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

Baroness Berridge Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for her tenacity in pursuing this Private Member’s Bill. I served on the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House looking at statutory inquiries and had the privilege and duty of giving evidence to IICSA while a Minister in the Department for Education.

The Select Committee stated that too many recommendations from statutory inquiries are not responded to or, even if they are accepted, they are not acted on. When victims give evidence as they do in such inquiries, it is disrespectful at least, and possibly harmful, to treat recommendations in this manner. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, outlined, this recommendation is nearly three years old. Could His Majesty’s Government make sure that all past recommendations of all statutory inquiries are looked at now? If they have been accepted, when will they be enacted, even if this new Government take a different view? Surely it is better for victims to know that than have this grey area where there has been acceptance but they are not sure what is going to happen?

While there is now widespread agreement on enacting this recommendation, effective definition of this duty is harder than it might seem. The last Government’s attempts might not have actually created a criminal offence. I know that this is a Private Member’s Bill, with all the constraints this brings, but I wonder whether the limitation to humans having knowledge of child abuse now needs updating. Much of the knowledge of or disclosure by children who have been harmed may in fact be sitting on online platforms, as they increasingly disclose in that way. So, when His Majesty’s Government consider this mandatory reporting duty, could we please be assured that the duties to report on corporations and online platforms under the Online Safety Act align with human beings’ responsibility to report such harm under mandatory reporting?

Also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, outlined, there is no definition of child sexual abuse in the Bill. Again, with much happening online, such as deepfakes and the plethora of offences, these are now not straightforward issues. What if a group of teenagers come across images on their parents’ devices and happen to mention that casually in the hearing of a youth group leader or teacher? Is that child abuse to report? A proper definition will limit the number of misguided or false reports.

While I welcome the creation of a separate detriment offence in Section 3(2), if someone does not report child abuse as they have suffered a significant detriment, and is charged with the offence under Section 3(1), they do not seem to be able to raise that detriment or the threats they suffered as a defence. Is that really just? While we expect people to put the seriousness of child sex abuse disclosures above the reputation of institutions and their own personal promotion, et cetera, if they are being threatened with significant detriment, should they still be guilty of an offence if they succumb to that pressure? Should the magistrates not at least have a discretion to take that into account or are His Majesty’s Government expecting that the common-law defence of duress will be raised in those circumstances?

I would also be grateful if His Majesty’s Government could confirm whether these offences are going to be relevant for that person’s own DBS check. Whether they have that defence that they can raise is very pertinent, because it could affect their career in an ongoing way if it is relevant to their DBS clearance.

I was surprised to read in the IICSA report that it asked for information from local authorities about the level of disclosure of child sex abuse and was told that the data is not collected. If local authorities are given this duty, surely they should have to collect the data and be given the resources to do so. With over 82,000 people currently barred from working with children, sadly, this is not a historic issue.