Budget: Small and Medium-sized Businesses
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leigh of Hurley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effect of the Budget on small and medium-sized businesses.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, yesterday’s Budget rejects austerity, instead building a strong and secure economy—
Lord Livermore (Lab)
It does this by cutting the cost of living and reducing inflation, cutting NHS waiting lists and cutting government borrowing every year so interest rates keep falling. For small and medium-sized businesses, the Budget supports high streets with permanently lower tax rates for 750,000 retail and hospitality properties, backs entrepreneurs by doubling eligibility for tax breaks that make it easier for fast-growing start-ups to scale and stay in the UK, makes the training for under-25 apprenticeships completely free for SMEs and maintains the lowest rate of corporation tax in the G7.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, yesterday was the benefits Budget. The Chancellor has broken her promise not to increase income taxes. As she said in her Budget, because no national insurance is charged on dividend income, she will increase the income tax on dividends. Does the Minister think that she understands that national insurance is on employed income, for which an employee is paid a risk-free salary, but SME dividends are the reward paid to people who take a risk and invest in their own business to help the business grow? For some reason—perhaps he can explain—she failed to put national insurance on the huge incomes of lawyers and others in LLPs. Does he share my concern, and that of many others in the UK, that she has no understanding whatever of basic economic principles such that she does not understand the difference between salary and dividends that SMEs get for return on capital?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Unsurprisingly, no, I do not agree with the noble Lord. He will remember that, in the last five years of the previous Government, spending on welfare increased by £88 billion. The Government are taking action to ensure income from assets is taxed fairly, narrowing the gap between taxes paid on work and tax paid on income from assets. Those with dividend income pay considerably less tax than those whose income comes from employment or self-employment, as they do not pay national insurance contributions. It is not fair that the tax system treats different types of income so differently, so tax on dividend income will increase by two percentage points. Over 90% of UK taxpayers do not pay dividend tax.
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)
My Lords, we know the vital role that the start-up community, and innovation within it, plays in our economy and its future growth. Would my noble friend talk a little bit more about what the Chancellor did yesterday to help that sector with its scale and stay agenda? Also, declaring an interest as a member of the London Partnership Board, and perhaps playing the Millwall card, may I ask my noble friend to acknowledge the role that London is playing in bearing a share of the burden again that is perhaps disproportionate?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very grateful to my noble friend for what he says about the action we took to help scale-up businesses in the UK. As many noble Lords will know, the UK is already a great place to start a business, but our companies are not scaling at the same rate as their US peers and raising less at later-stage investment. As a result, UK companies are either acquired, fail, or choose to go abroad to raise that investment. We will change that and make the UK the best place to start, scale and stay, because today’s fast-growing firms are tomorrow’s engine of jobs and growth. We are doubling the eligibility of our enterprise tax incentives, investing billions of pounds in public capital and delivering reforms to boost the attractiveness of the UK markets, making sure that those companies can access the capital and the talent that they need to succeed in the long term.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister and I will agree that the best way of helping businesses of all sizes is for there to be growth—meaningful growth—over the period. Given the words of the OBR boss, Richard Hughes, this morning on the “Today” programme that none of the measures in this Budget will lead to growth, it is very clear that the OBR does not rate the trade deals, investments in Heathrow or any of the measures as delivering growth over the period covered by the Budget. Where will the growth come from?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. The OBR has upgraded Britain’s growth forecast for this year from 1% to 1.5%, reaching the same conclusion as the IMF, the OECD and the Bank of England, which have already upgraded their growth forecasts. We were the fastest-growing economy in the G7 for the first half of this year, and we are on course to be the second fastest for the year as a whole. He is right that the OBR has looked back at the previous decade and concluded that policies such as austerity and Brexit have weakened the economy more than previously thought, and that assessment then directly impacts its view of GDP for the remainder of the forecast period, but the past does not have to determine the future, and we will go further and faster with our growth mission. We are cutting inflation and cutting borrowing every year of the forecast so that interest rates can keep falling, giving businesses the confidence to invest; we are maintaining public investment to build critical infrastructure; and we are backing our fastest-growing companies. We beat the growth forecasts this year, and we will beat them again.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
Well, it is goodbye Budgets for growth and hello tax and spend, is it not? When Ministers are forced back just to reading scripts—completely unedited, as far as I can tell—we get a gist of the sense of lack of authority behind some of the remarks that have just been made. Budgets used to have detailed studies of incentive effects attached to them. Could the Minister tell us, and publish, any such studies of the incentive effects on small business growth for the tax measures in this Budget?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Lord was characteristically rude, but I will resist being rude back to him. There were very many measures—
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
Could the Minister possibly say where I have been rude?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
There were several measures to help businesses scale up. The enterprise management incentive scheme will be significantly expanded and made available to more companies. Enterprise investment scheme investment limits and gross asset thresholds will be doubled, and venture capital trust investment limits and gross assets thresholds will also be doubled. The Government will obviously publish impact assessments for all those measures.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
It is the turn of the Labour Party.
Baroness Elliott of Whitburn Bay (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the news of free apprenticeships for under 25s in small and medium-sized enterprises. This is good news for young people and businesses. What impact does the Minister think it will have on the number of people coming into apprenticeships in those arenas?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for her support for what we announced yesterday in terms of apprenticeships. We are investing £1.5 billion over the spending review period for investment in employment and skills support, including £725 million for the growth and skills levy to help support apprenticeships for young people and to fully fund SME apprenticeships for under-25s. We will also introduce new reforms to simplify the apprenticeship system and make it more efficient when short courses are introduced from April 2026.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, as someone who champions SMEs and regularly has my amendments rejected by the Government, I welcome some of what the Minister has set out. It will, however, be offset by the increase in dividend tax, which has been mentioned, and the negative effect of wider tax increases. Our main disappointment with the Budget, as has already been said, is the disappearance of growth as the principal objective, with no significant positive impact by 2030 according to the OBR. Does he agree that this neglect is particularly bad for SMEs, and can he answer the two questions on the overall impact of the Budget on SMEs now?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. No, I do not accept that the Budget is bad overall for growth and for SMEs. As I have said, the OBR has upgraded Britain’s growth forecast for this year from 1% to 1.5%. The noble Baroness’s policy of going back to austerity and cutting spending by £47 billion would be exactly the wrong thing to do at this point for growth. We need to maintain investment in our economy. In this Budget, we are cutting inflation, cutting borrowing every year of the forecast and keeping interest rates down. We are maintaining higher levels of public investment for decades, building houses, roads, railways and energy infrastructure, and backing our fastest-growing companies. She mentioned growth. She may have seen this morning that JP Morgan, the global investment bank, announced a $10 billion investment in the UK with its intention to build its new landmark tower in London. Jamie Dimon, the CEO, said:
“The UK Government's priority of economic growth has been a critical factor in helping us make this decision”.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
If the Government are supporting scale-ups and start-ups, what do they think about the fact that every single start-up and scale-up, even those very successful at fundraising, has been eliminated from the Department for Transport’s recent procurement framework and that they were asked to provide indemnities if they were to participate? How does that measure up with HMT asking regulators and the private sector to take more risk and not doing so itself? How do they get value out of the investment that they are putting in if it is not followed up with routes to revenue?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right about the importance of procurement to scale-up firms; I completely agree with her on that point. As part of the announcements that we made yesterday, we said that the Government will act as a better early customer to help UK firms prove commercial potential, including through a new innovation marketplace to fast-track strategically important firms into public procurement.
Violence Against Women and Girls
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gale
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce the prevalence of violence against women and girls in line with the Labour Party Manifesto 2024 commitment to halve violence against women and girls in a decade.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The work to halve violence against women and girls in a decade started the day the Government entered office, and I pay tribute to my colleague Jess Phillips for her work in this area. The Government have already announced a series of cross-government measures, including a £13.1 million investment in the creation of a national policing centre for violence against women and girls, and measures to tackle specific crime types, including honour-based abuse, spiking and stalking. Our cross-government strategy approach underpinning a new strategy will be published as soon as possible.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply. I am so pleased that our Government have this policy. On the commitments in the manifesto, will he say what action is being taken to ensure that schools address misogyny so that boys and girls are being taught about healthy relationships and consent? What progress is being made on introducing domestic abuse experts in 999 control rooms so that victims can talk directly to a specialist, and on ensuring that there is a legal advocate in every police force area to advise victims from the moment of report to trial? What progress is being made on having specialist rape and sexual offence teams in every police force and on fast-tracking rape cases with specialist courts in every Crown Court in England and Wales?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. We have made progress on all three of those objectives. The Department for Education and my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern have published an updated curriculum this year, which includes teaching online safety and awareness of healthy relationships. We have already introduced domestic abuse specialists in the first five police forces under what we call Raneem’s law, and we will expand the rollout to more police forces very shortly, as soon as possible. We are also working with key stakeholders on the delivery of legal advocates, and we are hoping to make further announcements on that very shortly.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
I welcome the Government’s aim to halve violence against women and girls, but we need to see concrete action to achieve that goal. Female genital mutilation causes immediate and long-term harm and is a crime that is underreported and underprosecuted. The Home Office concluded a feasibility study in 2024 on how to produce robust prevalence estimates for FGM. Back in March, the Minister said that the Government were considering the next step, so can I ask for an update on that?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for both her commitment and her continued pressure on the Government on these issues. As she knows, in August this year the Home Office announced six new measures to tackle honour-based abuse. One of those measures is to conduct a pilot prevalence study to support the development of a national prevalence estimate for forced marriages and female genital mutilation, and that will build on the work of the feasibility study that concluded in 2024. Work is already under way now on that issue, and I hope to update the House in due course.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, we welcome the Government’s commitment to tackle and reduce domestic violence, but the number of victims has not come down over the years, sadly, and too many perpetrators—overwhelmingly men and particularly in some communities—do not appear to understand that these are criminal offences. Does the Minister accept that we need a widespread public awareness and information campaign to help inform victims and their families of their rights, the law and where they can get help, alongside embedding more education on healthy relationships in schools, and enforcement such as the stepping up of the use of domestic abuse orders?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for those comments. As I have mentioned in answer to earlier questions, the Department for Education has now issued curriculum reviews on the issue of health and education. Indeed, I understand that new guidance has been issued on this issue. She is right that we need to make sure that there is not just greater awareness but zero tolerance. The expected violence against women and girls strategy, which I am hoping will be published very shortly, will cover a range of issues that the noble Baroness has mentioned, and I look forward to that contributing to the Government’s measurable objective of reducing violence against women and girls significantly, as per the manifesto commitment.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, what measures are His Majesty’s Government taking to address online harassment and technology-facilitated abuse directed against women and girls?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is extremely important, and there is the potential for the Government to examine how that is undertaken. Harassment and misogyny, the issues that my noble friend has mentioned, are subject to tight regulation and tight legislation as a whole. We also need to work with the technology companies to ensure that, under the Online Safety Act, information put online that is offensive and which breaches the legislation is taken down speedily.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Non-Afl)
I want to press my friend the Minister a little further on police training. I know that it is much better than it was, but it is still a postcode lottery and I do not think the police always understand the different kinds of abuse, particularly honour abuse. It is important that policemen on the beat are aware and know what to do if someone approaches them. That is quite often the first time that a victim has felt able or free to see someone, and it is important that the officers know immediately what to do and can take that person to a place of safety.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a valuable point. It is important that we have police officers who understand the impact of domestic abuse and violence against women and girls, since, as she mentioned, often they are the first port of call. I hope that the forthcoming violence against women and girls strategy—I say again to the House that we hope to publish it in very short order—will cover a range of issues about how we can raise awareness and have a full policing response, as well as further potential government responses.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, the CPS has published its Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy 2025-2030, and indeed the previous Government published their violence against women and girls strategy in 2021, but I am unable to find the current Government’s strategy. Can the Minister help me with this?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I can. I think I have already said it to the House, but I will give the noble Lord the latest. On 17 November the Minister responsible for this in another place, Jess Phillips, said during Home Office Orals that the strategy would be coming out very soon but that we are already taking action. I give this assurance to the House: when I say very soon, I mean very soon. I hope noble Lords will recognise that when it does, very soonly, they will know that I said that the violence against women and girls strategy would come out “very soon”. I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
One of the problems at the moment is online images of what it is to be a young man—distorted images that imply that to be a young man is to be misogynistic, carrying with them assumptions of implicit violence. What are the current Government doing online to counteract these false, distorted images of what it is to be a man?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I find it quite upsetting to see some of the images and messages that are put out from people who, in some cases, currently face criminal charges in other countries. It is important that, through the work that my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern is doing, we work with schools and communities to ensure that young men in particular respect everyone in society, and that they are not taken down some of the very false routes that currently appear on much of social media.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, first, what is the timescale for the independent commission on grooming gangs in terms of appointing a chair, publishing the terms of reference, and so on? Is there any urgency there? Secondly, as these rape gangs are arguably the most shameful examples of state indifference to, even collusion with, the sexual abuse of thousands and thousands of young white working-class girls, does the Minister understand that delays and excuses imply that the commitment regarding violence against women and girls can come over rather cynically—as just a slogan rather than action?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I assure the noble Baroness that it is not a slogan; it is a manifesto commitment to halve the level of violence against women and girls over a 10-year period as a matter of some urgency. She will know that we have been trying to recruit a chair for the national grooming inquiry over many weeks, and we are still trying to do that. The anticipation is that we will, I hope, achieve that as quickly as possible. We have enabled a Member of this House, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to assist us in that recruitment, and this very afternoon we will have debates in this House on the Crime and Policing Bill on those issues. It is the Government’s intention to establish the inquiry as soon as possible, and I will keep this House updated.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, this feels like an appropriate moment to pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Gale, who has worked so hard on this issue for so long, and to remember the friend of this whole House, the late, great Baroness Newlove. What are the Government doing to ensure that the new Victims’ Commissioner is involved in the consultation and development of the strategy, and will the new commissioner be properly resourced to help to implement it?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the recognition of my noble friend Lady Gale. I looked this up today, and she was asking me questions about this issue in this very week last year, so she is not one not to be persistent on the same issues. I also pay tribute to the late Baroness Newlove for her work as Victims’ Commissioner. My noble friend will know that the Victims’ Commissioner had already been replaced from January next year. Self-evidently, we are hoping to produce the violence against women and girls strategy very shortly, but I will ensure that the new Victims’ Commissioner both examines the potential future government strategy and is involved in its challenge and its delivery.
Equality Act 2010: Supreme Court Judgment
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rooker
To ask His Majesty’s Government which departments have been involved in considering the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s code of practice on implementing the Supreme Court judgment on the meaning of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010.
The Minister of State, Office for Equality and Opportunity (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the Services, Public Functions and Associations: Code of Practice provides guidance on all protected characteristics, not solely sex and gender reassignment. As the sponsoring body, the Office for Equality and Opportunity is responsible for providing advice to Ministers on the code. Other government departments have been consulted as required on specific elements of the code.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that Answer; it was a fairly simple Question. But does my noble friend understand that the delay and constant difficulty in giving straight answers to questions about the guidance gives the strong impression that the Government are being held to ransom by a tightly knit group of politically motivated Peers and MPs who do not accept the Supreme Court judgment, as stated by the rule of law? One is entitled to ask: where has the rule of law gone?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
No, I do not recognise that because it is not true. Any suggestion that the Government are delaying the code is both totally inaccurate and unhelpful. This is a long and complex document, and we are carefully considering it. Frankly, it would be catastrophic for single-sex services, which have always been supported by this Government and this party, to implement guidance that was not legally sound, which would then place them in legal jeopardy again. That is why it is vital that we get this right. We have always been clear that the proper process needs to be followed, which includes understanding the potential impact on businesses, public functions and services. Understanding impacts is a routine and regular aspect of decision-making; it is not a delaying tactic.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
For the avoidance of doubt, will the Minister confirm that the law is as determined by the Supreme Court judgment? Any code of practice is guidance.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Yes, I am very happy to confirm that, as has been the Prime Minister. To be clear, the Supreme Court ruling in relation to the For Women Scotland case is clear; both inside and outside government, we expect it to be followed and, where necessary, people to seek specialist legal advice to enable them to do that.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, on costs, what assessment has been made of the potential cost implications for employers and public bodies? How are the Government ensuring that the code does not inadvertently require expensive or disproportionate changes to facilities or service delivery?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I do not believe that it will, but understanding costs is of course a routine and regular aspect of decision-making, as I suggested. This is a long and legally complex document that will have an impact on service providers up and down the country. Rightfully, we are carefully considering it and have asked the EHRC not to carry out a full regulatory impact assessment but, rather, to help by providing information on costs to ensure that a full impact assessment is not required, so that Ministers can take a fully informed decision.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I declare for the final time an interest as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I am sure that the House will be delighted to hear that this is my final intervention on this matter, but I want to explain for the information of the House the important point made by both the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the Minister. It is simply that the code was provided to government on 8 April, before the Supreme Court ruling. Since the Supreme Court ruling, only 10% of the code has changed. It is coming up to eight months since 90% of the code was reviewed by the Government, and they responded with suggestions to those different protected characteristics and aspects. It is only that 10% which has been with the Government since 4 September.
Finally, the Minister makes an important point about the costs of the regulatory impact. The bottom line is that since this is the law of the land, the impact of costs will be far higher if we litigate through the courts case by case, public body by public body, and duty bearer by duty bearer.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I wholly agree with the noble Baroness on her last point, which is precisely why it is important that we consider the code appropriately, as laid out in law in the Equality Act 2006. She is right that, as I outlined, the code covers more than the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment. But it was on 4 September that the updated code, post the For Women Scotland case, was submitted to the Government. For the reasons I have outlined, I do not think it unreasonable for the Government to take the time to consider this appropriately and to consider, as they are expected to do by the burdens process put in place by the previous Government, the potential impact of that on providers, and for us to work to do so in a way that will safeguard providers in protecting all the protected characteristics that the code—
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I have not finished yet. In concluding, I take the opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, for her work in leading the EHRC. I suspect that this will not be the last time she asks questions about this issue in this House, and nor should it be.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
My Lords, we will hear from Labour and then from the Tories.
Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)
As the Whip for the Equality Act 2010, can my noble friend the Minister clarify the next steps in the statutory process and how the Government will ensure that, when the code returns to Parliament, it will be legally sound, proportionate and practical for those who will implement it?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I thank my noble friend not only for that question but for her history of work in the area she outlined. As I suggested earlier, there is no benefit to anybody, particularly those who most need the clarity that application of the code can bring—for example, to lawfully provide single-sex spaces for women—to sidetrack the correct and careful process the Government are following. The Government are following the process for laying the code in Parliament set out in the Equality Act 2006. The Minister for Women and Equalities is considering the EHRC’s updated draft code, as I have already outlined, and if the decision is taken to approve it, she will lay it before both Houses over a 40-day period, as per the process set out in Section 14 of the Equality Act 2006.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, on 5 November the Minister was asked this by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick:
“Does the Minister agree that, today, it is the obligation of all persons, whether private or public, to comply with the judgment of the Supreme Court, whether they agree with it or not, and without waiting for guidance?”.—[Official Report, 5/11/25; col. 1926.]
She helpfully responded by saying, “I do agree”, so the Government have said they support the Supreme Court’s ruling, yet the EHRC’s updated guidance reflecting that ruling has sat with Ministers for almost three months. Can I push the Minister a little more to say when it will be published? Every week of delay fuels confusion over a legally settled issue and leaves service providers without the clarity they need. Will it be one month, three months, six months; or, even better, will it be very soon?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It will be at the point at which we have fulfilled the process that I have outlined to the House today. It will be at the point at which we can all be confident that what we provide in clarifying the application of the law will support providers in delivering for all those with protected characteristics, which is of course the role of the code. But the noble Baroness is right: I was clear in response to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about the clarity of the law and the requirement for all to be following it at this point. That is the position taken by the Prime Minister in the last week, and that is what everybody should be doing.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Does the Minister agree that the current unclarity arises not from the judgment of the Supreme Court but from the rushed and muddled unclarity of the code provided by the EHRC? Does she agree that we must now make sure that we do not inadvertently create an undefined third category, who could be difficult for providers to deal with?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The theme of my responses today to the questions asked is precisely to try to follow the legal and correct process here, and to avoid legal uncertainty for providers in the application of the law and the use of the code in doing that. It serves nobody—it serves none of the people whom those in this House and more broadly understandably feel passionate about—if this Government are rushed by political considerations into publishing a code which will not do the job it needs to do for the most vulnerable people. That is at the heart of the process we are following, and at the heart of our commitment to serving those people.
Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce Review
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Offord of Garvel
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report of the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce Review.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham)
We welcome and endorse the report and accept the principle of the recommendations it has set out. We will present a full implementation plan within three months. The task force will be engaged in the implementation phase to review progress and support delivery. We will complete implementation within two years, subject to legislative timelines on elements requiring primary legislation. We have already met the first recommendation with the publication of the Prime Minister’s strategic steer.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I am pleased to hear the Minister acknowledge that the Fingleton report makes it clear that government indecision and flawed legislation are largely to blame for nuclear regulatory failure. As part of this programme going forward, I think all sides of the House would agree we need to move forward expeditiously on nuclear. Can the Minister give some specific recommendations around how the Government will approach the new SMR site in Wylfa?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an important point about Wylfa. There are two aspects of this in relation to regulations. Small modular reactors are a way to ensure that we have a streamlined approach, because they will all be built in the same way and the regulation will apply to each one consistently. That in itself will speed up the process. But the first reactor will, of course, be the first and it will inevitably be a bit more complicated than the ones that follow. In terms of the application to Wales, the regulators that have UK-wide responsibilities will fall under the Fingleton review, and we will adopt the same processes. For those that have devolved accountabilities in Wales, we will discuss with Welsh Ministers and the Government.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the report in overall terms, but is my noble friend the Minister aware of the considerable concern in the scientific community about the accuracy of some of the data on fish impacts used in case studies about disproportionate decisions, which the report uses to criticise current nuclear regulation perhaps in a slightly inappropriate area? Is the Minister confident that the rest of the report is therefore reliable? Would the Minister meet with me and those scientists whose research demonstrates that some of the case studies in that area are not perhaps reliable?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the question. I wondered how long it would take for fish to come up, and it has come up very quickly. It is important to note the burden of regulation on the nuclear industry in this country is far greater than in any other country. It is more expensive to build things here and it takes longer. For example, the environmental impact assessment for Hinkley Point was 31,401 pages; for Sizewell C, it was 44,260 pages. I understand the point my noble friend is making about the fish. The task force is one that recognises clearly that environmental processes are important. It does not aim to dilute them, but to ensure that decisions are faster, more predictable and proportionate. I would of course be happy to meet my noble friend to discuss any concerns she has about the specifics.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, the task force estimates tens of billions of pounds of potential savings, especially in the area of decommissioning. If savings are made, will the Minister commit to reinvest those funds into a safe disposal facility for our most highly radioactive waste?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
As the noble Baroness will know, we have a very large nuclear waste store in this country. There are ongoing discussions about geological disposal facilities, which is a very key area. I will keep the House updated as we progress that.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Will the noble Lord bring some sense of urgency and drive to the development of small nuclear reactors? It has been over 12 years since the Select Committee in the other place on which I served recommended that the Government bring in a programme. The Minister is now talking about three months to look at a report and two years to implement it. It was barely 10 years after the explosion of the atomic bomb that this country built its first nuclear reactor for peaceful uses, and within 20 years we had more than the rest of the world put together. Please bring back some drive—this is not a party-political point—as it has been lacking in recent years. I look to the Minister to bring it to bear.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I am absolutely delighted that the Opposition Benches have a feeling of urgency about this, because we certainly have not had it for the past 13 years. We have urgency; we have announced that we will have small modular reactors, and they are going ahead. Work will start on them next year and they are not dependent on the read-out from this review, which is also urgently needed for the reasons stated: we have a far more complicated system of regulation than we need.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, I fear that the revisions to the nuclear regulatory framework have come too late. We have lost to other countries the projects to develop fourth generation nuclear reactors that were intending to conduct their criticality tests in the UK. Can the Minister envisage any way of bringing these projects back to the UK?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I think both the previous question and this question refer to something which is a big problem: we have neglected nuclear in this country for far too long and it is important that we get moving on it, both with small modular reactors and with advanced modular reactors. That is why there are plans for both of those now. EN-7, which was laid before the House as a strategic framework for this, lays out the need to be much more forward leaning on both of those and get them into this country as soon as we can.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, in September the US and UK signed a nuclear partnership worth £76 billion. Can the Minister tell the House what the impact on this partnership will be of a decision by the UK Government to turn down Westinghouse’s nuclear power plans for Wylfa? Did the Minister have a chance to see the remarks by the new outstanding US ambassador, His Excellency Warren Stephens the other day?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
A decision was made to get on with small modular reactors, and Wylfa is the site for that. That will start next year. At the same time, we have started a programme to look at other sites for gigawatt scale nuclear, which would include the Westinghouse programme. We will be working with Westinghouse and others as we look at potential sites around the country. That work started with urgency. We recognise that, in order to get the nuclear power that we need, we will probably need a mix of small modular reactors, advanced modular reactors and indeed more gigawatt reactors.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, in answer to my noble friend’s question, the Minister described a storage facility for high-level nuclear waste. He knows that this is not a sustainable solution to the long-term issue of disposal of nuclear materials. There has been a long-standing stymie on the future of storage of waste. Will the Minister confirm at least that the process of looking at this will be restarted? As he rightly points out, there has been sclerosis in decision-making, and we need to know where the nuclear journey ends as well as when it starts.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I could not agree more about the urgency. We have a very big task, both with disposal of existing stores and with getting new nuclear moving. I had a meeting just yesterday discussing the geological disposal facility, what the options are and what is required in order to progress that. There is a very big challenge in making sure that we get this right. It is not going to happen quickly. The storage problem is one that is going to take a very long time to get right.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for updating the House on what the Labour Government have done since they were elected. Does he know what was happening for the last 13 years under the previous Administration? They are good at criticising what we are doing but ignore the 13 years they were in power.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
As I have said, as a country we have been neglectful of nuclear for far too long. We had a leading position in the world, which we lost through inaction, and that has been the case for a very long time. I think now is the moment to make sure that we redress that. The small modular reactors and the Rolls Royce involvement present a domestic position to be able to have facilities not only in the UK but also for export. There has been a long period of neglect, and I think it is very important that we—and we will—treat this with great urgency now, because it is going to be a very important part of the energy mix going forward.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, it is sad that the Minister is trying to bring party politics into this. I live near nuclear power stations. From 1997 to 2010, Labour did not do a single thing about nuclear. From 2010, our coalition partners were not enthusiastic, but we got it going and we did things about the financing. It is really important that we try to think strategically. However, my question to the Minister is because I am concerned by one of the recommendations that, all of a sudden, it will be the Chancellor who will in effect try to encourage the regulators to consider what might be proportional. I am really worried about this, because the ONR was under the steerage of the Department for Work and Pensions, and not energy, deliberately to make sure that safety not only for workers but for local residents was paramount. Can the Minister give me an assurance that that safety focus will continue for local residents?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
On the noble Baroness’s first point, I have been clear that there has been a long-standing neglect of nuclear. That has been across multiple Governments, and we should recognise that. The strategic steer to regulators was issued by the Prime Minister yesterday, so that is clear. It is important that regulators understand the desire of government to see this moving.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“Definition of the criminal exploitation of children(1) The criminal exploitation of children is a form of child abuse in which a child under the age of 18 is used for purposes that constitute, enable or facilitate an offence under the law in England and Wales.(2) The victim may have been criminally exploited even if the activity appears consensual.(3) The criminal exploitation of children can occur online and through the use of technology.”
Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)
My Lords, this is the first amendment I have moved in your Lordships’ House and I hope I do it some justice because, in just one year, there were nine murders of young people associated with the pernicious drug trade colloquially known as county lines. As the MP for the constituency, I worked closely with the police service and colleagues across the other House to identify solutions to effectively close down the business model that used, abused and destroyed children and their families.
Much of what I hope to see to tackle this abomination has been delivered by this Government, and I am grateful. I very much welcome the new child criminal exploitation offence and the hefty jail sentences that this can carry. I am hopeful that, once these new charges are in effect and have been successfully levied against these child abusers, the very lucrative and cruelly efficient business model employed by the drug dealers will be less attractive and eventually made redundant due to the high penalties they face when caught.
County lines, as we know, is organised crime. It is adults grooming our children, mostly our young boys, and sending them off as cheap labour to deliver and sell drugs across the country. It is a cycle of grooming, abuse and exploitation that has become an industry. The children ensnared by these groomers live a terrifying existence. They witness depravity and violence almost day to day. They are disposable children, making big profits for the criminals who control and exploit them. I am absolutely delighted that the new offence will apply not only to groomers but to all individuals who arrange or facilitate a child committing a crime, ensuring that gang leaders who may plead ignorance of their subordinates’ practice do not evade the heavy sentences.
I am acutely aware that the children involved are, in the eyes of the criminal justice system, both victim and perpetrator. This was brought home to me by the experiences of a young man on the fringes of a gang, who was groomed by his neighbour, kidnapped by the gang and forced on a drugs run. He was terrified. He phoned his mum, crying and begging her to rescue him. When he was finally allowed home, they both went to the police to report his experiences. They waited for action against his abusers, but none came. However, on his 17th birthday, he was arrested for the crimes that he had, in effect, confessed to the police while reporting the actions of his abusers. It is obviously easy in this case to feel genuinely appalled by the actions of the criminal justice system and really angry about the ruined life chances of this young man, who had at that time been accepted into the Army.
I want to be clear that there are many other stories that are less easy for us to feel sympathy about—where the young person is both abused and the perpetrator, sometimes of heinous crimes. They are desensitised to the violence or fearful for their own safety, so that they cannot refuse an order from the elder. We need to create a system that can deal with the crimes while still recognising that the children were victims. This amendment is almost a mopping-up exercise, because we need a definition of child criminal exploitation in the Bill, to work in conjunction with the offence detailed in Clause 40.
I honestly do not understand why, over years, the Home Office has resisted this small but I believe necessary action. I gently point out that the Modern Slavery Act has a definition in it, so why is there such resistance to a definition here? I do not know whether it is okay for me to admit at this point that I am wedded not to the words but to the concept and spirit of my amendment, and I am hopeful that this exceptionally helpful Minister will take away my desire and wish and bring back something that will work, if he feels that my words are insufficient to the cause.
Although Clause 40 rightly introduces an offence to prosecute those who exploit children to commit criminal activity, it does not, as I have said, provide a statutory definition of what constitutes child criminal exploitation for safeguarding and identification purposes. A statutory definition would serve a fundamentally different purpose from the criminal offence. It would provide a clear and consistent framework for identifying and protecting children at risk and enabling front-line agencies to intervene early and prevent harm.
Evidence from the national child safeguarding review panel and Action for Children’s Jay review into the criminal exploitation of children shows that the lack of a definition contributes to significant inconsistencies in practice and persistent failures to identify children as victims. There is often a postcode lottery, shaped by variable interpretations and thresholds across agencies and jurisdictions. Although I am grateful that the Government have committed to putting a definition in the guidance, I do not think this will go far enough because, frankly, the guidance may not be adopted by all the agencies that work with victims of this form of child abuse.
A statutory definition in the Bill would establish a shared understanding across all services, ensuring that children receive support regardless of where they live. It would, I hope, enhance multi-agency working, helping to build a national picture of exploitation and improve data collection and reporting. Importantly, it would support early intervention and prevention by providing a clear legal basis for services to respond to signs of exploitation before criminal harm escalates.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I declare several interests. I am a co-chair of the All-Party Group on Modern Slavery and vice-chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Brown. She has done a brilliant first amendment and I am delighted to support her. I played a very small part in the Modern Slavery Act: I was involved in the pre-legislative scrutiny and an earlier report that persuaded the then Home Secretary, now the noble Baroness, Lady May, to put the Bill in place.
Exploitation of children is in the Modern Slavery Act, but it is rather masked and has not been taken seriously, particularly by the police. Perhaps more importantly—this is one thing that the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, did not say—under the Act, a child who is exploited cannot consent to exploitation and cannot commit an offence. That is absolutely crucial, and it probably ought to be expressed again in primary legislation.
I enormously admire a great deal of what this Government are trying to do. I went on behalf of Action for Children to a very useful meeting with Diana Johnson and Jess Phillips, where I got the impression that they were going to move forward on this. But what is offered in this Bill does not really meet the need. To put into guidance what was put in primary legislation 10 years ago seems to make it less important. I ask the Minister to reflect on why you would want to put into guidance something that was expressed, not as well, in primary legislation 10 years ago.
The time has come to deal with county lines. A great deal of work has been done by the National Crime Agency. At long last, at least some magistrates’ courts realise that children who are ferrying drugs around the country—and cash, nowadays, as well as drink and various other things—are in fact victims and not perpetrators. But it is not fully known. The police do not seem to understand it. We need to explain, through primary legislation, to whoever is now in charge of modern slavery in the police that we are talking about child exploitation, of which modern slavery is a component. There is no doubt that these children are enslaved, but I suspect that, in this country, the word “exploitation” is rather easier to understand—and it is time it was there.
This amendment is brilliant. It could perhaps be improved in certain ways, but it asks the Government to do something really practical which, when I went to that very useful meeting, I got the impression they were going to do.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Brown of Silvertown, but she may not need much support, having received the much-coveted gold star from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who, I am very proud to say, supports a later amendment of mine on raising the age of criminal responsibility—which, I am ashamed to say, is barbarically only 10 in England and Wales. The UN recommends that it be 14. In Scotland it is 12 and the heavens do not seem to have fallen.
I have a couple of specific points to make in support of my noble friend’s amendment. If I may, I will be as bold as to predict what my noble friend the Minister and his advisers might be about to say in response. If they are about to say that my noble friend’s definition is unnecessary because the definition can be taken from the offence itself in Clause 40, I would like to get in first with two points to counter that. If I am pessimistic and wrong, so be it. Noble Lords know that I do not mind looking a fool.
The first point, which has already been made clearly by my noble friend Lady Brown, is that we need a definition that is about not just a specific criminal offence but interagency working and interventions across services, well in advance of any investigation or prosecution for a criminal offence.
I do not think the second point has been made yet. If the Committee compares the elements of my noble friend’s definition with the definition of the criminal offence in the Bill, it will see that the Government’s approach misses something very important that is to be found in my noble friend’s definition: enabling the child, not just causing the child, to engage in criminal conduct. That addition is important because “causing” is a harder thing to prove and a greater step in grooming. Currently, the Government’s definition is
“causing the child to commit an offence”,
or, indeed, “facilitating” somebody else to cause the child to commit the offence.
To prove causation in law is a serious matter. Enabling—making it easy, making the tools of the trade available, providing the opportunity—is a lower threshold, which is appropriate in the context of children. My noble friend made the point that currently in law they are treated as victims but also as perpetrators, and sometimes it is a matter of luck as to whether you will find the adult and the public service who will take the proper approach, in my view, of always treating the child as a child and as a victim, and not criminalising them. This is the point about “enabling”.
My noble friend the Minister is very experienced in these matters. Whatever he comes back with, I would like him and his advisers to consider the question of the lower threshold of enabling, not just causing. If there is to be a further compromise that includes some element of my noble friend Lady Brown’s amendment, I hope that that is taken on board.
The most formative time in my professional life was as a Home Office lawyer. I know what it is like to work on big Bills and to defend them as originally crafted and drafted. But it is wise, especially in this House, to take good advice and to bend a little when it might improve legislation for the benefit of victims.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, first, I absolutely congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Silvertown, on her excellently motivated amendment. It is very thought provoking. In particular, this sentence caught my attention:
“The victim may have been criminally exploited even if the activity appears consensual”.
That is one of the most difficult challenges. For some years I have been involved in the grooming gangs scandal, and one of the most horrible parts of that was when the police took the decision that the young 14 or 15 year-old, precocious though she—a general “she”—may have been, was somehow actively consenting to her own rape or sexual exploitation. It was about the notion of this being a child, because the young girl may have looked more adult—it was literally as superficial as that—and about the type, if we are honest, in class terms. Therefore, it was said that she could not be a victim and she was accused of being a prostitute, and so on. We are familiar with that. That is the reason why that sentence stood out to me.
However, I have some qualms, and I want to ask genuinely what we do about those qualms, because I do not know where to go. I am slightly worried, because county lines gangs, as the noble Baroness will know, are a young men’s game. Some of the gang leaders are younger than one would ever want to imagine in your worst nightmare. That is a problem with this, in a way, and with how you work it out. If you have a general rule that this is always a child, how do you deal with the culpability and responsibility of a 17 year-old thug, not to put too fine a point on it, who is exploiting younger people or even his—and it is generally “his”—peers? I am not sure how to square that with what I have just said. It also seems that there is a major clash with the age of criminal responsibility. I am very sympathetic with that not being 10, but how do you deal with the belief that someone aged under 18 is a child, yet we say that a child has criminal responsibility? Perhaps I am just misunderstanding something.
My final reservation is that if we say that everybody under 18 has to be a victim all the time, would that be a legal loophole that would get people off when there was some guilt for them to be held to account for? I generally support this amendment, but I want some clarification on how to muddle my way through those moral thickets, if possible.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Baroness on how she moved the amendment. It is very nice to see a Government Back-Bencher introducing an amendment and taking part; I wish we had slightly more of it.
To bring one back to Professor Jay’s review of child criminal exploitation, she made several important recommendations, of which the first and arguably most important is at the heart of what we are talking about at the moment. She called for a single, cohesive legal code for children exploited into criminal activity, and detailed what that needed to contain. The noble Baroness’s amendment goes to the heart of that matter. Having well-meaning explanations put into advice or regulation is not enough. There needs not only to be a common understanding across all government departments and agencies involved in dealing with these children and gangs; it needs to be completely clear for the police in particular, who are clearly looking into the criminal activity, exactly what it is and what it is not.
With the next amendment, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, and I shall speak, we will talk about ways in which a child who is both a victim and perpetrator can be defended—but we will discuss that in the next group. As for this group, I think that I probably speak for all noble Lords who are concerned about this issue in saying that absolute clarity about the definition, so there is no argument about it whatever, would be a giant step forward. The best-meaning attempts to deal with child criminal exploitation over the past decade have been hindered severely by the lack of consistency.
I ask the Government to listen very carefully to what the noble Baroness has asked for. She has said clearly that her wording may not be perfect—I think that in many Bills the wording is not necessarily perfect, even in the final Act—but we have a chance to get this right. I look forward to what the Minister says in response.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I fully endorse the important points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown. I had great pleasure in working with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, on the Modern Slavery Bill. I am totally in awe of her experience and her willingness to share that experience, which, as a new Peer, was absolutely wonderful for me—although I could certainly do with it now as well.
The government amendments in this group provide more welcome detail on the definition and operation of child criminal exploitation prevention orders and include provisions necessary to cover the whole of the UK, not just England and Wales. As with other government amendments during the passage of the Bill, we welcome the expansion of detail in the Bill. Could the Minister confirm that each of the three devolved states has approved the relevant amendments in this group? It would be very good to hear that this has already been done. I do not disagree with anything that anyone has said so far—it has been an excellent and very clear unification of the views of everyone here.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Silvertown, for introducing this large group of amendments. As noble Lords will appreciate, many of the amendments before us today concern matters of clarification or technical improvement to ensure consistency across the Bill and the amendments tabled so far.
We on these Benches are broadly supportive of these changes, particularly when they strengthen child safeguarding protections and improve clarity, which we hope will eventually result in more seamless practical implementation. In this regard, we welcome amendments extending the scope of child criminal exploitation prevention orders to Scotland and Northern Ireland, and those clarifying procedural matters, such as the form of notification requirements when oral notification may not be practicable. These are sensible adjustments that contribute to ensuring that the Bill operates coherently across the four nations and in real-world enforcement scenarios.
I briefly draw attention to Amendment 235ZA in my name, which would remove Clause 43(3)(a). That subsection currently requires that, when a court makes a criminal exploitation prevention order, the terms of the order must avoid
“conflict with any religious beliefs of the defendant”.
Although religious beliefs are, of course, an important individual right, the purpose of these orders is to protect children from very serious criminal harm. It is, therefore, my view that safeguarding and public protection must take precedence over all other concerns and that no such exemption should hinder appropriate and proportionate restrictions when a court considers them necessary. I hope the Government consider the matter carefully and take the recommendation on board.
Finally, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for bringing forward Amendment 235A, which would give the courts an explicit ability to impose a prevention order to protect a child from being threatened, intimidated or coerced into criminal exploitation. The intention behind the amendment—to intervene earlier and more effectively to safeguard children at risk—is one that I hope all sides of the Committee can support. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response and clarification of how the Bill will ensure that those protections are fully delivered. These are complex issues, but our shared objective is simple: to ensure that vulnerable children are protected and that those who exploit them face firm consequences. I hope the Government will reflect carefully on the points that have been raised here today.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, if the Committee will allow me, I will begin by detailing the government amendments in this group. We know that criminal gangs conducting activity such as county lines drug dealing do not stop at internal UK borders, and children are criminally exploited across the UK. To go to the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, mentioned, this is why—at the request of the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Department of Justice—we are making provision in the Bill for child criminal exploitation prevention orders in Scotland and Northern Ireland. That is at their request, and I hope that also answers the point from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. Since the Bill covers England and Wales, this means that the offence of child criminal exploitation will now apply UK-wide. These amendments have been tabled because, since the Bill was published, we have had those discussions and this is a way of making sure that we have a UK-wide approach.
These orders will give the police and courts across the whole of the United Kingdom powers to prevent child criminal exploitation happening in the first place, or happening again, by putting prohibitions and requirements on an adult who poses a risk of criminally exploiting a child. As I have mentioned, these provisions have been drafted in collaboration with the Scottish and Northern Ireland Governments and consequential amendments are therefore required for England and Wales to ensure that the orders function smoothly across the United Kingdom.
Finally, we have tabled some other amendments to put beyond doubt that assessment of whether an individual has engaged in child criminal exploitation, or associated conduct, in an application for, or imposition of, a child criminal exploitation prevention order is to be determined by the court on the basis of the civil standard of proof; that is, the balance of probabilities. This is appropriate given that there are civil rather than criminal proceedings in this case. The application of the civil standard of proof is well precedented in many similar preventive orders across the statute book and is important to ensure that an order can intervene earlier in the course of a child’s exploitation so that it can be prevented. I hope that I have wide support across the Committee for those measures—I think I do.
Amendment 232B is in the name of my noble friend Lady Brown of Silvertown. I welcome her moving her first amendment in such a positive way. She has secured the support of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Earl, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, which is a fairly impressive bunch on a first amendment, so I say well done to her on that. Her amendment seeks to create a further definition of child criminal exploitation.
I say to my noble friend—and I think that this was anticipated by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti—that “child criminal exploitation” is already defined in Clause 40 by the description of conduct amounting to an offence. It is where an adult
“engages in conduct towards or in respect of a child, with the intention of … causing the child to”
engage in criminality. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, raised a number of issues for which I am not accountable, but which my noble friend may wish to respond to. That is the Government’s view on the purpose of Clause 40. Clause 40 captures activity online, through the use of technology and whether or not it is seemingly consensual. This definition also operates for the purposes of the child criminal exploitation prevention orders.
My noble friend has made a very strong case, through personal experience as a constituency MP in east London for almost 20 years, on the impact of county lines gangs on young people. I fully accept, understand and appreciate where she is coming from on those issues. That is why the Government introduced Clause 40 in the first place. It is also why the Government are introducing a bespoke stand-alone offence of CCE, along with the CCE prevention orders, to signal unequivocally that using a child to commit crime is against the law and that those children are victims of a crime. I also agree that any apparent consent of the child to involvement is irrelevant to whether they have been criminally exploited, and that criminal exploitation can occur online and through the use of technology. I understand my noble friend’s amendment, but these points are captured by the definition of CCE in Clause 40, which does not include a child’s consent and captures adults’ conduct by means of any method or control.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Obviously, I correctly anticipated the response that was coming, but I would be grateful if my noble friend would deal with this point about “enabling”, which is a substantive point of difference in the two definitions. Enabling is easier to prove than causing. “Causing” is closer to a child being used, which is reflected in my noble friend Lady Brown’s definition, but I do not think that “enabling” is in the Clause 40 definition as it stands.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I appreciate my noble friend’s comments. If she will bear with me, I will come on to that point in a moment. I am doing this in a structured order to try to address the points that are before the Committee today.
I say to my noble friend Lady Brown that, within the Bill, we are also taking the power to issue statutory guidance to chief officers. The noble Earl, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and my noble friend have looked at that, and I will return to it in a moment. The guidance will include a descriptive definition of CCE, setting out in lay person’s terms the conduct captured by the offence, and will provide practical guidance on how the CCE offence and orders should be applied.
An important point, to go particularly to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell of Liverpool, said, is that in Clause 60—which we will come to in later considerations—the Secretary of State has power to issue statutory guidance to chief officers of police about the exercise of their functions in connection with the prevention, detection and investigation of CCE offences and CCE prevention orders. I hope that the Committee will recognise that, importantly, the relevant police officers will be under a legal duty to have due regard to that statutory guidance when exercising functions in relation to the CCE offences and the CCE prevention orders. On the question of the statutory guidance, which my noble friend and others have touched on, the guidance has not been issued yet because the relevant legislation has not yet received the consent of this House or indeed Royal Assent. On the applicability of both of those conditions, statutory guidance under Clause 60 will be issued, which will place a legal duty on police officers to adhere to it.
My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti mentioned a very important point. There is a clear difference in what my noble friend Lady Brown of Silvertown has put forward, supported by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. I hope this helps: the forms of conduct that are likely to enable a child to commit criminality are expected in most cases to also meet the test of conduct by an adult intended to cause, or facilitate the causing of, a child to commit a future crime. The nature of the offence, which is broad and large, will ensure that it captures offenders who will use children for crime. I believe that that is the right format. Both my noble friends have said that “enable” is a critical word. I believe that a separate definition is unnecessary, as it would have no legal impact over and above what is already in the Bill. It could cause confusion among police and prosecutors about which definition they should be applying.
The statutory guidance, which I emphasise will gave a legal bass and will be issued under Clause 60, is the appropriate place to provide the extra detail to understand proposals that are covered by the amendment, but which are already in scope of the clear and simple legal terms of Clause 40. I know that that is the defence that my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti expected me to use, but it is the defence: Clause 40 is what it is, and the guidance will also be statutory.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
While statutory guidance is welcome, this particular case has similarities to other areas of the criminal law where the motivations and behaviours are complex, such as stalking and various areas of domestic abuse. In every case where regulation has been put in such a way that it becomes statutory, unless that goes hand in hand with appropriate and quite intensive training, you can have as many regulations as you like, as legally watertight as you like, but if the officials who are charged with implementing it do not understand the complexity that they are dealing with and cannot define and understand exactly how to apply the regulations, you are going to have confusion. We have a lot of history of that not happening. Good intentions are one thing; what actually happens when you put it out there and expect that everybody will understand and comply with it is another, and that is a concern that a lot of us have.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is a valid point. I have considered with officials how we ensure enforcement of the guidance. I simply put it to the noble Earl—and we can debate this outside the Bill—that the statutory guidance is issued to chief constables of police forces under Clause 60 and they have a legal duty to ensure that statutory guidance is implemented, and officers have a legal duty to support and interpret that at a local level when they are faced with incidents of child exploitation as defined by the Bill. That requires a whole shift of culture and of training—I understand that. I will take from this comment and from the Committee generally that my colleagues in the Home Office need to look not just at the guidance but at its implementation. Ultimately, it has a statutory footing, and that is the key point for the Committee.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
Will the Minister take on board the fact that countless inspections of police training, including by HMICFRS, have said that there has not been an independent assessment of police training since 2018, despite the fact that so many of the policing bodies themselves have asked for it? Taking the point, will he now say that there will be an independent assessment, so that police training can be much more appropriate and police will know exactly what they are supposed to be doing when we sit in this House and make legislation?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will sound like I am repeating myself from Question Time, but, very shortly, we anticipate bringing forward a policing White Paper looking at a whole range of mechanisms to improve police performance. If the noble Baroness will allow me, I will wait for further detail on the policing White Paper, which I have already said to the House will be published before Christmas, to allow for further discussion on a range of efficiency and improvement matters for policing. The point she makes is worthy of consideration, but I will park it until a later date in the parliamentary calendar.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his detailed response, but will he reflect on the potential distinction between “enabling” and “causing”? Will he go back to parliamentary counsel and be clear that enablers will always meet this threshold of causation? I am really concerned about that. I understand that my noble friend has rejected the idea of a separate free-standing definition and is worried about confusion between the offence definition and a general definition, but in blending the intentions of the Government and those of my noble friend Lady Brown, it would be helpful to know that that language of “causing”, without specific mention of enabling, is watertight.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for further pressing me on the issue. I have tried to explain to the Committee where the Government are on this. We always reflect on debates in Committee, because there are always opportunities for my noble friend and others to bring matters back on Report. I am giving the Committee today the Government’s view that the definition in Clause 40, plus the guidance issued under Clause 60, will be sufficient to cover the objective of ensuring that we have this offence on the statute book and monitored and enforced by authorities.
To the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, I have just remembered that we will have further discussions on police training in later groups in Committee today, but the White Paper will deal with a whole range of matters on improving police performance.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
If the Minister can bear one more intervention, would he be good enough to take back the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Brown? I cannot quite understand why that amendment is not listed nearer to Clause 40, because it would have been helpful to look at the two together, as has not been done to any great extent. I say politely to the Minister that I prefer the noble Baroness’s interpretation of exploitation.
The other point I want to make is that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is absolutely right—it is a point I have not made, but I am well aware of it—that at the age of 18, people who may have been victims become perpetrators. Some of them become perpetrators because they have no choice, but others—the young thugs she spoke about—are genuine perpetrators. Therefore, to specify the age of 18 in Clause 40 may be misleading.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the further pressure on this issue from the Cross Benches. My job is to set out to the Committee the Government’s view on these amendments, which I am trying to do. The measures in Clause 40 and the guidance in Clause 60 are sufficient to meet the objectives of my noble friend and, at the same time, to ensure—let us not forget this—that this offence goes on to the statute book for the first time. It will have a big impact on county line gangs and on defining further criminal child exploitation. I have put the Government’s view; we will obviously reflect on what my noble friend has said and I am happy to meet her, with other colleagues, outside the Committee to discuss that explanation further. I recognise the great motivation my noble friend had in bringing this to the Committee. I hope she will reflect on what I have said and withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)
I believe I get another chance to speak. I am grateful to all contributors to my amendment today. I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that I tried, but obviously not impactfully enough, to talk about the complexities involved and the differences between an abused child and a perpetrator, and how difficult it is for the criminal courts—and all of us—to understand the distinction.
I say gently to my noble friend the Minister that given that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Doocey, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—if I might pray her in aid—are all pressing on this issue, it would be a good idea for the Government to reflect properly on it.
I knew that the argument was going to be that my amendment is unnecessary. With 20 years’ experience in Parliament, I know that there have been many unnecessary clauses in Bills, and indeed that some Bills have become Acts that some people believe are unnecessary. I cheekily ask what harm it could do. It would be fabulous if my noble friend the Minister could humour us and bung it in. I genuinely believe that this is an important part of the protection of our children in the future. In hope, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment spells out, on the face of the Bill, that “satisfied” here means satisfied on the balance of probabilities
(ii) doing anything in Scotland or Northern Ireland that would constitute an offence under section 40 (as it has effect in England and Wales) if done in England and Wales;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment expands the meaning of “engaging in child criminal exploitation” in the provisions about child criminal exploitation prevention orders in England and Wales, to encompass anything done anywhere in the UK that would be an offence under clause 40 if done in England and Wales.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment changes the meaning of “engaging in conduct associated with child criminal exploitation”, in the provisions about child criminal exploitation prevention orders in England and Wales, to encompass conduct anywhere in the UK.
Lord Hanson of Flint
(a) by attending at an appropriate police station and”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is related to my first amendment to clause 48, page 65, line 29.
(b) in a way specified in the CCE prevention order.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows for notifications to be made in a way specified in the CCE prevention order. This is likely to be used to provide for notifications other than in person when the defendant lives outside England and Wales in cases where in person notification is considered unreasonable.
“(5A) An “appropriate police station” is a police station in the police area in which—(a) the defendant’s home address is situated, or(b) the court which made the order is situated.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is related to my first amendment to clause 48, page 65, line 29.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my other amendment to this clause, changes the meaning of “home address” so that the home address of the subject of a CCE prevention order made in England and Wales may be anywhere in the UK.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my other amendment to this clause, changes the meaning of “home address” so that the home address of the subject of a CCE prevention order made in England and Wales may be anywhere in the UK.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendment inserting a new subsection (1A) into clause 51, makes the offence in this clause cover breaches of CCE prevention orders made in Scotland or Northern Ireland as well as England and Wales.
“(1A) The orders are—(a) a CCE prevention order; (b) a CCE prevention order under Schedule (CCE prevention orders: Scotland) (CCE prevention orders in Scotland);(c) a CCE prevention order under Schedule (CCE prevention orders: Northern Ireland) (CCE prevention orders in Northern Ireland).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendment to clause 51(1), makes the offence in this clause cover breaches of CCE prevention orders made in Scotland or Northern Ireland as well as England and Wales.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my other amendments to clause 51.
“(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (1A) so as to add to or remove from the list of orders any relevant UK order.(7) “Relevant UK order” means an order under the law of Scotland or Northern Ireland which appears to the Secretary of State to be equivalent or similar to a CCE prevention order.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Secretary of State power to amend the list of orders made by courts in Northern Ireland or Scotland, breach of which constitutes an offence.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments to clause 51.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“CCE prevention orders: Scotland and Northern Ireland
Child criminal exploitation prevention orders: Scotland and Northern Ireland(1) Schedule (CCE prevention orders: Scotland) makes provision about child criminal exploitation prevention orders for Scotland. (2) Schedule (CCE prevention orders: Northern Ireland) makes provision about child criminal exploitation prevention orders for Northern Ireland.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds a new clause which introduces Schedules with provision about child criminal exploitation prevention orders for Scotland and Northern Ireland.
“Criminal exploitation protection order (CEPO)(1) A criminal exploitation protection order (“CEPO”) is an order which protects a child who meets the condition in subsection (2) from further harm by—(a) prohibiting the child from doing anything described in the order, and(b) requiring the child to do anything described in the order.(2) The condition is that the child has been threatened, forced, intimidated or persuaded to commit criminal acts or actions that support or facilitate criminal activity.(3) A court may include a prohibition or requirement only if it considers it necessary for the purpose of protecting the child from criminal exploitation.(4) Prohibitions and requirements must, so far as practicable, be such as to avoid—(a) any conflict with any religious beliefs of the child;(b) any interference with the times, if any, at which the child normally attends any educational establishment;(c) any conflict with the prohibitions and requirements of any other court order or injunction to which the child is subject.(5) A prohibition or requirement applies throughout the United Kingdom unless expressly limited to a particular area.(6) A CEPO must—(a) specify the period for which it has effect, or(b) state that it has effect until a further order.(7) A CEPO may specify periods for which particular prohibitions or requirements have effect.(8) Where a court makes a CEPO in respect of a child who is already subject to such an CEPO, the earlier CEPO ceases to have effect.(9) The Secretary of State may by regulation made by statutory instrument make provision for the—(a) procedure for making,(b) notification requirements for,(c) variation, discharge and appeal of, and(d) imposition of measures in response to a child breachinga CEPO.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to create a new “criminal exploitation protection order” (CEPO) to protect children who have been subject to criminal exploitation from further harm. It seeks to protect children from committing criminal acts or being drawn into activity to support or facilitate criminal activity due to criminal exploitation. The order could be complementary to a prevention order (see Chapter 1 of the Bill) that would apply to their adult exploiters.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, we have already demonstrated today just how complex this issue is. We began talking about it on the last day in Committee and, as I said last week, it affects children and young people in ways we never imagined; nor did we imagine years ago that this would become almost normal for some communities and in some areas. I wish it was simple and easy to say, “They are the victims and they are the perpetrators”. It is not as easy as that. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Brown on her amendment. We know that when some children and young people have tried to say, “We’re in trouble—can we get help?”, the response from the agencies has largely been, “You’ve committed an offence and we have to make you accountable for that”. I understand that, but in this amendment I am seeking to make another approach possible.
I thank Action for Children and declare my interest as an ambassador for it. I have been involved with Action for Children for virtually my whole life; it used to be a Methodist organisation, the National Children’s Home. I was involved for about 12 years in governance terms, but have always been involved with it. It works around the country, although I know more of its work in the north-east, and this has been an issue for it in Scotland, Wales and the rest of the country, wherever it has been working.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for having given my Amendment 235A a positive acclamation. However, I did not move it because it struck me that the amendment we are now debating is actually better than the one I tabled. Therefore, there seemed no point in having a double debate. I listened very carefully to the excellent exposition of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Silvertown, which is really important.
I came to this having looked after three children’s homes when I was a GP. I became suspicious that there was something funny going on in one of them but could never put a finger on it or get social services to recognise it. However, I am sure there was, because one Christmas the children in that home set fire to it and burnt it down—but I really do not know what was happening, and I never found out.
It is terrifying the layers with which children can be enticed, encouraged and supported into criminal activity and then become quite expert at it. They are terribly intimidated and frightened for their lives. The intimidation may not be overt but covert. They have threats made against them, their families, for their lives, or of mutilation. They get beaten up and all kinds of terrible things happen. That locks them further into a world of criminality.
It therefore seemed that this would be the third side of the triangle, if you like. We talk about prosecuting the exploiter, and we talk about prosecuting the child for whatever crimes they have committed. Let us be honest: these are sometimes very difficult children. They are severely emotionally damaged, very difficult to get close to, and will not disclose to people in authority what is really happening to them, because they are so terrified. Therefore, they may be unwilling to disclose information to the police. Then, we have this gap which still leaves them liable and open to exploitation.
It was with that thought that this amendment, this concept, came forward, to try to close that gap a little bit. I hope when the Minister sums up—and perhaps criticises this clause, because I anticipate we might be told it is not necessary—that he explains what harm such an order would do. I cannot see how it would make anything worse, but it may certainly make things better, and that was the sentiment behind the support of the Opposition Front Bench for this concept.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, when I first saw this new clause, I did not pay too much attention, but having looked at it in more detail, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, since I think they are on to something here. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, has confirmed that. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, who has a long track record of fighting for the rights of children, from trying to save the children’s playground in Victoria Tower Gardens from the Holocaust Memorial Bill to his track record of tabling amendments to this Bill and others.
Researching the Casey review recently with regard to my amendments on grooming gangs prompted me to look at this again. Then, I realised that a CEPO would be valid in dealing with some of the problems caused by those grooming gangs. The criminal exploitation of children is a real, growing concern across the UK, with increasing numbers of young people being coerced, manipulated or forced into criminal activity by adults or older peers.
As the Committee knows, these vulnerable children suffer significant harm, both physically and psychologically, and often find themselves trapped in cycles of offending, unable to escape the influence of exploiters. In response to this issue, the concept of a criminal exploitation protection order is possibly a very sensible idea to offer targeted legal protection for children who have been victims of criminal exploitation.
Existing legal frameworks, while robust in certain areas, do not sufficiently address the unique vulnerabilities of children subject to criminal exploitation. Traditional criminal justice responses may inadvertently criminalise victims—as we have seen all too frequently with the grooming gangs cases—or fail to disrupt the exploitative relationships at the heart of their offending.
A CEPO could fill this gap by prioritising the welfare and protection of exploited children, recognising them as victims rather than solely perpetrators. The order would empower authorities to intervene proactively, preventing further harm and breaking the cycle of exploitation.
The details are not in the Bill, and the regulations will set out the details, but I would expect and hope that the regulations may do the following. On prohibitions, the CEPO could prohibit children from engaging in specified activities that are linked to their exploitation, such as associating with certain individuals, visiting particular locations or possessing items used in criminal activity.
On the positive requirements for the children, the order may require them to take positive steps such as attending counselling, engaging with support services or participating in educational programmes designed to build resilience and reduce vulnerability. Those are just a few examples, but I hope that the regulations would detail a whole range of things that children could be stopped from doing and encourage them to do good things.
Importantly, this is a holistic approach: by combining restrictions on the one hand and supportive measures on the other, the CEPO could address both the immediate risks and underlying factors that contribute to continued exploitation. CEPOs could prevent further harm, as the order would be seen as a protective barrier, reducing the likelihood of children being drawn back into criminal activity and shielding them from exploiters.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I was very happy to add my name, alongside that of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, to this amendment. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who indicated that he wanted to speak before me. He has done sterling service by saying a great deal of what I was going to say, so I will not bore your Lordships with that.
I have one or two confessions. On Methodism, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, that I come from several generations of Methodist ministers—the Reverends MacDonald—one of whom was one of John Wesley’s original disciples. At some point, my family slightly lost the plot and became lapsed Anglicans, like I suspect a lot of your Lordships.
If the Minister is kind enough to mention me again in his response, in promoting me to an Earl, he is doing a disservice to the direct descendant of Lord John Russell, an ex-Prime Minister. I call in evidence a letter that my grandfather and the grandfather of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, wrote to the editor of the Times in 1961, saying: “Dear Sir, we would like to point out that neither of us is the other. Yours, Russell, Russell of Liverpool”. I had to say the same thing to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, when she also inadvertently promoted me.
I again point out that this proposed new clause has the absolute support of Professor Jay, who has looked into this issue in more detail than any of the rest of us. I am a great believer that, when trying to argue the case for something, we should not talk about it in abstract or general terms but try to personalise it by talking about a real-life case which perhaps indicates the virtue of having an order such as this. Therefore, I will give a real-life example from the work done by Action for Children.
There is a 16 year-old young man with ADHD who is experiencing significant criminal exploitation, including daily cannabis use, coercion through drug debt and regular threats of violence. His engagement with support services, unsurprisingly, is somewhat inconsistent and is often influenced by the level of control and threats of violence exerted by the exploiters. The police have already made him subject to a youth referral order for drug and weapon offences, but law enforcement has deprioritised his case due to a perceived lack of co-operation. In the circumstances the young man finds himself in, a lack of co-operation with law enforcement is perhaps somewhat understandable. Recent incidents that have occurred to this young man include a violent attack on his home by individuals linked to his exploitation. One of his perpetrators is housed in the same residential block of flats as him, which must be somewhat unpleasant. The young person remains fearful for his and his mother’s safety, but he is unwilling to disclose information, which currently limits statutory intervention options.
If we had this order, it would enable the authorities to protect that young man and his mother by stopping him from contacting certain people. Following what the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, it would mandate him turning up to appointments with support services. It would restrict and monitor his movements to create a distance from the exploiters. In the case of serious threat of harm, or in an instance where a perpetrator is living almost next door, it would also give the authorities the ability to provide alternative accommodation to protect that young person and his family.
For all those reasons, I wish and hope that the Minister and his department will look at this very carefully. A relatively small percentage of child victims and perpetrators may be involved, but to protect them in the way we have described would be effective, proportionate and worth while.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I chair a commission on forced marriage. One of the most useful things that the Labour Government did in 2007 was create a forced marriage protection order. That was intended to deal with the perpetrators rather than the victims. However, having listened to the speeches so far, I realised that I had not thought of protection orders being for the victim rather than to prevent the victim being dealt with.
It is an admirable scheme. I was much touched by the story that the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, gave to us. One thing that would make it most useful is to deal with parents. My experience is not so much in this area, but when I was a family judge, one of the problems, particularly in care cases, was the inability of the parents to manage their children. Very often, the children were very well meaning, but they absolutely would not do what their parents said. Is anybody who is a parent surprised? As a grandparent, I am even less surprised by the fact that children, if they are told to do something by a parent, will not do it—just out of bloody-mindedness, apart from anything else.
This would offer a genuine ability to look after a child who is being exploited and is extremely vulnerable, but whose parents, trying as hard as they can, cannot manage him or her. This would give them the power, apart from the authorities, to do something useful—and useful not just for the child but for the state.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, we welcome this amendment, which would provide a valuable additional tool to protect children who are criminally exploited while at the same time committing criminal acts that victimise others. The amendment seeks to address these behaviours proportionately, managing the child’s risk to others without inflicting the potentially life-changing damage of having a criminal label attached, while ensuring the child is protected from further exploitation.
A criminal exploitation protection order would be an important step towards providing an end-to-end response for children in this situation. Unlike a youth rehabilitation order, it would directly target behaviours linked to child criminal exploitation, addressing the unique power imbalances and coercion involved in those often-complex situations. I urge the Government to look closely at the proposed order, which would be an extremely worthwhile addition to the Bill and which has the full support of these Benches.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, for bringing forward this important amendment. It speaks to an issue that has been much discussed during the Bill’s passage: the urgent need to protect children who are coerced or manipulated into criminal activity by those who exploit them for profit and control.
Amendment 247 proposes a new clause to establish a criminal exploitation protection order. This would be aimed directly at safeguarding children who have already been subjected to criminal exploitation, preventing further harm. As the noble Baroness has eloquently explained, these children deserve support and a clear pathway out of exploitation. Undoubtedly, there is merit in exploring whether a new bespoke order focused on the safety and welfare of the exploited child could complement the existing prevention orders in the Bill which target the adult perpetrators. We recognise the intention behind ensuring that prohibitions and requirements are carefully balanced so as not to interfere unnecessarily with education, family life or existing legal orders. From these Benches, we are sympathetic to the objectives of the amendment.
We recognise that introducing new regimes raises practical considerations that must be considered. I therefore look forward to hearing the Government’s response and to further discussion as the Bill progresses. Protecting children from exploitation must be central to this legislation. I thank the noble Baroness for her continued leadership on this issue.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Armstrong for Amendment 247. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for their support for the amendment, and for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I am sorry to have elevated the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool—obviously, I was transfixed by the “Liverpool” part of his title. I appreciate his gentle chiding of me for that rookie error, which I still occasionally make after 15 months in this place. I apologise for that.
I hope I can reassure the Committee that the Government are committed to tackling the criminal exploitation of children and to supporting children who are victims of criminal exploitation. There are a number of comprehensive provisions in the Bill. In early December, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is meeting the Policing Minister in the Home Office to discuss these issues. I am grateful for her expertise and for the discussions that my noble friend Lady Armstrong has had with Action for Children and colleagues outside of the House.
I fully understand and agree with the desire to safeguard children from the horrific consequences of criminal exploitation. That is why the Government are delivering on the manifesto commitment to bring forward this order, under the clauses that we have discussed, and go after the gangs that are luring young people into violence and crime. Additionally, as the Committee will know, through Clauses 42 to 55 and Schedule 5 to the Bill, the Government’s criminal exploitation prevention orders will place prohibitions and requirements on adults who pose a risk of exploiting children into criminality.
This brings me to the central point of the amendment before us. The Government have considered the position but feel that the most effective way to manage the behaviour of those who have criminally exploited children, or who are at risk of doing so, and to protect children from being criminally exploited are the measures in the Bill. We should be restricting the conduct of the adult perpetrator rather than of the child victim.
I simply say to my noble friend—this is an important point—that for legislation to be effective, there needs to be a consequence for non-compliance. If the measure that she has brought forward was put into legislation, we would be focusing on the child victim and their behaviour. In the event of non-compliance, unless there is a consequence to that—and I am not quite sure what that consequence would be—the proposal would have no legal effect. If a child breaches the prohibition or requirements in an order, the first response could be a further narrowing of the prohibitions or requirements, or varying them. Ultimately, a breach of the order would require a consequence, and I am not sure that we have considered that matter in full.
The Government believe that the measures we are introducing in the Bill will create greater awareness of child criminal exploitation and increase identification of victims, and will ensure that we assist victims in receiving appropriate support. When victims are identified, practitioners will be encouraged to recognise vulnerability, first and foremost, and, I hope, to clearly signal that the children who are used by adults to commit crime are victims of abuse.
I hear what noble Lords have said. Everybody who has spoken has broadly supported the direction of travel. We want to draw on that wealth of experience and insight, which is why my colleagues, the Policing Minister and the Safeguarding Minister in the Home Office, are hosting a round table with experts before Christmas to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and look at how we can better support children who are victims of crime and potentially perpetrators of crime.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
It seems fairly obvious to me that if the order were breached by the child, the child would end up in the family proceedings court preferably, rather than the family criminal court. That could be done by an order, and it might not do any harm for the child. There could be some innovative thinking in the Home Office as to other ways of dealing with this. The real point being made today, if I might remind Minister, is about helping the parents. At the moment, I do not see what else can help the parents. I would be very grateful to know what the Minister thinks about that.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble and learned Baroness, with all her experience, brings forward one potential output of a breach of an order, and I accept that that is a potential output. The point I am making to my noble friend is that we want to discuss what happens to the child and the range of consequences. That is why my honourable friend the Policing Minister and my honourable friend Jess Phillips, the Safeguarding Minister, are meeting agencies in this field to look at what is going to happen. That is planned for before Christmas. There is a separate meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. Although the noble and learned Baroness has brought forward one consequence, I want to look at all the issues. I am not able to accept the amendment before us because that is one of the issues that is not resolved. Therefore, although I understand the desire behind this, I ask that my noble friend withdraws her amendment today and allows for reflection to occur.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I am most grateful to the Minister and look forward to the meeting. To pick up the point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I wonder whether the Minister, in tackling this, recognises that many times, the so-called parents will be someone who has legal responsibility but who actually may not be helping the child. One of the issues with an order such as this would potentially be making sure that those who have legal responsibility for a child also have a duty to try to enforce the protection of that child. That may mean a change in their own behaviours. It is a complicated issue. I am grateful to the Minister for having listened so carefully and to the Home Office for recognising that somehow, something has to be done. This might not be perfect, but we cannot leave a big gap there.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I accept and understand that young children will be impacted by the potential behaviour of the parent, or indeed the lack of behaviour by the parent. The suggestion of the order may be a contributing factor which might assist with that. I have tried to point out to the Committee that there are a number of issues. First, this would be an order against the child, which is a big issue. Secondly, there would have to be a consequence for a breach. Thirdly, the Government’s focus in the Bill is on action on adults. Those are three issues that I put on the table for the Committee and which lead me to ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
However, the engagement and discussions, both with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and with the coalition of groups that have a concern about this, will continue before Christmas. That will obviously give the mover of the amendment an opportunity to reflect upon it. But in the meantime, I urge her to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone for their contributions to this debate and to the previous one.
This is complex and we all want to have good outcomes. I appreciate that the Minister is saying that we need more discussion and to make sure that we address this issue in a way that safeguards children and young people but also deals with perpetrators and potential perpetrators and makes sure that the families of the children and young people are engaged in the way that we sort things out. The real problem is that it is much more than just Home Office business, which I appreciate. However, Members of this House have made great strides in at least beginning to identify the issues, reflecting our discussions and experiences from outside. That is important. I look forward to continuing to engage with the Government and the Minister in the next period of time so that we can come up with something that people will have confidence in. In that spirit, I therefore seek to withdraw the amendment.
Sudan
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the humanitarian situation in Sudan.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds (Valedictory Speech)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Government for granting this debate at a very opportune time, with Lady Sandwich in the Gallery and a detailed report, Rivers of Blood, dedicated to the late Lord Sandwich, being delivered this morning to the APPG.
I thank the Minister for her commitment to addressing the urgent and long-term situation in Sudan, a country I love, where I have friends and which I have visited a number of times, most recently in June 2024. My concerns and engagement will continue after I retire from the House this afternoon, albeit in a different way. I note that the Order Paper says this is a valedictory speech, but I would be grateful if we kept our focus on Sudan.
The humanitarian situation in Sudan is so dire that “urgent” does not do justice to the need for action. I will not repeat the many reports from agencies engaged on the ground in Sudan, but they make for harrowing hearing and reading. A number have provided briefings in Parliament in the last few days. We had planned for the Archbishop of Sudan, Ezekiel Kondo, to be here today, but he had to return to Port Sudan a couple of days ago.
The lack of attention to Sudan in western media is bewildering in many respects, but it seems that increasing attention is now being paid. The suffering in Sudan is almost unbearable, the worst humanitarian catastrophe on the planet, and it is neither new nor simply a phenomenon of only the last three years. Whatever the causes of and motivations behind the current conflict, it is civilians—women, children, young men and vulnerable ethnic groups—who are being targeted and abused in the most inhumane ways.
I will give a few numbers. It is estimated that up to 150,000 people have died and 13 million have been displaced, 9.6 million internally and 4.3 million in exile. Some 25 to 30 million people are hungry, malnourished or severely malnourished. Save the Children estimates that 16 million children are in need of aid and that, in 2024, more than 2,000 cases of children being killed, maimed, abducted, raped and violated were recorded—and that is just what we know. Sexual violence against children, women and young men is out of control, fuelled by an evident assumption of impunity and unaccountability by perpetrators. Shame is being weaponised in the most vicious and immoral way. Access to aid is frequently blocked, and funding is inadequate to the need.
In so-called illegal immigration to the UK, Sudan is now the most represented group. Migration to neighbouring countries such as South Sudan and Chad is in the millions and having a powerful effect on those countries. According to several agencies on the ground, the numbers of people killed or maimed by explosive weaponry, either directly or from unexploded arms, are increasing. I could go on.
The siege of El Fasher led to deliberate targeting of civilians, widespread massacres and a targeted and systematic strategy of wiping out non-Arab Africans, with a view to erasing or rewriting the country’s history, culture and identity. At a briefing in Parliament last week, we heard that the script is already written, as the RSF now move on to Tawila and El Obeid. We cannot say we do not know what will happen in the Kordofans, as the rehearsal in El Fasher was so successful for the RSF. Civilians, humanitarian workers and volunteers are unprotected against both the SAF and the RSF, cannon fodder in a war they did not start. It is timely that Sudan is now rising in prominence in both the political and media spheres. The USA is finally beginning to wake up to the crisis.
Other noble Lords will bring specific points to bear in the short speech time allowed, so I do not want to cover every aspect of the tragedy we are witnessing. I hope we will not have too much repetition, deviation or hesitation but will put on record the many sides of this conflict that need repeatedly to be heard, noted and responded to. I am grateful to the Minister, who has prioritised Sudan and made herself available for briefings and conversations. “Governments need to do more” is a constant plea on many issues, but there are one or two areas where more might be achievable now.
First, the UK has a responsibility to step up its leadership of partner nations in working with the Quad and others to apply diplomatic, economic, political and moral pressure to: bring an end to the conflict; stem the flow of arms and finance by countries such as the UAE, Egypt, Turkey, Iran and Russia, using its clout to interrupt the flow of gold and rare earth minerals into the global markets, and to hold publicly to account those countries which enable this brutality to continue; and to mobilise, using military means, if possible, to provide immediate protection of civilians and humanitarian workers. Key to this is the need to make all sides in the conflict seriously and unmistakably aware that they will be accountable in the future for their actions now. Atrocities will be punished under a rule of law to which belligerents pay no regard.
Secondly, the civilian population needs urgent protection. The need for a diplomatic surge is clear, but resolutions by themselves will not bring a ceasefire or a peace that in the longer term leads to civilian rule. As I indicated earlier, we must not see a rerun of El Fasher in Tawila and El Obeid, and ultimately in Khartoum. Agencies are evidently not confident that this can be avoided without some targeted and serious interventions now.
The migration of Sudanese refugees into Europe in general, and the UK in particular, will only increase. This is a challenge that needs international partnership and co-ordination. The UK can take a more confident lead on this. If you visit Sudan, everybody you speak with is crying out for the UK, for historical reasons, to step up its power and influence. Wherever the future leads, international partners will have to attend to rebuilding infrastructure and civil society. The land will have to be de-mined and cleared of ordnance. Most concerningly, a generation of young people who are suffering now will need massive support if cycles of vengeance and violence are not to be let loose in the years to come. Generational trauma will be fearsome.
Other speakers will touch on matters that I have not had time to address, but I hope that my point is made. The humanitarian disaster, the worst in the world, cannot simply be observed from a distance. It needs concerted and determined attention and action. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the debate.
Lord Rook (Lab)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds for his tireless leadership on Sudan and for raising this debate. I first met him in a draughty circus tent at a Butlin’s holiday camp. I hasten to assure noble Lords that neither of us was employed as a redcoat; we were speakers at a conference. From that very day his powerful commitment to justice in domestic and foreign affairs has been evident.
It says a great deal about the right reverend Prelate that he has chosen to host his final debate in your Lordships’ House on this subject and that he has decided against the traditional valedictory speech so as not to distract from the subject at hand and the needs of the people of Sudan. Despite this, I am sure that all noble Lords would want me to pass on our gratitude for the right reverend Prelate’s contribution over many years and for his ministry—spiritual, political, practical and personal—which has been a blessing to us all.
The right reverend Prelate warned this House in 2024 that Sudan is far more than two generals having a scrap. His description of a forgotten war with no winners has proved tragically accurate. Sudan is now the largest humanitarian crisis on record, with millions displaced and famine taken hold in El Fasher, Kadugli and beyond. The atrocities in El Fasher, including hundreds killed recently in an attack on a hospital, show how civilians are being deliberately targeted, while neighbouring states already in deep crises shelter more than a million who are fleeing the violence.
I acknowledge His Majesty’s Government’s efforts: the 2024 London conference, subsequent ministerial meetings and the UK’s leadership at the UN Security Council. However, international focus is slipping. The absence of a contact group for ceasefire talks was a missed opportunity. The UK, working with the Quad and regional actors, can still lead the diplomatic effort that is needed to restore momentum toward peace.
The right reverend Prelate has often reminded this House of the essential role of local actors. In moments of emergency, churches, faith groups, youth groups, women’s organisations and grass-roots institutions are often the first and sometimes the only responders to the many crises and atrocities. Supporting these heroic institutions through genuinely locally led funding and holding intermediaries accountable for strengthening and building local capacity must be central to UK policy. To this end, I urge His Majesty’s Government to consider the role of strategic religious diplomacy in waging peace, to borrow a phrase from Justin Welby. Faith leaders in Sudan retain moral authority when political structures are fractured. We have seen the impact of such diplomacy in South Sudan, Mozambique and the Central African Republic. Sudan’s churches and mosques are indispensable partners for any credible peace strategy.
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds for speaking up once again for the voiceless. While he will be deeply missed in this House, as he has made clear, he will continue to champion the people of Sudan and fight for peace in that land. As a follower of the prince of peace, this is not just his work but his calling. It does not end at retirement. With Advent approaching, we wish him a very happy Christmas and a very peaceful retirement in every possible way.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds for everything that he has done in this House and beyond and for leading us on the debate on Sudan today.
I will focus on the impact of the conflict on children, as 3.2 million children under five are expected to have suffered acute malnutrition this year, with over 770,000 of them likely to have experienced severe acute malnutrition. That is another name for famine in this world. The regions of Darfur and Kordofan remain the epicentre of a conflict where 20 areas are at immediate risk of famine for all. Occasional fragile truces are broken with impunity and seem to be an excuse to regroup before launching further mass killings and rapes. The humanitarian situation in El Fasher deteriorated very sharply last month. Community kitchens shut down after exhausting food supplies. Prices continue to increase, with a sack of animal fodder now used as food reported as costing over £400.
Children urgently need help from the international community to survive. Sudan’s Emergency Response Rooms—grass-roots, volunteer-led, co-ordinated networks—are doing their best in the most appalling conditions to provide medical care and humanitarian assistance in areas where state services have collapsed. Charities such as Kids for Kids are working with communities in Darfur and doing all they can to ensure that protein-rich goat milk and food reach malnourished children. The charity provides goat loans. The poorest families receive five goats and after two years, once that little flock has grown, the five goats are passed on to another family to assist the children there.
Can the Minister update the House on what support the Government can give to Sudan’s Emergency Response Rooms and those charities which are doing their utmost to continue their work despite the atrocities that they see around them every day of the year?
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the right reverend Prelate and congratulate him on his powerful valedictory speech and on securing this extremely important and long overdue debate. In the 14 months since our last debate on Sudan in this House, on every level the situation in Sudan has deteriorated dramatically.
As I said in the debate in September 2024, I had the privilege of working in Khartoum in 2023 with my noble friends Lord Purvis and Lord Oates. I refer to my register of interests. So much of Khartoum, as so much of Sudan, that I grew to know and love, now lies in ruins. I was privileged to work with some truly inspirational people who were working tirelessly to fight for a democratic future for Sudan. Like so many Sudanese, most of the people I worked with are now living in exile. As Samia, an eminent Sudanese lawyer and women’s rights activist, said to me this week, “The war has not only destroyed buildings and infrastructure. It has destroyed women and girls’ security and safety”.
Women and girls live under constant threat of violence on a daily basis. According to UNICEF, 12.1 million people—equivalent to 25% of the population—are at risk of gender-based violence. Hunger and rape are now routinely being used as instruments of war. There are reports that young women and even very young girls, as young as five years old, have been subjected to the most appalling violence, including sexual violence. Samia, who for me is the very personification of our previous hopes for Sudan, reminded me that what is happening in her country must never be regarded as being just about statistics. Behind every statistic is the shattered life of a human being.
What is happening in Sudan matters to us all and, frankly, should shame us all. It is our duty, as we are doing through this debate today, to raise our voices and to give the people of Sudan hope, just as it matters that the current ongoing atrocities, as the right reverend Prelate said, are fully investigated and the perpetrators eventually brought to justice.
I make three final brief points in the remaining time. We must find a way to ensure that the global arms embargo is effective, as it clearly currently is not, and to extend it to the whole of Sudan. We need to find a way to ensure that immediate humanitarian assistance reaches those who need it most. But we also need to be thinking now about longer-term assistance—clearing the country of land mines and the huge task of eventually rebuilding the country, as well as providing support for those who have suffered so much—most particularly through supporting organisations that work with women and girls.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in my allotted three minutes, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds for his long-standing commitment to the people of Sudan. I commend to the Minister, and ask for her response to, the first-hand report by Marcus and Tomas Ray, presented to the APPG on Sudan and dedicated to the memory of my late friend the Earl of Sandwich. Rivers of Blood – Escaping Darfur lays bare a crisis of staggering human suffering and a failure of international responsibility; of impunity; of the absence of protection mechanisms; and of global neglect. In the foreword to the report, I write:
“We cannot say we did not know. The evidence is here. The voices are here. The responsibility is ours”.
Following my own first-hand reports of earlier atrocities and genocide, there were reports in early 2023 of new outrages—and, later, of mass graves. That led to the all-party group asking me to chair a fresh inquiry, which led to our 2023 report, entitled Genocide: All Over Again in Darfur? It described the consequences of impunity and daring to think you can neglect the issue of justice. Development becomes impossible in a cauldron of repeated atrocities.
With the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, I recently sent a letter to the Foreign Secretary, copied to the Minister, along with a copy of this report, following reports that the FCDO atrocity prevention team may be disbanded. Is that so?
Last week, the Minister told me:
“The last Joint Analysis of Conflict and Stability (JACS) assessment for Sudan was completed in 2019”.
These JACS reports are supposed to be the basis of assessing whether crimes against humanity and/or genocide are either under way or probable. Post 2019 and post 2023, why was no JACS report commissioned?
Since 2001, when I first went into Sudan’s war zone, I have repeatedly warned that a culture of impunity would entrench violence and atrocities, undermine attempts to create civil institutions and political progress, and destroy or impede humanitarian initiatives. If we do not tackle root causes, it simply adds to the flow of displaced people in this world—around 125 million of them now. How many of the arrivals referred to by the right reverend Prelate arrive on small boats that originate from Sudan?
Today’s RSF atrocities in Darfur are of a piece with the Janjaweed’s systematic rape of women and the burning and looting of villages, 90% of which were razed to the ground—all driven by an ideological hatred of difference. The International Criminal Court said it was a genocide, yet Omar al-Bashir and some of the warlords now involved in today’s horrific atrocities have still not been brought to justice. Impunity is a death sentence for the innocent and a licence to kill for the perpetrators.
Wicked as the RSF and its avaricious overseas funders undoubtedly are, we are naive at best in painting the army junta and their overseas backers as benign. The jihadists in the SAF officer corps remain emphatically opposed to democracy, accountability and the rule of law. As they fight for supremacy, it is the people of their great country who are condemned to grotesque suffering.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, my heartfelt gratitude goes to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds for his leadership and contribution to this House, and I thank him for initiating this debate.
It is beyond comprehension that, in this century, we are failing to use every means available to us as a nation state to aid Sudan, which is facing this man-made—men-made—war, displacement and inhuman suffering. Thirty million innocent men, women and children are fleeing rape, death and destruction and require urgent aid, with 13 million forced from their homes and lands. Yet those engaged in this brutal war are weaponising starvation, pushing people to the brink in a conflict that is not an occupation but a power grab. Battles for political dominance are driven by power, greed and impunity, for control of Sudan’s wealth and resources.
Cities and villages that I had the honour of visiting across Sudan no longer exist. Health, education systems and societal infrastructures lie in rubble, just as in Gaza. It is as though the perpetrators of this inhuman suffering are beyond reproach and international rules are no longer applicable.
As the UN Security Council penholder for Sudan, the United Kingdom has diplomatic obligations and a unique responsibility to help forge a path toward relief and resolution. I believe that it is our Government who must stand with courage and duty to rally our allies and bring this barbaric war to an end, just as our Prime Minister has led the international coalition of the willing for Ukraine. Does the Minister agree that this excellent model of the coalition of the willing can be applied to confront the catastrophic degradation of Sudan? If such coalitions can be built to defend sovereignty and human rights in Europe, can the UK lead to defend the very same in Africa?
Words are not enough. What actions beyond pledges are His Majesty’s Government taking to ensure the safe, unimpeded delivery of aid across Sudan in partnership with allies such as the African Union and the UN in order to strengthen the humanitarian corridor and speed up the provision of food, emergency medical supplies and shelter to civilians in areas where famine risks are highest and where women and children continue to face the gravest danger?
Impunity has emboldened perpetrators and intensified the war as it continues. For Sudan to have any hope of peace, accountability must accompany rescue and aid. How are the UK Government working to deter further violence while pushing for a sustained ceasefire and a credible political process that places civilians, not armed groups, at the centre of Sudan’s future?
I had the privilege and honour of taking part in women-led peace initiatives in Sudan. I do not know where those women are or whether they are alive. The people of Sudan are not asking for charity; they are entitled to basic food, shelter, safety and dignity.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
In view of the remarks of the right reverend Prelate, this debate should focus on the situation in Sudan, but I share the views expressed by all previous speakers about his role in the House and in helping the people of Sudan.
I want to ask about a recent development which arose from the G20 summit in Johannesburg last week, where the world’s leaders issued a joint declaration calling for
“a just, comprehensive, and lasting peace in Sudan”.
They grouped Sudan with other major conflict areas—Ukraine, Congo, and Palestine—signalling that the crisis is now considered a top-tier global priority. The statement emphasised that any path to peace should follow the purposes and principles of the UN charter, and it reaffirmed a broad condemnation of terrorism. My question is, while this is clearly welcome, is it something of substance or is it largely symbolic? The statement did not spell out any concrete measures such as specific funding timelines or accountability mechanisms or which countries would lead the campaign that was laid out. No new sanctions or targeted diplomatic initiatives were announced within the publicly released text.
Still, the inclusion of Sudan in the G20 communiqué elevates international attention at this time of crisis. What follow-up do our Government envisage following the G20 delegation and will it have a meaningful impact in securing the just peace that we all desire?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I join everyone in thanking the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds for securing this debate and for his contribution over many years, and I wish him all the best for the future.
I vividly remember the Rwandan genocide. As a young journalist in country Australia in the age before the internet, the postman delivered my paper-thin copy of the Guardian Weekly. I can still picture some of the images it printed, images that shocked me. Then, the diplomatic world knew what was happening and failed to act, but the general public broadly did not. Communications operated differently then. Since then, our understanding of mass atrocity crimes has grown a great deal, in part because of the genocide against the Tutsis. We can and do predict them, but where we have not advanced is in action to prevent them. At the briefing last week that the right reverend Prelate referred to, I heard about the events in El Fasher. They were described as the most well-worn and predicted mass killing in human history. We have satellite images that can identify where each individual human being lost their life—a father, a son, a brother, a mother who is now a bloodstain in the sand—and we have images that show where those bodies were burned or buried. Before that, we had satellite images that showed the preparation for massacre, the building of the berm around the city that created the killing field and the assembling of the forces to commit the massacre in a city in which perhaps 1.5 million people were cowering, and the world still did nothing.
This debate is focused on humanitarian need, and my focus is particularly on the protection of those who remain alive but at acute risk. The right reverend Prelate referred to a script for future massacres based on what has happened already. Our job, surely, is to cut off that script to stop it being played out.
We heard at that briefing about effective leadership. Britain should have a role, and effective leadership can come only from No. 10, from Sir Keir Starmer. Will the Minister say whether we going to see that leadership? We know that traditional multilateral fora are of limited use, so we need much more creative approaches. Are resources—the atrocity prevention unit, the FCDO and other resources available to the Government—being put into the diplomatic surge that was called for last week?
I will just pick up two very quick further points. One, of course, is on the now sadly inevitable reports of conflict-related sexual violence. What support are those victims going to get? The other relates to a scoping visit from the Mines Advisory Group in July this year. We have real capacity in Britain in mine clearing and dealing with unexploded ordnance. What are the Government doing in that area?
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I too congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, Nick Baines, on securing this debate. He has been a tireless supporter of Sudan, even almost endangering his life as he visited that troubled area, and he is also a faithful servant of Church, state and the world.
I declare an interest in that from November 2021 until June 2023 I was chair of Christian Aid. Christian Aid has been deeply engaged in the region. For context, the charity says:
“We are providing some support for the church agency humanitarian response being jointly led by our sister agency, Norwegian Church Aid, and CAFOD. Also via our German sister agency DKH we have been supporting the emergency rooms in Sudan—a mutual aid initiative that was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize”.
There is a UK dimension to the crisis in so far as the Government have been reluctant to challenge UAE support for the RSF or Saudi Arabia’s support for the Government in Sudan, both of which have prolonged the conflict and, because of the weapons being provided and the cover given for persistent breaches of international law, have increased civilian suffering.
Thomas Brown of the House of Lords Library published an article on 17 November on the humanitarian situation in Sudan, which says:
“Sudan’s current civil war continues to have a devastating impact on civilians, with UN agencies describing the conflict as both the world’s largest humanitarian crisis and the world’s largest displacement crisis. Amid reports of ongoing atrocities in and around El Fasher in Sudan’s Darfur region and continuing hostilities elsewhere, the UK has been involved in diplomatic efforts calling for an end to the conflict and has increased funding for emergency humanitarian assistance”.
In light of the passing of a UK-drafted resolution by the UN Human Rights Council securing international consensus for an urgent UN inquiry into alleged crimes in El Fasher, because impunity cannot be the outcome of these horrifying events, will the Minister please tell us how far the promise of the Foreign Secretary, Yvette Cooper, to get teams into Sudan to investigate those atrocities and hold the perpetrators to account has got? Our words must be matched by our actions. We must become peacemakers, not peace lovers.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as CEO of United Against Malnutrition & Hunger. I join others in thanking the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds for initiating this debate and for his strong advocacy for Sudan during his years in this House.
Previous speakers have set out the scale of the crisis that has engulfed ordinary people in Sudan. I will not repeat all the devastating statistics but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, I want to highlight the figure of over 770,000 children facing severe acute malnutrition this year. The sheer scale of that tragedy can obscure the horrific suffering that it entails for every child impacted. When you have witnessed a child suffering from severe acute malnutrition, it never leaves you. Nor does the sense of guilt and despair that, despite the availability of proven and cost-effective treatments, a lack of funding or impeded humanitarian access means that tens of thousands of children who could recover will not.
Yesterday, a number of us had the chance to meet the Minister and representatives of the Emergency Response Rooms, whose 26,000 courageous volunteers across Sudan are providing a localised humanitarian response to the crisis, often able to gain access where international organisations cannot. They had two main requests: to be afforded protection and recognition as humanitarian workers—over the past two years, they told us, 146 of their volunteers have been killed and many more detained or disappeared—and for funding to meet the scale of the need that they encounter.
We have heard the argument in the past that the challenge in Sudan is access rather than funding. However, while access is a challenge in many areas, the lack of funding is a challenge in all areas. We know that more funding is needed for emergency responses, such as the provision of therapeutic foods to treat acute malnutrition, and it is required to provide agricultural support to smallholders to help to restore food production, yet the Food and Agricultural Organization’s appeal is just 10% funded. We know that it is needed to provide support to the millions of refugees displaced to refugee camps in neighbouring countries and within Sudan, which are massively underfunded.
We should work with our partners to provide that support for reasons of basic humanity, but we should also note the costs of not doing so. We have already seen a 60% increase in the numbers of Sudanese nationals arriving on small boats, and Sudanese nationals represent the most common nationality detected irregularly in the UK.
Sudan represents not only the world’s worst humanitarian crisis but the starkest example of its inability to work collectively to end a war that is fuelling such devastating suffering. We cannot resolve these issues on our own, but we must do more in concert with our European partners in particular to address this humanitarian crisis and to impose real consequences on those countries that are fuelling the war.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
I am grateful to noble Lords for ignoring the request from my right reverend friend the Bishop of Leeds that this should not be a valedictory debate for him. His contribution to this House, and to the Church and nation more widely, has been immense. However, I sincerely hope that this House and His Majesty’s Government will not ignore the right reverend Prelate’s words regarding Sudan, something which is very dear to his heart.
I want to focus my comments on the funding of local partners in Sudan. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact, in its October 2025 report, found that the UK Government
“in many instances demonstrated credible political leadership and strong convening power, drawing on deep networks that are valued by stakeholders”.
It also finds that the UK has shown
“political and operational leadership in the humanitarian response, through strong technical analysis, evidence-based planning and close coordination with key UN agencies”.
I congratulate the Government on this positive analysis of their role in the crisis, yet the report goes on to state:
“Despite stated political ambition, the UK’s cautious approach to localisation and limited resources constrain the full potential of local partnerships”.
Across Sudan, local actors, in particular first responders, such as Sudan’s Emergency Response Rooms, already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, remain under-supported. These groups often have the capacity to provide more cost-effective and contextually grounded responses than international partners, but they face significant barriers to accessing funding due to stringent UK compliance requirements or those of intermediary organisations. The UK commitment to localisation has not translated into more predictable or better-quality funding for local partners in Sudan. The UK funding that reaches them is generally for small-scale, short-term projects. Given the access constraints that INGOs face, can the Minister tell the House whether there is any intention to review our approach to funding local partners in Sudan?
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds for raising this urgent Question and for his long-standing moral leadership, as he prepares to retire from this House. I know that he is not going to give up everything else that he has been doing and will plan to do. I thank him so much for everything he has done for us. I declare my interest as an ambassador for the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security.
Women and girls are bearing a disproportionate share of the burden in Sudan. This has been going on for decades—far too long. Malnutrition among mothers leads to malnutrition among infants. When hunger becomes a weapon of war, as it clearly has in Sudan, the impact is generational. The UK has not yet ratified the 2019 amendment to the Rome statute, which would criminalise starvation tactics in non-international armed conflict. If we are serious about accountability, we must lead by example. Ratifying this amendment would send a clear signal that starvation crimes will not be ignored.
As we have a short time to speak today, I will make three points to the Government. First, the protection of civilians and safe humanitarian access must be at the centre of all diplomatic engagement. Without this, the crisis will continue to deepen regardless of the aid provided. Secondly, our humanitarian assistance should prioritise nutrition-specific interventions, including ready-to-use therapeutic food for severely malnourished children, and support for pregnant and lactating women. These are proven, cost-effective interventions that save lives. Thirdly, we must keep accountability on the agenda. The atrocities in Darfur and Kordofan, including starvation crimes and sexual violence, must be investigated, documented and prosecuted.
Justice will be essential for a long-term peace. As far as peace is concerned, women, including local women, must be at the peace table. Unless we have that, we will not have peace. It must include having women to discuss education, development and the future of their country.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the right reverend Prelate for tabling this debate. Earlier this year, the UN reported an 80% increase in the risk of women and girls in Sudan being the victims of sexual assault. They are suffering indescribably from flagrant daily rape, sexual slavery and torture, with children being forced to watch the abuse of their mothers, and even vice versa—all with impunity.
The UK has been a global leader in campaigning against sexual violence in conflict. Together with our position as penholder for Sudan at the Security Council, we have an unprecedented responsibility to step up even more than we have already. The UNFPA is the UN agency responsible for promoting sexual and reproductive health. Across Sudan, it has provided 51 safe spaces for survivors of sexual violence, as well as dozens of mobile health teams. Yet these centres are no longer always safe havens, with over 540 attacks on health facilities reported over the last two years. Supplies and equipment are frequently looted, and health workers, patients and ambulances have been targeted with violence and intimidation.
The UNFPA receives no funding whatever from the UN’s regular budget. It is funded entirely through voluntary contributions from Governments, intergovernmental organisations, the private sector, foundations and individuals. Yet unprecedented funding cuts by many leading donors, notably the United States, are jeopardising the health and lives of hundreds of thousands of women and girls.
Training for front-line medical workers has also been halted, leaving thousands of women without access to safe spaces that provide medical, legal and psychosocial support. The UNFPA is calling for $120 million for its work in Sudan. In the Northern State, its programmes and safe spaces are funded by Canada, the European Union, Japan, Norway and Sweden. Will the Minister ensure that the UK is added to this list of contributors to the UNFPA with immediate effect? As penholder, this will put maximum pressure on other member states to do likewise. We have a very positive track record indeed of insisting on accountability for sexual violence in conflict in our role as penholder for Colombia. Please let us do the same for the women and girls in Sudan.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
From all our interactions on Sudan, the right reverend Prelate knows how highly I regard him. I thank him for bringing this debate as he ends his service in this House. The Minister is also aware of what I called for last week. I hope she has read my appeal to the Leader of the House yesterday evening in my response to the Prime Minister’s G20 Statement, in which Sudan warranted only a passing reference.
In recent weeks and days, anyone seeing what has been happening in the country I love will have witnessed the very worst and the very best of humanity, with calls for a cessation of violence ridiculed by the SAF and the re-emergence of the repressive internal intelligence service, NISS, and Islamist forces, and the RSF cynically saying it has a ceasefire while committing atrocities. At the same time, we have seen Sudanese doctors trying, under incredible personal danger, to keep medical facilities going and, as we heard, local emergency rooms and community kitchens of local civilians keeping a semblance of food services going under literally hellish conditions and threat. They are the best of humanity in the face of the worst.
As we have heard, the main victims are women and children. Some of the examples of the atrocities are searing. Foreign supplied drones, paid for by looted natural resources, are as we speak over the skies of civilian areas collecting intelligence and data, and will be armed to target civilians.
Tools to protect civilians have been authorised by the UN Security Council resolution of over a year ago. It is simply the case that the will for action has been and continues to be absent. Today, I press the Minister for a specific, authorised and deliverable action to put in measures to create no-drone zones in civilian areas. We have the capability, the technology and the authorisation to protect civilians. We need the political and diplomatic will to enable this to be put in place—and it is urgent.
Even here at home—the Minister is well aware of my calls last year, well before we saw the preventable atrocities—and even now, after lengthy correspondence that I have had with the Disasters Emergency Committee, we still do not have a public appeal matched by the Government. The world’s worst humanitarian crisis—urgent and pressing—does not have sufficient public and media awareness to trigger an appeal, the chief executive told me. I appeal to the Minister today to speak to the DEC, to appeal to the DEC and to work with the DEC to have a public appeal that the Government can support.
I am still hopeful for the day when the rightful civilian democratic governance of Sudan can be seen. I hope for there to be one Sudan, where diversity is recognised and not used as a pretext for violence. But for that hope not to be entirely extinguished, we need the UK and others to step up with leadership, focus and urgency. Protecting the civilians is by far the most urgent task, and I hope we can hear of concrete actions from the Government.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds for his service to the House, for securing this important debate and for his excellent valedictory speech. We had quite a lot of interaction and debate during the Brexit years, when he was the Church of England’s spokesman. It is fair to say that we did not often agree on this subject, but he always conducted himself with great courtesy and had his say robustly, which is as it should be. I used to dream I was hearing his words in my sleep, until I realised that it was just because my radio alarm had switched on early and I was listening to him on Radio 4’s “Thought for the Day” programme. I hope he will continue to contribute to that.
As many noble Lords have said, the situation in Sudan is absolutely appalling. As many people have reminded us, we have had a number of opportunities to discuss the issues relating to the conflict in recent weeks, in Oral Questions, a ministerial Statement and now this debate. That demonstrates the level of concern felt across your Lordships’ House about the situation.
Given the short time that I have—I know we all want to hear from the Minister—I will confine my remarks to a few brief points. Save the Children estimates that 450 unaccompanied children have arrived in Tawila, the nearest safe town to El Fasher. We have previously discussed getting aid into Sudan. What steps are being taken to get aid to the towns where those refugees are starting to gather, including Tawila, as urgently as possible?
Last week the Minister noted the dangers associated with air drops of aid, which I am sure we can all appreciate, but can she update the House on the further work that her department has done to ensure that progress is being made to get aid where it needs to be? I think the whole House would benefit from an update on the amount of aid that has been able to reach those in Sudan to date. We are all very aware of the practical difficulties around that.
On weapons and equipment in Sudan, the noble Baroness confirmed last week that the reports of British-made equipment being used in Sudan have been investigated, and the equipment in question is not munitions but items related to engines. Can she commit to keeping this situation under review? Should there be verified reports of British-made munitions being used in Sudan, will she come to the House to report on that further?
I think I speak for the whole House when I say that the people of Sudan are constantly in our thoughts. In particular, I sincerely hope that the UK Government will continue to play a full and complete role—as supportive as possible of those desperate people in need—to get aid to all who need it in the region.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, I too start by saying how grateful I am to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds for tabling this debate. I pay tribute to his long-standing commitment to Sudan and its people. I know that, rightly and characteristically, he wants our focus today to be firmly on the people of Sudan, but I take this opportunity to wish him and his wife Linda a long and happy retirement. It is notable that the Archbishop of Sudan chose to join him at Ripon Cathedral for a recent service. That is testament to his long-standing commitment to and very strong relationship with the people of Sudan.
I note the deep concern from right across the House about the dire humanitarian situation in Sudan, at a time when we must galvanise action to stop the war and end the suffering. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, for his remarks. He asked me about the diversion of arms. Of course, I commit to keeping this matter closely under review and to reporting back to the House immediately should the situation change. I am happy to speak to the DEC, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, suggests. On the issue of creating no-drone zones, I do not know how we would do that, but I am very happy to explore that.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Rook, Lord Alton, Lord Davies of Brixton and Lord Oates, the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay, Lady Suttie, Lady Uddin, Lady Bennett, Lady Goudie and Lady Coussins, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester for their contributions. Everybody spoke with outstanding experience, passion and knowledge.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, asked me about the UNFPA. We are the largest contributor to core funding for the UNFPA, and she asked whether that would change in light of the change in position of some of our partners and allies towards the work that it does. It is more vital than ever that we maintain our commitment to it for the reasons that she so eloquently put forward.
I have not yet read the Rivers of Blood report, but I will. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, we cannot say that we did not know. We now need a way to force the warring parties to stop. As of today, both the leaders in command in Sudan still believe that they can win. I will speak to all the other issues around humanitarian access but, until that changes, I do not think we will see the stable peace or ceasefire that we desperately need.
As many have said, Sudan is facing the worst humanitarian crisis of our time. Some 12 million people have fled their homes in the world’s largest displacement crisis; 30 million people are in urgent need of aid, the highest number on record; famine and preventable disease are rampant; and women and children are bearing the brunt of terrible suffering and abhorrent violence.
Following the RSF assault on El Fasher, we have seen horrendous atrocities: mass executions, starvation, rape and reports of detentions, kidnap and killings as people attempt to escape. The threat of further horror looms, as fighting moves towards Tawila and North Kordofan. Preventing further massacres and ending the brutal siege is urgent, as is providing humanitarian relief. The need has never been greater, yet aid remains blocked. The RSF refuses to allow safe passage to humanitarian organisations, while the SAF has introduced new bureaucratic restrictions that will impede relief efforts even more.
Ongoing fighting, devastated infrastructure and crimes against humanitarian workers are compounding all these challenges. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has rightly underlined, the suffering will only increase without a complete step change to bring about peace. To that end, we are doing all we can to support the efforts of the Quad, as the United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE call for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. We note the RSF’s announcement on Monday, agreeing to a three-month humanitarian truce. Of course, we welcome any commitment to peace, yet these words must be measured by actions on the ground.
On 14 November, we secured a special session of the UN Human Rights Council, which passed the UK-drafted resolution securing an urgent UN inquiry into reported crimes in El Fasher. This ramps up the pressure on the warring parties to unblock critical aid routes and hold perpetrators to account, but we must do more. Last week, the Foreign Secretary met Tom Fletcher, the UN emergency relief co-ordinator, following his visit to Sudan. He emphasised the need to guarantee safe passage for civilians and humanitarian workers trying desperately to reach people in need, as a matter of urgency. We are doing everything in our power to press for a three-month humanitarian truce that truly stops the violence on the ground and gets life-saving aid in.
Meanwhile, UK aid continues to make a difference on the ground, difficult though that is. Since the beginning of the conflict, our support to Sudan has reached 2.5 million people. Last year alone, we treated over 98,000 children for malnutrition and reached almost 750,000 people with clean water. We got emergency cash assistance to 71,000 people who have suffered appalling violence. But noble Lords will know that this is not enough.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has been clear that the UK will remain a key humanitarian partner in Sudan and that funding to those areas affected by the crisis will be protected for the next three years. The UK will fulfil its duty diplomatically, at the UN and through multilateral processes and bilaterally with our allies and partners, including in contact with the United States and the UAE. Six months ago, the UK convened the London Sudan conference, raising over £800 million. We announced £120 million in new funding to reach over 650,000 people with life-saving assistance this year alone. That is in addition to the £36 million that I announced in May, during my visit to the Chad border to support refugees and the countries hosting them.
Following the assault on El Fasher, we mobilised and refocused £23 million in emergency aid, with the Foreign Secretary announcing a further £5 million on 1 November. Yet no amount of funding can end what is a man-made crisis. Every route, border and crossing must be open and safe. By 2029, we want at least 30% of the UK’s aid for Sudan to be distributed by local responders who provide a lifeline for communities that are hardest to reach.
I want to thank the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sudan and South Sudan for inviting me to join it this week. Together, we thanked the delegation from the Sudanese Emergency Response Rooms. As several noble Lords have said, they are an incredibly effective and impressive organisation and it is right that they are receiving the 2025 Chatham House Prize for their life-saving work in unimaginably challenging circumstances. However, they do not just want thanks; they want peace.
Lastly, I make one personal reflection on this desperate crisis that shocks, saddens and shames us every day that it continues. I mentioned my visit to the remote town of Adré, on the border in eastern Chad. In the refugee camp, as well as talking to aid workers, I met women who had fled for their lives. In my conversations with them—one a trainee doctor, another a qualified psychologist, forced to flee their homes and living in tents on the border—it was clear that all they wanted was their old lives back, their jobs and families, a future for their children, their safety and their independence. We must never lose sight of that. Support for the people of Sudan will remain a priority for this Government, as I know it does for the whole House.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
“Definition of modern slavery exploitation: orphanage trafficking(1) Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (6) insert—“Orphanage trafficking(7) The person is a child who has been recruited into a residential care institution overseas for the purpose of financial gain and exploitation.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would expand the definition of exploitation under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to include children who have been recruited into residential care institutions that engage in orphanage trafficking.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, the proposed new clause in my Amendment 247A would expand the definition of exploitation under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to include children who have been recruited into residential care institutions that engage in orphanage trafficking. One privilege, and benefit, of being a Member of this House—or indeed of the other—is the fascinating people whom one meets and finding out about issues that I do not think everybody would always understand.
It was only last week at the annual general meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery that I discovered that, during the passage of this Bill in the other place, my right honourable friend Dame Karen Bradley and Sarah Champion had put down an amendment, which is being mirrored here, about orphanage trafficking. That had not come across my radar, even though I have been—I declare my interest—the chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation. As I say, it was not something that I had been aware of, so I tabled this amendment. By some chance, earlier this week, I met Dame—no, not Dame, sorry, I have elevated her; I met Claire Wright MBE. She is a patron of a very good charity called Hope and Homes for Children. She was talking to me about orphanage trafficking and I said that I had put down an amendment. We got into a discussion with my noble friend Lady Sugg, who I see here in her place, so she also heard about this. It just goes to show what can happen.
Orphanage trafficking is a form of child trafficking defined as
“the recruitment or transfer of children into orphanages, or any residential care facility … for a purpose of exploitation … or profit. It involves both ‘acts’ and ‘purposes of exploitation’ that meet the definition of child trafficking under the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons”.
As I have said, it is a little-known crime here in the UK, but it is estimated that around 5 million children worldwide are living in residential institutions, which exist not to help, support and educate the children but to make profits from charitable donations and something that I had not come across before called “voluntourism”—a form of tourism in which travellers participate in voluntary work. Australia has been in the lead with this and was the first country to legislate to outlaw this crime.
Child trafficking into institutions is something that has been going on and is linked to the funding of orphanages through private donations, volunteer tourism, as I have just mentioned, mission trips and other forms of fundraising. It is estimated that US Christian organisations alone donate approximately $3.3 billion to residential care each year. The popular practice of orphanage volunteering—people from high-income countries travelling abroad hoping to help children living in orphanages, with every good will in the world—also serves to provide a continual income for the orphanage as well as reduced labour costs for the care of the children. There is, however, a grim downside to this. Although often well intentioned, these sources of financial and in-kind support undermine national efforts to support broader child protection and social welfare systems by creating a parallel system without official oversight and accountability. They also create a marketplace that can incentivise the expansion of existing orphanages and the establishment of new ones, with the supply of funding and resources into orphanages increasing the demand for children to be in them.
There is evidence of children being deliberately recruited from vulnerable families to fill spaces in orphanages, under the guise of better care and access to education. Once trafficked into those orphanages, children are then vulnerable to neglect, abuse and exploitation. Orphanages that are run for profit have been found to operate under extremely poor conditions to drive down care costs, with evidence pointing to children being kept deliberately malnourished to encourage further donations, forced to interact with and perform for visitors, or forced to beg for financial donations.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lord, I focused on this new clause when I saw my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge’s name on it. When I was Opposition Chief Whip, among the many fixtures and fittings I inherited in the office was the MP for Uxbridge, John Randall. Although I was Chief Whip, I became his understudy, and to this day I follow his lead on many of the amendments he tables, particularly on biodiversity and so on. So when I saw his name, I thought, “There is something in this and I had better look at it”. My noble friend has tabled a very important amendment and put his finger on the appalling abuse of children in the world. It is a significant and widespread issue which serves as a pipeline to modern slavery and other forms of exploitation globally.
My noble friend’s proposal seeks to expand the definition of exploitation under Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to include orphanage trafficking—specifically, the recruitment of children into overseas residential care institutions purely for the purpose of financial gain and exploitation. As he said, orphanage trafficking is a form of child exploitation whereby children are deliberately separated from their families and recruited into residential care institutions, not for their welfare but to generate profit. This hidden practice is driven by greed and the profit motive, with children being used as commodities to attract charitable donations and international funding or to facilitate voluntourism. In many instances, children are not without parents but are falsely labelled as orphans to increase the institution’s appeal. The problem is as extensive as my noble friend has said.
There are an estimated 5.4 million children worldwide living in orphanages and other residential care institutions. Research consistently shows that over 80% of these children have at least one living parent. Orphanages, particularly in developing countries, are often set up and run as businesses, with the children as the “product”. Orphanage directors and “child-finders” often target poor, low-education families in rural areas, making false promises of education and a better life in exchange for the children.
The exact scale of orphanage trafficking is difficult to quantify due to a lack of data, poor government oversight of many unregistered facilities and the clandestine nature of the crime. Children in these institutions are often untracked, making them more susceptible to exploitation. The links between institutions and child trafficking have been formally recognised in recent years by the United Nations General Assembly and the US Government’s Trafficking in Persons Report, which highlights the growing international concern.
Children in these institutions face various forms of modern slavery and abuse, including financial exploitation, with the children being used to elicit donations from well-intentioned tourists and volunteers. This can involve forcing them to pose as orphans or perform for visitors, or keeping them in deliberately poor conditions to evoke sympathy. Then there is sexual exploitation—children are vulnerable to sexual abuse by staff, volunteers and organised criminal groups targeting these facilities. Then there is forced labour: children being forced to perform labour such as working on a director’s land, doing excessive domestic chores, or begging on the streets. Then there is illicit adoption: in some cases, children are recruited for the purpose of illicit, fraudulent adoption, with documentation falsified to facilitate the process and generate profit.
This is an evil trade, and it is well organised. These so-called child-finders lure families into giving up their children through deception, coercion or payment. Gatekeeping procedures are bypassed or manipulated, often by falsely declaring children as abandoned or creating fraudulent documents. The child’s identity is altered—the child’s name is changed to establish an orphan identity and make them untraceable by their biological family. The child is maintained in the institution long term for ongoing exploitation and profit generation through donations and sex tourism. My noble friend’s amendment deserves Government support.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support this amendment. As the Minister might notice, it is not intended to be dealt with under the Crime and Policing Bill but under the Modern Slavery Act. That means, in a sense, it is probably simpler for the Government to accept it, because it is an improvement to an Act of 10 years ago. I am not quite sure why, oddly enough, the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and I did not think about it in those days, but it was not raised.
When I was a judge, I had the specific example of a child being put into an orphanage by their father, with the intention of a large amount of money being paid eventually for that child to be adopted. The child was in the process of being adopted in England by an American family who came to England. The whole set-up was so unsatisfactory that the child was removed and went into care. The question then was whether the child should go back to the natural parent—the father—but the problem was that he had put the child into the orphanage.
This is a very serious issue that is seriously underestimated and not well known. The very least the Government could do is to amend the Modern Slavery Act.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Randall said, I too recently met the Hope and Homes for Children charity. This amendment helps to name, define and criminalise the form of exploitation my noble friend set out. As he said, it is often hidden behind humanitarianism or done in the name of childcare. The deception, exploitation, control and harm that children face in these institutions have all the hallmarks of modern slavery. That is why it is important not to treat it separately from modern slavery. By including it we will, I hope, help to ensure that traffickers cannot claim that they operate as charities, rather than being the exploitative institutions that they are. The amendment would help to close a legal gap and, hopefully, disrupt the financial incentives that create harm. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to my noble friend’s arguments.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 247A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, who has laid out the case in detail.
It is a sad fact that children, some with living parents, are deliberately separated from their families and placed in residential institutions overseas. These institutions then present these children as orphans to attract donations from well-meaning supporters, often in the UK. The children become commodities: the more vulnerable they appear, the more money flows in. This is exploitation on a grand scale, masquerading as charity, and it is funded in part by British individuals and organisations who often have no idea that they are perpetuating abuse.
Amendment 247A proposes an overdue expansion of the definition of exploitation in Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to explicitly include orphanage trafficking. As the explanatory statement confirms, this new clause would insert a clear definition into the Act that orphanage trafficking means that
“The person is a child who has been recruited into a residential care institution overseas for the purpose of financial gain and exploitation”.
Our approach throughout the Bill’s scrutiny has been to ensure that our legislation is robust and responsive and specifically targets the modern tactics of abusers and exploiters, particularly concerning vulnerable children.
The phenomenon of orphanage trafficking was not adequately understood as a distinct form of modern slavery when the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was drafted a decade ago. In recent years, however, extensive research and reporting, including by UNICEF and specialist organisations working in south-east Asia and Africa, have revealed the scale and systematic nature of this exploitation. We now know that the practice uses the guise of charitable care to perpetrate sustained abuse for profit. This is unacceptable.
By explicitly defining this conduct, Amendment 247A would ensure that the MSA 2015 is fully equipped to address this tragic global issue. We have seen the importance of such clarity throughout the Bill. Just as we have recognised that exploitation evolves, we should now acknowledge orphanage trafficking as an identifiable and compatible form of abuse. This amendment applies the same principle to this particularly insidious form of overseas exploitation.
The amendment serves three critical functions. First, it would provide legal recognition and awareness. This is a necessary first step to legally recognise orphanage trafficking in UK law. This action would raise the profile of a genuine issue that, despite being recognised in jurisdictions such as Australia and New Zealand, remains poorly understood here. It is time this was addressed. Australia’s experience demonstrates that legislative recognition creates public awareness and shifts provision towards sustainable, family-based care models rather than institutional placements.
Secondly, the amendment targets financial facilitators. This is the amendment’s most powerful practical effect. Adding this specific definition to the MSA 2015 would mean that individuals and organisations which provide financial support to these exploitative overseas institutions could be in breach of the Modern Slavery Act. This would allow enforcement action to be taken against them.
Thirdly, it covers international obligations and UK leadership. This amendment aligns with our commitments under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and reinforces the UK’s role in setting global standards for combating modern slavery. It demonstrates that our child protection framework extends meaningfully beyond our borders.
Supporting Amendment 247A is a necessary evolution of our anti-slavery legal framework. It would ensure that our commitment to protecting exploited children extends effectively beyond our borders and covers every known facet of trafficking, reinforcing our foundational principle that the law must protect the vulnerable from financial and criminal exploitation.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child should be upheld at every level. We hope the Government will support this amendment in order to protect innocent, vulnerable children from this very distressing practice.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I too support this amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. It is my privilege, as I travel around the world visiting Anglican provinces, often to visit orphanages and see some of the work they do. As noble Lords have already said, many of these children still have a living parent somewhere, but that parent, for whatever reason, no longer feels able or wishes to look after them, particularly if the mother has died in childbirth.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I too support the noble Lord, Lord Randall, on Amendment 247A. I had the fortune of meeting Claire Wright over a year ago, and she explained to me what Hope and Homes for Children was doing as a charity. I too was bowled over by it, because it was an area that I did not have much knowledge of. She and the organisation have done amazing work. While this may be out of scope of the Bill, the one suggestion I make to the Minister is that he could bring together a round table of Ministers from relevant government departments to listen to Claire Wright and Hope and Homes for Children, so that their good work can be shared and built on.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge for bringing forward this important amendment. It would ensure that this House does not overlook emerging and deeply troubling patterns of abuse that fall outside traditional definitions.
The amendment seeks to expand the definition of exploitation under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to include children who are recruited into residential care institutions overseas for the purpose of financial gain, commonly referred to as orphanage trafficking. As my noble friend highlighted, this is a practice that too often disguises itself as humanitarian intervention, while in fact it enables systematic exploitation and harm. Many so-called orphanages operate as profit-making enterprises, intentionally separating children from families and communities to attract funding and donations. The children involved may be subject to physical and emotional abuse, forced labour or trafficking into other forms of exploitation.
It is right that we recognise the growing international call to confront this practice and that we consider whether our legislative framework needs strengthening to support that effort. Ensuring that the Modern Slavery Act accurately reflects contemporary forms of exploitation is a legitimate objective, and I commend my noble friend for shining a spotlight on an issue that has far too long remained in the shadows.
We are sympathetic to the intention of the amendment and welcome the opportunity it provides to examine how the UK can play a stronger role in protecting vulnerable children globally. At the same time, we look forward to hearing from the Minister about the practical implications of such a change and how it might interact with existing powers and international co-operation mechanisms. I hope the Government will engage constructively with the concerns he has raised, and I very much look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone who contributed to this short but vital debate on an issue, which, speaking personally, I was not tremendously well aware of before looking at the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Randall. Many noble Lords have commented that it is the hard work of people such as Claire Wright and others that has brought to light this pernicious activity or—to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—this evil trade.
As the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, has explained, Amendment 247A seeks to include so-called orphanage trafficking within the meaning of exploitation under Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act. I know the noble Lord has concerns about modern slavery and trafficking in his wider work. I pay tribute to his work as chair of the Human Trafficking Foundation and the work of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery for highlighting this evil activity and the wider concerns around modern slavery.
As the noble Lord described, in our case, concerns about orphanage tourism would be about volunteers from the UK visiting orphanages overseas, fuelling this activity and contributing to a cycle of harm and exploitation of children. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester made a very relevant point: a lot of it is done in good faith. However, it can be undermined and exploited by those who are acting in bad faith.
I make it very clear to all noble Lords who spoke in the debate—the noble Baronesses, Lady Sugg and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Lords, Lord Polak and Lord Randall, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, on the Opposition Front Bench—that the Government share the same concerns. That is why the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office provides travel advice warning British nationals of the risk of volunteering with children and highlighting how volunteer visitors may unknowingly contribute to child exploitation and trafficking. The advice that the FCDO gives signposts travellers to the global standard for volunteering, which helps organisations provide responsible volunteering. By adopting the global standard, organisations commit to promoting child-safe volunteering in all environments, which includes not facilitating visits to orphanages or other institutional care facilities.
Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 already recognises the specific vulnerabilities of children and encompasses the exploitation of children for the provision of services of any kind and to enable someone to acquire benefits of any kind, including financial gain. Therefore, orphanage trafficking is already captured by the broad terms of the existing legislation. It is fair to say that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, anticipated that that may be the tenor of my contribution.
I point out to noble Lords that on 16 July this year, the Home Office launched a public call for evidence on how the Government can improve the process of identifying victims of modern slavery, human trafficking and exploitation. The call for evidence closed on 8 October, and the Home Office is now analysing responses received. A report summarising the key findings and themes from the call for evidence responses will be published in due course. Of course, the Home Office will consider the evidence gathered to explore any further changes that can be made to improve the identification of victims.
We are seeking to introduce new modern slavery legislation as part of our efforts to review and improve the modern slavery system. This new legislation will enable us to clearly articulate the UK’s responsibilities under international law regarding modern slavery, allowing us to reduce opportunities for misuse while ensuring the right protection for those who need it.
I make no commitments here to your Lordships’ Committee, but that may well be to an opportunity to revisit some of the issues raised in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Polak, floated the suggestion of a wider round table; I will certainly take that back to colleagues and discuss it.
For the reasons I have outlined about Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act already capturing orphanage trafficking in the broad terms, we do not believe it is necessary to amend Section 3 any further, as the conduct in question is already captured. In light of this explanation, and hoping that it does not disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and other noble Lords too much, I hope he will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has taken part in this debate. As I said at the beginning of my contribution, one of the many benefits of this place is having people who know much more than I do about a subject and who are certainly much more eloquent. Everybody who spoke after me fit that description. It was extremely good to have the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester pointing out that it is not every orphanage, and so forth.
However, it is an important issue. My friend—I call her that because we work very closely together—the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is right: we did not spot this in our debates during the passage of the Modern Slavery Act, but that is because modern slavery in all its forms is always developing; the traffickers and exploiters are always looking at something new.
I am very grateful for what the Minister said. If I could predict the lottery numbers as well as I can predict ministerial responses, I would be a very rich man. We will come back to this, not necessarily in this Bill, but we should be looking at it. It would be good if we could perhaps at some stage get a Minister—they are very busy at the moment with this Bill and goodness knows how many other things—to meet the lady we mentioned and others, just to get an idea of the scale of it. But there is so much of this exploitation—we have only to look at Ukraine and the children who are being trafficked into Russia. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Independent Commission on Grooming Gangs: timescaleWithin three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must commence the work of the Independent Commission on Grooming Gangs by—(a) appointing a Chair,(b) publishing the inquiry’s terms of reference,(c) appointing a Minister with the sole task of overseeing the inquiry and related activities, and(d) directing the inquiry’s hearings to begin.”
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, there is a dismal pattern in our country in response to serious failings of the state. First, we see denials and cover-ups, then the issue gains traction, but shock and outrage quickly follow. Calls for something to be done are heard but too often are followed by absolutely nothing—more delay, while victims are relegated to yesterday’s newspapers and the news cycle moves on. Unfortunately, the rape gang issue is a classic example of this pattern.
Victims deserve so much better from us than this. Has anyone else noticed that it has gone eerily quiet? Where is the national statutory inquiry promised by the Government? The Minister said earlier, in his responses in Oral Questions, that it was coming “very soonly”, and I give him credit for inventing another euphemism which even I have not heard before. But seriously, it is conspicuous by its absence. Neither the public nor the victims know when it is going to start or who is going to chair it and, because so many victims have lost confidence in the Safeguarding Minister in the other place, Jess Phillips, which Minister is going to oversee it. Perhaps it will be our Minister, in which case I am sure we will welcome that.
This is the reason behind my tabling of Amendments 247B and 535A. They are straightforward and designed simply to ensure that the grooming gangs inquiry begins at long last. The amendments are not designed to dictate the outcome, set the scope or limit its independence. We need it for one simple reason, which is to ensure that the state does not continue to mistreat those victims, who have already suffered so much by its collective failure.
I recognise that it is perhaps not conventional and may even be novel to legislate for the start date of an inquiry, and I anticipate that the Minister will say this when he comes to respond. However, I implore him to take this seriously. We have a position in this House and we should use it for this end. We should be speaking up for these girls and women who have been let down so shockingly. The very least we can do is to send the signal to the victims that we are not going to continue failing them and we are going to get justice for them.
What is more—I speak as a former Minister in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice—I am sure the Minister will recognise what I am about to say: providing a deadline focuses minds and drives action and activity in all parts of the system, whether the delays are accidental or bureaucratic or, in fact, unfortunately, intentional. I also remind the Minister that, in the words of the famous sage, if you keep doing what you have always done, you are going to keep getting what you have always got—no action.
We should remember that some of the survivors at the heart of this scandal have been waiting 20 years or even longer. Fiona Goddard first reported her abuse to police in 2012. She was a child when the crimes were committed against her in the mid-2000s. She told her story, took the risk, trusted the system and, as she puts it, was met with silence, closed doors and disbelief. When she was asked recently how it felt to wait this long, she said, “It’s like living with a wound that’s never allowed to close, because every year I’m told justice will come but every year nothing begins”. The victims have to keep reliving the trauma, but nothing moves forward. Hope is being postponed, year after year. We know that the only thing worse than being failed by institutions once is being failed by them twice, thrice and more. As one survivor said, “We do not need perfection. We just need to know that somebody has finally begun the work”.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the proposed new clauses in my Amendments 271C, 271D and 271E. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Maclean on her excellent amendments. She also has the advantage of that wonderful name of the great Highland clan the Macleans of Duart, which I used to have myself.
I was inspired to table my amendments when I read properly the brilliant but frightening report from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey of Blackstock. I had skim-read the media reports and the government comments on it when it was published, but it was not until recently, when I read the report properly, that I had confirmed to me the full horror of the conspiracy by those in lawful authority who had covered up child rape for the last 30 years. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, said in blunt terms what we all knew was the case but were afraid to say in case we were accused of racism or Islamophobia. We could all see from the various court convictions that 90% of the perpetrators were Pakistani Muslim males and the victims were almost exclusively young white girls.
The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, pointed out that around 500,000 children a year are likely to experience sexual abuse of some kind. The police recorded data shows just over 100,000 offences of child sexual abuse and exploitation recorded in 2024, with around 60% of these being contact offences. We know that the sex crimes reported to the police are just the tip of the iceberg. The national police data confirms that the majority of victims of child sexual exploitation are girls—78% in 2023. The most common age for victims is between 10 and 15 years-old—57% are between 10 and 15 years old, for God’s sake. Putting that together suggests that, of just those reported to the police, we have at least 60,000 little children every year being victims of contact sexual abuse—and what an intriguing term that is. Let us start calling it out for what it really is.
The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, said:
“That term ‘group-based child sexual exploitation’ is actually a sanitised version of what it is. I want to set it out in unsanitised terms: we are talking about multiple sexual assaults committed against children by multiple men on multiple occasions; beatings and gang rapes. Girls having to have abortions, contracting sexually transmitted infections, having children removed from them at birth”.
These children were not abused by these Pakistani rape gangs. They were raped, raped and raped again by people who believed that the girls who were not Muslim were just prostitutes, deserving to be raped. Therefore, I say that “child abuse” is far too mild a term to describe the evil of what is happening. Abuse can expand over a wide range. It can be heavy smacking, not feeding a child property or failing to give love, care and attention. These things are bad in themselves, but we must make sure that we use the right terminology when talking about rape and sexual assault.
That is why I have tabled the proposed new clause in my Amendment 271C. The important words in it are “investigating authority”. Of course, after investigation, if the police find evidence of rape or sexual assault, the accused will be charged with those specific offences. The CPS will also use those correct terms. However, we have seen, time and time again, that the police, in their initial statements, say they are investigating “child abuse” and have a person or persons in custody with regard to “child abuse”. That is what the media are told and that is the message we get on our screens and in the press. By the time the police eventually say the person or persons have been charged with rape, the damage has been done. We all relax somewhat: just a bit of abuse, nothing to worry about.
The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, said:
“That is why I want the legislation on rape tightened up so that an adult having penetrative sex with a child under 16 is rape, no excuses, no defence. I believe many jaws across the country would drop if it was widely known that doing so is called anything but that”.
I am pleased to see that my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie and my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower have tabled Amendment 271B, which does exactly that. My proposed new clause is complementary, in a way: if a person is under investigation for child rape, let the police say that at the outset and not give the impression that it is something lesser.
The new clause proposed in my Amendment 271D sets out details on the full and proper investigation of historical child sexual abuse. I have used the commonly used term “historical”, but I do not like it either: it gives the impression that it is something way in the distant past, like the Battle of Waterloo. The proper terminology would be, “investigation of past child sexual abuse cases which were not properly investigated at the time”, since that is what we are talking about. It is not a very sexy title, but that is the reality.
I know that the National Crime Agency is looking at some of these past cases, and nearly 1,300 previously closed investigations involving allegations of group-based child sexual abuse and exploitation are currently being reviewed in Operation Beaconport, but my proposed new clause gives them wider authority.
We have all heard about Rochdale, Rotherham, Aylesbury and Telford, but there are at least 30 local authorities where child rape by gangs took place. Apparently, 23 police forces have submitted cases to the NCA, and the Met itself is looking at 9,000 cases. However, it seems that the NCA is looking only at police forces, when the conspiracy to not investigate and to cover up was led in many cases by elected councillors, local authorities and children’s homes.
I quote the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, again:
“I met many victims of child sexual exploitation when I conducted the inspection of Rotherham Council in 2016. I was outraged, shocked and appalled at their treatment—not only at the hands of their vile abusers, but at the treatment afforded them by those who were supposedly there to help, and to be accountable, such as their police force and their council. Those responsible in Rotherham denied any wrongdoing and tried to shirk accountability”.
She went on to say that
“I assumed we would all wake up to the fact that these were abused children and it would mean that the police, councils, health and other agencies would do their damnedest to make sure these victims were given as much care, respect and chance at justice as possible”.
Note her words: she thought that not just the police but
“councils, health and other agencies would do their damnedest”
to stop it, but they did not. In fact, we have seen from many cases that councils, councillors and their staff did their damnedest to conspire with some police forces to turn a blind eye, reduce and drop charges and cover up. The excuse was not to offend community relations and prosecute the mainly Pakistani men doing the raping.
So it is essential that the NCA, since there is no one better qualified to do it, has the powers in my proposed new clause to investigate all persons in lawful authority in the organisations I list in proposed new subsections (1) and (5), not just the police. These are
“staff of local authorities of whatever rank … elected council members of local authorities … police officers of all ranks … any police support staff … owners or managers of homes for children in care”.
Of course, the proposed new clause gives the NCA powers to get all papers and emails and sets penalties for any person trying to obstruct its inquiries.
Finally, the new clause proposed in my Amendment 271E is on offences and penalties. I need not go through them all, but I have listed eight different offences, ranging from failure to investigate and dismissing charges improperly up to and including bribes or sexual favours and the conspiracy to cover everything up.
I did not conjure these up from thin air: all these suggested offences are based on reports of crime cases and convictions, and these were allegations made in court and accepted as truthful—but then nothing was done about them. The persons were convicted of child rape or sexual assault, but then no one investigated the police or the council officers who failed to investigate or covered it up, and we have tens of thousands of cases which never got to court because of failures of investigation and good cover-ups.
Where any of these people were acting alone, I suggest a sentence of up to 10 years. However, where there was a conspiracy, with any of these people acting in concert to commit any of the offences in my list, the only penalty, in my opinion, can be up to life imprisonment. This has to be separate from the offence of perverting the course of justice, where the maximum penalty is generally seven years. I think that the heaviest sentence ever given for perverting the course of justice was 12 years for someone who planted incriminating evidence on an innocent person.
There is already a power to remove all or part of a police officer’s pension if the officer has been sentenced for a crime. Then the Home Secretary can initiate a procedure. We need to make it clear that that power can be used against any police officers and local authority employees who may be convicted of any of the crimes I have listed.
Some, perhaps many, noble Lords and the Minister will say that these penalties are far too draconian. Of course, they are draconian, and they need to be. What we are looking at are some of the vilest crimes committed against children short of murder.
The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, said:
“When those same girls get older, they face long-term physical and mental health impacts. Sometimes they have criminal convictions for actions they took while under coercion. They have to live with fear and the constant shadow over them of an injustice which has never been righted—the shame of not being believed. And, with a criminal justice system that can re-traumatise them all over again, often over many years. With an overall system that compounds and exacerbates the damage; rarely acknowledges its failures to victims. They never get to see those people who were in positions of power and let them down be held accountable … What makes child sexual exploitation particularly reprehensible, is that is consists of both formal and informal groups of men preying on girls, coercing, manipulating and deceiving them in pursuit of sexual gratification and power”.
News reports and inquests have detailed specific instances, such as the case of Charlotte Tetley, a survivor of the Rochdale grooming scandal who, after years of mental health struggles and self-harm, took her own life as an adult. Another victim, an anonymous woman, described having
“a lot of problems in the past, suicide attempts and drinking”
due to the abuse she suffered as a vulnerable teenager. Major studies and reports consistently find that survivors of child sexual abuse are at a significantly higher risk of suicide attempts than the general population. All those abusers have escaped any investigation or sanction and are in the same vile box as the rapists who raped all those children. They need to be investigated and prosecuted and to get exemplary sentences.
I am conscious that I am exceeding the 10-minute limit, but I hope the Committee will bear with me because there a couple more minutes to go. I promise that in the next debate I will speak for less than 30 seconds.
Over the past 30 years, 60,000 girls have been raped every year. We are appalled at Ukraine, where Putin has kidnapped 20,000 people and soldiers have raped about 4,000 over the past three years.
Finally, I look forward to hearing the wise words of my noble friend Lady Cash. It was two or three years before she qualified as a barrister that we created a precedent for prosecuting and bringing to justice those who committed crimes in the past. We passed, by the Parliament Act, the War Crimes Act 1991, after this House blocked it for many good reasons. We prosecuted one person under it, a 78 year-old Belarusian SS man called Anthony Sawoniuk. He murdered 18 Jews—well, he murdered a lot more than 18 Jews, but those are the ones we got names for—and we punished him. He was convicted and given a life sentence in grade C Norwich Prison, with three meals a day and his healthcare needs taken care of, and he died peacefully at age 84. Of course, the only appropriate punishment for him would have been if he appeared at Nuremburg and was hanged with all the others. We have a precedent for going back 50 years to bring to justice a war criminal who was not even British at the time it was done, so I hope that we will accept my noble friend’s view that we need to look back at historical cases and bring them forward.
Penultimately, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, talked about taxis. I am afraid we have not got an amendment on taxis, but I want to get one. Let me conclude with these words from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey,
“one thing is abundantly clear; we as a society owe these women a debt. They should never have been allowed to have suffered the appalling abuse and violence they went through as children. This is especially so for those who were in the ‘care’ of local authorities, where the duty to protect them was left in the hands of professionals on the state’s behalf”.
These women are now in our care. It is our duty in this Parliament to ensure that they get justice for the appalling crimes they suffered.
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group, and I shall speak to the four amendments in my name. Those are in two parts. Amendments 288A and 288B are directed to the reporting of child sexual abuse and child criminal exploitation. The purpose of the amendments is to act. We have to actually do something since we have had so many reviews and inquiries.
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.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I rise very briefly perhaps to defend the noble Baroness, Lady Cash. Quite often in your Lordships’ House, we end up with amendments that are remarkably similar, and it appears to be a trait among some of your Lordships to consider working in co-operation with others systematically a somewhat eccentric behaviour. I personally feel that it should be encouraged.
What I wanted to say is the obvious: data is king. The situation that we have allowed to evolve over the last 20 or 30 years has been allowed to happen because of a dearth of reliable and systematic collection and utilisation of data. We have allowed what has been happening—largely to these young girls, in plain sight—because we have lacked the detail and the nitty-gritty information required to nail it. In a long career in business, the thing one disliked most was awaydays when you talked about strategy, when a large number of people would devote an enormous amount of hot air to talking about this, that or the other, usually in a slightly vague way. The thing that nails that sort of debate is reliable and accurate data. It deflates the rather pompous balloon who is spouting out, apparently knowledgeably but actually probably repeating what somebody else has said—it deflates that remarkably quickly.
Very simply, we need to follow the fourth recommendation of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, in her report. It is in bold and it is very brief, but it is extremely clear:
“The government should make mandatory the collection of ethnicity and nationality data for all suspects in child sexual abuse and criminal exploitation cases and work with the police to improve the collection of ethnicity data for victims”.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it has been five months since the National Audit on Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, undertaken by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, was published. I once again extend my thanks to her for her incredible work on this. The audit laid bare the systemic failures of local government, police leadership and safeguarding structures that allowed organised grooming gangs to operate in plain sight. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, found a culture of denial, a fear of being labelled racist, an unwillingness to confront uncomfortable truths and a catastrophic failure to treat vulnerable young girls as victims. Her review documented how institutions minimised, dismissed or actively ignored evidence of horrific abuse. Perhaps the most sobering lesson from this is that these were not isolated failings; they were structural, cultural and tragically repeated in town after town across the country.
The national audit produced 12 recommendations. To their credit, the Government have accepted all 12, some of which have found their way into the Bill. However, unfortunately, the first and second recommendations of the audit have so far been left behind. The first recommendation of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, was to change the law so that any adult who intentionally has sexual intercourse with a child under 16 receives a mandatory charge of rape. In their response to the audit, the Government said:
“Our laws must never provide protection for the adult abusers rather than the child victims of these despicable crimes. We share Baroness Casey’s view … and we accept the recommendation to change the law in this area”.
If the Government agreed with this recommendation and said that they will implement it, why have they not done so? The Bill provides the perfect opportunity for this change in the law. That is why my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie and I tabled Amendment 271B. It would provide for a new, distinct offence of child rape. This would operate alongside the current offence of the rape of a child under 13 in Section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
In her audit, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, laid bare the loophole in the law. Currently, an adult who has sex with a child under the age of 13 is automatically guilty of rape, and this operates with strict liability. But, despite the age of consent being 16, when an adult has had sex with a child between the ages of 13 and 15, the decision to charge and which offence to charge with is left open to the Crown Prosecution Service. This has led to many cases of child sexual exploitation having the charges downgraded from rape to lesser charges, such as sexual activity with a child under Section 9 of the Sexual Offences Act. Not only is that offence not a charge of rape but it carries a maximum sentence of 14 years—not life, as in the case of an offence under Section 5. Our amendment would provide that, where a person over the age of 18 has penetrative sexual relations with a child between the ages of 13 and 15, they will be charged with the rape of a child in all cases and face a sentence of life imprisonment.
We have not included a so-called Romeo and Juliet provision in this amendment, because it applies only to those who are over 18. Children who are close in age and have consenting sexual relations would not be criminalised under the amendment. I want to make sure that that is clear.
Fundamentally, the law must be unambiguous on this matter. The penetration of a child is rape. It is not sexual activity; it is not exploitation; and it is not an unfortunate incident. It is rape. The Casey report describes girls as young as 13 being passed between adult men, yet institutional language frequently minimised the seriousness of what had occurred. Creating a specific offence would reinforce the fundamental point: children cannot consent to sex with adults—full stop. Given that the Government have accepted that this needs to happen, I hope that they will be able to accept my amendment.
The second recommendation from the national audit that the Government have failed to deliver is the national inquiry. Amendment 247B from my noble friend Lady Maclean of Redditch seeks to press the Government on what has become a chaotic process. I know we have discussed this on many occasions in this House, but the fact is that the inquiry is in disarray. Survivors have already resigned from the panel because they do not trust the Government. Those most impacted by the grooming gangs scandal have lost faith in the process that was meant to bring them long-overdue justice. Months on from the announcement, the Government were U-turning. The chair has not been appointed, the terms of reference have not been published and the inquiry has not begun. How much longer must the victims and survivors wait? My noble friend’s amendment would give the Government a timeline of three months, and there is no reason why they cannot live up to that.
My noble friend Lady Cash is a stalwart defender of the rights of children and young girls. She proposes two crucial amendments, which also link into the national audit on grooming gangs. Amendment 288A would complement the duty to report in Clause 72 of the Bill. It would establish a duty on professionals with safeguarding responsibilities to report where they know or reasonably believe that a child is being sexually abused or exploited. That would fill a long-identified and long-criticised gap. If this scandal has showed us anything, it is that vulnerable young girls were let down by the very people who were supposed to protect them. Institutions sometimes waited for absolute proof before acting, and children paid the price for that inaction.
Amendment 288B creates a new offence targeted at public officials who obstruct or frustrate investigations into child sexual abuse. This is not hypothetical. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, found that public officials failed to record offences, failed to transmit intelligence and, in some cases, deliberately closed down avenues of inquiry. There must be consequences for such conduct. The noble Baroness was explicit that the fear of being accused of racism contributed to the reluctance of authorities to confront organised grooming gangs. More importantly, she also acknowledged that it remains impossible to provide a definitive assessment of the ethnic profile of the perpetrators, because the data collected by police forces has been woeful. That poor-quality data is one of the factors that permitted officials and authorities to claim they could not conclude any link between ethnicity or nationality and the prevalence of grooming gangs.
The large number of perpetrators whose ethnicity was recorded as “unknown” in the statistics creates a highly distorting picture. Inclusion of the “unknowns” shows 28% of group-based offenders as white, but exclusion of the “unknowns” shows 88% being white. This is obviously not the way to create datasets that could be used for accurate police intelligence and rigorous policy-making. Even today, we still have people trying to deny the fact that the vast majority of perpetrators in these grooming gangs were Pakistani, despite the evidence; they are able to continue this route because of the poor-quality data.
Because of this completely and shockingly inadequate collection of data, I strongly support this amendment from my noble friend Lady Cash. Her Amendments 288C and 288D compel the collection of ethnicity and nationality data for all child sexual offenders and victims. Consistent nationwide data gives us truth, and truth is the basis of action. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his series of amendments. They probe the definitions of child sexual assault and rape, and also impose a statutory duty to investigate historic instances of child sexual abuse where the lawful authority has been negligent. I hope that the Government will consider these amendments with the seriousness they deserve.
These amendments together form a coherent, serious and necessary set of reforms that respond directly to the failures highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and some of her solutions. The victims of grooming gangs were failed by the state. They were failed by those whose duty was to protect them, and they were failed by institutions that put political sensitivities above child safety.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
Before my noble friend rises to reply, I want to emphasise, as someone who has practised at the Bar over many decades, like the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, the importance of our recognising in the course of these discussions that, while we are dealing here with a spate of offences clearly committed by gangs of Pakistani men, this is not confined to Pakistani men. The Epstein case has told us quite clearly that upper-class white men with power can abuse and groom and commit these crimes. I have seen it since my early years at the Bar. I see the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, sitting there, and we acted in cases involving East End gangs who passed around girls who were part and parcel of that world. Nowadays, in the drugs world, pass-around girls, who are often underage, are part and parcel of that world. So we must not become fixated on the idea that this happens only in certain communities. I just want that to be emphasised.
The Minister of State, Home Office ( Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to all those who have spoken in what I think everybody in the Committee will accept is a very wide set of amendments, covering a large number of issues. I shall try my best to summarise and respond on behalf of the Government as a whole.
I start by saying that the horror of the events that have led to the discussions that we have had today need to be recognised, and I need to say from the Government Front Bench that we wish to ensure that we prevent those events happening in future. I just remind the Committee that the Government have been in office for 17 months so far, and the Bill before the Committee today includes a wide range of measures that have arisen out of reports published before the Government came to office, including the IICSA report under Alexis Jay, and are starting to look at some of the issues that have come out of the inquiries and discussions that we have had on issues, including the audit from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, on group-based child sexual abuse.
I also place on record, and remind the Committee, that the Government accept all the recommendations that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, has made, and are seeking to put those recommendations into practice. I accept today that there are a number of amendments down and discussion points pressing the Government on a range of issues, but I hope that we all have the same objective in mind, which is to prevent further similar horrors.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
Why, then, was it legitimate to pass the War Crimes Act, bringing to justice someone who committed crimes, not even in this country, 50 years ago?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord has made his case. I have put my view. If he wishes to examine it further, we can do so in due course. I understand that he wants to bring people to justice. So do I, but the approach we want to take is different from his, and we will have to accept that.
Amendment 271B, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and Amendment 271C, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would give effect to recommendation 1 of the National Audit on Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, that the law should be changed so that adults penetrating a child aged under 16 are charged with rape. As I have said, the Government have accepted this recommendation and have committed to changing the law. I reassure noble Lords that we are working fast to consider how that law change should be made. We are discussing this. I met the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, as part of that work and I will update Parliament soon about our proposed approach but, at the moment, I hope that the noble and learned Lord accepts that we are committed to that legislation and will table it as soon as time allows.
Amendment 271C, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would mean that someone suspected of or charged with a sexual offence against a child that involved penetration would be described as having committed rape, whether the penetration was penile or non-penile, and regardless of what the offence is actually called in legislation. It would also mean that a wide range of other non-penetrative offending behaviour would be referred to simply as sexual assault. I do not think that that meets the intention of the recommendation from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, as it would not substantially change criminal law. Additionally, the difference in how offences are labelled in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and mandating how enforcement agencies then refer to those offences could lead to operational confusion, which I hope the noble Lord would seek to avoid.
Amendment 271B, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, which I have already mentioned, would create a new offence of rape which would apply when an adult penetrates with their penis the vagina, anus or mouth of a child aged 13 to 15. The offence would not require proof of an absence of consent or reasonable belief. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who spoke to it on behalf of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, that the Government are committed to making this change in law. We have accepted the recommendations of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and we strongly agree with the sentiment behind the amendment. However, we are also aware of the need to ensure a robust framework of sexual offences, which must work effectively across all types of child sexual abuse. This will be a significant change to the framework and, as such, if the noble Lord will allow me, we need to discuss it with the police and prosecutors to make sure that they have the tools needed to bring abusers to justice. When we have done that and taken those considerations into account, we will change the law, and we will update Parliament when we do that. I hope he can accept that intention.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, for her Amendments 288A and 288B. These overlap with the provisions in Chapter 2 of Part 5, which provide for a duty to report, which we will come on to later; she noted and accepted that. We believe, after extensive consultation with the relevant sectors, that the model in that chapter is the appropriate one to adopt. Again, we can debate that later, and I am sure we will, but that is the Government’s view at the moment.
Amendment 288B seeks to create a criminal offence specifically in respect of concealment by public officials. I am mindful that the type of offence proposed by this amendment may overlap with existing statutory provision, including obstruction of justice offences. Later, we will come on to consider the offence of preventing or deterring a reporter from carrying out their duty in Clause 79, and it will be part of the appropriate way forward at that stage.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, also tabled Amendments 288C and 288D, which are about the collection of the ethnicity and nationality data of child sexual abuse offenders and victims. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, said. The recommendation from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, is to work alongside the police to establish improvements which are required to assist the collection and publication of this data. We have accepted that recommendation. This includes reviewing and improving the existing data that the police collect, as well as considering future legislative measures if required. The objective the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, has set is one that we have accepted. We are working through that at the moment and, although it may not be satisfactory today, it is an objective to which she and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, can hold us to account.
This is an important debate. I think we are at one on these things, but it is the Government’s firm view that most of the amendments are not the way forward or need further refinement along the lines that I have already outlined to the Committee. As I have said, the Government are committed to changing the law in relation to rape. We will take away amendments and consider this further for Report.
Given these caveats, let us go back to where we started on this wide-ranging group, which is whether we should have a statutory timescale for the inquiry. Going back to the lead amendment in this group, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, will withdraw her amendment because we are trying to do this as speedily as possible. The converse impact of her amendment may well be to create a further delay to a process that the Government are determined to get down as quickly as possible, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, to land the inquiry and get further recommendations to tighten up areas in which we need to reduce—and, we hope, stop—the number of further victims of these awful crimes.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for addressing my amendment and the others in such detail, and my noble friends Baroness Cash and Lord Blencathra for adding their support.
Even though the Minister has not accepted my amendment and stated that the others do not fit with the Government’s plans, I welcome the agreement across the Committee that we all support the principle of the work that is happening. However, I make no apologies for standing up and saying that the system is still not adequate in many ways. I am sure that the Minister can recognise some of this. I remember sitting in the Home Office in 2021-22, when I was a Minister there, and asking for the data about ethnicity and whether there was any connection. I was told, “No, Minister, there is none”. We all know now that that was not the case. I wish to God we had known that then so we could have done more for the victims. Collectively, we have all let them down; this is not a party-political issue, but one in which we should feel ashamed about what has happened to those vulnerable girls in our country.
I accept the Minister’s point about the timeline and the passage of the Bill, and that, were he to accept my amendment, it would potentially be delayed further than any of us would wish. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment spells out, on the face of the Bill, that “satisfied” here means satisfied on the balance of probabilities
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 5, page 253, line 33.
(ii) doing anything in Scotland or Northern Ireland that would constitute an offence under that section (as it has effect in England and Wales) if done in England and Wales.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment expands the meaning of “engaging in child criminal exploitation” in the provisions about child criminal exploitation prevention orders in England and Wales, to encompass anything done anywhere in the UK that would be an offence under clause 40 if done in England and Wales.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment changes the meaning of “engaging in conduct associated with child criminal exploitation” in the provisions about child criminal exploitation prevention orders in England and Wales, to encompass anything done anywhere in the UK.
(a) by attending at an appropriate police station and”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is related to my amendments to Schedule 5, page 255, line 27.
(b) in a way specified in the CCE prevention order.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment allows for notifications to be made in a way specified in the CCE prevention order. This is likely to be used to provide for notifications other than in person when the offender lives outside England and Wales in cases where in person notification is considered unreasonable.
“(5A) An “appropriate police station” is a police station in the police area in which—(a) the offender’s home address is situated, or(b) the court which made the order is situated.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is related to my amendment to Schedule 5, page 255, line 20 and my other amendment to Schedule 5, page 255, line 27.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my other amendment to this paragraph, changes the meaning of “home address” so that the home address of the subject of a CCE prevention order made on conviction in England and Wales may be anywhere in the UK.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my other amendment to this paragraph, changes the meaning of “home address” so that the home address of the subject of a CCE prevention order made on conviction in England and Wales may be anywhere in the UK.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“ScheduleCCE prevention orders: ScotlandPower to make CCE prevention order
1 (1) This paragraph applies if—(a) the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland, in accordance with paragraph 3, makes an application to a sheriff for a CCE prevention order in respect of a person,(b) the Sheriff Appeal Court or the High Court allows a person’s appeal against a conviction for any offence,(c) a person is acquitted of any offence by or before a court by reason of the special defence set out in section 51A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995,(d) a court finds under section 53F of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 that a person is unfit for trial and has done the act charged against them in respect of any offence, or(e) a court deals with a person convicted of an offence for that offence.(2) The court may make an order under paragraph 2 (a “CCE prevention order”) in respect of the person (“the adult”) if they are aged 18 or over and the conditions in sub-paragraphs (3) to (5) are met.(3) The first condition is that—(a) in any case, the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the adult has engaged in child criminal exploitation or in conduct associated with child criminal exploitation, or (b) in a case within paragraph (c), (d) or (e) of sub-paragraph (1), the offence in question is an offence under section 40.(4) The second condition is that the court considers that there is a risk that the adult will engage in child criminal exploitation.(5) The third condition is that the court considers that it is necessary to make the order to prevent the adult from engaging, or reduce the likelihood of the adult engaging, in child criminal exploitation.(6) In sub-paragraph (3)—(a) in paragraph (a), the reference to engaging in anything includes engaging in it before (as well as after) the time when this paragraph comes into force;(b) paragraph (b) applies in relation to findings made in respect of conduct occurring before (as well as after) that time.(7) In this paragraph—(a) a reference to an adult “engaging in child criminal exploitation” is to the adult—(i) doing anything that constitutes an offence under section 40 (as it has effect in Scotland), or(ii) doing anything in England and Wales or Northern Ireland that would constitute an offence under section 40 (as it has effect in Scotland) if done in Scotland;(b) a reference to an adult “engaging in conduct associated with child criminal exploitation” is to the adult doing anything, in any part of the United Kingdom, that is associated with the doing of anything within paragraph (a)(i) or (ii).CCE prevention orders
2 (1) A CCE prevention order is an order which—(a) prohibits the adult from doing anything described in the order;(b) requires that adult to do anything described in the order.The order may in particular require the adult to comply with paragraph 6 (notification requirements).(2) A court may include a prohibition or requirement only if it considers it necessary for the purpose of preventing the adult from engaging, or reducing the likelihood of the adult engaging, in child criminal exploitation.(3) Prohibitions and requirements must, so far as practicable, be such as to avoid—(a) any conflict with any religious beliefs of the adult;(b) any interference with the times, if any, at which the adult normally works or attends any educational establishment;(c) any conflict with the prohibitions and requirements of any other court order or interdict to which the adult is subject.(4) A prohibition or requirement applies throughout the United Kingdom unless expressly limited to a particular area.(5) A CCE prevention order must—(a) specify the period for which it has effect, which must be at least two years, or(b) state that it has effect until further order.(6) Where, in a case within paragraph 1(1)(e)—(a) the adult has been remanded in custody by an order of a court, or(b) a custodial sentence has been imposed on the adult or the adult is serving or otherwise subject to a such a sentence, a CCE prevention order may provide that it does not take effect until the adult is released from custody.(7) A CCE prevention order may specify periods for which particular prohibitions or requirements have effect.(8) Where a court makes a CCE prevention order in respect of a person who is already subject to such an order, the earlier order ceases to have effect.Applications for CCE prevention orders
3 (1) The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland may make an application for a CCE prevention order.(2) An application under this paragraph must be made to the sheriff in whose sheriffdom—(a) the adult lives, or(b) the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland believes that adult is in or is intending to come to.Interim CCE prevention orders
4 (1) This paragraph applies where the sheriff adjourns the hearing of an application for a CCE prevention order made under paragraph 3.(2) The sheriff may, if they consider it necessary to do so, make a CCE prevention order lasting for a fixed period or until the determination of the application (an “interim CCE prevention order”).Paragraph 2(5) does not apply in relation to an interim CCE prevention order.(3) The only requirement that may be imposed by an interim CCE prevention order on the adult is a requirement to comply with paragraph 6 (notification requirements).(4) Subject to that, the sheriff has the same powers in relation to an interim CCE prevention order as in relation to an order made at a final hearing.(5) Nothing in sub-paragraph (2) prevents the variation of the duration of an interim CCE prevention order, or the discharge of such an order, under paragraph 7.CCE prevention orders in criminal proceedings: procedural powers
5 (1) This paragraph applies in the circumstances mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b), (c), (d) or (e) of paragraph 1.(2) The court may make a CCE prevention order—(a) at its own instance, or(b) on the motion of the Lord Advocate, Crown Counsel or procurator fiscal (or any person duly authorised to represent or act for them).(3) For the purpose of deciding whether to make a CCE prevention order, the court may consider evidence led by the prosecution and evidence led by the adult.(4) It does not matter whether the evidence would have been admissible in the proceedings giving rise to the circumstances referred to in sub-paragraph (1).(5) The court may adjourn any proceedings relating to the making of a CCE prevention order.(6) If the adult does not appear for any adjourned proceedings, the court may—(a) further adjourn the proceedings,(b) issue a warrant for the adult’s arrest, or(c) hear the proceedings in the adult’s absence.(7) The court may act under sub-paragraph (6)(b) only if satisfied that the adult has had adequate notice of the time and place of the adjourned proceedings. (8) The court may act under sub-paragraph (6)(c) only if satisfied that the adult—(a) has had adequate notice of the time and place of the adjourned proceedings, and(b) has been informed that if the adult does not appear for those proceedings, the court may hear the proceedings in the adult’s absence.(9) Nothing in this paragraph limits any other powers of the court.Notification requirements
6 (1) This paragraph applies where a CCE prevention order requires the adult to comply with this paragraph.(2) Before the end of the period of three days beginning with the day on which a CCE prevention order requiring the adult to comply with this paragraph is first served, the adult must notify to the police—(a) the adult's name and, where the adult uses one or more other names, each of those names, and(b) the adult's home address.(3) If, while the adult is required to comply with this paragraph, the adult—(a) uses a name which has not been notified under the order, or(b) changes home address,the adult must notify, to the police, the new name or the new home address.(4) A notification under sub-paragraph (3) must be given before the end of the period of three days beginning with the day on which the adult uses the name or changes home address.(5) A notification under this paragraph must be made—(a) by attending at a police station for the time being specified in the document published under sub-paragraph (6) and giving an oral notification to a constable, or to a person authorised for the purpose by the officer in charge of the station, or(b) in a way specified in the CCE prevention order.(6) The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland must publish, in such manner as the Chief Constable thinks fit, a document containing the name and address of each police station at which a person may give a notification under this paragraph.(7) The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland must keep under review a document published under this paragraph and may, from time to time, publish a revised version of the document in such manner as the Chief Constable thinks fit.(8) A notification under this paragraph must be acknowledged in writing.(9) In this paragraph “home address” means—(a) the address of the adult’s sole or main residence in the United Kingdom, or(b) where the adult has no such residence, the address or location of a place in the United Kingdom where the adult can regularly be found and, if there is more than one such place, such one of those places as the adult may select.(10) In determining the period of three days mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) or (4), no account is to be taken of any time when the adult is—(a) lawfully detained or otherwise lawfully deprived of their liberty, in the United Kingdom, or(b) outside the United Kingdom.Variation and discharge of CCE prevention orders made on application
7 (1) This paragraph applies where a person mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) applies to the appropriate sheriff for the variation or discharge of a CCE prevention order made in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1(1)(a).(2) The persons are—(a) the adult;(b) the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland.(3) On the application, the appropriate sheriff may (after hearing from the applicant and, if the other person mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) wishes to be heard, that person) make any order varying or discharging the order that the appropriate sheriff considers appropriate.This is subject to sub-paragraph (7).(4) The power to vary an order includes power to—(a) include an additional prohibition or requirement;(b) extend the period for which a prohibition or requirement has effect;(c) extend the period for which the order has effect.(5) The appropriate sheriff may make provision of a kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) only if they consider that the provision is necessary to prevent the adult from engaging, or reduce the likelihood of the adult engaging, in child criminal exploitation.(6) Sub-paragraphs (3), (4) and (7) of paragraph 2 apply to additional prohibitions or requirements included on a variation of an order.(7) The appropriate sheriff may not discharge an order before the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which the order was made, without the consent of the adult and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland.This sub-paragraph does not apply to an interim CCE prevention order.(8) In this paragraph “the appropriate sheriff” means—(a) the sheriff who made the order,(b) a sheriff in the sheriffdom of that sheriff, or(c) a sheriff in the sheriffdom—(i) in which the adult is resident at the time of the application,(ii) in which the chief constable believes that adult to be, or(iii) to which the chief constable believes that adult intends to come.Variation and discharge of CCE prevention orders made in criminal proceedings
8 (1) This paragraph applies where a person mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) applies to a relevant court for the variation or discharge of a CCE prevention order made in the circumstances mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b), (c), (d) or (e) of paragraph 1.(2) The persons are—(a) the adult;(b) the Lord Advocate, Crown Counsel or procurator fiscal (and any person duly authorised to represent or act for them).(3) On the application, the court may (after hearing from the applicant and, if the other person mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) wishes to be heard, that person) make any order varying or discharging the order that the court considers appropriate.This is subject to sub-paragraph (7).(4) The power to vary an order includes power to—(a) include an additional prohibition or requirement; (b) extend the period for which a prohibition or requirement has effect;(c) extend the period for which the order has effect.(5) The court may make provision of a kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) only if it considers that the provision is necessary to prevent the adult from engaging, or reduce the likelihood of the adult engaging, in child criminal exploitation.(6) Sub-paragraphs (3), (4) and (7) of paragraph 2 apply to additional prohibitions or requirements included on a variation of an order.(7) The court may not discharge an order before the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which the order was made, without the consent of the adult and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland.This sub-paragraph does not apply to an interim CCE prevention order.(8) In this paragraph “relevant court” means—(a) where the High Court made the order, that court;(b) where the sheriff made the order, the sheriff.Appeals
9 (1) The adult or the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland may appeal to the relevant court against a decision made—(a) on an application under paragraph 3 (applications for CCE prevention orders);(b) under paragraph 4 (interim CCE prevention orders);(c) on an application under paragraph 7 (variation and discharge of CCE prevention orders made on application);(d) on an application under paragraph 8 (variation and discharge of CCE prevention orders made in criminal proceedings).(2) In this paragraph“relevant court” means—(a) in the case of a decision of a sheriff court, the Sheriff Appeal Court;(b) in the case of a decision of the High Court, the High Court.(3) On an appeal under sub-paragraph (1) the relevant court may make—(a) such orders as may be necessary to give effect to its determination of the appeal, and(b) such incidental and consequential orders as appear to it to be appropriate.(4) Where a CCE prevention order is made by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(b), (c), (d) or (e) of paragraph 1, the order is taken to be a sentence for the purposes of any appeal.(5) Where a CCE prevention order is made on appeal, for the purposes of this Schedule (other than this paragraph) the order is to be treated as made by the court from which the appeal was made.Offence of breaching CCE prevention order
10 (1) A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with an order mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) commits an offence.(2) The orders are—(a) a CCE prevention order;(b) a CCE prevention order under Chapter 1 of Part 4 (CCE prevention orders on application or acquittal etc. in England and Wales);(c) a CCE prevention order under Chapter 2A of Part 11 of the Sentencing Code (CCE prevention orders on conviction in England and Wales); (d) a CCE prevention order under Schedule (CCE prevention orders: Northern Ireland) (CCE prevention orders in Northern Ireland).(3) A person who commits an offence under this paragraph is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine (or both).(4) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations amend sub-paragraph (2) so as to add to or remove from the list of orders any relevant UK order.(5) In proceedings for an offence under this paragraph, a copy of the original order mentioned in sub-paragraph (2), certified by the proper officer of the court that made it, is admissible as evidence of its having been made and of its contents to the same extent that oral evidence of those matters is admissible in those proceedings.(6) “Relevant UK order” means an order under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland which appears to the Scottish Ministers to be equivalent or similar to a CCE prevention order.Offences relating to notifications
11 (1) This paragraph applies where a CCE prevention order requires a person to comply with paragraph 6 (notification requirements).(2) The person commits an offence if—(a) without reasonable excuse, they fail to comply with that paragraph, or(b) in purported compliance with that paragraph, they notify to the police any information which they know to be false.(3) A person who commits an offence under this paragraph is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine (or both).(4) A person commits an offence under sub-paragraph (2)(a) on the day on which they first fail, without reasonable excuse, to comply with paragraph 6.(5) The person continues to commit the offence throughout any period during which the failure continues.(6) But the person may not be prosecuted more than once in respect of the same failure.(7) Paragraph 10(5) applies for the purposes of this paragraph.Interpretation
12 In this Schedule—“adult” has the meaning given by paragraph 1;“CCE prevention order”, except in paragraph 10(2)(b) to (d), means an order under paragraph 2 (and accordingly includes an interim order made by virtue of paragraph 4);“engaging in child criminal exploitation” has the meaning given by paragraph 1 (and related expressions are to be construed accordingly);“High Court” means the High Court of Justiciary.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a new Schedule about CCE prevention orders in Scotland.
“Schedule CCE prevention orders: Northern IrelandPower to make CCE prevention order
1 (1) This paragraph applies if—(a) an application for a CCE prevention order in respect of a person is made to a magistrates’ court, in accordance with paragraph 3,(b) a person is acquitted of any offence by or before a court,(c) the County Court allows a person’s appeal against a conviction for any offence,(d) a court deals with a person in respect of a finding that—(i) the person is not guilty of any offence by reason of insanity, or(ii) the person is unfit to plead and has done the act charged against them in respect of any offence, or(e) a court deals with a person convicted of an offence for that offence.(2) The court may make an order under paragraph 2 (a “CCE prevention order”) in respect of the person (“the defendant”) if they are aged 18 or over and the conditions in sub-paragraphs (3) to (5) are met.(3) The first condition is that—(a) in any case, the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the defendant has engaged in child criminal exploitation or in conduct associated with child criminal exploitation, or(b) in a case within paragraph (d) or (e) of sub-paragraph (1), the offence in question is an offence under section 40.(4) The second condition is that the court considers that there is a risk that the defendant will engage in child criminal exploitation.(5) The third condition is that the court considers that it is necessary to make the order to prevent the defendant from engaging, or reduce the likelihood of the defendant engaging, in child criminal exploitation.(6) In sub-paragraph (3)—(a) in paragraph (a), the reference to engaging in anything includes engaging in it before (as well as after) the time when this paragraph comes into force;(b) paragraph (b) applies in relation to findings made in respect of conduct occurring before (as well as after) that time.(7) In this paragraph—(a) a reference to the defendant “engaging in child criminal exploitation” is to the defendant—(i) doing anything that constitutes an offence under section 40 (as it has effect in Northern Ireland), or(ii) doing anything in England and Wales or Scotland that would constitute an offence under section 40 (as it has effect in Northern Ireland) if done in Northern Ireland;(b) a reference to the defendant “engaging in conduct associated with child criminal exploitation” is to the adult doing anything, in any part of the United Kingdom, that is associated with the doing of anything within paragraph (a)(i) or (ii).CCE prevention orders
2 (1) A CCE prevention order is an order which—(a) prohibits the defendant from doing anything described in the order;(b) requires the defendant to do anything described in the order. The order may in particular require the defendant to comply with paragraph 7 (notification requirements).(2) A court may include a prohibition or requirement only if it considers it necessary for the purpose of preventing the defendant from engaging, or reducing the likelihood of the defendant engaging, in child criminal exploitation.(3) Prohibitions and requirements must, so far as practicable, be such as to avoid—(a) any conflict with any religious beliefs of the defendant;(b) any interference with the times, if any, at which the defendant normally works or attends any educational establishment;(c) any conflict with the prohibitions and requirements of any other court order or injunction to which the defendant is subject.(4) A prohibition or requirement applies throughout the United Kingdom unless expressly limited to a particular area.(5) A CCE prevention order must—(a) specify the period for which it has effect, which must be—(i) at least five years in a case within paragraph 1(1)(e);(ii) at least two years in any other case, or(b) state that it has effect until further order.(6) Where, in a case within paragraph 1(1)(e)—(a) the defendant has been remanded in or committed to custody by an order of a court, or(b) a custodial sentence has been imposed on the defendant or the defendant is serving or otherwise subject to a such a sentence,a CCE prevention order may provide that it does not take effect until the defendant is released from custody or ceases to be subject to a custodial sentence.(7) A CCE prevention order may specify periods for which particular prohibitions or requirements have effect.(8) Where a court makes a CCE prevention order in respect of a defendant who is already subject to such an order, the earlier order ceases to have effect.Applications for CCE prevention orders
3 An application for a CCE prevention order may be made by the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.Applications without notice
4 (1) An application for a CCE prevention order may be made without notice to the defendant.(2) If an application is made without notice the court must do one of the following—(a) adjourn the proceedings and make an interim CCE prevention order (see paragraph 5);(b) adjourn the proceedings without making an interim order;(c) dismiss the application.Interim CCE prevention orders
5 (1) This paragraph applies where the court adjourns the hearing of an application (whether made with or without notice) for a CCE prevention order.(2) The court may, if it considers it necessary to do so, make a CCE prevention order lasting for a fixed period or until the determination of the application (an “interim CCE prevention order”).Paragraph 2(5) does not apply in relation to an interim CCE prevention order. (3) The only requirement that may be imposed by an interim CCE prevention order on the defendant is a requirement to comply with paragraph 7 (notification requirements).(4) Subject to that, the court has the same powers in relation to an interim CCE prevention order as in relation to an order made at a final hearing.(5) An interim CCE prevention order made at a hearing of which the defendant was not given notice takes effect on being served on the defendant.(6) Nothing in sub-paragraph (2) prevents the variation of the duration of an interim CCE prevention order, or the discharge of such an order, under paragraph 8.Procedural powers where no application made
6 (1) This paragraph applies in the circumstances mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b), (c), (d) or (e) of paragraph 1.(2) For the purpose of deciding whether to make a CCE prevention order, the court may consider evidence led by the prosecution and evidence led by the defendant.(3) It does not matter whether the evidence would have been admissible in the proceedings giving rise to the circumstances referred to in sub-paragraph (1).(4) The court may adjourn any proceedings relating to the making of a CCE prevention order.(5) If the defendant does not appear for any adjourned proceedings, the court may—(a) further adjourn the proceedings,(b) issue a warrant for the defendant’s arrest, or(c) hear the proceedings in the defendant’s absence.(6) The court may act under sub-paragraph (5)(b) only if satisfied that the defendant has had adequate notice of the time and place of the adjourned proceedings.(7) The court may act under sub-paragraph (5)(c) only if satisfied that the defendant—(a) has had adequate notice of the time and place of the adjourned proceedings, and(b) has been informed that if the defendant does not appear for those proceedings, the court may hear the proceedings in the defendant’s absence.(8) Nothing in this paragraph limits any other powers of the court.Notification requirements
7 (1) This paragraph applies where a CCE prevention order requires the defendant to comply with this paragraph.(2) Before the end of the period of three days beginning with the day on which a CCE prevention order requiring the defendant to comply with this paragraph is first served, the defendant must notify to the police—(a) the defendant’s name and, where the defendant uses one or more other names, each of those names, and(b) the defendant’s home address.(3) If, while the defendant is required to comply with this paragraph, the defendant—(a) uses a name which has not been notified under the order, or(b) changes home address,the defendant must notify, to the police, the new name or the new home address. (4) A notification under sub-paragraph (3) must be given before the end of the period of three days beginning with the day on which the defendant uses the name or changes home address.(5) A notification under this paragraph is made—(a) by attending at any police station in Northern Ireland and giving an oral notification to a constable, or to a person authorised for the purpose by the officer in charge of the station, or(b) in a way specified in the CCE prevention order.(6) A notification under this paragraph must be acknowledged in writing.(7) In this paragraph “home address” means—(a) the address of the defendant’s sole or main residence in the United Kingdom, or(b) where the defendant has no such residence, the address or location of a place in the United Kingdom where the defendant can regularly be found and, if there is more than one such place, such one of those places as the defendant may select.(8) In determining the period of three days mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) or (4), no account is to be taken of any time when the defendant is—(a) lawfully detained or otherwise lawfully deprived of their liberty, in the United Kingdom, or(b) outside the United Kingdom.Variation and discharge of CCE prevention orders
8 (1) This paragraph applies where a person mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) applies to a relevant court for the variation or discharge of a CCE prevention order.(2) The persons are—(a) the defendant;(b) the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.(3) On the application, the court may (after hearing from the applicant and any other person mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) who wishes to be heard) make any order varying or discharging the order that the court considers appropriate.This is subject to sub-paragraph (7).(4) The power to vary an order includes power to—(a) include an additional prohibition or requirement;(b) extend the period for which a prohibition or requirement has effect;(c) extend the period for which the order has effect.(5) The court may make provision of a kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) only if it considers that the provision is necessary to prevent the defendant from engaging, or reduce the likelihood of the defendant engaging, in child criminal exploitation.(6) Sub-paragraphs (3), (4) and (7) of paragraph 2 apply to additional prohibitions or requirements included on a variation of an order.(7) The court may not, without the consent of the defendant and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, discharge an order before the end of the period of—(a) five years beginning with the day on which the order was made, in the case of an order made in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1(1)(e);(b) two years beginning with the day on which the order was made, in any other case.This sub-paragraph does not apply to an interim CCE prevention order.(8) In this paragraph “relevant court” means— (a) where the Crown Court or Court of Appeal made the order, the Crown Court;(b) in any other case, the magistrates’ court.Appeals
9 (1) The defendant or the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland may appeal to the relevant court against a decision made—(a) on an application under paragraph 3 (applications for CCE prevention orders);(b) under paragraph 5 (interim CCE prevention orders);(c) on an application under paragraph 8 (variation and discharge of CCE prevention orders).(2) In this paragraph“relevant court” means—(a) in the case of a decision of the Crown Court, the Court of Appeal;(b) in any other case, the County Court.(3) On an appeal under sub-paragraph (1) the relevant court may make—(a) such orders as may be necessary to give effect to its determination of the appeal, and(b) such incidental and consequential orders as appear to it to be appropriate.(4) Where a CCE prevention order is made by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(b), (c) or (d) of paragraph 1, the defendant may appeal against the making of the order (so far as they could not otherwise do) as if the defendant had been convicted of the offence and the order were a sentence passed on the defendant for the offence.(5) Where a CCE prevention order is made by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(e) of paragraph 1, the defendant may appeal against the making of the order as if the order were a sentence passed on the defendant for the offence.(6) Where a CCE prevention order is made on appeal, for the purposes of this Schedule (other than this paragraph) the order is to be treated as made by the court from which the appeal was made.(7) Rules of court may provide that an appeal from a decision—(a) to dismiss an application for a CCE prevention order made without notice being given to the defendant, or(b) to refuse to make an interim CCE prevention order when adjourning proceedings following such an application,may be made without notice being given to the defendant.Offence of breaching CCE prevention order
10 (1) A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with an order mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) commits an offence.(2) The orders are—(a) a CCE prevention order;(b) a CCE prevention order under Chapter 1 of Part 4 (CCE prevention orders on application or acquittal etc. in England and Wales);(c) a CCE prevention order under Chapter 2A of Part 11 of the Sentencing Code (CCE prevention orders on conviction in England and Wales);(d) a CCE prevention order under Schedule (CCE prevention orders: Scotland) (CCE prevention orders in Scotland).(3) A person who commits an offence under this paragraph is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine (or both).(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under this paragraph, it is not open to the court by or before which the person is convicted to make, in respect of the offence, an order for conditional discharge.(5) In proceedings for an offence under this paragraph, a copy of the original order mentioned in sub-paragraph (2), certified by the proper officer of the court that made it, is admissible as evidence of its having been made and of its contents to the same extent that oral evidence of those matters is admissible in those proceedings.(6) The Department of Justice in Northern Ireland may by regulations amend sub-paragraph (2) so as to add to or remove from the list of orders any relevant UK order.(7) “Relevant UK order” means an order under the law of England and Wales or Scotland which appears to the Department of Justice to be equivalent or similar to a CCE prevention order.(8) In Article 4(1) of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/3160 (N.I. 24)) after “2015” insert “or paragraph 10 of Schedule (CCE prevention orders: Northern Ireland) to the Crime and Policing Act 2025”.Offences relating to notifications
11 (1) This paragraph applies where a CCE prevention order requires a person to comply with paragraph 7 (notification requirements).(2) The person commits an offence if—(a) without reasonable excuse, they fail to comply with that paragraph, or(b) in purported compliance with that paragraph, they notify to the police any information which they know to be false.(3) A person who commits an offence under this paragraph is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine (or both).(4) A person commits an offence under sub-paragraph (2)(a) on the day on which they first fail, without reasonable excuse, to comply with paragraph 7.(5) The person continues to commit the offence throughout any period during which the failure continues.(6) But the person may not be prosecuted more than once in respect of the same failure.(7) Paragraph 10(5) applies for the purposes of this paragraph.Special measures for witnesses
12 (1) Part 2 of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 (S.I. 1999/2789 (N.I. 8))(special measures directions in the case of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses) applies to relevant proceedings under this Schedule as it applies to criminal proceedings, but with—(a) the omission of Articles 5(4) to (5), 9(4C)(e), 10A and 20 of that Order (which make provision appropriate only in the context of criminal proceedings), and(b) any other necessary modifications. (2) Rules of court made under or for the purposes of Part 2 of that Order apply to relevant proceedings under this Schedule—(a) to the extent provided by rules of court, and(b) subject to any modifications provided by rules of court.(3) In this paragraph “relevant proceedings under this Schedule” means any proceedings under this Schedule except proceedings relating to an offence under paragraph 10 or 11.Interpretation and supplementary provision
13 (1) In this Schedule—“CCE prevention order”, except in paragraph 10(2)(b) to (d), means an order under paragraph 2 (and accordingly includes an interim order made by virtue of paragraph 5);“defendant” has the same meaning as in paragraph 1;“engaging in child criminal exploitation” has the meaning given by paragraph 1 (and related expressions are to be construed accordingly).(2) An application under this Schedule is to be made—(a) by complaint, where the application is made to a magistrates’ court;(b) in accordance with rules of court, in any other case.(3) Article 78 of the Magistrates’ Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/1675 (N.I. 26))(time limit for civil complaints) does not apply to a complaint under this Schedule.(4) On the hearing of an application under this Schedule, Article 118 of that Order (summons to witness and warrant for arrest) does not apply in relation to any person for whose protection the order is sought, except where the person has given oral or written evidence at the hearing.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a new Schedule about CCE prevention orders in Northern Ireland.
Lord Blencathra
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to remove the possibility of offences under this section being tried in a magistrate’s court.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, before speaking to my Amendment 258A, I say in the nicest possible way to the Government Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Katz, that he must not get overexcited about a 10-minute advisory timescale. My noble friend Lady Cash had three major new clauses tabled; I had three major new clauses tabled. I decided not to degroup any of them, out of decency to the House, but I was limited to 10 minutes.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I do not think I have ever given an indication the noble Lord could not speak, but there was a 13-minute contribution on a 10-minute latitude.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hanson; I was not referring to him. It was the Government Whip who was getting very agitated about my comments. I could have spoken for a lot longer if I had degrouped my amendments, but I am not going to do that.
Quite simply, Clause 56 lists all the crimes in Part 1 of Schedule 6 that are relevant to convicting someone of controlling another person’s home for criminal purposes. Schedule 6 is about two pages of big issues—very large crimes—which are completely inappropriate for a summary trial. This is about hijacking someone else’s home, where the homeowner is kept prisoner. That is such big stuff that it should not be triable by summary but only in a Crown Court.
I beg to move—after one minute and 21 seconds.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, we welcome government Amendment 262, which recognises that cases of cuckooing often involve a complex web of coercive control. The person who seems to be in charge may actually be being manipulated or exploited by somebody else, and this addresses that complexity. However, while I understand the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and recognise all too well the potential life-changing harm caused by cuckooing, we are not minded to support restricting the trial venue in that way.
Magistrates’ courts provide quicker access to justice for victims and less delay than Crown Courts, particularly given the current backlogs. This is particularly important as cuckooing is linked to ongoing exploitation, with offenders often moving on to repeat the offence elsewhere, so fast action to stop the creation of more victims may in some cases be the more sensible option. Magistrates’ courts can also be less intimidating for vulnerable victims, supporting them to testify. Many other exploitation and safeguarding offences can be tried either way, allowing the specific facts of each case to determine the appropriate court. Imposing a blanket restriction on trial venue risks delaying justice, undermines established practice, and limits judicial discretion.
The pattern of coercion and control is at the heart of all these issues, whether we are talking about the exploitation of vulnerable children or adults. The evidence shows that women—as well as children—who are coerced into offending, often by traffickers or abusive partners, are in practice more often punished than protected. Too many victims of coercive control are still unfairly prosecuted for offences linked to their own abuse. Many female victims do not report to the police for fear of being criminalised, and that concern is well-founded. If, for example, drugs are being stored or grown in their flat, it is all too often the woman who is prosecuted. The statistics bear this out: around 70% of women in prison are victims of coercion or domestic violence.
Turning to the issue of coerced internal concealment, Amendment 259 links the new offences of causing internal concealment and cuckooing, making it clearer and easier to prosecute these serious and often related behaviours. Coerced internal concealment, whereby a person hides items such as drugs inside their bodies, is a particularly stark illustration of the abuse of power. Anyone who puts another person’s life at risk in this way should be subject to the harshest of penalties, so we support the introduction of this new offence.
I take this opportunity to raise an issue which, regrettably and surprisingly, remains absent from the Bill. In the past five years in England and Wales, a child has been subjected to an intimate police search every 14 hours on average. Black children are four times more likely to be strip-searched compared to their proportion of the population. Half these searches lead to no further action.
In opposition, the Government promised stronger regulation, including a statutory duty to notify parents, which should be the bare minimum. Although a consultation began in April 2024, there have been no firm proposals since, which is disappointing given an earlier commitment from the former Home Secretary to new mandatory rules and safeguards being
“put in place as a matter of urgency”.
That pledge followed a series of recommendations from the IOPC, including a call to amend the law so that police forces are required to make a safeguarding referral for any child subjected to a search involving the exposure of intimate parts. It also called for clearer guidance, enhanced training, greater consistency across police forces and, again, for these reforms to be implemented “quickly”.
Some 18 months later, some forces have improved practice and made more safeguarding referrals, but there is still no legal requirement. The Children’s Commissioner confirms that poor strip search practice is widespread and is not limited to any one force or region; failures include not having an appropriate adult present. Can the Minister confirm that a timescale is in place for the implementation of these recommendations? If not, will the Government consider amending the Bill to reflect the need for urgent action?
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for introducing his amendment. This is an opportunity to consider cuckooing more broadly.
We on these Benches recognise the need for a cuckooing offence, and we did so last year before the general election. I am glad to see that the Government are now following our lead. Data suggests that cuckooing offences have quadrupled in recent years; given that it is a crime largely associated with child exploitation, it is all the more pertinent that we tackle it head on now.
Children are used to conceal and traffic illegal drugs in order to fund the activities of criminal drug gangs. Some 22% of people involved in county lines drug trades are children—that is almost 3,000 vulnerable people under the age of 18 being made to do the dirty work for criminals. These county lines trades are often run out of the dilapidated homes of vulnerable people. Criminals appropriate and transform them to use them for their own ends. Children are ferried in and out; they are sent to similar locations all over the country. It is a very specific crime that requires a very specific law. We see force in my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s amendment, but we would not wish to tie the prosecutor’s hands.
Amendment 259, which addresses the offence of causing internal concealment, would prohibit cuckooed houses being used to house people who hide and then transport drugs. These people, as I have pointed out, are often children. Amendments 260 and 261 address that more broadly. Cuckooing—using children for criminal purposes—is a heinous and exploitative crime and it is right that it be given its own offence. However, while we welcome the Government agreeing to come with us on cuckooing, it is a shame that they have failed to address another root cause of the issue. As we have said, cuckooing is a crime primarily committed by gangs who co-opt homes to run their criminal operations. If you could break up those gangs, you would reduce cuckooing; the two feed off each other.
On the previous day of Committee, His Majesty’s Opposition had two amendments that would have done this. The first amendment would have created a statutory aggravating factor for gang-related offences. The second would have created an offence for specific gang-related graffiti. We appreciate the Government following our lead to create the offence of cuckooing, but if they are serious about this, they should do the same with gangs. Our measures would not, as some noble Lords suggested, criminalise fence-painting or church symbols. Neither is a gang sign. They would, however, deter gangs from their activities and lock up members who partake. This would be just as effective as this new offence.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have contributed to this short debate. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that I was not agitated—if he thinks that that is me being agitated, he has not yet seen me agitated. I hope that noble Lords never will. I was just reflecting the conventions and guidelines to respect each other and the courtesies of the House. We will move on. I welcome the brief and succinct way in which he introduced his amendment, but if he will allow me, I will first deal with the government amendments in this group.
Amendment 262 would make it clear that controlling another person’s dwelling for the purposes of the new cuckooing offence may be carried out via another person. I welcome the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and the principle behind them. While the existing drafting would already allow for the prosecution of a perpetrator who uses a third party to exercise control over another’s dwelling, the amendment would put this point beyond doubt, which we felt was important.
In cuckooing cases, particularly within the county lines context, gang leaders may exploit children or vulnerable adults to control another person’s home, as noted in the debate. The amendment would make it clear that the new cuckooing offence can, and should, be used to pursue the perpetrators who are responsible for directing the cuckooing rather than the individuals who may well be victims of exploitation. We will issue statutory guidance to the police to support the implementation of the offence.
Amendment 259 would add the offence of coerced internal concealment created by the Bill to the list of offences in Schedule 6, which are relevant offences in England and Wales, for the purpose of the cuckooing offence. Similarly, Amendments 260 and 261 would add the offence of child criminal exploitation, also created by the Bill and which we discussed earlier today, to the list of relevant offences in Scotland and Northern Ireland for the purpose of the cuckooing offence.
As noted, cuckooed properties may be used as a base for criminal exploitation. These amendments would therefore ensure that, where cuckooing is carried out for the purpose of enabling the commission of the coerced internal concealment offence in England and Wales, or the commission of the child criminal exploitation offence anywhere in the UK, the cuckooing offence will apply.
I turn to Amendment 258A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. As he explained, the amendment seeks to remove the ability for cuckooing offences to be tried as a summary offence in a magistrates’ court, thereby limiting the offence to being tried in the Crown Court on indictment. While I am sympathetic to the noble Lord’s intention of ensuring that the perpetrators of this harmful practice receive appropriate sentencing, we, like the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, consider that the provision for the cuckooing offence to be triable either way is fair and proportionate.
Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the courts, and we do not want to see that approach restricted. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of each individual case. The courts may also have a statutory duty to follow any relevant sentencing guidelines developed by the independent Sentencing Council for England and Wales. The cuckooing offence is designed to capture a range of actions that may be involved in controlling another person’s dwelling, from occupying the property through to directing delivery of items, such as drugs, to and from the property. It may therefore be more proportionate for some cuckooing cases to be tried in a magistrates’ court.
More broadly, allowing offences to be tried in magistrates’ courts helps reduce the burden on the Crown Court and can enable quicker access to justice for victims. It is a sad fact that the lack of investment in the court system over recent years has meant that there is huge strain on the court system. As we always say, rightly, justice delayed is justice denied, so restricting the trial of a cuckooing offence to the Crown Courts would not necessarily deliver the justice that victims deserve and that society would seek to be meted out on the perpetrators.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, that was a good little 16-minute debate. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, that I rather admire his style in this House—I hope that does not damage his future career. There are many Ministers who are able, but in addition he brings a style of being decent, nice, pleasant in the way he deals with debates, thorough and meticulous, patient and even long-suffering. I rather admire the way he actually replies in detail to our amendments; his initial reaction might be to say, “What a load of rubbish!”, but he does not do that and is kind and courteous. I appeal to him: could he please have a word with his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, and teach him how to be as nice and decent as he is? Turning to the reply from the noble Lord, Lord Katz, I still think that he was wrong and I was right, but, nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint
(a) section 40 (child criminal exploitation);(b) section 59 (causing internal concealment of item for criminal purpose).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds the offence of causing internal concealment of an item for a criminal purpose, created by this Bill, to the list of offences that are relevant offences in England and Wales for the purpose of the offence of control over another’s home for criminal purposes (clause 56).
“38A An offence under section 40 of this Act (child criminal exploitation).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds the offence of child criminal exploitation, created by this Bill, to the list of offences that are relevant offences in Scotland for the purpose of the offence of control over another’s home for criminal purposes (clause 56).
“58A An offence under section 40 of this Act (child criminal exploitation).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds the offence of child criminal exploitation, created by this Bill, to the list of offences that are relevant offences in Northern Ireland for the purpose of the offence of control over another’s home for criminal purposes (clause 56).
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(4A) The circumstances in which A exercises control over B’s dwelling include circumstances where—(a) A arranges for another person (C) to exercise control over B’s dwelling (including by exercising control over any of the matters mentioned in subsection (4)), and(b) C does exercise that control.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes it clear that control over another’s dwelling may be via another person, for the purposes of the offence in clause 56.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(c) CCE prevention orders under Schedule (CCE prevention orders: Northern Ireland).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives a power to the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to issue guidance to the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland about the new CCE prevention orders for Northern Ireland.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I will also speak to further amendments later. I just want to say thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his kind words before he goes. My reputation is ruined, but there we go. I thank him anyway.
The government amendments in this group and the clauses to which they relate are vital in safeguarding the public from some of the gravest harms emerging from the digital age. All the amendments in this group of government amendments, starting with Amendments 295A and 295B, pertain to the introduction of a defence for authorised persons to test and investigate technologies for child sexual abuse material, extreme pornography and non-consensual intimate imagery capabilities. These are abhorrent crimes and we must ensure that our laws keep pace with them.
Noble Lords will know that the rapid advancement and prevalence of AI technologies without adequate guardrails has increased the volume of AI-generated abuse imagery circulating online. These harms fall disproportionately on women and children. We must get ahead of these risks. At present, AI developers and public safety organisations seeking to test for these risks face significant legal jeopardy from testing. These legal blocks mean that testers could be liable to prosecution if they create illegal images during testing. We want to support government and public safety organisations in their commitment to research internet safety. If we are serious about AI safety, it is essential that we support continuous and rigorous testing so that testers can be confident that models are safe to use and support our ambition to drive down CSAM online.
This defence could give a technology company the ability to understand the capabilities of its models, identify weaknesses and design out harmful outputs. Amendment 295A introduces a power by regulations to create new testing defences. The Secretary of State will authorise persons to carry out technology testing subject to rigorous conditions. I confirm that any regulations that are brought forward will be subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure and testing will be subject to rigorous oversight and strict mandatory operational safeguards. The regulation-making power will also extend to making provision for the enforcement of any breaches of conditions and may include creating criminal offences.
Amendment 295B lists the offences to which this defence applies. The Secretary of State will have the power to amend this list of offences as the law evolves. This will ensure that the defence remains fit for purpose. I hope the Committee welcomes that the Scottish Government and Northern Ireland Department of Justice want this defence to be extended to Scotland and Northern Ireland. The offences listed may be amended, as appropriate, for England and Wales as well as for Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State will be required to consult Scottish Ministers and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland before making any regulations that would affect the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Clause 63 criminalises artificial intelligence image generators, which are used by offenders to create child sexual abuse imagery. Our law is clear that AI-generated child sexual abuse material is illegal. However, these fine-tuned models that facilitate the creation of child sexual abuse material currently are not. Therefore, the Government are making it illegal to possess, make, adapt, supply or offer to supply a child sexual abuse image generator, punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment.
Government Amendments 267 and 268 ensure that we take a unified approach across the United Kingdom. This is why we are creating equivalent offences in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Clause 64 amends Section 69 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 to criminalise the possession of advice or guidance on using artificial intelligence to create child abuse imagery. Sadly, there are so-called paedophile manuals that contain guidance for offenders on how to abuse children sexually and how to create indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs—which are illegal under the existing offence in the Serious Crime Act 2015. However, this offence does not include guidance for offenders about how to use AI to create illegal images of children and is applicable only to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Amendment 269 extends the offence, as amended by Clause 64, to Scotland, ensuring that these vile manuals can be tackled across the whole of the United Kingdom. The other amendments in this group are consequential on the main amendments that I have described.
Together, these government amendments will enhance the protection of women and children, prevent criminal use of AI technologies and improve long-term safety by design and the resilience of future AI development. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, if I could intervene for a moment, the Bill is going at a fine pace through the House, but I am a little concerned about Amendment 263. The problems of modern slavery that I have raised in the House are very severe.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I know. I am just asking for some assistance with this—does the proposed new clause in Amendment 263 still stand?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Committee has considered that amendment. If the noble Lord wishes to write to me on any details, I will certainly write back to him, but, in the interests of progress, it would be better if that was dealt with outside the Chamber, given that we have debated those matters already.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, very briefly, the government amendments set out the devolution arrangements to ensure that criminals cannot exploit differences between the four nations, and we are very happy to support them.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this is an important issue that I know there is cross-party support for, and I am largely supportive of the intentions behind the amendments in this group.
The first of the Minister’s amendments acts largely to tidy up the drafting of the Bill and ensure its thoroughness. I agree with this. Expanding the scope for technology testing regarding child sexual abuse materials is welcome.
Similarly, extending provisions to ensure that they are the same in all parts of the union is a minor but important amendment. Consistency across our internal borders is the best way to ensure that children are protected equally everywhere. It should help with cross-border co-ordination between authorities, and I therefore welcome it.
I see the logic behind government Amendments 295A and 295B. It is the right approach that, if the Government want to crack down on technology, they should first do so at the source. That means discovering which technologies are being used to create unlawful content, which requires people to test them. This would also, I hope, have the additional effect of not blanket banning content for people without nuance, instead targeting the specific pieces of software responsible. So long as the individuals able to use this as a defence remain strictly authorised by the Secretary of State, I appreciate the amendment’s aim.
This should go hand in hand with an initiative similar to the one suggested by my noble friend Lord Nash. If the Government can identify the technology used, they should attempt to shut it down. Unfortunately, this is often outside the Government’s jurisdiction and therefore some form of software to prevent the distribution of child sexual abuse material might be the next best approach. I hope that the Minister can confirm that they are perhaps looking at this.
As I said, this is a non-partisan issue. We all want to reduce child sexual abuse, online or offline, and these amendments should work to help the Bill achieve the former. I hope that the Minister can, in due course—perhaps at a later stage—fully outline how this new technology will be implemented and applied consistently, and will consider my noble friend Lord Nash’s amendment, but I broadly support the approach.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. If the noble Lord will allow me, I will reflect on what he said and give him a fuller briefing on the detail of how we are approaching the AI issue. Obviously, we will come on to further amendments in the next group, which I will respond to once they have been moved.
Baroness Kidron
“46D Child sexual abuse image-generation risk assessment(1) A provider of an online service, including but not limited to a generative AI large language model, must risk assess the likelihood of their service being used to create or facilitate the creation of a CSA image or images as defined by section 46A.(2) If a risk is identified in a CSA risk assessment—(a) where the provider is regulated by the Online Safety Act 2023, a provider must report the risk and agree to steps to reduce, mitigate and manage the risks with OFCOM;(b) where the provider is not regulated by the Online Safety Act 2023, a provider must agree to steps to reduce, mitigate and manage the risks of their online service being used to create or facilitate the creation of CSA images with the National Crime Agency.(3) Where a provider regulated by the Online Safety Act 2023 fails to agree to or implement steps to reduce, mitigate and manage the risks with OFCOM (see subsection (2)(a)), they can be subjected to OFCOM’s enforcement powers set out in Part 7, Chapter 6 (enforcement powers) of that Act.(4) Where a provider not regulated by the Online Safety Act 2023 fails to agree to or implement steps to reduce, mitigate and manage the risks with the National Crime Agency (see subsection (2)(b)), they commit an offence.(5) A provider that commits an offence under this section is liable to be issued with a penalty notice by the National Crime Agency.(6) In this section a “penalty notice” means a notice requiring its recipient to pay a penalty of an amount not exceeding whichever is the greater of—(a) £18 million, or(b) 10% of a provider’s qualifying worldwide revenue for the most recent complete accounting period.(7) A penalty notice may be reissued where a provider continues to commit an offence under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to ensure that services that do not fall into scope of Clause 63 as currently drafted still assess and mitigate the risk of their services being used as an AI child sexual abuse generator.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 266, I will speak also to Amendments 479 and 480, all of which are in my name. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Russell, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, for their support.
All three amendments concern illegal or harmful online activity. Amendment 266 places a legal duty on online services, including generative AI services, to conduct risk assessments evaluating the likelihood that their systems could be used to create or facilitate child sexual abuse material. Subsection (1) of the proposed new clause establishes that duty. Subsection (2) requires providers to report the results to Ofcom or the National Crime Agency, depending on whether or not they are regulated under the Online Safety Act. Subsections (3) to (7) set out the enforcement mechanisms, drawing on Ofcom’s existing enforcement powers under the OSA or equivalent powers for the NCA.
Amendment 266 complements Clause 63, which creates the new offence relating to the supply of CSA image generators to which the Minister has just spoken, but it is in addition to those powers. In June 2023, the BBC reported that the open-source AI model Stable Diffusion was being used to generate child sexual abuse material. Researchers at Stanford University subsequently found that Stable Diffusion had been trained on datasets containing child sexual abuse material. This issue is not confined to a single model. The Internet Watch Foundation and the chair of the AI Security Institute have warned of the potential for open-source AI models to be used for the creation of CSAM.
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 271A is in my name and I support the other amendments in this group. As this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill, I draw attention to my interests on the register, particularly the fact that I am an investor in a wide range of companies, including many software companies.
My Amendment 271A, if passed, would have the effect of software being used to screen out all child sexual abuse material, including live-streaming, on smartphones and tablets, and in due course on all devices. It would also apply to private communications, which is where the majority of live-streamed child sexual abuse takes place and which is not covered by the Online Safety Act.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I put my name to Amendments 479 and 480, and I support the other amendments in this group. I have once again to thank my noble friend Lady Kidron for raising an issue which I had missed and which, I fear, the regulator might have missed as well. After extensive research, I too am very worried about the Online Safety Act, which many of your Lordships spent many hours refining. It does not cover some of the new developments in the digital world, especially personalised AI chatbots. They are hugely popular with children under 18; 31% use Snapchat’s My AI and 32% use Google’s Gemini.
The Online Safety Act Network set up an account on ChatGPT-5 using a 13 year-old persona. Within two minutes, the chatbot was engaged with the user about mental health, eating disorders and advice about how to safely cut yourself. Within 40 minutes, it had generated a list of pills for overdosing. The OSA was intended to stop such online behaviour. Your Lordships worked so hard to ensure that the OSA covered search and user-to-user functions in the digital space, but AI chatbots have varied functionalities that, as my noble friend pointed out, are not clearly covered by the legislation.
My noble friend Lady Kidron pointed out that, although Dame Melanie Dawes confirmed to the Communications and Digital Committee that chatbots are covered by the OSA, Ofcom in its paper Era of Answer Engines admits:
“Under the OSA, a search service means a service that is, or which includes, a search engine, and this applies to some (though not all) GenAI search tools”.
There is doubt about whether the AI interpretive process, which can change the original search findings, excludes it from being in the scope of search under the OSA. More significantly, AI chatbots are not covered where the provider creates content that is personalised for one user and cannot be forwarded to another user. I am advised that this is not a user-to-user service as defined under the Act.
One chatbot that seems to fall under this category is Replika. I had never heard of it until I started my research for this amendment. However, 2% of all children aged nine to 17 say that they have used the chatbot, and 18% have heard of it. Its aim is to stimulate human interaction by creating a replica chatbot personal to each user. It is very sophisticated in its output, using avatars to create images of a human interlocutor on screen and a speaking voice to reply conversationally to requests. The concern is that, unlike traditional search engines, it is programmed for sycophancy, or, in other words, to affirm and engage the user’s response—the more positive the response, the more engaged the child user. This has led to conversations with the AI companion talking the child user into self-harm and even suicide ideation.
Research by Internet Matters found that a third of children users think that interacting with chatbots is like talking to a friend. Most concerning is the level of trust they generate in children, with two in five saying that they have no concerns about the advice they are getting. However, because the replies are supposed to be positive, what might have started as trustworthy advice develops into unsafe advice as the conversation continues. My concern is that chatbots are not only affirming the echo chambers that we have seen developing for over a decade as a result of social media polarisation but are reducing yet further children’s critical faculties. We cannot leave the development of critical faculties to the already inadequate media literacy campaigns that Ofcom is developing. The Government need to discourage sycophancy and a lack of critical thinking at its digital source.
A driving force behind the Online Safety Act was the realisation that tech developers were prioritising user engagement over user safety. Once again, we find new AI products that are based on the same harmful principles. In looking at the Government’s headlong rush to surrender to tech companies in the name of AI growth, I ask your Lordships to read the strategic vision for AI laid out in the AI Opportunities Action Plan. It focuses on accelerating innovation but fails to mention once any concern about children’s safety. Your Lordships have fought hard to make children’s safety a priority online in legislation. Once again, I ask for these amendments to be scrutinised by Ofcom and the Government to ensure that children’s safety is at the very centre of their thinking as AI develops.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I was pleased to add my name to Amendments 266, 479 and 480. I also support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Nash.
I do not want to repeat the points that were made—the noble Baroness ably set out the reasons why her amendments are very much needed—so I will make a couple of general points. As she demonstrated, what happens online has what I would call real-world consequences—although I was reminded this week by somebody much younger than me that of course, for the younger generation, there is no distinction between online and offline; it is all one world. For those of us who are older, it is worth remembering that, as the noble Baroness set out, what happens online has real-world, and sadly often fatal, consequences. We should not lose sight of that.
We have already heard many references to the Online Safety Act, which is inevitable. We all knew, even as we were debating the Bill before it was enacted, that there would have to be an Online Safety Act II, and no doubt other versions as well. As we have heard, technology is changing at an enormously fast rate, turbocharged by artificial intelligence. The Government recognise that in Clause 63. But surely the lesson from the past decade or more is that, although technology can be used for good, it can also be used to create and disseminate deeply harmful content. That is why the arguments around safety by design are absolutely critical, yet they have been lacking in some of the regulation and enforcement that we have seen. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give the clarification that the noble Baroness asked for on the status of LLMs and chatbots under the Online Safety Act, although he may not be able to do so today.
I will make some general points. First, I do not think the Minister was involved in the debate on and scrutiny of—particularly in this Chamber—what became the Online Safety Act. As I have said before, it was a master class in what cross-party, cross-House working can achieve, in an area where, basically, we all want to get to the same point: the safety of children and vulnerable people. I hope that the Ministers and officials listening to and involved in this will work with this House, and with Members such as the noble Baroness who have huge experience, to improve the Bill, and no doubt lay down changes in the next piece of legislation and the one after that. We will always be chasing after developments in technology unless we are able to get that safety-by-design and preventive approach.
During the passage of the then Online Safety Bill, a number of Members of both Houses, working with experienced and knowledgeable outside bodies, spotted the harms and loopholes of the future. No one has all the answers, which is why it is worth working together to try to deal with the problems caused by new and developing technology. I urge the Government not to play belated catch-up as we did with internet regulation, platform regulation, search-engine regulation and more generally with the Online Safety Act. If we can work together to spot the dangers, whether from chatbots, LLMs, CSAM-generated content or deepfakes, we will do an enormous service to young people, both in this country and globally.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendments 479 and 480, which seek to prevent chatbots producing illegal content. I also support the other amendments in this group. AI chatbots are already producing harmful, manipulative and often racist content. They have no age protections and no warnings or information about the sources being used to generate the replies. Nor is there a requirement to ensure that AI does not produce illegal content. We know that chatbots draw their information from a wide range of sources that are often unreliable and open to manipulation, including blogs, open-edit sites such as Wikipedia, and messaging boards, and as a result they often produce significant misinformation and disinformation.
I will focus on one particular area. As we have heard in the contributions so far, we know that some platforms generate racist content. Looking specifically at antisemitism, we can see Holocaust denial, praise of Hitler and deeply damaging inaccuracies about Jewish history. We see Grok, the X platform, generating numerous antisemitic comments, denying the scale of the Holocaust, praising Adolf Hitler and, as recently as a couple of months ago, using Jewish-sounding surnames in the context of hate speech.
Impressionable children and young people, who may not know how to check the validity of the information they are presented with, can so easily be manipulated when exposed to such content. This is particularly concerning when we know that children as young as three are using some of these technologies. We have already heard about how chatbots in particular are designed in this emotionally manipulative way, in order to boost engagement. As we have heard—it is important to reiterate it—they are sycophantic, affirming and built to actively flatter.
If you want your AI chatbot or platform not to flatter you, you have to specifically go to the personalisation page, as I have done, and be very clear that you want responses that focus on substance over praise, and that it should skip compliments. Otherwise, these platforms are designed to act completely the other way. If a person acted like this in some circumstances, we would call it emotional abuse. These design choices mean that young people—teens and children—can become overly trusting and, as we have heard in the cases outlined, reliant on these bots. In the most devastating cases, we know that this focus on flattery has led to people such as Sophie Rottenberg and 16 year-old Adam Raine in America taking their own lives on the advice of these AI platforms. Assisting suicide is illegal, and we need to ensure that this illegality extends to chatbots.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group, and in particular I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for her endless work in this capacity. This is the first time I have spoken on any of these groups of amendments. I find everything the noble Lord, Lord Nash, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others have said truly shocking. Some 55 years ago, I started a magazine called Spare Rib. If I had ever dreamed, in my wildest and worst nightmares, that I would find myself listening to what everyone has been talking about, I suppose we would not have gone on. In so many ways, this is a worse situation that women find themselves in, and certainly young girls. I carried on riding a pony till I was 15—that was my childhood—and then I found boys. This is so terrible, and I congratulate every noble Lord, and particularly the noble Baronesses, on the work that they have done.
I will be very brief, as I just want to speak in support of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and Amendment 266, which simply says that AI is already being used to harm children. Unless we act decisively, this harm will just escalate. The systems that everyone has been discussing today are extraordinary technological achievements—and they are very dangerous. The Internet Watch Foundation has reported an explosion in AI-generated child sexual abuse material. Offenders can now share instructions on how to manipulate the models, how to train them on illegal material and how to evade all the filters. The tools are becoming so accessible and so frictionless that a determined offender can produce in minutes material that once would have involved an entire criminal enterprise. Against that backdrop, it is quite staggering that we do not already require AI providers to assess whether their systems can be used to generate illegal child abuse. Amendment 266 would plug this gap. Quite frankly, I cannot for the life of me see why any responsible company would resist such a requirement.
Amendment 479 addresses a confusion that has gone on for too long. We cannot have a situation where some companies argue that generative AI is a search service and therefore completely in scope of the Online Safety Act, while others argue the opposite. If a model can retrieve, repackage or generate harmful content in response to a query, the public deserve clarity about precisely where that law applies.
On Amendment 480, this really is an issue that keeps me awake at night. These chatbots can be astonishingly persuasive. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, says, they are also addictive: they are friendly, soothing and intimate, and are a perfect confidant for a lonely child. They also generate illegal material, encourage harmful behaviour and groom children. We have already seen chatbots modelled on sex offenders and heard reports of chatbots sending sexualised messages to children, including the appalling case of a young boy who took his life after weeks of interaction with AI. We will no doubt hear of more such cases. The idea that such systems might fall through the cracks is unthinkable.
What these amendments do is simple. They say that if a system can generate illegal or harmful content for a child, it should not be allowed to do so. Quite frankly, anything that man or woman can make, man or woman can unmake—that is still just true. We have often said in this Chamber that children deserve no less protection online than they do offline. With AI, however, we should demand more, because these systems are capable of things no human predator could ever manage. They work 24/7, they target thousands simultaneously and they adapt perfectly to the vulnerabilities of every child they encounter. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is right to insist that we act now, not in two years—think how different it was two years ago. We have to act now. I say to the Government that this is a real chance to close some urgent gaps, and I very much hope that they will take it.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group, but I will speak to Amendments 479 and 480 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I declare my interest as a guest of Google at their Future Forum, an AI policy conference.
These amendments are vital to ascertain the Government’s position on AI chatbots and where they stand in relation to the Online Safety Act, but I have to question how we can have been in a state of ambiguity for so long. We are very close to ChatGPT rolling out erotica on its platform for verified adults. Six months ago, the Wall Street Journal highlighted the deeply disturbing issue of digital companion bots engaging in sexual chat with users, which told them they were underage. Further, they willingly played out scenarios such as “submissive schoolgirl”. Another bot purporting to be a 12 year-old boy promised that it would not tell its parents about dating a user identifying himself as an adult man. Professor Clare McGlynn KC has already raised concerns about what she has coined chatbot-driven VAWG, the tech itself being designed to be sexually suggestive and to engage in grooming and coercive behaviours. Internet Matters found that 64 % of children use chatbots. The number of companion apps has rapidly developed and researchers at Bournemouth University are already warning about the addictive potential of these services.
The Government and the regulator cannot afford to be slow in clarifying the position of these services. It begs a wider question of how we can be much more agile in our response and continually horizon-scan, as legislation will always struggle to keep pace with the evolution of technology. This is the harm we are talking about now, but how will it evolve tomorrow? Where will we be next month or next year? It is vital that both the Government and the regulator become more agile and respond at pace. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the noble Baroness’s amendments.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak very briefly. Earlier—I suppose it was this morning—we talked about child criminal exploitation at some length, thanks particularly to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and Professor Jay. Essentially, what we are talking about in this group of amendments is child commercial exploitation. All these engines, all these technologies, are there for a commercial purpose. They have investors who are expecting a return and, to maximise the return, these technologies are designed to drive traffic, to drive addiction, and they do it very successfully. We are way behind the curve—we really are.
I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said about the body of knowledge within Parliament, in both Houses, that was very involved in the passage of the Online Safety Act. There is a very high level of concern, in both Houses, that we were perhaps too ambitious in assuming that a regulator that had not previously had any responsibilities in this area would be able to live up to the expectations held, and indeed some of the promises made, by the Government during the passage of that Act. I think we need to face up to that: we need to accept that we have not got it off to as good a start as we wanted and hoped, and that what is happening now is that the technologies we have been hearing about are racing ahead so quickly that we are finding it hard to catch up. Indeed, looking at the body language and the physiognomies of your Lordships in the Chamber, looking at the expressions on our faces as some of what we were talking about is being described, if it is having that effect on us, imagine what effect it is having on the children who in many cases are the subjects of these technologies.
I plead with the Minister to work very closely with his new ministerial colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd, and DSIT. We really need to get our act together and focus; otherwise, we will have repeats of these sorts of discussions where we raise issues that are happening at an increasing pace, not just here but all around the world. I fear that we are going to be holding our hands up, saying “We’re doing our best and we’re trying to catch up”, but that is not good enough. It is not good enough for my granddaughter and not good enough for the extended families of everybody here in this Chamber. We really have to get our act together and work together to try to catch up.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I too support the amendments in this group, particularly those tabled by my noble friend Lord Nash on security software and by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on AI-generated child sexual abuse material. I declare my interest as a trustee of the Royal Society for Public Health.
As others have noted, the Online Safety Act was a landmark achievement and, in many ways, something to be celebrated, but technology has not stood still—we said it at the time—and nor can our laws. It is important that we revisit it in examining this legislation, because generative AI presents such an egregious risk to our children which was barely imaginable even two years ago when we were discussing that Act. These amendments would ensure that our regulatory architecture keeps pace.
Amendment 266 on AI CSAM risk assessment is crucial. It addresses a simple but profound question: should the provider of a generative AI service be required to assess whether that service could be used to create or facilitate child sexual abuse material? Surely the answer is yes. This is not a theoretical risk, as we have heard in testimony from many noble Lords. We know that AI can generate vivid images, optimised on a dataset scraped from children themselves on the open internet, and that can be prompted to create CSAM-like content. On this, there is no ambiguity at all. We know that chatbots trained on the vast corpora of text from children can be manipulated to generate grooming scripts and sexualised narratives to engage children and make them semi-addicted to those conversations. We know that these tools are increasingly accessible, easy to use and almost impossible to monitor by parents and, it seems, regulators.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
My Lords, I support this group of amendments. What a speech my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, made; I commend all the speeches that have been made. If the Government only do one thing with this Bill, it should be to take on this group of amendments.
It is utterly terrifying. I addressed a teaching conference this week, with the safeguarding leads of many schools around the country, and they are tearing their hair out about it. The kids are on this stuff 100%, as we have seen from the statistics. The other thing they said to me, which the noble Baroness mentioned, is that parents either know about it and are terrified about how to address it, or they do not know about it, and I am not sure which is worse.
I reiterate that we have to get ahead of this, as the noble Baroness said. The Government must get ahead of this; otherwise, the dangers are just too huge to think about. I will keep this brief because I will speak about it more in due course, but my team and I went on a chatbot and we were “Lily”, and within about three seconds we were having an incestuous conversation with our father. It was absolutely crackers—terrible—so I ask the Government to please take on board these recommendations.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I was not intending to speak and I have nothing to add to all the brilliant speeches that have been made. I did not participate in the debates on the Online Safety Act. I feel horribly naive; I find this debate utterly terrifying and the more that parents know about these things, the better. I very much hope that my noble friend will be able to take this back and discuss these issues with people in this Chamber and the House of Commons. We cannot be behind the curve all the time; we have got to grip this to protect our children and our grandchildren.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I briefly add my support to all these amendments, particularly the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, which is fascinating. If we can get the software to do this, then why would we not? I offer a challenge to Ofcom, the Government and tech firms. If they can produce such sophisticated software that it can persuade children to kill themselves, why are BT and eBay’s chatbots so rubbish? We have to make AI a force for good, not for evil.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, having arrived in this House a very long time ago—53 years ago—I know this House works best if it treats legislation as an evolutionary process. The Online Safety Act seemed to be a very good Act when we passed it two years ago, but now we have further, drastic evidence, which we have heard in this debate. I am confident my noble friend the Minister will treat the speeches made in this debate as part of the evolutionary process which, I emphasise again, this House does best.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for bringing forward these amendments and for explaining them so clearly. The understanding of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall, is that AI chatbots do not trigger the illegal content duties since these tools are not considered to show mental intent. As a result, chatbots can generate prompts that are not classified as illegal, even though the exact same content would be illegal and subject to regulation if produced by a human. I find that quite extraordinary.
By accepting these amendments, the Government would be acting decisively to address the fast-evolving threat which this year saw abusive material of sexual content for children rise by 380%. In April 2024, the Internet Watch Foundation reported that a manual circulating on the dark web, which the Minister referred to earlier, instructed paedophiles to use AI to create nude images of children, then use these to extort or coerce money or extreme material from the young victims. The charity warned that AI was generating astoundingly realistic abusive content.
Text-to-image generative AI tools and AI companion apps have proliferated, enabling abusers to create AI chatbot companions specifically to enable realistic and abusive roleplay with child avatars. Not only do they normalise child sexual abuse, but evidence shows that those who abuse virtual children are much more likely to go on to abuse real ones. Real children are also increasingly subjected to virtual rape and sexual abuse online. It is wrong to dismiss this as less traumatic simply because it happens in a digital space.
The measures in the Bill are welcome but, given the speed at which technology is moving, how easy or otherwise will it be to future-proof it in order to keep pace with technology once the Bill is enacted?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this extremely important debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and my noble friend Lord Nash for their continued efforts on the protection of children online.
This group should unite the whole Committee. We can be in no doubt about the need to safeguard children in an environment where technology is evolving at unprecedented speed and where the risk of harm, including the creation and dissemination of child sexual abuse material, is escalating. It is a sad truth that, historically, Governments have been unable to keep pace with evolving technology. As a consequence, this can mean legislation coming far too late.
Amendment 266, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would require providers of online services, including generative AI systems, to conduct risk assessments on the potential use of their platforms to create child sexual abuse images. The Committee has heard compelling arguments about the need for meaningful responsibilities to be placed on platforms and developers, particularly where systems are capable of misuse at scale. We recognise the seriousness of the challenge that she has outlined, and I very much look forward to what the Government have to say in response.
On my noble friend Lord Nash’s amendment, we are particularly sympathetic to the concerns that underpin his proposal. His amendment would mandate the installation of tamper-proof software on relevant devices to prevent the creation, viewing and sharing of child sexual abuse material. My noble friend has made a powerful case that prevention at source must form part of the comprehensive strategy to protect children. While there are practical questions that will require careful examination, his amendment adds real value to the discussion. I am grateful for his determined focus on this issue, and I hope the Government also take this amendment very seriously.
Similarly, Amendments 479 and 480, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, speak to the responsibilities of AI search tools and AI chatbots. The risk of such technologies being co-opted for abusive purposes is not theoretical; these threats are emerging rapidly and require a response proportionate to the harm.
From these Benches, we are sympathetic to the objectives across this group of amendments and look forward to the Government’s detailed response and continuing cross-party work to ensure the strongest protections for children in an online world. As has been said several times throughout Committee, protecting children must remain our highest priority. I hope the Government take these amendments very seriously.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for the way she introduced this group of amendments and for her tireless work to protect children online. I say on behalf of all noble Lords that the support she has received today across the Committee shows that her work is vital, especially in the face of emerging technologies, such as generative AI, which present opportunities but, sadly, also have a darker side with new risks for criminal misuse.
She has received the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan of Cotes, Lady Boycott, Lady Bertin and Lady Doocey, my noble friends Lady Berger, Lady Royall of Blaisdon and Lord Hacking, the noble Lords, Lord Bethell, Lord Russell of Liverpool, Lord Hampton and Lord Davies of Gower, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and others to whom I will refer later. That is quite an array of colleagues in this House. It is my job to respond to this on behalf of the Government, and I will try to be as helpful as I can to the noble Baroness.
The Government share her desire to protect the public, especially children, online, and are committed to protecting all users from illegal online content. We will continue to act to keep citizens safe. Amendment 266 seeks to create a new duty on online service providers—including those already regulated under the Online Safety Act—to assess and report to Ofcom or the National Crime Agency on the risk that their services could be used to create or facilitate the generation of AI child sexual abuse material. The amendment would also require online service providers to implement measures to mitigate and manage the risks identified.
I say to the noble Baroness that UK law is already clear: creating, possessing or distributing child sexual abuse images, including those generated by AI, is already illegal, regardless of whether they depict a real child or not. Child sexual abuse material offences are priority offences under the Online Safety Act. The Act requires in-scope services to take proactive steps to prevent such material from appearing on their services and to remove it swiftly if it does.
As she will know, the Government have gone even further to tackle these appalling crimes through the measures in the Bill. I very much welcome her support for Clause 63. We are introducing a world-leading offence criminalising the possession, adaptation and supply of, or offer to supply, an AI model that has been fine-tuned by offenders to create child sexual abuse material. As I mentioned earlier, we are also extending the existing paedophile manual offence to cover advice on how to abuse AI to create child sexual abuse material.
We have also introduced measures that reflect the critical role that AI developers play in ensuring their systems are not misused. To support the crucial work of the Government’s AI Security Institute, we have just debated and agreed a series of amendments in the previous group to provide authorised bodies with the powers to legally test commercial AI models for extreme pornography and other child sexual abuse material. That is essential to allow experts to safely test measures, and I am pleased that we received the Committee’s support earlier.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
If it is beyond the remit of the National Crime Agency and Ofcom to do anything about this, perhaps the Minister will tell us who is going to take responsibility and actually enforce what the noble Baroness is trying to persuade the Government to do in the amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
All chatbots are regulated under the Online Safety Act. If there is harmful or illegal content or advice in relation to children, it is up to Ofcom to take action on those matters. Many of these issues are for DSIT Ministers and Ofcom. I am a Home Office Minister. The noble Baroness has requested a meeting and I will put that to my DSIT ministerial colleagues. I hope they will be able to meet her to reflect upon these issues. Although I am answering for the Bill today, some of these issues are DSIT matters, and it is important that she has an opportunity to raise them with DSIT.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I was stimulated to rise by something that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said. She was speaking to the reply that had been given by the Minister, and it made me think that what has to be looked at here is the law and its inadequacies in dealing with those who are not human—that is the nature of a robot. The law is constructed around the mental element of mens rea to convict people of a crime. Surely it should be possible for us, in the limited area of dealing with robots, to be able to say that that mental element need not be present in dealing with this kind of offending and that one should be able to construct something that leads back to those who are creatively responsible for bringing them into being.
It reminds me of the argument that is made in the United States about not bothering to restrict guns because it is not guns that kill people but the people using the guns who are responsible. In fact, those who manufacture them might be looked at for the responsibility that they bear for some of this. We should be looking much more creatively at the law. There should be an opportunity for lawyers to look at whether, in this instance with this development—which is so out of the ordinary experience of humankind—we should think about legally changing the rule on mens rea when it comes to robots.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
There are a number of issues before the Committee today and the Government will reflect on all the points that have been mentioned. However, the view at the moment is that these amendments would risk creating significant legal uncertainty by duplicating and potentially undermining aspects of the Online Safety Act.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful to the Minister for reassuring us that all chatbots are captured by the Online Safety Act; that is very good news indeed. Can he reassure us that Ofcom will confirm that in writing to the House? I appreciate that he is a Home Office Minister, but he speaks on behalf of all of government. I think it is fair, given the nature of the Bill, that he seeks an answer from Ofcom in this matter.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My assessment is that the vast majority of chatbots are captured—
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Many AI chatbots that enable users to share content with each other or search live websites for information are within the scope of the Online Safety Act’s duties. Providers of those services—
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
I want to repeat what I said in my speech. There are some chatbots, such as Replika, that do not have user-to-user functionality. They are created for just one user, and that user cannot pass it on to any other users. There is concern that the law does not cover that and that Ofcom does not regulate it.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
If I may, I will take away those comments. I am responsible for many things in this House, including the Bill, but some of those areas fall within other ministerial departments. I am listening to what noble Lords and noble Baronesses are saying today.
Currently, through Online Safety Act duties, providers of those services are required to undertake appropriate risk assessments and, under the Act’s illegal content duties, platforms must implement robust and timely measures to prevent illegal content appearing on their services. All in-scope providers are expected to have effective systems and processes in place to ensure that the risks of their platform being used for the types of offending mentioned today are appropriately reduced.
Ofcom currently has a role that is focused on civil enforcement of duties on providers to assess and mitigate the risks posed by illegal content. Where Ofcom may bring prosecutions in some circumstances, it will do so only in relation to regulatory matters where civil enforcement is insufficient. The proposed approach is not in line with the enforcement regime under the Act at the moment, which is the responsibility of Ofcom and DSIT.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My noble friend is making really important comments in this regard, but on the specific issue of Ofcom, perhaps fuelling much of the concern across the Committee are the comments we have heard from Ofcom. I refer to a briefing from the Molly Rose Foundation, which I am sure other noble Lords have received, which says that uncertainty has been “actively fuelled” by the regulator Ofcom, which has told the Molly Rose Foundation that it intends to maintain “tactical ambiguity” about how the Act applies. That is the very issue that unites us in our concern.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for that and for her contribution to the debate and the experiences she has brought. The monitoring and evaluation of the online safety regime is a responsibility of DSIT and Ofcom, and they have developed a framework to monitor the implementation of the Act and evaluate core outcomes. This monitoring and evaluation is currently tracking the effect of the online safety regime and feeding into a post-implementation review of the 2023 Act. Where there is evidence of a need to go further to keep children safe online, including from AI-enabled harms, the Government will not hesitate to act.
If the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, will allow DSIT and Ofcom to look at those matters, I will make sure that DSIT Ministers are apprised of the discussion that we have had today. It is in this Bill, which is a Home Office Bill, but it is important that DSIT Ministers reflect on what has been said. I will ensure that we try to arrange that meeting for the noble Baroness in due course.
I want also to talk about Amendments 271A and 497ZA from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, which propose that smartphone and tablet manufacturers, importers and distributors are required to ensure that any device they have is preinstalled with technology that prevents the recording and viewing of child sexual abuse material or similar material accordingly. I acknowledge the noble Lord’s very valid intention concerning child safety and protection, and to prevent the spread of child sexual abuse material online. To that end, there is a shared agreement with the Government on the need to strengthen our already world-leading online safety regime wherever necessary.
I put to the noble Lord, and to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, on his comments in support, that if nudity detection technology could be effectively deployed at scale, there could be a significant limiting impact on the production and sharing of child sexual abuse material. I accept that, but we must get this right. Application of detection technology that detects and blocks all nudity, adult and child, but which is primarily targeted at children, would be an effective intervention. I and colleagues across government want to gather evidence about the application of such technology and its effectiveness and impact. However, our assessment is that further work is needed to understand the accuracy of such tools and how they may be implemented.
We must also consider the risks that could arise from accepting this amendment, including legitimate questions about user privacy and data security. If it helps the noble Lord, Lord Nash, we will continue to assess the effect of detection tools on the performance of mobile device so that we can see how easy it is to circumvent them, how effective they are and a range of other matters accordingly. The Government’s focus is on protective measures within the Online Safety Act, but we are actively considering the potential benefits of the technology that the noble Lord has mentioned and others like it in parallel. There will be further future government interventions but they must be proportionate and driven by evidence. At the moment, we do not have sufficient evidence to ensure that we could accept the amendment from the noble Lord, but the direction of travel is one that we would support.
Lord Nash (Con)
Will the Minister meet me and representatives from software companies to explain why they say this technology works?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am very happy to arrange a meeting with an appropriate Minister. I would be very happy to sit in on it. Other Ministers may wish to take the lead on this, because there are technology issues as well. I have Home Office responsibilities across the board, but I have never refused a meeting with a Member of this House in my 16 months here and I am not going to start now, so the answer to that question is yes. The basic presumption at the moment is that we are not convinced that the technology is yet at the stage that the noble Lord believes it to be, but that is a matter for future operation. I again give him the assurance that, in the event that the technology proves to be successful, the Government will wish to examine it in some detail.
I have absolutely no doubt that we will revisit these matters but, for the moment, I hope that the noble Baroness can withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Nash, for his amendment and his fierce following of this issue, and for bringing it to our attention. I recognise that this is a Home Office Bill and that some of these things cross to DSIT, but we are also witnessing crime. The Home Office must understand that not everything can be pushed to DSIT.
Your Lordships have just met the tech Lords. These are incredibly informed people from all over the Chamber who share a view that we want a technological world that puts kids front and centre. We are united in that and, as the Minister has suggested, we will be back.
I have three very quick points. First, legal challenges, operational difficulties and the capacity of the NCA and Ofcom were the exact same reasons why Clause 63 was not in the Online Safety Bill or the Data (Use and Access) Bill. It is unacceptable for officials to always answer with those general things. Many noble Lords said, “It’s so difficult”, and, “This is new”, with the Online Safety Bill. It is not new: we raised these issues before. If we had acted three or four years ago, we would not be in this situation. I urge this Government to get on the front foot, because we know what is coming.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Child sexual abuse image-generators: Northern Ireland(1) In the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 (S.I. 2008/1769 (N.I. 2)), after Article 42 insert—“Creation of CSA material
42A Child sexual abuse image-generators(1) It is an offence for a person to make, adapt, possess, supply or offer to supply a CSA image-generator.(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this Article of possessing a CSA image-generator to prove that the person—(a) was sent the CSA image-generator without any request having been made for it (by or on behalf of the person), and(b) did not keep it for an unreasonable time.(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this Article of possessing, supplying or offering to supply a CSA image-generator to prove that the person did not know, and did not have cause to suspect, that the thing possessed, supplied or offered to be supplied was a CSA image-generator.(4) For further defences, see Article 42B.(5) A person who commits an offence under this Article is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).(6) In this Article—(a) “CSA image-generator” means anything (including any program and any information in electronic form) which is made or adapted for use for creating, or facilitating the creation of, CSA images;(b) “CSA image” means—(i) an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child, within the meaning of the Protection of Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1047 (N.I. 17));(ii) a prohibited image of a child, within the meaning of section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, that is not an excluded image within the meaning of section 63 of that Act;(c) a reference to making a CSA image-generator includes adapting anything that is not a CSA image-generator in such a way that it becomes a CSA image-generator. 42B Article 42A: supplementary(1) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under Article 42A—(a) to prove that the person made, adapted, possessed, supplied or offered to supply the CSA image-generator for the purposes of the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, or for the purposes of criminal proceedings, in any part of the world,(b) to prove that the person was a member of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service or GCHQ (a “security body”) and made, adapted, possessed, supplied or offered to supply the CSA image-generator for the purposes of the exercise of any function of the security body, or(c) to prove that the person—(i) was a member of OFCOM, was employed or engaged by OFCOM, or assisted OFCOM in the exercise of any of its online safety functions, and(ii) made, adapted, possessed, supplied or offered to supply the CSA image-generator for the purposes of OFCOM’s exercise of any of its online safety functions.(2) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under Article 42A by—(a) providing access to a communication network, or(b) transmitting, in a communication network, information provided by a user, if the provider does not—(i) initiate the transmission,(ii) select the recipient of the transmission, or(iii) select or modify the information contained in the transmission.(3) The references in paragraph (2) to providing access to, or transmitting information in, a communication network include storing the information transmitted so far as the storage—(a) is automatic, intermediate and transient,(b) is solely for the purpose of carrying out the transmission in the network, and(c) is for no longer than is reasonably necessary for the transmission.(4) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under Article 42A by storing information provided by a user for transmission in a communication network if—(a) the storage of the information—(i) is automatic, intermediate and temporary, and(ii) is solely for the purpose of making more efficient the onward transmission of the information to other users at their request, and(b) the internet service provider—(i) does not modify the information,(ii) complies with any conditions attached to having access to the information, and(iii) on obtaining actual knowledge of a matter within paragraph (5), promptly removes the information or disables access to it.(5) The matters within this paragraph are that—(a) the information at the initial source of the transmission has been removed from the network,(b) access to it has been disabled, or(c) a court or administrative authority has ordered the removal from the network of, or the disablement of access to, the information.(6) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under Article 42A by storing information provided by a user who is not acting under the authority or control of the provider if— (a) the provider had no actual knowledge when the information was provided that it was, or contained, a CSA image-generator, and(b) on obtaining actual knowledge that the information was, or contained, a CSA image-generator, the provider promptly removed the information or disabled access to it.(7) Article 76(1) applies in relation to an act which, if done in Northern Ireland, would constitute an offence under Article 42A as if references to a United Kingdom national included—(a) a body incorporated under the law of any part of the United Kingdom, or(b) an unincorporated association formed under the law of any part of the United Kingdom.(8) Article 42A(6) applies for the purposes of this Article.(9) In this Article—(a) “GCHQ” has the meaning given by section 3 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994;(b) “OFCOM” means the Office of Communications;(c) a reference to OFCOM’s “online safety functions” has the meaning given by section 235 of the Online Safety Act 2023;(d) “internet service provider” means a provider of—(i) a service that is made available by means of the internet, or(ii) a service that provides access to the internet;(e) “user” , in relation to an internet service provider, means a user of a service provided by the internet service provider.42C Liability for an offence under Article 42A committed by a body(1) This Article applies where an offence under Article 42A is committed by a body.(2) If the offence is committed with the consent or connivance of—(a) a relevant person in relation to the body, or(b) a person purporting to act in the capacity of a relevant person in relation to the body,the person (as well as the body) commits the offence and is liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.(3) In this Article—“body” means a body corporate, a partnership or an unincorporated association other than a partnership;“relevant person” , in relation to a body, means—(a) in the case of a body corporate other than one whose affairs are managed by its members, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body;(b) in the case of a limited liability partnership or other body corporate whose affairs are managed by its members, a member who exercises functions of management with respect to it;(c) in the case of a limited partnership, a general partner (within the meaning given by section 3 of the Limited Partnerships Act 1907);(d) in the case of any other partnership, a partner;(e) in the case of an unincorporated association other than a partnership, a person who exercises functions of management with respect to it.”.(2) In Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (offences for purposes of Part 2 of that Act) after paragraph 92O insert— “92OA An offence under Article 42A of that Order (child sexual abuse image-generators) if the offender is sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 6 months.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause makes provision for Northern Ireland equivalent to that made by clause 63 for England and Wales.
“Child sexual abuse image-generators: Scotland(1) In the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, after section 52C insert—“52D Child sexual abuse image generators(1) It is an offence for a person to make, adapt, possess, supply or offer to supply a CSA image-generator.(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section of possessing a CSA image-generator to prove that the person—(a) was sent the CSA image-generator without any request having been made for it (by or on behalf of the person), and(b) did not keep it for an unreasonable time.(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section of possessing, supplying or offering to supply a CSA image-generator to prove that the person did not know, and did not have cause to suspect, that the thing possessed, supplied or offered to be supplied was a CSA image-generator.(4) For further defences, see section 52E.(5) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).(6) In this section—(a) “CSA image-generator” means anything (including any program and any information in electronic form) which is made or adapted for use for creating, or facilitating the creation of, CSA images;(b) “CSA image” means an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child, within the meaning of section 52;(c) a reference to making a CSA image-generator includes adapting anything that is not a CSA image-generator in such a way that it becomes a CSA image-generator.52E Section 52D: supplementary(1) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 52D—(a) to prove that the person made, adapted, possessed, supplied or offered to supply the CSA image-generator for the purposes of the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, or for the purposes of criminal proceedings, in any part of the world,(b) to prove that the person was a member of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service or GCHQ (a “security body”) and made, adapted, possessed, supplied or offered to supply the CSA image-generator for the purposes of the exercise of any function of the security body, or(c) to prove that the person—(i) was a member of OFCOM, was employed or engaged by OFCOM, or assisted OFCOM in the exercise of any of its online safety functions, and(ii) made, adapted, possessed, supplied or offered to supply the CSA image-generator for the purposes of OFCOM’s exercise of any of its online safety functions. (2) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under section 52D by—(a) providing access to a communication network, or(b) transmitting, in a communication network, information provided by a user, if the provider does not—(i) initiate the transmission,(ii) select the recipient of the transmission, or(iii) select or modify the information contained in the transmission.(3) The references in subsection (2) to providing access to, or transmitting information in, a communication network include storing the information transmitted so far as the storage—(a) is automatic, intermediate and transient,(b) is solely for the purpose of carrying out the transmission in the network, and(c) is for no longer than is reasonably necessary for the transmission.(4) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under section 52D by storing information provided by a user for transmission in a communication network if—(a) the storage of the information—(i) is automatic, intermediate and temporary, and(ii) is solely for the purpose of making more efficient the onward transmission of the information to other users at their request, and(b) the internet service provider—(i) does not modify the information,(ii) complies with any conditions attached to having access to the information, and(iii) on obtaining actual knowledge of a matter within subsection (5), promptly removes the information or disables access to it.(5) The matters within this subsection are that—(a) the information at the initial source of the transmission has been removed from the network,(b) access to it has been disabled, or(c) a court or administrative authority has ordered the removal from the network of, or the disablement of access to, the information.(6) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under section 52D by storing information provided by a user who is not acting under the authority or control of the provider if—(a) the provider had no actual knowledge when the information was provided that it was, or contained, a CSA image-generator, and(b) on obtaining actual knowledge that the information was, or contained, a CSA image-generator, the provider promptly removed the information or disabled access to it.(7) Section 52D(6) applies for the purposes of this section.(8) In this section—(a) “GCHQ” has the meaning given by section 3 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994;(b) “OFCOM” means the Office of Communications;(c) a reference to OFCOM’s “online safety functions” has the meaning given by section 235 of the Online Safety Act 2023;(d) “internet service provider” means a provider of—(i) a service that is made available by means of the internet, or(ii) a service that provides access to the internet; (e) “user” , in relation to an internet service provider, means a user of a service provided by the internet service provider.”.(2) In Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sexual offences for purposes of Part 2 of that Act) after paragraph 46 insert—“46A An offence under section 52D of that Act (child sexual abuse image-generators), if the offender is sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months.”.(3) In the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009—(a) in section 55 (offences committed outside the UK) after subsection (7) insert—“(7A) Subsection (1) applies to an act which, if done in Scotland, would constitute an offence under section 52D of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, as if references to a United Kingdom national included—(a) a body incorporated under the law of any part of the United Kingdom, or(b) an unincorporated association formed under the law of any part of the United Kingdom.”;(b) in Schedule 4 (sexual offences for purposes of section 55 of that Act), after paragraph 12 insert—“12A An offence under section 52D of that Act (child sexual abuse image-generators).”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause makes provision for Scotland equivalent to that made by clause 63 for England and Wales.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Possession of advice or guidance about child sexual abuse or CSA images: Scotland(1) In Part 4 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 after section 41 insert—“41A Possession of advice or guidance about abusing children sexually or creating CSA images(1) It is an offence to be in possession of any item that contains advice or guidance about abusing children sexually or creating CSA images.(2) “Abusing children sexually or creating CSA images” means doing anything that constitutes—(a) an offence under section 52 or 52D of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982;(b) an offence under section 1, 2 or 7 of the Criminal Law Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1995 against a person under the age of 18;(c) an offence under section 10 of that Act;(d) an offence under section 1, or any of sections 9 to 12, of the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005;(e) an offence under Part 1 or section 46 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 against a person under the age of 18;(f) an offence under Part 4 or section 42 of that Act;(g) an offence under section 1 of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 against a person under the age of 18 that is committed with a view to exploitation that consists of or includes behaviour within section 3(3), (4) or (5) of that Act (prostitution and sexual exploitation), or doing anything outside Scotland that would constitute such an offence if done in Scotland.(3) It is a defence for a person (D) charged with an offence under this section—(a) to prove that D had a legitimate reason for being in possession of the item;(b) to prove that—(i) D had not read, viewed or (as appropriate) listened to the item, and(ii) D did not know, and had no reason to suspect, that it contained advice or guidance about abusing children sexually or creating CSA images; or(c) to prove that—(i) the item was sent to D without any request made by D or on D’s behalf, and(ii) D did not keep it for an unreasonable time.(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine, or to both.(5) In this section “item” includes anything in which information of any description is recorded.41B Section 41A: supplementary provision(1) A service provider does not commit an offence under section 41A by—(a) providing access to a communication network, or(b) transmitting, in a communication network, information provided by a user, if the provider does not—(i) initiate the transmission,(ii) select the recipient of the transmission, or(iii) select or modify the information contained in the transmission.(2) The references in subsection (1) to providing access to, or transmitting information in, a communication network include storing the information transmitted so far as the storage—(a) is automatic, intermediate and transient,(b) is solely for the purpose of carrying out the transmission in the network, and(c) is for no longer than is reasonably necessary for the transmission.(3) A service provider does not commit an offence under section 41A by storing information provided by a user for transmission in a communication network if—(a) the storage of the information—(i) is automatic, intermediate and temporary, and(ii) is solely for the purpose of making more efficient the onward transmission of the information to other users at their request, and(b) the service provider—(i) does not modify the information,(ii) complies with any conditions attached to having access to the information, and(iii) on obtaining actual knowledge of a matter within subsection (4), promptly removes the information or disables access to it.(4) The matters within this subsection are that—(a) the information at the initial source of the transmission has been removed from the network,(b) access to it has been disabled, or (c) a court or administrative authority has ordered the removal from the network of, or the disablement of access to, the information.(5) A service provider does not commit an offence under section 41A by storing information provided by a user who is not acting under the authority or control of the provider if—(a) the provider had no actual knowledge when the information was provided that it was, or contained, advice or guidance about abusing children sexually or creating CSA images, and(b) on obtaining actual knowledge that the information was, or contained, advice or guidance about abusing children sexually or creating CSA images, the provider promptly removed the information or disabled access to it.(6) In this section—(a) “service provider” means a person providing an information society service;(b) “information society service” means a service normally provided—(i) for remuneration,(ii) at a distance,(iii) by electronic means, and(iv) at the individual request of a user of the services;(c) “user” , in relation to a service provider, means a user of a service provided by the service provider.(7) In subsection (6)(b)—(a) “at a distance” means that the service is provided without the parties being simultaneously present;(b) “by electronic means” means that the service is—(i) sent initially and received at its destination by means of electronic equipment for the processing (including digital compression) and storage of data, and(ii) entirely transmitted, conveyed and received by wire, by radio, by optical means or by other electromagnetic means;(c) “at the individual request of a user of the services” means that the service is provided through the transmission of data on individual request.”.(2) In Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sexual offences for purposes of Part 2 of that Act) after paragraph 59ZJ insert—“59ZJA An offence under section 41A of that Act (possession of paedophile manual) if the offender—(a) was 18 or over, and(b) is sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision for Scotland equivalent to that made for England and Wales and Northern Ireland by section 69 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, as amended by clause 64.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my new clause (Child sexual abuse image-generators: Scotland) inserted after clause 63.
“(vi) Article 42A (child sexual abuse image-generators);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my new clause (Child sexual abuse image generators: Northern Ireland) inserted after clause 63.
Lord Meston
Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to align the wording with that of the equivalent duty to report money laundering as stated in section 330(2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and to extend the scope of the duty to cover Wales in addition to England.
Lord Meston (CB)
My noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson cannot be here and has asked me to speak to her amendments in this group, 12 in number, to which I had already added my name in support. I pay tribute to her dedicated campaigning on what we will now debate. All her amendments concern and seek to reinforce the Government’s decision to legislate for mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse in a wide range of contexts.
My noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson’s amendments are based on her earlier Private Member’s Bill and echo amendments by her to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which was debated in June. I recall that in that debate the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to a need for a clear and comprehensive system of mandatory reporting. Following the work of IICSA, which highlighted the widespread and endemic nature of child sexual abuse, the Government’s decision to put forward the duty set out in Chapter 2 is welcome and should be supported—but I would say, only as far as it goes.
The main point of difference is that whereas the Bill does not expressly provide for sanctions for non-compliance with the duty, many of us wish the duty to be underpinned by criminal sanctions, as IICSA recommended. Quite simply, a lesser sanction such as a possible referral to a professional regulator or to the Disclosure and Barring Service is not enough to enforce the new and important duty. We will get to this shortly with Amendment 280.
Before we move on, I would like to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, was quite correct to emphasise the wide range of situations in which abuse can occur. It is not just child grooming gangs, well-known celebrity abuse cases or cases involving institutions such as churches or schools; the reality is that the majority of child sexual abuse occurs in domestic and family situations. It is therefore welcome that this Bill will potentially cover such a wide range of scenarios.
As someone who spent much of his working life dealing with child abuse cases, I suggest that these basic points should inform the debate on this part of the Bill and the amendments to it. First, safeguarding children should be seen as the responsibility of everyone. I quote my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson:
“A well-designed mandatory reporting law is a key component of an effective safeguarding system”.—[Official Report, 17/1/25; col. 1382.]
I would add that a positive duty to report, with sanctions, is the only certain way of ensuring that steps will be promptly taken to investigate and prevent abuse when it is revealed or suspected.
Secondly, and fundamentally, doing nothing when suspicions of abuse are aroused should not be seen as an option. A failure to report is a culpable failure to protect, and it is a failure to prevent harm to the child concerned and to other children at risk. Thirdly, a child who has the courage to disclose abuse needs to be reassured that his or her anxieties will be quickly and properly dealt with. Fourthly, a strong mandatory law will convey to potential perpetrators that abuse will not be tolerated. Finally, difficult cases concerning historic sexual abuse, whether one likes that term or not, arise in all jurisdictional areas. These require courts to deal with alleged abuse that may have been undetected and/or unreported for many years. A later group of amendments will consider these. In the context of this group, I suggest that a duty to report suspicions of abuse as soon as possible should reduce the number of such historic cases, with all their evidential and emotional complexities.
I turn to the individual amendments. Amendment 272 aims to align the wording of the Bill with that of the equivalent duty to report money laundering in Section 330 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and to extend the duty to cover Wales as well as England. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, makes the point that for the past 23 years the country has protected money in ways in which it has not yet protected children. I have compared other formulations of positive duties elsewhere—for example, in the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Female Genital Mutilation Act—and submit that what the amendment here proposes is clearer and more incisive than the wording in the Bill.
Amendment 274 would ensure that any report goes to the local authority that has the duty to protect the child, investigating the child’s circumstances and putting in place therapeutic treatment as well as protective measures. The local authority already has a duty to work with the police and to pass reports on to them if there is evidence of an offence. Amendment 275 is consequential.
Amendment 276 would ensure that a report is made in cases of suspected offences occurring outside England and Wales. Amendment 277 seeks to align the duty with existing statutory guidance, which expects a report to be made as soon as practicable. If there is a risk to the life or safety of a relevant child, the guidance expects the report to be expedited rather than delayed in order to enable fast consideration of necessary intervention.
Amendment 278 would remove the scope for people not to report when they believe that someone else will do so. Experience shows—certainly this is my own experience—that that is just one of the many ways in which people with knowledge or suspicion of abuse will convince themselves that it is all right to do nothing, and to hope that the problem will go away.
Amendment 279 is intended to make it clear that the management and proprietors of a setting have the duty to report suspected abuse—for example, when suspicions are reported to management by other staff. It should not be a prerequisite to have had any direct contact with the child, nor should it be an excuse that they did not have any direct contact with the child. It is not the responsibility or function of management to consider the merits of the complaint; they have a straightforward responsibility to report concerns.
Amendment 280 would make failure to report a criminal offence, and this is perhaps the central amendment as far as we are concerned. The IICSA report made a balanced and carefully considered recommendation that it should be, providing for defences as indicated in the amendment. I suggest that criminalising a failure to report is justified in helping to reduce a significant risk of substantial harm to children. Paragraph 116 of the IICSA report states:
“Where an individual to whom mandatory reporting laws apply has witnessed or received a disclosure of child sexual abuse, it should be a criminal offence to fail to report that to the relevant local authority or police force. Such a failure would amount to a deliberate decision not to pass on information about child sexual abuse to those authorities empowered to protect children from harm and to prevent future abuse by investigating and prosecuting it when it occurs. For those who work with children or are in a position of trust to fail to facilitate that is inexcusable, and the sanction for such an omission should be commensurate”.
Amendment 281 seeks to define “operators of a setting” in cases of private and corporate ownership, and Amendment 284 would clarify and describe the wide range of settings in which relevant activities covered by Clause 72 might occur. These are not exclusive lists, and I hope the Committee will recognise the wide extent of the activities that need to be covered. For example, the amendment refers outside mainstream religious organisations, to
“other organisations holding non-religious worldviews”.
That echoes cases I have dealt with involving sects and cults that are closed and secretive, and insist on loyalty.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Kennedy of Cradley) (Lab)
Before we move on, I clarify that the lead amendment in this group, Amendment 271F, was not moved so we have moved on to Amendment 272, which has been proposed as the lead amendment, and the group will continue as normal.
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.
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.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 273, which is a very simple amendment that aims to put into action what IICSA recommended: that mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse should happen with no exceptions. The inquiry argued that, even if abuse is disclosed in the context of confession, the person—in this case, the priest—should be legally required to report it. It proposes that failing to report such abuse should itself be a criminal offence.
I am very glad that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester is in his place, because I know he has spent a long time on working parties looking at this issue. In earlier discussions in the House, in response to the right reverend Prelate, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, said that he had received representations from churches on this issue and expressed the hope that this would be further debated as the Crime and Policing Bill went through Parliament. My amendment is simply here to enable that debate to happen.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of my noble friend Lord Polak and his Amendment 286A. As he lucidly put it, this amendment proposes to close several glaring loopholes in the offences outlined in Clause 79; otherwise, I fear it will fail to meet the aims and expectations placed on it by this Committee.
Our criminal justice system should be equipped with new laws to hold accountable all those who cover up child sexual abuse. The noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, put that case incredibly well and touchingly. It needs to be known that if someone acts purposefully to stop child sexual abuse being properly investigated and so denies the victims and survivors the protection and justice they are entitled to, they will face strong criminal penalties. That is why I support the Bill’s inclusion of Clause 79, which seeks to introduce new criminal offences for preventing or deterring someone, under the new mandatory reporting duty, from making a report. However, its drafting means that it would be limited in its ability to contribute meaningfully to the important mission of tackling child sexual abuse that we across the Committee strongly support.
Clause 79 is dependent upon the new mandatory duty to report. The clause not only requires the action taken to directly involve a reporter under the duty, it requires the person attempting to conceal the abuse to know that the person that they are deterring is a mandated reporter. This brings with it a whole host of legal complexities. What does it mean to know that someone is under the duty? Does it require them to also know that the child sex offence has taken place to trigger the said duty? How could it be convincingly proved by the courts that someone accused of putting the needs of their institution above protecting a child also understood what the duty is, who it applies to and how that factored into their actions? These are important questions that need to be reconciled.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I am grateful for the chance to speak in this debate. Probably the most harrowing date in my life as a bishop was when I had to give evidence in person to IICSA as the Church of England’s lead bishop on religious communities— we knew that some of the horrific abuse that had taken place was in religious communities. Ever since then, I have worked really hard on these matters. I sought to add my name to Amendments 286A and 287, but I missed the deadline, sadly, so I am grateful for the chance to support them now.
I was going to say quite a bit about Amendment 286A, but the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said just about everything I wanted to say, so I will not detain the Committee any further on it. On Amendment 287 on training, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Polak, and others. It is important that the Bill will apply not only to already knowledgeable professionals but to volunteers, who will have a whole variety of levels of funding, of safeguarding experience and of experience in dealing with child sexual abuse. We cannot assume that mandated reporters will already have the necessary understanding to fulfil these new legal obligations, so I think this is an appropriate probing amendment to see what support there can be to ensure that those who will have a duty are equipped to discharge that duty properly. Without that, I think we will fail to hit what we are trying to do.
I am sorry that it has taken us this long to get this far with the IICSA report. I think we have made a bit more progress implementing its recommendations in the Church of England than we have in this House, but I am glad that we got this opportunity today. I am grateful to the many noble Lords who have proposed amendments.
I want to say a few words about Amendment 273, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, invited me to do so. On the seal of the confessional, if it is possible for a churchman to say this, I remain a bit agnostic. I am interested in what will actually produce good safeguarding. I have heard people say, including survivors sometimes, that the chance to go and talk to a priest, and know it would not go beyond that priest, was what gave them the courage—often with a priest going with them—to make a disclosure to the relevant authorities. I can see that if we change that, some disclosures would happen but some would not, so I am keen to hear a bit more about that.
The other part of the amendment talks about extending it to all those who volunteer. I am not quite sure how wide that needs to go. Certainly, I am happy for it to apply to Church leaders, lay or ordained, paid or unpaid, but it should not be the person who cleans the coffee cups in the church hall on a Sunday morning, or who puts out the “No parking” cones, or who photocopies the parish magazine or arranges the church flowers once a month. Let us be clear exactly what categories we are going to extend any duty to, and whether that is dealt with best in the Bill or in some sort of secondary advice, guidance, legislation or other instrument. I am keen to explore that more. I am very grateful for these matters being raised, and not before time.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I too support Amendment 286A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Polak, to which I also would have added my name if I had been slightly more efficient. The right reverend Prelate and I need to do better from now on. I acknowledge and thank the NSPCC and declare my interest as a teacher. To quote Keeping Children Safe in Education, which we have to read every year, child protection is everybody’s responsibility.
I was surprised to hear that this issue was not already completely covered. As we have heard now and in previous groups, it is essential that if someone acts purposefully to stop child sexual abuse being properly investigated, they should face strong criminal penalties. Actions like these can delay, and sometimes outright deny, victims their access to justice and the vital support needed to help them recover from such abuse.
The much-quoted Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse uncovered instances in which teachers were transferred to another school with no police referral, after a student was told: “You must not tell the police. We will handle it in-house”. Priests were moved from parish to parish, and there were examples of local authorities destroying files relating to allegations, which survivors perceived as part of a cover-up.
These are actions that can and do continue to happen across our society. While Clause 79 introduces a new criminal offence of preventing or deterring someone under the mandatory reporting duty from making a report, this provision does not go far enough to cover the multitude of ways that reports of abuse can be concealed. This is because Clause 79 is built on the mandatory reporting duty and requires the act of concealment directly to involve someone under that duty. This proposal is separate from applying criminal sanctions directly to the mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse in Clause 72, which I fear could create a defensive fear and blame-based child protection sector that criminalises those who lack the knowledge and training to report effectively. However, intentionally taking actions to cover up child sexual abuse cannot be tolerated and should be criminalised. I believe that this amendment strikes the balance.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, this is the first time I have spoken at this stage of the Bill. I must say that, in the presence of such expertise, I find myself entirely inadequate for the purpose. At Second Reading, I raised a question about the interaction of Clause 80 with the clauses that precede it. I profess no track record on matters of child protection, but I thoroughly subscribe to the principle of the duty to report contained in this section of the Bill. Because of its profound significance, it certainly has my full support.
However, I have come to the matter through a rather different route: the way in which crimes are recorded and, in particular, why they may not be recorded accurately or at all. My point is quite simple and revolves around the reliable translation of the definition in Clause 72(1)—namely, a reason to believe that
“a child sex offence may have been committed (at any time)”—
into some sort of recording and/or further action. We cannot know what those reasons to believe might be, so variable is the range of circumstances, as we heard earlier. I note that “reasonable belief” has no definable limit, and nor should it have. However, it may very likely be based on the reporter’s knowledge, training, experience, powers of observation and so on, rather than hard evidence. Here is the point: otherwise, were that not the case, Clause 72 would surely have been differently worded.
I certainly expect that all such professionals involved with safeguarding in mind would have acute sensitivity in this area and, in reporting their beliefs, would themselves be believed as an evidential source. My concern is that their belief alone may still not be enough to generate action without further and better evidence. I think in particular of a situation where the child who is the subject of their belief is uncommunicative, if the information is partly second-hand, if it is about a child not in their immediate charge, and the myriad ways in which this information of relevance can come about. Then, the only purpose of reporting would be to get the matters into some sort of system for follow-up monitoring and investigations which necessarily involve the devotion of resources to confirm the commission of an offence or ultimately dispose of it on the basis that nothing sinister has actually occurred.
Therefore, reporting gets us only so far. What then? What is the follow-up process to be? Clause 80 does not actually tell us but makes a leap to police crime recording, in accordance with “applicable policy and procedure”—presumably meaning the Home Office guidance and the practices within the particular force concerned, attuned to local circumstances, resources and priorities within its area. This, as far as I can see, is the only backstop follow-up from the reporting of reasonable belief under the Bill. As such, its commendable aims are yoked to a general crime reporting principle that applies some way further down the line.
I hope I do not suffer from some sort of hallucinatory process in all of this, but I seek to plug a gap in which reasonable belief in any given instance is not guaranteed to pass the evidential standard for the purposes of police or, for that matter, any other recording of suspected crime. This is because the balance of probabilities test underlying the crime reporting guidance embodies a clear tendency towards such an evidential base. Home Office guidance places the duty on the reporting officer as to what they think has happened in the commission of a crime, not necessarily what the person reporting thinks. Any different approach, especially one involving time and energy in instances of hazy information in the circumstances described, might be difficult to get across the line.
My concern, notwithstanding the current focus on child sexual abuse in the press and everywhere else, is that things might easily erode over the long run and default to standard practices consistent with available finances, manpower and, not least, political pressures to show effective reduction in crime. This was highlighted by the Public Administration Select Committee in its June 2014 report, Caught Red-handed. Its findings were also associated with the demotion of police crime recordings and their removal for national statistics purposes.
The gap I see in the legislative architecture before us matters because of the special attention needed to protect young people. If we are now moving on to a situation where previous failings to protect the vulnerable from things too awful to contemplate are really a thing of the past, with better outcomes going forward, then, as I pointed out at Second Reading, Clause 80 risks merely undoing the policy objectives of Clauses 72 to 79.
Rather than tinker around with the detail, it seemed more appropriate to remove Clause 80 altogether—hence my intention for us to debate whether Clause 80 stands part—and simply leave in place the duty to report and the penalty for obstructing this duty. That would lead, I hope, to the establishment by the relevant duty holders, via their multi agency safeguarding processes, of other follow-up protocols to manage and monitor concerns falling outside police crime recording parameters, but on a structured basis. Otherwise, I cannot conceive of any route to ensure follow-up measures and resources being devoted to mere reasonable belief that does not require an evidential test for crime recording. Therefore, this needs a framework.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, as was clear from our debate, this is a very important group of amendments, which seek to clarify and improve a necessary measure in the Bill. When we discussed the fourth group today, we heard about the horrific crimes committed against some children in this country: the industrial-scale abuse of young, white, working-class girls over the past four decades, as well as abuse of other groups. This happened —and is still happening—because the people who commit these crimes are among the most depraved in our society. However, it has also happened because people familiar with the abuse, or even those who had mere suspicions, turned a blind eye or simply did not look at what was in front of them.
The victims were failed by everyone, from the police to the authorities, their teachers and community leaders. Too often, they were treated with a blind negligence that bordered on positively enabling the crimes that were occurring. We have heard many powerful speeches today; I cannot list them all, but I remind the Minister of the introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the powerful speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone.
I think we all now agree that safeguarding needs to be supported by sanctions. How else can we put a stop to bureaucratic failure to report? The difficult and important question is around striking the balance when doing that, to make certain that it is effective but that it does not have unintended, unhappy consequences. It is important also to make non-reporting a criminal offence, but, again, exactly how that is phrased will need considerable care. Many ideas have been canvassed today, and it would be dangerous for me to try to draft on the hoof at the Dispatch Box.
There was force in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, as to why there should be an exception for what is learned in confession, and that was also important. I am not urging that there should be an exception, but it should be looked at. We have had arguments on both sides. What is the evidence? What are likely to be the benefits of opening that up? Personally, I think it should be opened up, but it should be looked at with care.
We heard earlier today from the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, all about the grooming gangs, so I will not go back to that, but they are an incredibly striking example of why we need a duty to report suspected child sex offences in general and why it is important that the clause is properly drafted.
One important oversight, which was spotted by noble Baronesses, Lady Cash and Lady Grey-Thompson, concerns the reference to Wales. As has been established, it is necessary to correct an oversight in the drafting. As things stand, local authorities and police forces in Wales will have to be informed of crimes, but only if they are considered crimes in England. That must be redrafted, and I hope the Minister will agree to that come Report stage.
Amendment 283A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cash—which was not moved, but it is sensible to make the point—would implement another recommendation of the Casey review, adding child criminal exploitation to the crimes for which there is a duty to report. It is important to look at all these points when drafting the obligations.
We on this side are largely supportive of the principles behind the several amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Leaving out subsections (5) and (6) raises an interesting point. It is obviously better to be safe than sorry. We will have to look very carefully at what removing those subsections would actually do.
We on this side worry about removing defences in cases where an individual genuinely fears for the safety of the victim or believes that someone else has definitely submitted a report. That must be looked at, too. Perhaps the Minister can guide us on how to ensure that genuine defences with merit will remain available without providing a route to or excuse for shirking responsibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, raised an interesting point about the bureaucratic burden on faith schools. Government obviously must look at that. It should not be a let-out; equally, we on this side would not support any extra unnecessary burden being imposed. However, it must be done properly.
My noble friend Lord Polak’s Amendment 286A raises important considerations. It is worth noting that he is supported by Barnardo’s, the NSPCC and other organisations with great specialist expertise and knowledge—and not just anecdotal knowledge; they really know what is going on. He is looking to prevent the intentional concealment of child sex offences. That must be the absolute minimum. My noble friend Lord Bethell was supportive of that amendment, and he was right to caution us about going too far, so that it has the unintended consequence of not achieving what we all want to achieve. His words of caution should be heeded.
As to Amendment 274 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, we are rather hesitant in our support. Ensuring that a report goes straight to the local authority, which then has a duty to inform the police, might risk slowing down a response that is often needed quickly. Indeed, it might never reach the police. If a child is in imminent danger of being abused, it is not the local authority which should know first; it must be the police, who have to respond. There should be a simultaneous notification, because it can be, in effect, simultaneous.
With this amendment, it seems that someone who reported child abuse to the police would be criminalised for not going to the local authority. That cannot be right. Leaving it to the discretion of the individual which authority to report to, while requiring that there be a duty to do so, seems to us to be the right thing. People will know generally where to go but they must go to one or the other, and not automatically to the local authority first.
I think I have addressed the amendments from the noble Baronesses, Lady Featherstone and Lady Walmsley. These are all interesting points. The Government and those behind the Minister must look at this very carefully. It is really important to get the drafting right.
Amendments 283 and 286A seek to create and expand the specific crime of preventing or concealing reports of abuse. These are largely in line with the amendments addressed in the group in which we debated grooming gangs, so we support the intentions behind them.
As I have said, this is a group of amendments that have been tabled with the best of intentions. The issue in question should be entirely non-partisan; it is simply a question of how best to manage it and get it right, making certain that children and young people in this country are not allowed to suffer in the way in which they have for the last 30 years. I hope that the Minister will take away the points which are being made and, not least, add Wales to the list of jurisdictions. That is all I need to say at this stage tonight.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for moving the amendment on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and to colleagues who have spoken this evening. This has been a valuable debate on Chapter 2, Part 5. As noble Lords will know, introducing a statutory duty delivers the intention of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. I am confident that the measures we have brought forward strike the balance that we need.
A number of amendments have been tabled, and I am sorry that Amendment 271F, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, was not moved. However, it is important to put on record that the reason the duty relates to the Welsh Government is that they have declined to legislate for a mandatory reporting duty in their own response to the independent inquiry. Therefore, we are respecting the devolution settlement by not including that legislation in the Bill. It is a devolved matter which requires the consent of the Senedd.
There are a number of other amendments which I will try to speak to. We know that child sexual abuse continues to go unreported. The reasons for this are complex, including fear, stigma and lack of awareness. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester covered some of those points in relation to the performance of the Church of England.
The unique nature of child sexual abuse as a type of harm requires the introduction of this new duty. I want to be clear that the introduction of the new duty establishes a floor, not a ceiling, and does not change or interfere with in any way the existing expectations set by government that all children at risk of harm should be referred to the appropriate authority for guidance and advice.
I want to first touch on Amendments 274 and 276, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, which seek to require that reports under the duty are made to local authorities only, removing, with minor exceptions, the option to notify the police. Allowing reports to be made to either the local authority or the police, as recommended by the independent inquiry, ensures that reporters can act swiftly, so I cannot accept that amendment.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and others, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Featherstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, sought to introduce a criminal offence for those who conceal or fail to report abuse. The Government do not consider this type of sanction, which risks creating fear and apprehension among those with reporting responsibilities, to be proportionate or effectively targeted. That is why we are empowering reporters by focusing the criminal sanctions in this Bill on anyone who seeks to interfere with them carrying out their duty, rather than on the reporters themselves. This issue has been carefully considered by a number of agencies and has the support of, among others, the NSPCC, the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, Barnardo’s, the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse and the Children’s Commissioner, so I cannot support the amendments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson—via the noble Lord, Lord Meston—the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen seek to extend the duty to a number of additional contexts. The purpose of the duty is to report and place a clear requirement on those most likely to encounter information relating to sexual abuse. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the right reverend Prelate that this does include members of the clergy. Proposals to extend the ambit of a reporting duty to those who do not personally come into contact with children would introduce another layer of procedural complexity.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, it is now appropriate for me to beg leave to withdraw Amendment 272, reserving our right to return to it, and others not moved, after proper discussion with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, when she has seen our debate—and read and marked my homework.