Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction earlier and the many organisations who have sent us briefings. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harper, on his maiden speech. I say from the Lib Dem Benches that, despite the fact we are here, we still would like to see reform of your Lordships’ House.

I support everything said by my noble friend Lord German earlier, and will try not to cover those areas too much. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, who spoke with her customary clarity and power.

In some ways, the Bill is disappointing, but the Government are right to repeal the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. We always said in opposition that Rwanda was not safe. The cost—with not one person deported—must still be an embarrassment to those on the Conservative Benches. Some think that perhaps the whole Illegal Migration Act should go the same way; that was yet more unworkable migration legislation designed for newspaper headlines—much of it not commenced.

Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, cited More in Common’s research on migration as a whole, but he failed to mention that, in questions further down most of those polls, when people are asked whether they would like to see more vacancies remaining in social care or for nurses in hospitals, they tend to say no. That is partly because people get confused between the migration that we describe as “regular” and asylum seekers and that which is irregular. We need clarity about migration, in particular the distinction that those seeking asylum are not coming here for economic needs. We know that the vast majority of migrants arrive here legally, yet the public spin has muddled the irregular with it and continues to do so.

I do not think anyone other than the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has spoken about student migration numbers yet. We know that they form part of the OECD data, which is why we always have to have them there, but there is nothing to stop the Government making sure people understand that international students are good for universities, good for economies locally and nationally, and good for the future of ground-breaking science, research and technology.

Over the last 10 years, a number of noble Lords have spoken regularly about the status and plight of children in the many migration Bills. This Bill, sadly, does not remove the concerns that some of us still have. The last Government set up the National Age Assessment Board, NAAB, using so-called visual assessment methods and scientific biological methods—which, by the way, qualified doctors refused to use. During the passage of what is now the Illegal Migration Act, the then Government cited that other European countries were using scientific age-assessment techniques, ignoring the fact that someone being assessed was also given legal support to protect them, which was not available in this country. Since last year, a number of European countries have stopped using this technique because it is unreliable and has resulted in children being put into adult accommodation with no facilities for them. That is a breach of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as a breach of the UN convention on the rights of refugees. I hope the Minister will reassure the House that that will be reviewed. Some of us may even lay amendments to that effect.

We need change because of those errors, but there is a further issue around how to safeguard children who are assumed to be adults and are then charged under the Bill with an offence of illegally entering the country or any of the other offences cited in the Bill. At present, a child refugee mistaken as an adult is automatically treated as an adult under criminal proceedings. We do not do that for children in our domestic criminal justice system for a very good reason. Can the Minister say how these age-disputed children facing criminal proceedings will be protected?

Along with other noble Lords, I am concerned that this Government’s proposals, especially the new financial burdens on asylum seekers, will limit and reduce the number of refugee families travelling safely to the UK to reunite with a family member. For children, this is particularly traumatic.

Clauses 34 and 35 have sensible provisions on flexibility in taking biometric information. We remember the success of Op Pitting during the emergency evacuation of Afghanistan and how the British Government were able to make change happen very quickly. However, there are concerns about the proposed extensions to use these biometrics, which can, in practice, be impossible for asylum seekers, especially women and children, to achieve. Taking the example of Afghanistan, they might have to travel over a border into Iran to try to get to a British consulate to get the biometric data sorted, and then get back to Afghanistan, which they want to leave. We will raise this in Committee because we are concerned that it is a problem. The Government’s intention is a good one, but how will it work in practice?

My noble friend Lord German, and in another place my honourable friend Lisa Smart MP, raised the important issue of those seeking asylum being allowed to work after more than three months and, importantly, to pay their way in this country. On the plus side, for asylum seekers, the right to work would give them the chance to use their skills and restore their confidence and morale as they build their new lives. These people will also help our economy, especially in skills shortage areas. Earning wages would mean contributing to taxes and national insurance, and paying for their own food and accommodation, thus reducing bills. I look forward to Committee, where many different issues will be raised.

Immigration System

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government have made a judgment, and in the White Paper we are trying to make a judgment about a number of issues. There is legal migration and the issues of who comes, how they come and under what circumstances. We are trying to put a framework around that, which also tries to raise the level of skills of English and British-based citizens who are currently economically inactive to try to meet some of our skills shortage. We are trying to put a target around the impact of universities, both on soft power issues and on longer-term investment in skills and what people do in graduate-level jobs afterwards.

We are trying to look at a range of issues around integration and community coherence, which I think resonates with what the noble Lord has said. But I do not think that setting a target would be a good thing. For us, it is the wrong issue; we are trying to ensure that we put a framework in place to manage those pressures, and to look at what the UK economy needs, at how we build those skills and at how we build integration. Outside of that legal migration route, there is the real challenge, which I know the noble Lord is also concerned about, of illegal migration. A whole range of measures will come before this House very shortly, on 2 June, in the immigration and borders Bill around what we need to do to stop illegal migration and put it to one side.

There are immense challenges, but I hope that noble Lords and noble Baronesses can not only look at the White Paper and be critical of it in parts but look at it in terms of how we are trying to develop a framework and contribute positively to it, rather than look at what is not in it.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, two years ago, during the passage of the Illegal Migration Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and I raised the issue that Home Office assessors were muddling up the Hong Kong BNO passport holders with being asylum seekers. I am very grateful to the then Government for correcting that and ensuring that guidance was issued. Yesterday’s White Paper, in simplifying the routes to citizenship, appears to have put the BNO passport holders back in the same group again, as if they were economic migrants and asylum seekers. Given that the status of BNO passports is completely different from that of asylum seekers, will the Minister agree to meet me, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and Hong Kong Watch as a matter of urgency?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I shall certainly meet the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Dare I say I have had some correspondence over the past 24 hours on this matter. We will reflect on it and, without any commitment, I shall certainly listen to the noble Baroness’s representations.

Female Genital Mutilation

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. The study we have commissioned is looking at what needs to be done to collect further data. We are looking at establishing a pilot scheme to look at the health service, the police, the Ministry of Justice and other data collection points to ensure we get the proper picture of FGM instances.

The noble Lord is right that many women and children are transported abroad for this. I am sure he will be aware that Operation Limelight is an ongoing operation to target inbound and outbound traffic to and from countries with a high prevalence of FGM. It is both raising awareness about the crime and following up where leads are in place to ensure that people do not leave the country for that trafficking purpose.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I disagree with the previous questioner: the NHS data is extraordinarily helpful. It says that, of the known cases, less than 9% are adults and all the rest are children, but by the first time they are seen in the NHS, 98.9% are adults and aged over 18. What is the Home Office doing, along with the NHS, to ensure that word is out in the various communities—not just the Muslim community—that perpetrate FGM? It is important that those two services are joined up.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. One of the key things we need to do is ensure that those people who perpetrate FGM and encourage others to do so are held to account. That is why I again point to the prosecution figures and to the information collected by the National Health Service, because, again, someone only goes to the National Health Service when they have already been offended against. Those are both important issues, and the purpose of the policy study we are undertaking is to gather more information. Again, it is important that we have a proper definition of FGM and honour-based abuse. We are currently looking at that with other government departments to come to some conclusions in, I hope, the relatively near future.

Iranian State Threats

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Noble Lords]

Order!

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend raised the issue of safe and legal routes. One particularly pernicious act of the Iranian authorities is that they continue to go after the families of people they have executed. They are fleeing abroad as a result and now find themselves under extraterritorial reach. Can the Minister say whether people arriving after the execution of one of their family members will be given immediate support by the police and security services? It is clear that they are still being targeted.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We will keep that support under review. We will certainly ensure that any evidence of threats against individuals resident in the United Kingdom will be examined by police forces. Any attempt by any foreign power to intimidate, harass or harm individuals or communities in the United Kingdom will not be tolerated and will be thoroughly investigated. As the noble Baroness would expect, Home Office officials will work closely with other government departments to ensure that UK residents are safe and secure. Separately, we also have the Defending Democracy Taskforce, which is currently reviewing the UK’s response to the issues of transnational repression to develop our understanding and ensure that we have strong system-wide responses. It is vital that people are allowed to live their lives in peace. Safe and legal routes, as with other issues, are determined on a case-by-case basis. The Government will look positively at the circumstances the noble Baroness mentioned.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Fire Safety and Rescue. In that context, I support Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and endorse his comments on lithium batteries, given that I had similar amendments in Committee. Importantly, the product is not included, and I hope the Government will be able to take note of that and help.

I also support Amendment 9, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I think I was the first person at Second Reading to raise the question of criminal issues. The amendment helps us to get to a solution that provides scrutiny. Early scrutiny by Parliament is much stronger than the affirmative procedure.

I continue to support the campaign of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which is encapsulated in her Amendment 26. I also support the powerful example given to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman. However, I disagree, in that, in my view, tampons should be as well-regulated as blusher. They should be deemed to be a medical device, for all the biocidal reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, explained —and I will not rehearse those. I remind your Lordships’ House that paragraph 9 of the schedule at the end of the Bill removes medicines and medical devices as defined in the Medicines and Medical Devices Act. Unfortunately, with period and incontinence products there are health issues. If they are not defined under that Act, there needs to be some way of recognising that they have an impact on individual health. I therefore support Amendment 26 and hope that the Government will listen to that as well.

I should also point out that there is more information on the government website about the correct taxation of period products and incontinence products than there is elsewhere on the health issues.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their amendments in this instructive and interesting debate. I am a little wary about speaking after finding out how much plastic is in our brains, because that is obviously potentially to invite unfavourable comment.

I shall speak sympathetically to my noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendments 3 and 12. One of the many problems that we have already discussed at some length, now and in Committee, is the vagueness of the Bill as drafted. That lack of clarity creates significant uncertainty for both businesses and consumers, so I thank my noble friend for his contributions. His amendments offer important suggestions that could help to address some of these issues, particularly by expanding the definition of safety and, indeed, providing a definition of safety.

As technology continues to develop, it is critical that we recognise that our understanding of what constitutes safety must also evolve. My noble friend’s amendments reflect that forward-thinking approach, acknowledge that new technologies and innovations may require updates to safety standards over time and, by expanding the definition, would ensure that the legislation remained flexible and adaptable, allowing for future growth and innovation without sacrificing safety. As my noble friend pointed out, different language suggests different outcomes, so I hope the Minister will be able to address that in answering my noble friend’s questions. We believe that these amendments provide much-needed clarity in areas where the Bill could have been more precise, and we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for bringing this issue into sharper focus.

Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Fox, and my noble friend Lord Lindsay—who, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, pointed out, is president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute—has significant merit. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, made a persuasive case, with some alarming statistics and illustrations. Consumers should have confidence that the products they buy, whether from a high street store or an online platform, are safe and, if things go wrong, that there is a clear route to accountability. By allowing regulations to extend liability to online marketplaces and ensuring the proper disclosure of evidence in claims for compensation, this amendment would strengthen consumer rights and help to create a fairer system. We will return at a later stage to the definitions of online marketplaces.

Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, would also help to do things better. I should remind the noble Lord that, in effect, it would mean more consultation. I am reluctant to remind the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, of this, but the DPRRC, on which she sits, said in its most recent report on 21 February that

“consultation is not a substitute for Parliamentary scrutiny”.

However, I recognise that, in pointing that out, I am probably flogging something of a dead horse.

I turn to Amendment 26 and the other amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which were spoken to—again, very persuasively—by the noble Baronesses, Lady Freeman and Lady Smith. These amendments address an important issue: ensuring that period products meet high safety standards while also considering their environmental impact. Given that these products are used by millions of women and girls, often over a lifetime, it is only right that their safety, composition and labelling are subject to clear and effective regulation; the list of organisations quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is illustrative of the interest in this particular area.

The safety and regulation of period products is a matter of both public health and consumer protection, so ensuring that individuals can make informed choices about the products they use is obviously essential. Amendment 26 seeks to introduce clear and necessary provisions for testing, marking and risk information, reflecting the need for greater transparency and oversight in this area. By addressing both single-use and reusable products, it acknowledges the evolving nature of the market while prioritising safety and well-being. We ask the Government to take further consideration and to carry out additional study on this important area—and, indeed, to expand it to some of the other areas that the noble Baroness mentioned, such as the formaldehyde that is present in non-iron shirts. Of course, one of the other uses of formaldehyde is to preserve dead bodies; I am not sure what that tells us about our sartorial choices, but there we are.

As the market for period products continues to evolve—particularly with increasing interest in reusable products—it is obviously essential that any regulation stays relevant and up to date, so we expect to return to this issue in future health-related Bills. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made some very good points about the fact that these products should be treated as medical devices; those deserve to be explored further. It is crucial that we continue to monitor and adapt the regulation of these products in order to ensure that public health and consumer protection are maintained.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I know that we are all most grateful to the Minister for what I thought was an extremely helpful response to these important and interesting issues that we have debated in this group.

For my part, in relation to Amendment 3 and the use of “safe”, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, that the use of “safe” in a Bill that is intended to ensure that products are safe would be most helpful. He will note that Amendment 12 defines “safe” in a similar way—not precisely the same as the Consumer Protection Act does at present—as meaning

“that there is no risk, or no risk apart from one reduced to a minimum”,

so it is not to say that a product has no risk.

The Minister is right that this is about product safety—I completely agree—and identification of risk. I think where the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is coming from is on understanding how risk is identified and so on. I have some sympathy with the points he makes on Amendment 9, but I find it entirely arguable whether the definition of safe in the present legislation and the definition in this Bill are very close to one another. I slightly rest my argument for the Minister, and perhaps his officials, to think about: would it not therefore be helpful to include a provision in Clause 1 saying that products should be safe, meaning that there is no risk or a risk that is reduced to a minimum or mitigated, since that is what the Government intend to do? They are intending that people should be able to say that products are safe; they have just chosen to take the word out of statute. I think it would be rather helpful to put it back in. I rest my case there and will not press it further.

On Amendment 28, the Minister very helpfully said more than he said in Committee, although it was not inconsistent with what he said then. In particular, he gave us a timetable, which, of course, is immensely helpful. It is quite a long one and goes to the end of 2026, but I know how these things grind through the machines. He will find that there is a pressing need for a review of the product liability directive, especially in relation to online marketplaces, not least because the Law Commission identified this as an area for reform of the law in its 14th work programme—and that was something like three years ago. We are not only well out of date but well beyond the point at which a need for action on product liability had been identified. I hope we might keep pressing, alongside the Minister, for the progress that needs to be made in the consultation and subsequent legislation.

I have one more point. On Amendment 26 and the question of period products, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that I was wondering about this. I have checked, but if I understand the position correctly, period products are not regarded as medical devices; they are regarded as consumer products. Incontinence pants—disposable body-worn pads—are treated as medical devices by the MHRA. That is a distinction without a difference, one that I do not understand. I think that period products are regarded as medical devices by the Food and Drug Administration in America. Of course, we follow where the European Union’s general product safety regulation has been and the definitions it has put into its own regulations. One area that Ministers might think about is whether it would be more appropriate for these products to be regarded as medical devices and brought under the scope of the regulations.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I have a very minor and technical point, but I referred to products and not just pants, because the whole line of products has changed. I do not believe that either period or incontinence pants are covered. That is my concern but I thank the noble Lord for his point.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I will not argue but there is probably a good basis for thinking about whether—rather than including them in the Bill, I say with great respect to the proposers of Amendment 26—it would be more appropriate to revisit the question of having them covered under the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021. I will leave it there.

On the basis of the point that we have reached with Amendment 3, and that the Minister will have heard, at the very least, the argument for the consumer and communications benefit of saying that we are aiming to make products safe, I will leave it in his capable hands and not seek to press this. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 3.

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2025

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

It is a brave Minister who continues without his Whip.

I was trying to explain why fees such as the ETA fee must be looked at in the context of the possible impact on tourism. The example I was giving to illustrate it relates to the system that we had until recently, whereby an ETA fee was charged for people who were travelling from a third country through the UK in transit to somewhere else, using Heathrow and Manchester in particular. We as a committee were concerned about that and thought that it would have an impact on tourism; that was backed up when the ETA was introduced initially for a few Gulf countries. As a result of that introduction, Heathrow Airport alone recorded a reduction of 122,000 people transiting through Heathrow from those relatively small countries. That was when the fee was at £10; if it is to go to £16, you can see the impact that it will have on people—not for transit but for people thinking of coming here. There is real, clear evidence that this fee increase being proposed, from £10 to £16, could have a huge impact on tourism.

Of course, our committee expressed a particular concern in relation to these fees in terms of tourism in Northern Ireland and issues in relation to the common travel area between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. This issue was picked up in the 16th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which said:

“We asked the Home Office for any assessments it has made about ETAs to date, especially in relation to Northern Ireland (NI). The Home Office stated that as a result of its monitoring … it was working with a range of government and tourist bodies to ensure that ‘ETAs are not seen as a barrier to cross-border tourism on the island of Ireland’”.


I ask the Minister the very question that the committee suggested, which is

“whether (or when) firmer evidence can be made available on the practical impact of the ETA on”

Northern Ireland tourism. If the Minister has any information, clearly, that would be very helpful. More generally, given that the Minister said that this SI has been introduced following a review of all these fees, can he tell us whether the issue of tourism was taken into account? In particular, can he give a categorical assurance that, when the new SI comes forward—the one that will actually make the increase to the new maximum—the impact assessment will take account of tourism?

I said that Robert Jenrick, when he announced the whole scheme, made two points. His second point was that the £10 charge

“will ensure that the Department’s costs in delivering the scheme are effectively covered across a range of volume scenarios”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/6/23; col. 44WS.]

Can the Minister, whose department has conducted this review, tell us whether the increase that is being proposed is as a result of evidence that the £10 is insufficient to cover the costs of the operation of ETA; or whether this is in fact just a way of making additional money for the Exchequer? I am sure that he will be able to answer that and will have the figures to back it up.

I just say to the Minister that, given that we see in the notes for this particular SI that the longer-term effect is to bring £260 million-odd into the Exchequer, I suspect that the fee increase for ETA is about adding to that. However, I also warn him that, if tourism is seriously affected in the way I have suggested, the Government will not be able to make that amount of money.

My final point is about the ease of operating the ETA system. If it is difficult to operate, that will put people off bothering and it will stop people even thinking of coming to this country as tourists and perhaps also for business sessions, and so on. When we looked at the ETA introduction, we were concerned about the lack of different languages in which the information about ETA was being provided. The then Government actually agreed with us and accepted that official information relating to ETA should be made available in a wider number of languages “as soon as possible”, including French, German and Spanish. So can the noble Lord tell us whether this has happened?

I should tell him that, prior to this meeting, I sought to find out for myself whether I could get details of how ETA operates in other languages. I could not. So I asked our good friends in the Library whether they could find out, and they told me that they too could not find any evidence that information is provided in any language other than English. They pointed out to me that, of course, some platforms have a translate option—that might be the clever way out—but, when we checked some of the platforms, we could not get the ETA to translate into different languages. So the evidence I have shows that what was promised has not been done. Of course, it may have an impact on people choosing to come to this country if they find it hard to get this information. So perhaps the Minister can address this.

There are many other issues with the ETA operation which are not relevant to the SI, so I will not raise them now, but the Committee and the Justice and Home Affairs Committee are very keen to have an opportunity to discuss those issues with the Minister. However, in the meantime, on this SI and the proposed future SI, I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Foster, who raised serious questions about the ETA and whether there will be an impact. He provided evidence to show that having an ETA at the current level, before any increases, is already having an impact. One of the general themes I will cover is what the impact assessment does not say about the impact on businesses, including tourism in this case, and other areas that I will come to. This is yet another charge that has gone up, adding to overheads, and it is becoming a problem in certain sectors.

It is also a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, who outlined many of the problems that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has been reporting on over the years. I look forward to the Minister’s response to his questions.

I will start on an optimistic note, given our debate on the previous SI. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee does not often hand out commendations in its reports, but it has commended the Minister and his officials on the Explanatory Memorandum, which was very helpful. With my calculator out, I did a lot of calculations and, although Minister may be irritated by some of the questions he gets, it is actually because we understand what is happening. That needs to be to be credited because we have not necessarily been able to give that credit in the past. The impact assessment was helpful, but I am not sure that it asked the right people about the impact. I will come back to that in a second.

Paragraph 29 of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s 16th report says that

“the net benefit of the changes is relatively small. Further, we note that in some scenarios set out in”

the impact assessment,

“the costs of the changes outweigh the benefits. This possibility arises because … it is ‘highly uncertain’ what goods and services visitors and visa-holders consume, and how many of those are provided”

by British businesses. Can the Minister comment further on this, or is the impact assessment just guesswork? That is the perhaps slightly unfair approach to trying to translate what the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said.

I say that because the maxima level set here is, pretty broadly, a 7% increase. I very much echo the comments made by my noble friend; the Government have made it very plain that when they do introduce fee rises—as opposed to setting a new maxima—most of them will go up to the new maxima. As the impact assessment says, the Government are trying to ensure that they can cover the costs of migration and the staffing for that, but I am concerned because 7% seems high.

For example, the pension triple lock is increasing by 4% this year. Many felt that was too high in the current financial circumstances. I am not going to comment on that but am trying to weigh it up as 7% seems to be a general increase, if not for the next year. I know the Minister will say it is only a maxima, but we heard elsewhere that there is an intention in most cases to go to that.

It is true that in paragraph 5.2, the EM says:

“The department is seeking to implement changes to fees to generate additional income from end users to support the funding of the migration and borders system and reduce reliance on funding from the taxpayer”.


However, the increases that are not 7% are the ones that really worry me. They seem bizarre and, in one particular case, ill thought through. For example, the skilled worker and temporary worker fees have both been increased by over 100%: from £239 to a £525 maxima for the skilled worker fee and from £25 to £55 for the temporary worker maxima. The reality is that in just over seven months, this Government have increased other costs to businesses—not Home Office costs, I grant you—but it is difficult and tedious for employers to recruit staff from overseas at the moment. I am not commenting on whether it was right or wrong, but the previous Government really tightened down on who could come to work here. Part of that was to start increasing substantially the costs that businesses and individuals coming here had to pay.

One of the costs I am particularly concerned about—we have just had a vote on this and there will be more before the evening is done—is on the increase to employers’ national insurance contributions. Not only are these increasing, but the floor for payment is lowered to include many lower-paid workers. Migrant workers filling gaps in our economy, such as in social care, hospices, agriculture and hospitality, are much more likely to be in those sectors where the margins for businesses are extremely low.

Our social care sector is already in complete crisis. Only today, there are reports of care at home being removed and clients being told they will have to leave their home and move into care homes, solely because of the economics of the increased national insurance contributions and the high costs associated with care delivered in a home setting. To have extra fees for migrant workers—often paid for by the businesses because the migrant workers just do not have their own resources—is going to add further to those sectoral problems. I wonder why the impact assessment says there are no financial implications from a 100% increase in these fees.

If these increases are as set out in paragraph 5.2 of the EM, did the Home Office actually seek advice from some of the sectors most reliant on overseas workers, whether skilled or temporary? I am slightly less worried about the very high-value skilled workers, where an employer will not only take on somebody at a high salary but be prepared to manage an oncost. It is those who are given temporary leave to work here, or in the health sector, where we know they have been granted.

Finally, paragraph 5.10 sets out the increase for the review of a decision related to immigration and nationality. The main fee maxima is increased by 7% and I have already commented on that. Hidden a few lines further down is a really shocking increase from £80 to £480 for an administrative review of a decision. This is nothing to do with the relevance of costs and I wonder if it is a financial punishment. An administrative review is very different to a review by a panel or senior officer, as referred to earlier in that section. Can the Minister explain why this particular administrative review has now hit the same maxima level as the much more complex and personnel-intensive level required under the main type of panel review?

By the way, it is interesting to note that, at paragraph 11.1, that particular increase has not been highlighted, whereas others have. I wonder why that might happen. The reason why the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, my noble friend Lord Foster and I are raising these issues is to try to understand the strategy behind these increases, as opposed to just a reason to raise money. We are concerned that at least some of them may backfire and stop the increase in growth that this Government are keen to see.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There will be an impact assessment. I still say to the noble Lord that people want to come to London: they want to see this building and Buckingham Palace; they want to see Downing Street and Trafalgar Square. In my home city of Liverpool, people want to see Beatles-related material or they go for football matches. People will go to York because of its history. People go to Scotland—the noble Lord’s home base—because they like Edinburgh and Scottish culture. That is not going to change because we have gone from £10 to £16. There might be other factors that stop people coming but I am not convinced that that figure will be looked at. I reassure the noble Lord that if the figure goes at a future date from £10 up to the maximum of £16 on that proposal, there will be an impact assessment and he can test it. He can vote for or against it in due course.

The noble Lord made another important point on the ETA form and I am grateful to him for raising it. I want to get the bottom of the source of his knowledge about potential translations—I will do this, if I may, outside the Grand Committee. I will look at it and write back to him in due course. At the moment, the form is available only in English. It has been launched in the Gulf countries. We have had no significant feedback, but I will take that point away. If there were assurances given previously by Ministers or officials, I want to get to the bottom of them. I am not aware of them from the discussions that we had today or from my discussions with officials in the Home Office. We will look at that in due course.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, talked about the logic for all of this. The logic is that we have to fund the cost of the migration system. The logic is that if there are fee-level increases—which are not yet on the table, but could come—with impact assessments, these will be to ensure that we maximise the income to cover the cost of administration and of border systems generally. There may also be some businesses that ask, “Can I recruit home-grown employment?”. That is an important consequence as well.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I am mindful that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said that some of the increases in the maxima might not cover the administrative costs of introducing them. That then starts to be a burden on the Home Office’s budget, so is analysis being done to look at that? It will otherwise become counter- productive.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The driver for some of these issues is to ensure that we have self-sufficiency on costs for this area. Obviously, I am talking today about the potential for maximas. We are not talking about what those fees are going to be. They may be the maximas and they may not. The Home Office will take that decision and it will lie predominantly with Ministers who are Members of the House of Commons, rather than of the House of Lords—such as myself. We will discuss those fee increases. That is a decision taken by the Minister for Migration and Borders, who is a Member of the House of Commons in the Home Office team. We will look at that and these orders will come forward to both Houses in due course. I will take feedback and discussion, as I am doing now with colleagues in this House.

The general principle of this is that we ensure that we raise that resource and potentially look at challenging behaviour so that we give opportunities for people to say, “If it costs X to bring someone from Y country, are those skills available locally to boost the economy locally?” That is a perfectly legitimate policy objective that I think was shared by the last Government and which is not difficult for Members to accept and understand.

I hope that I am covering all the points. The final point that I want to make is on Northern Ireland. Citizens of the UK, including citizens who live in Northern Ireland—whether they identify as Irish or British—will not have an ETA to go to Ireland, and, vice-versa, Irish citizens will not need an ETA to go to Northern Ireland. There will be tourist movement from other countries into Ireland and Northern Ireland, and potentially into the United Kingdom as a whole through that route. I am cognisant of that and we are aware of it. We will make an assessment on that. Again, I repeat my record that says that we have not yet made the decisions on the figures. We have not brought those forward or made the impact assessment but when we do, I will be ensuring with colleagues that that impact on Northern Ireland tourism is assessed, as will be the impact of the collectability of that ETA in relation to the island of Ireland and the common travel area.

I am grateful to noble Lords who have raised that issue but it is something on which we have worked closely with the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government since the inception of the ETA policy. We will continue to work with those partners to understand the impact of ETAs in Northern Ireland. By requiring an ETA on crossing the land border, we will also have a better understanding of those who are seeking to come to the United Kingdom. However, as noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Foster, will know, the land border issue in Northern Ireland is sensitive and not one that we wish to see imposed—as it was, even in the times when I was a Northern Ireland Minister 20 years ago.

With that, I hope that I have answered the points made. I commend this order to the Grand Committee.

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (Amendment) (Provision of Information) Order 2025

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move that the Committee has considered the order, which amends the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 in order to give the Disclosure and Barring Service, the DBS, an express power to share its barred list information with UK non-territorial police forces and the Crown dependency police forces of Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man. I hope this will be a relatively straightforward Motion for the Committee because, as well as issuing criminal record certificates, commonly known as DBS checks, the DBS also maintains two lists—one of people that the DBS has barred from working in regulated activity with children, and one of those it has barred from working in regulated activity with adults. Regulated activity for the purposes of this includes sensitive roles such as work in schools, health and social care.

The DBS bars people from such work if their criminal history or other information held by the police, or their behaviour in the workplace, indicates that they pose a high risk to either or both of those groups. The DBS itself updates the police national database, PND, on a weekly basis with the names of individuals who have been barred. If the police then look up a named individual on the police national database—for example, for the purposes of criminal investigation or police officer vetting—the police will be able to see if that person is on one or other of the DBS barred lists.

An express power to share such information with the police is provided to the DBS by Section 50A of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. This gives the DBS the power to provide any information it has to a chief officer of police for the purposes specified in the Act, and it confirms that a chief officer of police includes the Police Service of Northern Ireland and Police Scotland. However—and this is the nub of the order before the Committee—it does not make express reference to the non-territorial police forces or the Crown dependency police forces. Following an extensive review, which includes arrangements for accessing the police national database, the DBS has decided on a precautionary basis that there should be express statutory ground for sharing its barred list data with these forces. It therefore took steps in March 2024 to prevent them accessing the barred status of individuals, pending resolution of the legislative position. This means that, at the moment, non-territorial forces and the Crown dependency police forces cannot currently access an individual’s barred list status.

We therefore intend, through this order, to make it clear that the definition of “chief officer of police” in Section 50A also includes the chief officers of the UK, non-territorial and Crown dependency police forces. Those non-territorial forces are the British Transport Police, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, the Ministry of Defence Police, the Royal Navy Police, the Royal Air Force Police, the Royal Military Police, the National Crime Agency and the tri-service serious crime unit. The Crown dependency forces, for the purposes of this order, are the States of Jersey police force, the salaried police force of the Isle of Guernsey and the Isle of Man Constabulary. This order effectively gives the Disclosure and Barring Service the certainty it seeks to provide all forces with access to information that indicates that someone is considered to pose a risk to children and vulnerable adults.

In conclusion, the DBS’s barred list exists to help protect the most vulnerable in our society from those who pose a high risk of harm to them. That information is important to decisions made by police forces, whether related to police officer vetting or related to the prevention and investigation of crime.

This order’s purpose is to give the DBS the statutory power, beyond any doubt, to share this information with all forces, including the non-territorial and Crown dependency forces. I commend it to the Committee.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, just before I contribute, are we not doing both SIs together?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

That is not what my brief indicates, but of course, if the noble Lord wishes to do that, he can propose it.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I apologise.

The first reading of this brief regulation and the Explanatory Memorandum is misleading. It appears to be a minor correction to ensure that access to DBS barred list details will now include non-territorial and specialist police officers. Nothing to see here—or is that the case?

Once again, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its 14th report of this Session, in which it set out the real background to this SI and the previous history of errors in law by this department being corrected by regulations—but with Explanatory Memorandums lacking in information to inform those parliamentarians wishing to scrutinise regulations. It points out at least 10 SIs for this period since July 2024 that have been unsatisfactorily presented to your Lordships’ House—referenced by the committee in its third, fourth, eighth and 10th reports. This SI now needs to be added to that list.

The reality of this SI is that highly confidential information under the DBS legislation had been passed on to police bodies even though they were not permitted to receive it. The original Act, passed in 2006 under the previous Labour Government—nearly 20 years ago now—has clearly not been reviewed in detail since then. One must commend the new Government for dealing with not just this issue but the other ones as well. However, it is a real shame that the somewhat underhand tactics of the Explanatory Memorandum, designed to elicit confidence in the reader, are misleading as to be against the spirit of the relationship between a Government and the Parliament that is there to ensure that it can hold that Government to account. Can the Minister say whether the systems have been changed in the Home Office to ensure that this type of obfuscatory approach is now ended and that all such legislation that needs to be updated has been updated?

On the SI itself, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raises the issue that the implication of the draft order is that unlawful sharing of data may have happened, even if it did not concern very many people. Individuals on the list may have been affected by being denied a job or made the subject of a protection order. So can the Minister tell the Grand Committee how many individuals—even if the number is small—may have been affected by the unlawful activity, and, perhaps even more importantly, whether those individuals have been told?

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that I have answered the points mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, because on capability, guidelines and protocol, that was all happening before March 2024. The DBS, the police national computer and the agencies receiving that information were content, but the DBS itself said, “We think we potentially don’t have the legal cover to do that”, so this order is to ensure that that legal cover is there. The jurisdiction in Guernsey, Jersey and other places is a matter for them but we are now sharing that information on the same basis that we were pre-March 2024, subject to this order, but given that legal certainty on top. With those comments, I hope that I have answered the points—

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I thank the Minister very much for his very helpful answer. I was asking about individuals because if this tiny group do not know that they are on the barred list but are having jobs denied them, we are going back to the system that used to operate 30 years ago when I was chair of education in a county council. It was essentially a secret list then. The point about those who have criminal records is that the individuals concerned know. It may be only a small number but I am very concerned about that group.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I think I said—but I will check Hansard again—that all individuals will know that they are barred. Having reflected on this matter, I can confirm that all individuals will know that they are barred. Again, this is, in a sense, a process matter to ensure that there is legal certainty for the agencies that share that information.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

What about the individuals?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The individuals know that they are barred because of the reasons they have. So there is legal certainty about that. I hope I have answered the noble Baroness, but, if she wishes to intervene again, I am obviously happy to reply. If she does not, I commend this instrument to the Grand Committee.

Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the horrific crimes of child sexual exploitation and abuse laid bare in the Home Office Statement are a particularly dark moment for our nation.

Let us not mince words: local authorities run by Labour have failed to act with the urgency that these crimes demand. Last week, the Prime Minister referred to those calling for a national inquiry into the scandal as “far-right”. Let us be clear: there is nothing far-right about wanting justice.

It seems that the general public agree. Two-thirds of Labour voters are at odds with Sir Keir Starmer and would support a new statutory public inquiry into the grooming-gangs scandal. New YouGov polling suggests that 76% of the British public— including 65% of Labour voters—would support a new statutory inquiry, compared with just 13% who would oppose a new national investigation. This is a moment where the Government could have truly united the nation by listening to His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, but they have failed to do so.

While I welcome the recognition of grooming gangs as a persistent and insidious threat, the Government’s measures fall short of what is needed. The ethnicity data expansion and rapid audits do not go far enough. Prominent voices have long called for robust data collection and enforcement to identify and dismantle these criminal networks.

Under Labour’s watch in council areas such as Rotherham and Oldham, local authorities and police forces have been complicit in a culture of excuses and cover-ups. Instead of demanding transparency and accountability, this Government are tiptoeing around hard truths, putting political correctness above child protection. We must confront the uncomfortable realities of this crisis, including the cultural and societal factors that enable abuse.

Local inquiries, while helpful, are no substitute for national leadership. The £5 million funding for local initiatives is a drop in the ocean compared to the scale of the problem. What Labour fails to grasp is that piecemeal solutions cannot address systemic failures. What is required is a unified, national strategy that holds all institutions accountable and ensures no child slips through the cracks.

This Government need to understand that this issue is a national emergency. I repeat that the Government need to launch a comprehensive national statutory inquiry, holding those responsible to account. Most importantly, we need to deliver justice for survivors through action. It is not enough to audit failures; we must correct them.

The safety of our children is not a partisan issue; it is a moral obligation. Yet, the Government’s record on this crisis has been one of hesitation, inaction and misplaced priorities. We as an Opposition will not stand by as these failures persist. We owe it to the victims, the survivors and the generations to come to build a society that will no longer look the other way. This is the leadership our nation deserves: firm, unapologetic and unwavering in its commitment to protecting the innocent.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I pay tribute to the victims of child sexual exploitation who, for too long, have been treated as miscreants themselves, including by police and social workers, thus repeating their victimisation. Their bravery in continuing their fight over many years of not being listened to is quite extraordinary.

My first question is about them. What support and recompense will the Government provide for these victims? While it is good that the Government have accepted all the IICSA recommendations, the Statement says that the Government will lay out a timetable for taking forward these recommendations before Easter. A timetable is welcome, but does the Minister actually have any idea of timescales for the possible start and finish for the discussion, consultation and implementation of these recommendations? I ask this with experience of speaking on many of the other inquiries and recommendations, and know how easily things can get bogged down in paperwork, to put it politely.

The Home Secretary said that there will be

“new action to help victims get more investigations and prosecutions”.

However, I cannot get the answer to my question of why the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which incorporates an enormous amount of legislation to support victims, has not yet been commenced, other than for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority.

The HMICFRS inspection on police and law enforcement bodies’ response to group-based child sexual exploitation in England and Wales, published in December 2023, made nine recommendations. Can the Minister say how many have now been fully implemented by government? It is not clear whether the previous Government had accepted them in full, let alone implemented them. I realise that three have not quite reached the deadline by which that should have been done—only one of those goes beyond March this year—but that leaves six where the deadline has now passed. If the Minister cannot answer that question now, I would be grateful if he could write to me.

It is encouraging that the Government want to do a rapid audit of the current scale and nature of gang-based exploitation, but can he say what “rapid” means, not least as the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, has other roles to fulfil? Will her taking up this role slow down the other important work that she is doing?

It is also encouraging that the Government will start collecting better data and evidence. One of the problems here is that a lot of the evidence has never been collected. Can the Minister say whether they will review the various local inquiries—Oldham, Rotherham, Telford and other towns? I have raised this with him before, and I got a positive response, but it would be useful if the Government could lay out all the various inquiries that have happened so that it is possible for their information to be included; otherwise, we may miss some important things.

It is good news that Tom Crowther KC has been appointed to develop a new framework for victim-centred locally led inquiries. The Statement mentions the drawing up of a duty of candour. We on these Benches have stood alongside Labour when it has raised this is the past. Can the Minister give your Lordships’ House some idea about when this might be published? There is clearly an urgent need for it.

I end by expressing my disappointment at the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. He talked about the national emergency, but his Government did not accept all the recommendations made by Alexis Jay, it is not clear whether they have implemented the recommendations from HMI, and, more importantly, his Government did nothing to start to implement those that his party now says should have been implemented.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for both Front-Bench contributions. I say at the outset that I am disappointed by the tone of the first few words spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. He seems to imply that this problem occurs only in authorities that have Labour control. If he thinks that is the case, he is sadly misguided. When he reads back what he has said today, I think the tone of his contribution is one that he will think about, reflect upon and regret.

I am trying to look at a programme of activity to ensure that we stop the vile crime of child abuse, that we respond to the reports that have been published already, and that we put a detailed programme in place to affect change. I am disappointed by the way that the noble Lord has approached this. If he wants to politicise things, let us politicise the Alexis Jay report, rightly commissioned by the noble Baroness, Lady May, when she was in the House of Commons. It took seven years to achieve its objectives and produce recommendations, which were given to the previous Government in May 2023. By 4 July 2024, not one single action in the recommendations had been started, never mind completed. So if the noble Lord wants to politicise this matter, I will certainly politicise it, but I appeal to all Members of this House to focus on the real issue: child abuse and prevention of that child abuse.

That is why I will focus on the contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I can tell her that there will be a clear timetable. There will be a clear programme of activity. We have said that, unlike the previous Government, we will respond to all 20 IICSA recommendations by Easter of this year. We have already put in place three recommendations announced recently by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in the House of Commons. Those three steps include: mandatory reporting, which we debated in depth on Friday; making grooming an aggravated factor, which I know the noble Baroness will welcome; and introducing police performance frameworks, which again I know the noble Baroness will welcome.

The noble Baroness asked about the Victims and Prisoners Act. I have consulted my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, the Justice Minister, and we are working on that; we will bring forward proposals to implement that in due course.

The noble Baroness asked about deadlines, the Casey report and our response. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, has been commissioned to do a short report for three months to take us up to April. She does not commence the longer-term work on other departments’ activities until April this year. The three-month audit is about looking at the issues, which are important in all local authorities, of the ethnicity of people who are committing child abuse, what preparation is available and what support is on hand.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about all inquiries. She knows that I have given a commitment before that we need to look at the lessons from all inquiries, but I say to all Members of this House that we have laid out a clear timetable for implementing the IICSA recommendations; we have appointed the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to improve the understanding of the scale and nature; we have extended the remit of the IICSA report to look at other areas now; we have given support to the National Police Chiefs’ Council to look at further action that could be taken on historic child sex abuse reviews; we have put finance in of £5 million, not just with Tom Crowther but with others, to look at local inquiries; we have put an undercover online help and support line in place; we have included the three mandatory duties; and we will be taking measures on the Online Safety Act, which will come into effect next year, to make sure that we tackle child sexual abuse, which very often is now on the dark web and online.

I offer the noble Lord the hand of friendship and ask him not to politicise this in the way that he has and to look at the positives that have been done.

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

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for answering on the Statement. We on these Benches, like many in this country, are shocked and appalled by the grooming gang scandal—there is no other word for it. The abuse and exploitation of children by these predatory gangs represent some of the most heinous crimes imaginable, and the trauma inflicted on victims and survivors, many of whom were children at the time, is immeasurable. Let it be absolutely clear that we stand with the victims and survivors of these abhorrent crimes, and we call for the strongest possible action to bring perpetrators to justice and ensure that such atrocities are prevented in the future.

However, I must express our profound disappointment on these Benches that His Majesty’s Government have not commissioned a national statutory public inquiry into this matter. Only through a thorough, independent examination of the facts can we hold all responsible parties to account, learn the lessons required and ensure that justice is delivered. So I repeat the point I made to the Minister during Questions: will he agree that a national statutory public inquiry is crucial, not only to deliver justice for the victims but to rebuild public confidence in the ability of our institutions to protect vulnerable children? Further, will he clarify why the Government have chosen not to pursue this route despite the scale and severity of these crimes—and, above all, to provide justice for the victims?

The Minister outlined measures that the Government intend to take. Although these are welcome steps, they must go further. Can the Minister provide more specific details on how these measures will, first, ensure that the systemic failures within institutions such as police forces, social services and local authorities are identified and rectified; secondly, prevent the abuse and exploitation of children in the future; and, thirdly, offer meaningful and sustained support to victims and survivors, many of whom continue to suffer lifelong trauma?

The survivors of these horrific crimes deserve to be heard, believed and supported at every stage. This includes access to specialised mental health services, legal support and protection from further harm or intimidation. What additional resources will the Government provide to ensure that all survivors, regardless of where they live, can access the help they so desperately need?

Finally, we urge the Government to recognise the importance of transparency and accountability in addressing this issue. A piecemeal approach risks further undermining public trust. A further statutory public inquiry would not only bring clarity and justice but signal a resolute commitment to ensuring that no child in this country is ever subjected to such horrors again.

Let us be clear that these crimes are a disgrace to British society, and every effort must be made to ensure that they are never repeated. We owe it to the victims and survivors to act decisively, comprehensively and with the utmost compassion and resolve. I look forward very much to the Minister’s response to these specific points.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I thank the Minister for the Statement. From these Benches I also thank the Government for the progress that is finally being made on the acceptance of the recommendations from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. The victims—not just victims of criminal exploitation and grooming in gangs but all the victims covered in IICSA—were ignored at every level for far too many years, except by a small number of people, including women and including Jess Phillips, now a Minister, whose work has been absolutely outstanding in this area. Even so, it has taken us many years to get to this point where we can actually formally move forward. We can move forward, but many of the victims’ lives are still affected—not just then but now—and many are feeling victimised again because of the debate currently going on in the wider world.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, asked again for a new inquiry—I recognise that he and his colleagues are doing that. I sat in this Chamber on 24 October 2022 when the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, was the Minister responding to the publication of the report. The words the Government said at that point led one to believe that things would move ahead with speed and that most, if not all, of the recommendations would be accepted and implemented at speed. That has not been the case. It may be only two years on, but it has been very slow. The only recommendation that I think has been implemented is on the toolkit, which is a helpful practical tool—but none the less it is not enough.

From these Benches I wonder whether, given the tone of the debate at the moment, it would be helpful for the Government to publish a list of all the inquiries that have happened, not just IICSA but also in relation to children being groomed in towns and cities around the country, as well as the inquiries that the inspectorate of policing has held—at least two—along with links to them so that we, the public, can check them, in addition to the recommendations and action plans. Some of those were published some years ago—Telford in particular—and it might be helpful if the Government could have a brief look at the reviews of those action plans, ask people involved in them to mark progress, and re-energise those issues that require more work. Are the Government planning such a move? It might be salutary, not just for the Government but for everyone.

During Questions earlier today I spoke about one of the issues I was utterly confused about: the IICSA recommendation on providing mandatory aggravating factor sentencing when a child was exploited—that is, controlled, coerced, manipulated or pushed into sexual activity by two or more people. That is exactly the territory of the gangs that we have been hearing about in the past few days. I am concerned that the written response from the previous Government was very clear that it absolutely did not need to happen—they absolutely refused to do it. Yet now they are saying that it must be done. In fact, Robert Jenrick MP has gone further and said there should be a mandatory life sentence, which is a bit of a jump from an aggravating factor in sentencing. I hope the Government move speedily ahead with the aggravating factor in sentencing, because that will send a very clear message about the unacceptability of this sort of crime by the communities. The focus that many of us have also had is not on the perpetrators but on the failure of the public services, which is why I am particularly keen to see whether there is any further information from the inspectorate of policing on the recommendations it has made to see whether they have been picked up in further inspections.

Many noble Lords will know that I have a particular interest, as does my noble friend Lady Walmsley, in mandatory reporting. Recommendation 13 in IICSA on mandatory reporting was not the standard mandatory reporting style that has been accepted by scores of countries, including some states in America, Canada and Australia, where it has worked extremely well.

The most important thing about this model of mandatory reporting that has been adopted abroad is that it entirely changes the culture in every organisation working with children to think safeguarding because it is safe to report it, and it is only ever used as a criminal response where there has been deliberate negligence by somebody not to report. Interestingly, it has also changed the methods of training on safeguarding for people who need it. I hope that the Government will consider the Private Member’s Bill from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, which has its Second Reading a week on Friday, because it reflects the international model of mandatory reporting. I highly commend that to the Government.

In summary, I hope that the Government will be able to give us a timetable on which of the recommendations might take slightly longer to implement than others. The Minister may be able to give us an indication today. He made a reference in the Question earlier today about concerns expressed by another noble Lord on the lack of recompense. Can he outline the current thoughts on the timescale for that recompense to be available to victims?

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the two contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I start by simply echoing what the noble Lord and, by implication, the noble Baroness, said: child sexual abuse and exploitation are the most vile and horrific crimes and include rape, violence, coercive control, intimidation, manipulation and deep, long-term harm. It is our duty in this House and Parliament as a whole, and as a Government, to make sure that we take steps to eradicate that abuse and ensure that those who commit it face the full force of the law.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked why the Government have not commissioned a national inquiry. I understand where he is coming from and the reasons why he is asking for that. I simply say that I hope he can recognise that, in one way, we have had a national inquiry already. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, who, as Home Secretary, established in 2015 the inquiry that has produced recommendations under Alexis Jay, to whom I also pay tribute. It has set a framework for action in this Parliament and beyond to deal with this issue of child sexual abuse as a whole.

The noble Baroness, Lady May, commissioned the inquiry in 2015; it took seven years and an extraordinary amount of witness presentation and examination of issues, looking also at all the wider inquiries that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned. It produced a series of recommendations, which were delivered to the noble Lord’s Government in 2022. His Government responded to those in early 2023, and he will know that the general election took place in July 2024. When we entered office, progress and delivery on the recommendations were very scant. I say that not as a point of political argy-bargy but in recognition of the fact that we are now trying to lift those recommendations and put them into practice to meet the objectives set by the original commission by the noble Baroness, Lady May.

As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said earlier this week in the House of Commons, we will, as a starting point, undertake the first three major items. The first is a mandatory reporting mechanism, which means that any individual who has child abuse reported to them, either by a child or indeed a perpetrator, has a statutory duty to report that for investigation by the police and criminal justice agencies. That is an important first step to commit to. The second important step is on legislating to provide an aggravating factor in sentencing. That means that if a leader of a gang and an accomplice is doing this, they know that they will face not just a charge on the criminal offence that they have undertaken but an aggravated offence of the sexual grooming of a child. The third element that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary brought forward is the question of cracking down online, because child sexual abuse has evolved and will evolve, there is a large online presence and we need to look at the mechanisms for that, including artificial intelligence and grooming online. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has said that those three issues—mandating, aggravating factors and online abuse—are serious issues.

Again, we could have a national inquiry. It might well take four or five years and might well cover the same ground as the inquiry commissioned by the noble Baroness, Lady May. What we are interested in is action on the issues that are brought forward, and we will look at the remainder of the recommendations over time to see whether we can bring some energy and action to them, including many of the issues that have been mentioned. That includes the issue of compensation for victims, because victims deserve compensation, but, again, that is a complex, difficult issue to work through.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has helpfully supported the Government’s approach to date and raised a number of key issues which I hope I can address. First, I say to her that I really welcome her support for my colleague Jess Phillips, the Minister responsible for safeguarding of children. She has had a lifelong commitment to tackling child abuse and a lifelong commitment to supporting victims of domestic violence, and she now has the ability, as a Minister, to put some of those lifelong convictions into real government action. She is doing that, and therefore the criticisms that have come her way in the last few days are unfair. She has already been working with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on the issues that we brought forward on Monday to ensure that we put in the public domain this Government’s commitment to tackling those issues.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made some very helpful suggestions about potentially collecting the elements of the reporting mechanisms and inquiries that have taken place. Telford has taken place; the Mayor of Manchester is undertaking inquiries; there are police inquiries; there is the inquiry I mentioned that has been commissioned. Hers is a helpful suggestion, and I will take it back and discuss it with my colleagues accordingly.

The noble Baroness also mentioned the Second Reading of the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey- Thompson, a week on Friday, to which I will be responding. I will be meeting the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and Jess Phillips next week to discuss the contents of the Bill. I have to say that my initial assessment is that the Bill is similar to what the Government will bring forward and therefore it may well be better to ensure that we have a Government-tested Bill downstream, but the principle of the Bill is one that we accept, and it is an important issue.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also mentioned the issue of wider government action. One reason that we announced the three particular policy issues is because some of the other 16 or 17 policy issues require a wider government consideration and response, and it is important that we get that right over time. That is one of the reasons we will consider the recommendations in due course.

The noble Baroness asked about timetables. I would love to be able to give them to her, but it is important that we do this right and I do not want to hoist ourselves by our own petard by setting a timescale that does not meet the objective of doing this right and responding in the right way. We have a commitment to secure compensation, and we will commit to review all the recommendations over and above the ones we have made. Again, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will report back to the House of Commons, and I will report back to this House, in due course on those matters.

I hope that those issues are ones on which we can have some co-operation and agreement. We have a disagreement on a national inquiry; that will pass this week. That political discussion and cloud will blow over. What will be left, however, are serious recommendations from a serious report that took seven years in the making and that demands responses with the consideration of time. That is the Government’s main focus: we will bring back proposals in legislation in this Session and will report back on other proposals in due course. I hope I will have the co-operation and support of both Front Bench spokespeople when those moments arrive.