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

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I strongly support the Bill and I warmly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on bringing it forward. I also pay tribute to the tireless work of Tom Perry and all at Mandate Now on behalf of victims of child sexual abuse. It is clear from the IICSA report that a mandatory reporting duty is essential now.

Over the years, I have been informed by the work of Professor Ben Mathews of Queensland University of Technology in Australia. Ben is the world expert on mandatory reporting duties in legislation; he is certainly not the devil but is well across the detail. Ben has conducted analyses of different models from around the world to identify strengths and weaknesses from legal, theoretical and empirical perspectives. These inform his conclusions about optimal legislative features for a mandatory reporting duty for child sexual abuse. I base my comments today on this work.

Does the Bill before us match up to these criteria? Well, yes, most of them. First, does it adopt a sound definition of the concept of child sexual abuse, operationalised through connected operational definitions, including in associated educational materials? No, it does not, but it needs to add it in the Schedule.

Secondly, does it define a child as including all individuals under the age of 18? Yes. Thirdly, does it clearly list the designated occupational groups of reporters? Yes. Fourthly, does it specify the state of mind activating the duty? This should include “knowledge” and “suspicion on reasonable grounds”. Yes. Fifthly, does it apply to cases of suspected and known past abuse, to presently occurring abuse and to cases where the reporter suspects the abuse is likely to happen? No, only past and current acts are included.

Sixthly, does it specify what details the report must include? No. Seventhly, does it specify to whom the report must be made? Yes. Eighthly, does it specify that a report should be made immediately? No; it says as soon as practicable, which is reasonable.

Ninthly, does it clearly set out that where an expert liaison officer exists, the reporter may discuss their suspicion with that person to inform their decision about whether to report? No, but perhaps it should be put in guidance. Tenthly, does it state that a report is not required where the reporter knows a report about the same incident has already been made? Yes. Eleventhly, does it state that a report is not required where the reporter knows or believes a child is engaging with another young person in genuinely consensual sexual activity? That is not included here.

Twelfthly, does it protect the reporter’s identity? This is essential to reassure reporters of confidentiality. Yes. Thirteenthly, does it confer immunity from liability for making a report in good faith? Yes. Fourteenthly, does it prohibit reprisals against reporters? Yes.

There are five other items on the list which I will give to the Minister as I do not have time to go through them all. However, all in all, this Bill covers most of the bases and it is a very good foundation for legislation. Will the Government base their promised amendment to the Serious Crime Act on this Bill and on Ben Mathews’ checklist, which I will give him?

Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend and for her persistent campaigning on this issue. It is important that we focus on the issue: how do we better protect children and survivors, how do we give them victim support and how do we prevent future criminal actions by individuals, whatever their race or ethnicity? We must also seek to prosecute individuals, whatever their race or ethnicity.

While I can make points about the review commissioned by the noble Baroness, Lady May, the seven years afterwards, the response and what has happened since then, I want to try to look forward. That means taking forward the three recommendations that we have agreed to and looking at the work we have done since July on the child sexual exploitation police task force. That was established by the last Government. We have now put some energy into the acceleration of its activity and saw a 25% increase in arrests around child sexual exploitation between July and September of last year.

There is much to do. I appreciate that history is worth looking at, and there are lessons for us all—including me, as I was a Home Office Minister a long time ago, in 2009-10. My hope is that we can use this to find common ground to tackle the issue. In doing so, let us make sure that we protect children and bring perpetrators to justice.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, when I last tried to introduce a mandatory reporting duty for child abuse, in an amendment on Report to the Serious Crime Bill, on 28 October 2014—a long time ago—the Minister at the time, the noble Lord, Lord Bates, responded by announcing the inquiry, which later became the IICSA inquiry established by the noble Baroness, Lady May, as well as a public consultation. However, he said:

“Research is inconclusive in determining whether mandatory reporting regimes help, hinder or … make no difference to child safeguarding outcomes”.—[Official Report, 28/10/14; col. 1083.]


He also said that the duty to report might “divert” services from the task of safeguarding children. Is the current Minister convinced that the research is clear that a mandatory reporting duty will help the task of protecting children, rather than hinder it? The clarity of the evidence will be very important when we come to debate the Home Secretary’s proposals, which we want to make sure go through.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government believe that a mandatory reporting mechanism will help the system, which is why we will introduce it.

Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 18th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Hamwee on introducing this Bill, which I support, and assure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that I will carry on hammering the point. Since the Children Act 1989, all legislation must primarily consider the best interests of the child. This comes almost word for word from Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which the UK has long been a signatory.

However, this does not always underpin policy. Article 10 of the convention states that

“applications by a child or his or her parents to enter or leave a State Party for the purpose of family reunification shall be dealt with by States Parties in a positive, humane and expeditious manner”.

Current policy is not humane. Under Article 22, Governments must help refugee children separated from their parents to be reunited with them. That means they should get legal aid too. As we have heard, currently the UK is the only major European country that refuses this, and it is directly at odds with the best interests of the child.

This policy is leaving some of the most vulnerable children separated from their families at a time when they need their parents most. It puts child refugees in the care of local authorities, which, as we have heard, can ill afford to support them. This leaves parents with an impossible choice: never to see their closest family again or to embark on a dangerous journey to try to reach them. This is contrary to the Government’s own policy of reducing the incentives for people to attempt to enter the UK illegally. The Government have recognised these children as refugees, stating that it would be unsafe for them to return to their country of origin, yet, unlike adult refugees, they are denied the opportunity to be joined by their closest relatives.

Child refugees should at least be treated as equal to adult refugees under the Government’s family reunion policy. Indeed, they have more need for family reunion than any adult. The last time this was debated, the government spokesman claimed that a similar Bill would undermine government “safeguarding responsibilities”. I believe it would do the opposite. Having one or more parents with them in the UK is more likely, as long as checks about their best interests are made, to improve the safeguarding of children who are vulnerable, as we have heard, to recruitment by criminal gangs for modern slavery, sexual exploitation or illegal work.

The UK Government have argued that changing the rules would encourage parents to send their children on unsafe journeys to secure refugee status to enable families to join them. There is no evidence to support this argument. Family separation is not only not in the children’s interests, it is not in anyone’s interests.