Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, to avoid any later confusion or doubt, I should explain that, on behalf of the unavoidably absent noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, I will be speaking to her Amendment 284 on the mandatory reporting duty. It is in a slightly different context, as it is not in the context of grooming gangs. I will not develop it at this stage but wait until that group is reached.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 247B, from the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, seeks to advance and pre-empt the start of the work of the independent commission on grooming gangs. I would say to the noble Baroness that this process must be done properly rather than speedily, so that we can learn lessons for the future from what has happened.

To save the Minister the trouble, I will read to the noble Baroness a few morsels from the Government’s Statement, repeated here on 4 September, with which I agree:

“I know that everyone in the House and beyond wants to see the inquiry begin its work at the earliest opportunity. Colleagues will know that that requires the appointment of a chair and the agreement of terms of reference … Meaningful engagement with victims and survivors is paramount … this process must be done properly and thoroughly … three chairs were appointed and subsequently withdrew, from July 2014 onwards, prior to the eventual appointment of Professor Alexis Jay in 2016”


as the chair of IICSA—that shows how difficult it can be to get the right person—

“In line with the Inquiries Act 2025, the appointed chair will play a central role in shaping the commission’s terms of reference. These will be published and subject to consultation with stakeholders, including victims and survivors … The inquiry will begin by identifying priority areas for review … Where appropriate, the inquiry will issue recommendations at both local and national levels”.


Finally, the Minister said,

“we are determined to ensure that every survivor of grooming gangs gets the support and justice they deserve; that every perpetrator is put behind bars; that every case, historic or current, has been properly investigated; and that every person or institution who looked the other way is held accountable, as that is a stain on our society that should be finally removed for good”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/9/25; col. 162-63]

I agree with every word of that, and I hope all noble Lords do.

The Minister repeated some of those points only today, at Oral Questions. I wonder what it is that the noble Baroness does not agree with. I hope I can assume that we all have the same objective of obtaining justice for victims, and learning valuable lessons and doing it right, rather than soon.

Amendments 271B and 271C relate to the Sexual Offences Act 2003. I worked for many weeks on that Act, and I think it was comprehensive and carefully drafted in laying out the offences. I believe that there is—I have taken very senior legal advice on this—a danger in describing offences in too much minute detail. I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, will agree that it can make it more difficult to secure a conviction where a conviction should be secured, because additional elements need to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. That could open defences which are not overall justified. I also cannot see how changing terminology would add to justice, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, suggests.

On Amendments 271D and 271E, from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, I refer him to other parts of the Statement repeated on 4 September. I am sure the Minister will assure him in response that the Government have outlined all the work that has already been started much earlier this year to investigate historical child abuse investigation failings. I will leave it to the Minister to do that.

I welcome the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, about the system of mandatory reporting that we are offered in the Bill as it stands; it is simply not good enough, and we will come to a very wide debate about that in group 8. I hope that she will then add her support to amendments to improve that system tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, as well as my colleagues, my noble friends Lady Featherstone and Lord Clement-Jones, and me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with every word of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and of my noble friend Lady Featherstone. I hope they will forgive me if I say no more about all that, because, if I do not catch my train tonight, I will have to sleep on the street. I will speak to Amendments 280A in the name of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and Amendments 282 and 285 in his name and mine.

Amendment 280A is straightforward in its intent. It seeks to fully implement recommendation 13 of IICSA’s final report. The current Clause 72 introduces a duty on adults engaged in relevant activity to notify police or local authorities when

“they are given reason to suspect that a child sex offence may have been committed”.

The Government propose non-criminal sanctions, such as referral to professional regulators or the DBS. We on these Benches maintain that this approach is insufficient. IICSA was clear: a failure to comply with the duty must be a criminal offence. Amendment 280A would insert proposed new subsections (10A) and (10B) into Clause 72, which would explicitly provide that:

“A person who fails to fulfil the duty under subsection (1) commits an offence”,


and that the person

“is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale”.

This criminal sanction is essential because relying solely on professional sanctions creates institutional loopholes. Professional sanctions apply to only a fraction of the mandated reporters and cannot effectively address failings in settings where professional regulation is absent, such as certain religious settings, where, as we have heard, many grievous failings have occurred. Nor do they cover volunteers in schools or other settings. Furthermore, criminalising non-compliance would align us with international best practice in countries such as France and Australia.

Amendment 280 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is similar to this one, except that it offers some mitigations that the court could consider. Whether this offers a loophole or a reasonable consideration for the courts is a reasonable discussion point.

Amendment 285 addresses the second vital component of IICSA’s recommendation 13. Incorporating the duty to report when a person recognises the indicators of child sexual abuse, the amendment would expand the trigger for the duty to report beyond direct disclosure by a child or perpetrator, or witnessing child sexual abuse, all of which is vanishingly rare, to include circumstances where a person

“witnesses a child displaying sexualised, sexually harmful or other behaviour, physical signs of abuse or consequences of sexual abuse”.

It has to be remembered that only one in three victims of CSA ever discloses what happened, and often it is many years later.

The fact is that, if the Bill passes as it is without amendment, it will undoubtedly fail in its stated objective. The Government themselves recognise this, as witnessed by the figures in the impact assessment. It says that the number of extra anticipated reports of CSA each year for England and Wales under the existing terms of the Bill is only 310, which is an average of 7.9 extra reports for each of the 43 police forces. The total number of cases estimated to be proceeded against in England is 26—with 15 cases in the Crown Court and nine in the magistrates’ court—and only 11 of those would see the award of custodial sentences. The total estimated increase in CSA referrals to local authority-designated officers is 2% per annum.

It would therefore be nonsense to suggest that widening the scope of the duty to report CSA to something like that which exists in countries that have high-standard mandatory reporting systems that have been functioning well for years, as this amendment proposes, would overwhelm our system. It would not. Neither would it result in some cases being hidden in the mass of reports, as some have suggested. On the other hand, widening the scope, as this and other amendments seek to do, would uncover a lot of evil and save many children from terrible lifelong harm, which has a cost to public services. Not doing so would perpetuate the culture of cover-up that led to the IICSA inquiry in the first place.

However, recognising that assessing such indicators can be subjective, Amendment 285 would maintain proportionality, as recommended by IICSA, by ensuring that failure to comply with the duty based solely on those indicators is not a criminal offence, but compliance should be done by any conscientious professional. This careful balance would ensure that staff and volunteers are encouraged to report any sign of potential harm without the fear of criminal prosecution based on subjective observation. This is crucial to fostering a reporting culture that prioritises the immediate safety and protection of the child, which is what we all want to see. It is vital to remember that the investigation of the report of, or reasonable suspicion of, child sexual abuse is not for the reporter to do; it is for the experts to investigate and the courts to decide—but they cannot do that unless they get the report in the first place.

Amendment 282 is designed to include in the reporting duty a comprehensive range of people who care for children, as defined in Sections 21, 22 and 22A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. To ensure that no relevant person is left out, these sections ensure the inclusion in the duty to report the management of settings where some kind of care is given to children, which is one of the gaping holes in the current wording of the Bill. With that, having just reaffirmed my support for the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and those of my noble friend Lady Featherstone, I will finish.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

I rise to speak to my Amendment 286A, which proposes to fill gaps in Clause 79 so we can hold accountable all those who go out of their way to conceal the horrendous crime of child sexual abuse. This amendment is supported by multiple child protection organisations, including the NSPCC, Barnardo’s, the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse and the Lucy Faithfull Foundation. I particularly thank Gina Rees from the NSPCC, who has advised me.

Obviously, it can never be acceptable for anyone to turn a blind eye to abuse. Yet across the seven year-long investigation, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse exposed countless instances where those whose organisations had a responsibility to protect children from harm not only failed to report child sexual abuse but took purposeful actions that actively sought to cover it up. These acts of intentionally concealing child sexual abuse are separate from, and go beyond, just failing to make a report, something which the Government’s mandatory reporting duty proposes to address. It means choosing and acting to prioritise something else, be that community, relationships or company reputation, over the safety of a child. I think we can agree across this House that that is unacceptable.

These acts of concealment are not a thing of the past. Take, for example, this real-life contact at the NSPCC helpline for those with concerns about a child. A special educational needs professional told the NSPCC:

“I’ve seen what happens when people report any concerns, even minor ones. Management bullies you, reduces your shifts, stops giving you what you need to support the kids. You’re expected to buy everything yourself for them instead of it being provided. If you thought you were on track for a permanent job, forget it”.


Bullying, threatening job stability and removing support for the children who are meant to be protected—these are actions, along with intimidation of witnesses and destroying vital evidence, that have happened for many years and still happen, with impunity, across our society. They not only undermine efforts to increase reports of child sexual abuse; they can deny victims their right to justice and hinder their access to vital support services in order to help them begin to recover from what they have suffered. As such, it is vital that our criminal justice system be equipped with new laws to catch these bad actors.

I appreciate that the Government’s current drafting of Clause 79 aims to do this by introducing a new criminal offence of preventing or deterring someone, under the mandatory reporting duty, from making a report. While that is an important part of thwarting the cover-up of child sexual abuse, this provision does not go far enough to cover the multitude of ways that reports of abuse can be concealed and could allow many of those who intentionally conceal this crime to slip through the net. This is because Clause 79 is triggered only when the person acting to conceal abuse does so by blocking or deterring someone, under the new duty, from making a report. This would not, for example, criminalise acts that could prevent abuse being discovered by a mandated reporter in the first place, such as intimidating victims or destroying vital evidence. Indeed, if the professional I referred to in my example earlier did not fall under the new duty to report, there is a strong chance that those who try to bully and intimidate someone in respect of doing the right thing would not be prosecutable under the current offence.

This feels to me like a glaring omission that could undermine the Government’s intentions with this clause. It also does not cover preventing those who are not mandated reporters from reporting, or acts to hinder this investigation of abuse after it has been reported. That is why I call on the Government and the Minister to look again at their current proposal and ensure that it is strengthened, so that those who intentionally act to cover up child sexual abuse, including those who threaten or deter those not under the reporting duty, are caught by this offence. I therefore urge the Government to accept Amendment 286A so that Clause 79 captures all individuals who intentionally cover up child sexual abuse.

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.