly, said that it was difficult to explain why the amendments in this group were laid. That is what I heard—I apologise if it is not what he said. It seems to me, from the conversation we have had on this group of amendments, that it is primarily about making further restrictions on what is already in the rules of our system and, secondly, about creating differences in timings. Those would then make it more difficult to put forward the principles that lie behind this Bill, which of course is about filling some of the eligibility gaps that currently exist for family reunion.
On timings, it strikes me as strange that we have two sets of amendments pulling in opposite directions. In one set we have amendments from noble Lords on the Conservative Benches saying that they want to restrict the amount of time that the Home Office and the Government have to make the new arrangements, while in the other set they are trying to expand them so that they have longer to do it. I do not know whether we can make a judgment on that, but it seems to me that what is common practice in the timings for dealing with changes that the Government have to make—the current procedure in this Bill of six months for the Government to prepare, and 21 days before Parliament—
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I fear that he is wrong on this, in that we are seeking to open a larger window for parliamentary oversight, in terms of a statement laid by the Secretary of State under the conditions laid down in the Bill, but to give more time for those people more acutely affected at local level, such as local authorities, police and other agencies. That is why he may see a slight difference there, but they are not mutually exclusive ideas in respect of our amendments.
Lord German (LD)
I understand the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, but I do not understand how they can be put alongside those of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, which seek to increase the time overall. Anyway, I am sure that noble Lords in this Committee will be able to make their minds up, having heard that interjection just then.
Beyond timing, of course, there are a number of issues relating to restrictions. The issue fundamental to this is that, on the family reunion potential, those who come with family reunion protection are largely women and children. We must not forget that this is the group of people we are talking about. Family reunion costs less to the British purse than it does if you have to manage things through the state. Looking after young people by local authorities does not come cheap, and having people within their own family background certainly helps to support every aspect of family life—but particularly for young people it makes sure they have a good start in life and can proceed.
I will not repeat the numbers because I accept everything that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, but they are small. There are other numbers that might give an indication of the future—the ones that I think the noble Lord, Lord Murray, was asking about. In the past 12 months, 3,201 unaccompanied children were given protection in this country up to the year ending September 2024. Those 3,201 may have family; it is true that they may have parents somewhere, but you have to make a judgment as to how many would seek to bring their families here. We are one of only three countries on the European continent that do not operate on that potential.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the amendments to Clause 1 put forward by my noble friends on this side of the House.
First, I speak in support of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth that seeks to replace “must” with “may” in Clause 1. This amendment is a vital adjustment to ensure that we uphold the principles of good governance, maintain flexibility in policy-making and safeguard our national interests. First and foremost, this amendment reflects the importance of retaining the Government’s discretion in managing immigration policy. Whichever Government are in power, immigration is an ongoing and rapidly changing issue to which the Secretary of State at the time must respond with pace. The word “must” imposes a rigid timeline and an obligation on the Secretary of State to act within six months, regardless of the evolving circumstances. Replacing it with “may” will preserve the Government’s ability to assess, prioritise and implement policies based on the prevailing domestic and international context. This flexibility is especially important in a world that is increasingly uncertain and unpredictable.
Amendment 2, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, proposes replacing the six-month timeline for laying changes to the Immigration Rules with a more appropriate one-month period. This amendment is about ensuring that Parliament retains proper oversight of a Bill about which we have serious concerns. Reducing the timeline to one month ensures that any changes to the Immigration Rules under the Bill are brought back to Parliament swiftly for scrutiny. It would prevent the Government from allowing extended periods of uncertainty to shield decisions that could fundamentally undermine the integrity of our immigration system. The amendment highlights a critical point that, while we respect the intention behind the Bill, we oppose it because it fails to address the complexities of immigration policy.
Amendment 3, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, proposes replacing the 21-day implementation period with a more measured three-month period. This amendment reflects our belief that significant changes to our Immigration Rules, such as those concerning refugee family reunion, must not be rushed through without proper consideration of their implications for the UK’s immigration system, resources and public confidence. The original provision for 21 days is, frankly, far too short a period for such substantial changes to be introduced and implemented. We believe that it risks creating undue pressure on our immigration authorities and undermining the orderly processes that we have worked hard to maintain. Extending this period to three months would therefore provide the necessary time for proper evaluation, preparation and control. Family reunions must be managed in a way that ensures that we are not inadvertently incentivising illegal migration or creating vulnerabilities in our immigration system.
Amendment 4, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lawlor, seeks to amend Clause 1 by extending the period for implementing changes to the Immigration Rules for refugee family reunion from 21 days to one year. This amendment is both prudent and necessary, as it would ensure that any changes were introduced with the care, preparation and thoroughness that they deserve. The practical implications of significant policy changes must be carefully managed to avoid unintended consequences that could undermine the very outcomes that we seek to achieve. This amendment would provide the Government with the time required to conduct a comprehensive and detailed review of the potential impacts of these changes, including their effects on public services, local communities and the integration of refugees. A rushed implementation within just 21 days would fail to account for the complex and interconnected challenges of housing, healthcare, education and social cohesion that arise from any significant adjustment to our Immigration Rules.
Amendment 5, tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth, seeks to introduce critical safeguards ensuring that any changes to the Immigration Rules for refugee family reunion are made responsibly with due consideration for their impact on local communities, public services and our broader immigration system. This amendment strikes to the heart of the practical realities of governing. It is our duty as legislators to ensure that our policies are sustainable and do not place undue strain on local communities or public services. By requiring the Secretary of State to assess the projected impact on local support services, housing and integration arrangements, the amendment would introduce a much-needed layer of accountability, which acknowledges that housing, schools, healthcare and community resources are not infinite and that we must carefully manage the arrival of new residents to ensure that they are properly supported. Overburdening the systems not only will undermine the successful integration of refugees but could erode public confidence in our immigration policies.
Amendment 7, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lawlor, seeks to introduce a new level of transparency and accountability to the Bill by requiring detailed information on costs, capacity and prioritisation in housing before implementing changes to the Immigration Rules. This amendment is both practical and prudent, ensuring that any changes introduced under the Bill are grounded in a full understanding of their financial and social implications. It reflects core Conservative principles of fiscal responsibility, public accountability and fairness, ensuring that we balance our humanitarian commitments with the needs of our communities and the sustainability of our public services.
Amendment 18, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, seeks to reduce the age threshold from 25 to 21 concerning the eligibility of siblings for family reunion. This amendment is a vital correction to a clause that, as currently drafted, risks broadening the scope of family reunion far beyond what is reasonable or necessary. By lowering the age threshold, we can better align this provision with the principles of fairness, practicality and public confidence in our immigration system. The age of 25 is unnecessarily high and creates significant challenges for the effective management of family reunion cases. An individual in their mid-20s is, by any reasonable standard, an adult capable of independence. Extending family reunion rights to siblings up to the age of 25 dilutes the focus of the Bill.
The proposed age of 21 strikes a more appropriate balance. It avoids creating a system that is overly broad and difficult to administer. This amendment would ensure that family reunion remains a process based on need, not convenience. Moreover, the broader implications of maintaining the 25 year-old threshold must not be ignored. Such an expansive definition risks placing additional strain on already overstretched resources, including housing, social services and immigration officials. It could undermine the public’s trust in our ability to manage migration in a controlled and responsible manner—a trust that is critical to maintaining support for genuine humanitarian efforts. I urge noble Lords to support the amendment and to reject a Bill that, in its current form, risks eroding the principles on which our immigration system is built.
Amendment 27, in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, would require a medical health assessment for each applicant under Clause 1 before their application for family reunion status is approved. This amendment is a practical and necessary addition to the Bill. It would ensure that the process for granting family reunion status is not only compassionate but thorough, responsible and mindful of the broader implications for public health and welfare. First and foremost, the amendment would strengthen public confidence in the integrity of our immigration system. By implementing a medical health assessment, we would establish a robust framework that considers the physical and physiological fitness of applicants while addressing potential public health concerns. This is particularly important to ensure that we meet our obligations to applicants and the communities that welcome them. The amendment also aligns with the principles of good governance and accountability. It would ensure that decisions regarding family reunion are made with full knowledge of any health factors that may affect an individual’s ability to integrate and thrive in the United Kingdom. It would prevent rushed or uninformed approvals that could create challenges down the line for both applicants and public services.
I commend my noble friend for proposing this amendment, which demonstrates a commitment to compassion balanced with prudence. I urge the Committee to support this sensible and measured addition to the Bill to ensure that our family reunion policies remain fair, humane and effective.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
Well, we have had some fun with the Bill and the amendments. I start by reiterating what I said on 18 October when I responded to the Bill’s Second Reading on behalf of the Government. For ease, I refer noble Lords to cols. 371-74. It is worth taking that as a starting point because the amendments and their impact on the Bill are relevant. I said very clearly at that stage:
“I reassure all noble Lords that the Government fully support the principle of family unity and share their concerns regarding families who have been separated by conflict or persecution. It is for precisely that reason that the Government support what has been referred to already: an existing comprehensive framework for reuniting refugees with their families in the UK”.—[Official Report, 18/10/24; col. 371.]
That is the principle of the Bill. At the same time, I said:
“Expanding the policy to extended family would—undoubtedly, in my view and in those of my colleagues across the Home Office—have a significant and difficult impact on stretched public resources. It would also mean that we have to bring more people into scope of the policy, including those who may not necessarily need international protection themselves”.—[Official Report, 18/10/24; col. 373.]
On 18 October, I found myself supporting the Bill and the principle of it in part, but not its extensions without further consideration. I now find myself addressing amendments which are, as the noble Lord, Lord German, said—let us be generous—somewhat contradictory in parts. There is no coherence from the Conservative Back Benches or Front Bench in relation to all those points, and different places and policy principles are put onboard.
I find myself looking at all the amendments and thinking that these are not designed to help the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, they are probably not designed to help the Government come to sensible suggestions on these points, and they are certainly not designed to help those who might face persecution or refugee status and need those supports. Can I support the amendments? No, I cannot. Can I support the noble Baroness’s Bill in its current form? No, I cannot. I find myself in the very strange position of being the Government of the day and coming to a sensible position, perhaps; Members will judge that in due course.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will give way in a moment. Let us see whether the noble Baroness wishes to accept any of their amendments.
I think the Government are in broadly the right place. We understand the pressures. We have a good set of rules in place. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, before he intervenes, that we are committed to publishing a migration White Paper very shortly that will look at a range of other issues debated in this House and in the House of Commons that government policy considers. The impact of asylum and refugee status, although not migration, is still an important issue because additional individuals coming in on family reunion is a form of migration. All these matters have to be considered. As I said at Second Reading and say again now, these are matters the Government need to reflect upon in slower time. But I will certainly hear what the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, wishes to say.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way. I am worried about his reputation as a bruiser from the other place because he sounds dangerously consensual and collaborative this afternoon, which is always worrying coming from him. The Minister has been speaking for 10 minutes and has not alighted on the challenge thrown down by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth concerning the overall generic numbers—the universal numbers—that are likely to come as a result of the Bill as unamended. Surely that is something the Government will take an interest in, if he makes a judgment on, for instance, the provision of public services in future.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Bruiser? Moi? Surely not. I will at some point potentially bruise the noble Lord once again, but today I am trying to find the sensible middle way.
Let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, that I have already recognised that there are issues with the numbers. When he intervened at Second Reading and asked the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the numbers, there was a potential vacuum for an assessment of what those numbers would be. Again, any sensible Government would have to take those matters into account, which, to answer the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is why I indicated at Second Reading that we had concerns about the additional numbers, the assessments of those numbers and the criteria for granting them. As I said then and reiterate today, there are legal reasonable routes for other family members to join after a proper assessment. Without repeating it all today, I referenced that very strongly in the debate at Second Reading.
The government response today is that I wish the amendments to be withdrawn. But that is a matter for noble Lords. As we progress, in Committee, on Report, at Third Reading and when the Bill goes to the House of Commons, we as a Government will, in between, reflect on these matters.
I hope that is clear, even if it is slightly in the middle. Maybe in the middle is not such a bad place to be. That is my view on the amendments and on the Bill. I can add nothing more than that today than to allow the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to respond to amendments that were designed—as appears to be the condition of current Opposition Members—not to help clarity, were perhaps for a little further discussion or perhaps a little obfuscation. Ultimately, the House will determine these matters in due course.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Schwab and Westheimer Trust, which supports young asylum seekers in education. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for his compliments about persistence. The compliments should be directed at previous Home Office Ministers, who waived the Bill’s predecessors through to the Commons in a very similar form and did not seek to obstruct them. I applaud the Minister’s elegant negotiation of a tightrope. As he says, there can be further opportunities for discussion, and of course sending the Bill to the Commons gives those opportunities.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Murray. I certainly had not intended a discourtesy. There was not a vacuum as regards the numbers; it was my inability immediately to find the briefing we received from the Red Cross, Safe Passage and the Refugee Council, which was sent to those who had their names down to speak at Second Reading. Had I realised that he wanted to pursue that point, I would of course have handed on my copy of the briefing. That briefing included a number of other issues.
I will make a few general points that are relevant to all the amendments in this group. The Bill is to put into statutory form provisions for family reunion that are currently in the rules, because statute is more stable than rules. We are adding siblings, for reasons that we will come to, and provide for children to sponsor family members, including parents, whom they cannot currently sponsor. The cost of supporting unaccompanied children is obviously high. My view is that reuniting families would lead to savings: parents would support their children.
We want to see more safe and legal routes. Currently, those routes are quite limited. The provisions we are proposing would create a safe and legal route, subject to a visa. Applications for visas are much easier to control, oversee and assess than people arriving on our shores in an irregular fashion. Of course, children—particularly those who are alone—are in a particular position. That is why we have had a lot of support from outside the House, with many mentions of the best interests of the child. Vulnerability to trafficking and exploitation has already been mentioned.
The incompatibility of some of the amendments with many of the current rules has been mentioned. The current position is that the Secretary of State can extend or restrict eligibility through changes to the rules, so the factual position remains the same. Amendment 19 is slightly tighter than the current position, in that it suggests criteria.
I will have to keep my remarks shorter than I would like, and I hope noble Lords will understand the slightly telegraphic nature of some of what I have to say. First, making the Bill not permissive denies the whole Bill. I thought the “may” and “must” point was linked with the proviso in Amendment 5, which I had assumed was the main point. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, shows concern for services integration, which was not much of a focus for the previous Government. It is hugely important, and I encourage him to keep on urging both investment and support for the organisations involved, and to pursue the recommendations of the Woolf commission. But the conditions he sets out do not apply to grants of family reunion now.
We on these Benches are no great fans of the IMA; I hope that we will see the current Government get rid of it. The previous Government of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, consulted on a cap under the IMA, but did not include family reunion in the proposals for that cap. They listed routes to be subject to the cap and referred to other safe and legal routes.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I shall be very brief. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this interesting debate on this group of amendments, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who, with her customary elegance, has outlined her response to the amendments. I am particularly glad to note that we agree on the importance of integration in relation to additional family members—if not on too much else.
I am also pleased to note that I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, on his matter of principle that the detail should be in the Immigration Rules. That is one of the reasons why I, like the Government, oppose the Bill in total. But, if we are to have the Bill, I suggest that we need the amendments. As I understand it, the Government remain against the Bill, notwithstanding the very elegant tightrope on which the Minister trod.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord German, for his speech. Possibly one might have thought, from listening to it, that the purpose of the Bill was solely in relation to children, but of course we can see that Clause 1(3) relates to family members of
“a person granted protection status”.
So that is all people, not just those under 18.
To the question from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I agree with her too. I certainly do not intend by my amendments any alteration to the present scheme in Appendix FM. It works well and allows the Secretary of State to amend the scheme, which is the correct way that these things should be done.
Lastly, turning to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I obviously do not accept that the Government caused the small boats crossings; they sought very hard to address them and succeeded in bringing them down, and they brought in the Rwanda scheme to stop them. I still maintain that, had it been switched on, it would have achieved its deterrence objective, but that is a debate for another day. The noble Baroness suggested that the term “safe and legal routes” should be defined in the way she suggests: as a route open to anyone for application. I am afraid that that is not the meaning of safe and legal routes. It is a term used in statute and means just what it says on the tin: a route that is safe and legal.
This Government, and the previous Government, have welcomed a great many refugees: over half a million in the last 10 years, including refugees from Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghanistan. These are great things that we can all be proud of. However, through these amendments I say that the Bill would unfortunately overwhelm our resources to deal with this sort of migration. With that, I will withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I would like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, for being so rude about him. I like to think that I speak the truth, but sometimes the truth verges on utter rudeness, and I am extremely sorry for saying that.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am very grateful. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief. It is very gracious of the noble Baroness to apologise—
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
I think we need to look at the time and bring the Committee to a conclusion fairly quickly. If the noble Lord would help us by not speaking to his amendment, then we can get on with that.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
On the basis of being as collegiate and collaborative as the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment—before I have even spoken to it.