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

Second Reading

Moved by

That the Bill be now read a second time.

My Lords, it is a privilege to open this debate. I draw noble Lords’ attention to my registered interests. I am president of the Local Government Association and chair of the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award and Sport Wales, and have other interests as listed.

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Brinton, for their tireless work on this topic and their Bills in 2014 and 2018 respectively. I put on record my thanks to Tom Perry and Jonathan West from Mandate Now. I also thank Thirtyone:eight, one of many organisations that have mandatory reporting in their manifestos. I thank Barnardo’s, the NSPCC, the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse, the honourable Jess Phillips, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, and their team. I thank Professor Alexis Jay, who I met this week, and the many other people who have spoken in support of either this Bill or mandatory reporting in a wider context, including all those who have pointed out potential gaps, asked questions and provided thoughtful suggestions to improve the Bill. I am also sincerely grateful to my private office for its extensive support.

Although there is widespread support for some form of mandatory reporting, the devil is in the detail. As legislators, one of our roles is to protect the most vulnerable in our society. Protecting children from sexual abuse should therefore be of the highest priority. Because of this, it is crucial for this debate to happen today. I come at this issue from my own background in sport.

In 2017, after being asked by the then Sports Minister, Tracey Crouch, I produced an independent report, Duty of Care in Sport. While it is really important to note that there are many incredible, caring coaches who have very positive relationships with young people, there are cases in which individuals in organisations knew or suspected child sexual abuse but did not report for several reasons. These may include that the individual was scared to report over fears of losing their job or was worried about their reputation. In one case it was, “I know his wife and family, and I don’t want to do that to them”. I have also heard, “The abuser is a good coach”. No number of gold medals will ever make this okay. While there have been many improvements for safeguards in sport, as there have been in other regulated activities, there is still more that needs to be done.

My Lords, I entirely back this Bill—the spirit of it but also the detail. The Government would be foolish not to do likewise.

When I got elected as an MP, the first thing that I did was to convene an inquiry into heroin addiction in my own area. I spoke personally to more than half of the 600 heroin addicts whom I represented as their MP—over half—and every single one had suffered some form of major trauma in their early years. That is a separate issue, but my point is that the consequences of any form of child abuse are major and, indeed, well beyond that child when they become an adult.

There is one pertinent point that has been rather lost in the last few weeks. The term “survivor” has been used. My experience is that very many who were badly abused as children have not survived; either they are not alive, or they are in a position where they are really not capable of doing anything coherent in advocating for themselves. When I took up issues relating to child abuse as an MP, which I did—I spent 30 days representing people at that inquiry—I dealt with people who were incapable of knowing exactly what had happened to them, because the trauma had been so great. I dealt with people whom I was unable to see, because of how the trauma had impacted on how they are, who were being cared for by others, sometimes by the state and sometimes by private institutions. I dealt with people who had been inside prison because the actions that they had taken—and they were evil actions sometimes—had a direct correlation with what had happened.

So this is not some kind of minor issue, and this Bill deals with only one of the 20 recommendations of that inquiry. If the Government—any Government, including this one—fail to implement those 20 recommendations, they will be held to account, and they should be. I will be one of those holding any Government, including this Government, to account.

Four minutes is not a long time, but I shall make a couple of other points that need to made, because they may not be made by others. There is a lot of talk about girls; I dealt with boys as well. On the definition of children in sports, including in football, one thing that I found—and I think I had an influence, although I am sure that football would say that it did it itself and it was just a coincidence of timing—was about the grooming of 16 and 17 year-old girls by football coaches. That was another issue that I had to deal with. Age is also important, and that was one of the complications of that inquiry—the 16 to 19 year-olds, and who is and is not a child. That is fundamental, and certainly everyone aged 18 and under needs to be incorporated into everything.

My Lords, I warmly commend the noble Baroness for her tenacity in bringing forward this Bill. There is enormous respect and support for what she is doing.

I want to touch on the context. It was 50 years ago that we had the first public inquiry into child physical abuse, with the Maria Colwell case, when Maria Colwell was beaten and killed by her stepfather. Since then, we have had any number of inquiries on physical abuse, and we do not need any more. The lessons are always the same; why are they not implemented, and why are the dots not joined? With the reports of Herbert Laming, now the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and William Utting, the lessons are the same.

Then we came upon child sexual abuse, which frankly was unthinkable. I think that the House fails to realise that this was not a concept that people even considered, and we are not so far along the line in understanding how addictive it is. In the 1970s, I was asked to review the literature on paedophilia at the Institute of Psychiatry at the Maudsley. The view was that the trauma of reporting in a court case was so much more damaging to a family than actually trying to give them a little bit of counselling. Attitudes have changed beyond belief, and we should not judge the past by the present.

Why are people so resistant to reporting? I have personal evidence. I started working for Frank Field at the Child Poverty Action Group; then I wanted to become a psychiatric social worker, so I went as an unqualified social worker to a special boarding school for the Inner London Education Authority. I discovered that the headmaster spent all his time hanging around the girls’ bedrooms, the lavatories and bathrooms. This was horrific. I was 23, it was my first job—I wanted my reputation, so what could I do? I could do no other. I went to the head of my service, the school social work service for the Inner London Education Authority, but I was told, “No, Virginia—if they think that social workers are going to be reporting on things, they won’t allow social workers in the schools”. That was too much for me. My formidable aunt, Peggy Jay, a GLC member, said, “Go and see Lena Jeger”, who was a wonderful Labour woman. I went to see her—and what happened? The man was given a good reference and went to a school in Sevenoaks, Tunbridge Wells. I could do no other. My friend Patrick Mayhew—the late Lord Mayhew—was the MP, and I said, “If you ever hear anything, you must do something”. What happened? The man went off to a school in Canada.

My Lords, while I appreciate how passionately we feel about this issue, the first two speakers have gone about 30 seconds over the advisory speaking time, so could noble Lords please be mindful of the advisory speaking time of four minutes?

My Lords, I support the Bill and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on this important issue. I declare an interest as vice-president of Barnardo’s, which has been supporting victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and exploitation across the UK for more than 25 years and now hosts the independent Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse. With the support of Barnardo’s, I have long campaigned for more services and greater capacity in the workforce to support victims and survivors of child sexual abuse. From the data we have, experts believe that at least 500,000 children under 18 are sexually abused in England and Wales every year, but the real total is likely to be much higher.

The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse set out wide-ranging recommendations which must be implemented as a matter of urgency. Survivors must be listened to and services must be adequately funded. Action is long overdue. A duty to report child sexual abuse was a cornerstone recommendation of the independent inquiry led by Professor Alexis Jay. Adults working directly with children have a special responsibility to act when they are concerned about their safety. They must be clear about their responsibilities, and confident and supported to deliver them. In addition, there must be sanctions for concealing or covering up the sexual abuse of children.

The Home Secretary has now committed publicly to introduce this duty in law, along with a new victims’ and survivors’ panel, which I support wholeheartedly. However, victims and survivors have been waiting a long time for action since the review and they must not be left to wait any longer. We need to make sure that children can access specialist, confidential services, where they can build relationships with trusted adults. After experiencing the terrible trauma of sexual abuse, many children need time and space to reach a point where they can share their experiences in full, in a way that means action can be taken to keep them safe and, importantly, to bring abusers to justice. We must make sure that professionals can still take the time, when needed, to build these relationships ahead of reporting to others. If the law gets this wrong, it risks actively harming efforts to reduce sexual abuse—the exact opposite of what this Bill is hoping to achieve.

My Lords, I support this significant Bill tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who has articulated very clearly why it is important. First, I want to recognise, on behalf of the Church of England, our own shocking failures in safeguarding and take this opportunity to apologise to victims and survivors of Church abuse. I fully support the introduction of mandatory reporting of child sex abuse and of other abuse, in all contexts. I note the Government’s commitment to doing so in their upcoming police and crime Bill. Today’s debate gives us another opportunity for this important discussion. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for bringing the Bill forward, and to Members of your Lordships’ House for their contributions, which I know at times will not be easy.

I have spoken of the need in the Church of England for a reset in safeguarding. This must include a genuinely survivor-focused approach, with independence and mandatory reporting at its heart. Proposals will be brought forward to the Church of England’s General Synod in February, including the introduction of a mandatory reporting requirement in the statutory safeguarding code on managing allegations. We on these Benches want to continue to work with the Government to support the legislation they bring forward on mandatory reporting, but it must include legally precise definitions of the person to whom the duty applies. This Bill will need some amendment to offer that precision. However, I strongly support its principle and stand ready to work with the Government on this vital safeguarding reform, which, as we have already heard, is long overdue.

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on bringing this to the House today. It is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London.

I want to speak briefly from the perspective of education. I hope and believe that there are no schools that are quite like the ones we heard described from the Benches opposite, but I realise that there are bad actors all over the place. I believe that, in general, child protection and the duty of care is taken seriously by all teachers—certainly by all the teachers I know. It is a significant responsibility. We know there is a great deal of mental ill-health and distress in schools at the moment, but schools are clearly an obvious place to ensure that there is mandatory reporting of child sex abuse.

This implies proper training for all school staff—not just teachers but all staff who work in schools, whether they are in an admin or support capacity. We can never know to whom a child might report something; it could be a school secretary or somebody else. Regrettably, we have heard that often it is reported to no one at all. Such training must be high-quality, and it has to be repeated. We know that there is a high turnover of teachers and other school staff, so this has to be an ongoing programme to make sure that all people in schools understand their responsibilities and the things for which they might need to look out. I add, as the noble Baroness did, that this goes hand in hand with making sure that we have high-quality sex and relationships education, so that children and young people understand what is right and what is not right.

I am pleased that the Bill ensures that there is no penalty if the reporting turns out not to have revealed a case. Head teachers in particular, who hold in their hands the responsibility for a school, will find it difficult to report if they feel that that will have a devastating effect on their school. Equally, they obviously want to make sure that they report properly. Of course, it is not the head teacher, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said, who knows what is going on in a child’s life on a daily basis; it is the individual teacher.

My Lords, the importance of mandatory reporting of sexual abuse in sport has been campaigned for by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and me for many decades. Our work together on safeguarding in sport goes back to the 1990s, and I warmly congratulate her on introducing the Bill. I also celebrate her lifetime commitment on behalf of those young people and their parents who love sport and expect the best for their children. I thank the right reverend Prelate for an important and very moving contribution to today’s debate.

We know there is a lack of communication between sporting bodies, police and local authorities around child sexual abuse, safeguarding and the need for mandatory reporting to place an obligation on individuals and the bodies delivering sport and recreation to report concerns of sexual abuse to the appropriate authorities. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and I have both campaigned for a sports ombudsman, in part to fulfil that role.

The Government’s guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, recognised that in paid and volunteer sport staff needed to be aware of their responsibilities for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children—and they are manifold. However, we must take cognisance of the Whyte review, which exposed a problem that extends far beyond gymnastics. We read with sickening realism the tragedy of sexual abuse that took place within our national game of football, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mann.

In her report, Anne Whyte found an “unacceptable” culture and concluded that between 2008 and 2020, there was a failure to put the welfare of participants at the centre of gymnastics, particularly elite gymnastics. There was also a culture that meant the gymnastics community felt unable to raise their concerns. I wonder how many more sporting scandals will occur before we have legislation for mandatory reporting on the statute book. We must never lose sight in sport of the position of authority and control which the sports coach exercises: emotional, physical and verbal abuse, weight-shaming, physical isolation and grooming have too often been used, justified and hidden under a sickening mantra of “Well, that’s what it takes to be the best”. It is not. It must never be tolerated.

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.