Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Featherstone Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Meston (CB)]

Thank you for that. I was slightly confused, because the first amendment in the group was not moved.

[Baroness Featherstone (LD)]

My Lords, this follows on very well because I will speak to Amendment 283 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which would insert after Clause 72 the offence of intentionally concealing child sex abuse.

There is a real problem—and it is an omission from the Bill—because leadership and supervisory roles are completely excluded from the reporting duty. The duty applies only to individuals in contact with children, but we in this House and elsewhere all know that it is not just the social workers, the medics or the police who have direct contact with the child who know that there is sexual abuse at play. It is often the leaders, the CEOs, the chairs of boards, the staff who are too scared to mention it in case of reputational damage, and those in command who suppress incidents of child sexual abuse. This confines mandated reporters to only those who have regular unsupervised contact, creating a critical gap in the Bill.

It would be absolutely unforgivable to let this Bill to protect children go through with such a glaring gap in their protection. Furthermore, there are no criminal penalties proposed for failure to report, and without sanction it lacks teeth. An additional problem is that in two of the industrial-scale institutions of child sexual abuse that we have witnessed—the health service and religious institutions—confidentiality is a kind of get-out clause. We need to overcome that.

The UK Government launched the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, which was explicitly tasked with uncovering the systemic failures that allowed such abuse to flourish untrammelled. The key recommendation was that the UK must introduce a mandatory reporting law for child sexual abuse. We welcome that this is now happening, but noble Lords have all encountered or understood that, very often, the protection of an institution, a company or an entity silences many who work in that institution but know what is going on, and that takes priority. That silence—actually silencing staff or members—is commonplace.

Look at the obvious ones, such as the Catholic Church. Across multiple countries, investigations found that Church leaders reassigned accused priests, maintained secret files and prioritised avoiding scandal over reporting allegations. Church of England independent reviews found that senior clergy discouraged reporting and protected accused individuals to avoid damaging the institution’s standing. In the health service, the BBC exposure of Jimmy Savile’s years of abuse demonstrated beyond belief how many people knew but said nothing. Internal discussions showed that investigations were discouraged or blocked due to concerns about reputation, and Savile’s celebrity and connections. In private schools and boarding schools, multiple inquiries documented quiet dismissals of staff and minimised complaints to preserve reputation, funding and donor relationships. It happens in sports clubs and organisations. Various youth sports organisations protected coaches, dismissed complaints and pressurised victims to stay quiet to maintain prestige. So often companies and institutions are too big to fail. They use threats or non-disclosure agreements and so on to cover up misdeeds in fear of reputational damage. This is intentional, and that is why this amendment would put a criminal offence of intentionally concealing knowledge of child sex abuse on to the statute book.

I have personal knowledge of such a case. In this instance, it was child abuse rather than child sexual abuse. Great Ormond Street, our national treasure, suppressed a report, the Sibert-Hodes report, that it had commissioned. It showed the hospital to have responsibility for the failing clinic where baby P, Peter Connelly, was taken multiple times with multiple injuries and subsequently died, and where it had employed an underqualified doctor who failed. In that clinic there were three other doctors, none of whom was present. Two were on gardening leave and the other had left.

Cover-ups are happening all the time. The Bill is an opportunity to stop this practice, where NDAs, threats and gardening leave are all used to prevent exposure. I believe this follows on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is trying to do with her amendment; it would expand it. I hope and trust that the Government understand the importance of these amendments and move urgently to fill the gaping hole in this legislation as proposed.

While I am on my feet, I will speak to Amendment 287 in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, about training for those subject to the mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse. I am indebted to the NSPCC for its help on this vital aspect of this new duty. In this amendment we are seeking to make mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse a reality, because without training—proper training, probably expensive training—it will not happen as intended in the Bill. It is vital that all those responsible for reporting under the new duty be trained effectively so that they feel supported and able, and are effectively trained to a high standard on their obligations.

The new mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse has the potential to ensure that anyone working or volunteering with children knows that the sexual abuse of children cannot be tolerated or ignored. It will be illegal to tolerate or ignore it, and proper implementation must be embedded from the very start. Those who are responsible for reporting child sexual abuse must be properly trained to know what, how and where to report. The onus for ensuring this cannot rely solely on individual organisations. If this duty is to have a widespread impact, we need cross-sector, cross-government buy-in so that all reporters, no matter what organisation, community or area they come from, are empowered to protect children.

That is why this amendment is so vital: to ensure effective training for all mandated reporters within the mandatory reporting duty. Recognising, reporting and, crucially, responding to child sexual abuse is not easy or straightforward, because we know that disclosures from children do not usually happen in one conversation. They can happen in many forms, verbally or non-verbally, and emerge over a long period of time. They will often be the result of consistent and skilled engagement from a trusted adult that helps the child feel safe and ready to share their experiences.

Reporters may also struggle to decipher whether what they have seen is indeed child sexual abuse—such as if they came across child sexual abuse material online but were unsure of the age of the victim—particularly if they are not already trained to identify recognised signs and indicators of abuse. Their responsibility to the child cannot stop at disclosure or witnessing abuse. It is vital that any child who discloses their experience of abuse is met with an effective response.

We know that there is already a significant need for greater training and support for skilled professionals to improve their response to child sexual abuse, as detailed in the recent reports from the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel and the review into child exploitation of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. This is a gap in our child protection system that must be closed to better protect children, and this duty provides us with both the impetus and the opportunity to do so by taking a whole-system approach to embedding the duty. Therefore, those who are responsible for reporting on abuse and disclosures such as these must be trained not only in how to identify what child sexual abuse is, what a disclosure is and where to report it, but also in how to provide vital support to a child all the way through to after the report has been made and beyond.

This duty will apply not only to safeguarding professionals but to volunteers, sports coaches, youth club leaders and faith leaders, to name but a few. We cannot assume that all mandated reporters will already have the necessary understanding of child protection required to carry out their responsibilities under this really serious duty. This is essential, not only on the practical level of understanding the duty itself but, arguably more importantly, in providing this sensitive support to children in a way that does not put them at risk. My amendment seeks to ensure that an understanding of child protection is intrinsic to the duty, guaranteeing that all those with responsibility as a mandated reporter receive, at a minimum, initial and ongoing training—essential elements of their new responsibilities.

In conclusion, from how to recognise signs and indicators to judging when reporting should be delayed for the safety of the child, reporters must be supported. Otherwise, we risk putting children in danger of being harmed by the reporting process, in addition to the hurt they have already received. By baking this guarantee into primary legislation, the Government can be confident that their duty will be implemented and regulated consistently across different sectors. It would also reassure reporters that they will not face sanctions because the organisation they work or volunteer for cannot afford to resource and train them appropriately. We owe it to all the victims and survivors who have bravely called for a mandatory reporting duty over so many years to ensure that it is done properly.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 283B. Schedule 8 relates to the duty to report child sex offences. Paragraph 17 of that schedule applies this duty to

“Activities of a person in connection with training, supervising or instructing a child for the purposes of a religion or belief, if the person has regular … contact with the child in the course of those activities”.


Some Catholic schools and faith schools obviously have religious objects, and Schedule 8 applies to them. But the problem with that is that all schools are also regulated by Section 21(5) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. That effectively means double regulation, which would put a burden on faith schools, with unnecessary bureaucracy.

The Catholic Education Service, which represents about 2,000 schools in England—that is not counting Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland, of course—has worked closely with the Home Office and has helped to draft my amendment. The amendment would remove from the scope of paragraph 17 activity that is already regulated and governed by the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, therefore preventing unnecessary double regulation. The Catholic Education Service has worked very closely with this Government and the previous one on ensuring the highest standards of children’s safeguards in schools. I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister would react positively to this amendment in his wind-up.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Featherstone Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Featherstone (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to address three issues. The first is the long-awaited duty of mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse. This is a key recommendation of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, but with a strengthened and more encompassing base, and a key issue supported by the NSPCC.

This mandatory provision is born of tragedy: it reflects too many cases where children found the courage to speak but nothing was done. But, while the principle is right, the drafting is too narrow, too timid and risks being ineffective in practice. The duty to report is triggered only when a disclosure is made or abuse is witnessed. Yet most abuse is not disclosed, and rarely is it seen first-hand. Professionals in health, education and faith settings often encounter warning signs, not confessions. The duty must extend to situations where there are reasonable grounds to suspect abuse.

Secondly, the Bill currently imposes no real sanction for failure to report, and a law without consequence is not a law that can change culture. There should be a clear offence of deliberate failure to act when a child’s disclosure is known.

Thirdly, there is a risk that the present wording could sweep in minor consensual activity between young people or undermine trust in health services. That must be corrected because the duty should target exploitation and coercion, not teenage relationships or confidential medical advice.

Fourthly, implementation matters, and we will need proper training and triage mechanisms to prevent overreporting and resources for local authorities and police to respond swiftly and sensitively.

The second issue is that we need to introduce a penalty for the intention to conceal. All too often, the orthodoxy is for individuals to feel a pressure to protect the organisation they serve—too big to fail. Individuals are too scared to report. Individuals who are protecting their institution must risk penalty.

My third issue is that when I served in the Home Office I had the privilege of introducing and funding the “ugly mugs” scheme. The principle behind it was not controversial. When a sex worker experiences violence or a threat, it enables them to report it anonymously so that others are warned. That information is their only line of defence, and since it was introduced it has saved lives, prevented repeated attacks and encouraged people who would never otherwise go near the police to start trusting them again.

New Clause 1, as tabled in the Commons, directly implicates online platforms and intermediaries that currently help sex workers publish adverts or manage listings. That is one of the main ways that the ugly mugs scheme engages—through alerts, listing of known bad actors and facilitating reporting. It has been truly successful in helping protect sex workers from dangerous clients. Whatever one’s view of prostitution, no one should be assaulted, raped or murdered for the work they do.

Ugly mugs was never about endorsing prostitution; it was about reducing harm and preventing homicide. The evidence is clear: where harm-reduction schemes exist, sex workers are better able to report violence, share intelligence and access justice. Where they are removed, people go underground. It is a dangerous illusion to think that, by abolishing the tools that keep people safe, we abolish the reality of prostitution. We do not; we simply make it more dangerous.

The duty of any Government, whatever their moral stance, is to protect life and prevent violence. Ugly mugs does precisely that, quietly and effectively, at very modest cost. Closing it would not advance women’s safety; it would imperil it.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Featherstone Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Featherstone (LD)]

My Lords, first, I thank the many people who have written to me to beg me to support the Bill, and I do. So many of those letters tell a horrific story of watching a loved one suffer. The proportion of those letters that are in support compared to those opposed is overwhelmingly in favour, by a ratio of 4:1.

But today, I speak for myself, for my rights, for my autonomy, for what I want to happen should I face the appalling circumstances of a terminal illness with six months to live, and for my right to choose. Autonomy is a central principle in modern ethics and law—the right to make decisions about your own body and life. If people can refuse life-saving treatment, create advance directives, or choose risky medical procedures, consistency suggests that they should also be able to choose when and how they die if terminally ill. Assisted dying does not force anyone to end their life; it simply respects the choice of those who want that option.

We already recognise the right to live according to one’s own values in freedom of religion, reproductive choices, sexual orientation, and marriage or not. So why not with this, the most intimate and important decision of our lives? Choosing assisted dying should be framed not as a rejection of life but as an embrace of dignity. People facing terminal illness or unbearable suffering may wish to avoid a drawn-out decline that strips them of control, of independence, of even their ability to recognise themselves. Respecting their choice acknowledges their humanity, rather than reducing them to passive recipients of medical care.

John Stuart Mill’s philosophy was that individuals should be free to make their own choices unless they harm others. Choosing to end one’s own suffering does not harm others, whereas forcing someone to endure against their will is a harm.

There is a divide. Those with means can travel abroad to access assisted dying, creating inequality, and often a lonely end. Allowing it locally ensures that choice is not only for the wealthy or the privileged. When assisted dying is illegal, people sometimes take desperate or violent steps to end their lives. Allowing a safe, regulated pathway gives people peace of mind and reduces traumatic situations for families and healthcare workers.

I thank Kim Leadbeater for her calm and thoughtful approach to addressing the fears that people naturally have about coercion. It seemed to me from reading the Commons debates that those concerns had been addressed and changes had been made. But I have absolute confidence that, should there be any remaining issues that give rise to further concerns, they will be found and addressed in this House.

I say to those with disabilities who are understandably very nervous and worried, this does not apply to disability. Disability is not a qualification. To those who raise palliative care as the answer, I wish it was the answer. But it is not a good enough answer in the reality of the circumstances people face today.

Lastly, I say to all those who may vote against the Bill for religious reasons, assisted dying is not compulsory. If your religious convictions require that you do not take advantage of the Bill, please have compassion and enable us who do not have your convictions to have the right to choose.

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

Baroness Featherstone Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.