Proposed mandatory child abuse reporting law ‘a waste of printer’s ink’, campaigners warn

A proposed requirement on people working with children to report child sexual abuse (CSA) to children’s social care or the police is “a waste of printer’s ink” and will fail the majority of victims.

That was the warning from campaigners after the government published amendments to its Criminal Justice Bill designed to bring in so-called mandatory reporting, a key recommendation from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA)’s final report in 2022.

Under the plans, people carrying out regulated activities with children – those which a person barred by the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) are prohibited from doing – or in specified roles would have to report CSA that they witness or have disclosed to them by a victim or perpetrator.

Failure to do so would result in the person being referred to the DBS to be potentially barred from working with children or to professional regulators, the Home Office said, while it would also be a criminal offence to obstruct someone covered by mandatory reporting duty from carrying out their duty.

Deviation from inquiry proposals on mandatory reporting

IICSA proposed mandatory reporting as a key way of tackling what it described as the systemic under-identification of CSA in England and Wales, a recommendation that the Home Office accepted.

But when the department unveiled its plans for consultation last year, it was heavily criticised for watering down IICSA’s proposals, which themselves had been criticised as too weak by some campaigners.

This included dropping the inquiry’s proposals of criminal sanctions for a failure to report witnessed or disclosed abuse and a requirement on staff to report in cases where they had observed recognised indicators of CSA – though without failure to do so being an offence.

The Home Office confirmed last week that it was going ahead with mandatory reporting faced criticism for the perceived lack of teeth behind them.

Proposals ‘a waste of printer’s ink’

Mandate Now, which campaigns for a mandatory reporting law, described the proposals as “a waste or printer’s ink”.

It pointed out that there would be “no criminal or other sanction for failing to report”, as there appeared to be no requirement in the Criminal Justice Bill amendments on anyone else to refer the person to the DBS or to regulators if they failed to make a report.

This is in contrast to provisions in the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 requiring employers and employment agencies to refer people to the DBS if they have caused harm, or pose a risk of harm, to children or vulnerable adults.

Similar criticisms were made by Christian safeguarding charity Thirtyone:eight (formerly the Churches Child Protection Advisory Service), which said the lack of sanctions downgraded the duty to being “advisory”, rather than mandatory.

‘Loopholes’ in reporting requirements

Mandate Now also highlighted “loopholes” in the reporting duty. These would relieve people of their duty if they reasonably believed that another person had or was about to make the report; or would allow them to delay reporting for as long as they reasonably believed someone else would report on their behalf or that reporting was not in the best interests of the child.

It pointed out that a person tasked with reporting on another’s behalf would not be under the duty to report because they had received the information second-hand, which it said greatly increased the risk of a report not being made.

In its response to the consultation, the Home Office said the provision around delaying reporting in a child’s best interests was designed to prevent children from disengaging with services or not opening up about their experiences.

However, Mandate Now said having the discretion to delay reporting in cases of serious harm to a child was “entirely contrary to modern safeguarding practice”, which required immediate reporting to the police or children’s social care.

Duty ‘designed to achieve nothing’

Echoing previous concerns, Mandate Now also heavily criticised the scope of the duty to report, which would apply in cases where the person had witnessed the abuse, seen an image or video, or heard a recording indicating abuse, or received a disclosure from the child or perpetrator.

Mandate Now quoted IICSA’s final report as saying that CSA invariably happened in private, and that research indicated that the average time for a victim to disclose abuse was 26 years.

It added that disclosure by a perpetrator was “so rare that the IICSA report doesn’t mention any examples at all of it happening”.

That was the reason IICSA proposed applying mandatory reporting to cases where a person observed recognised indicators of CSA, such as children displaying knowledge or interest in sexual acts inappropriate to their age, using unexpected sexual language or having sexual health conditions.

“The only events triggering the duty to report are ones that are extremely unlikely to occur,” Mandate Now added. “This is designed to achieve nothing.”

Most victims will be failed – charity

Thirtyone:eight made a similar point, saying the duty would consequently “fail the majority of children and young people experiencing child sexual abuse”

It also pointed out that most respondents to a Home Office call for evidence last year said the duty should apply to suspected abuse, based on recognised indicators, as well as known cases.

“Whilst government action on this is welcome, it is deeply concerning that the legislation proposed in this current form has so many flaws that will inhibit the effective safeguarding of children and young people. The various consultations on mandatory reporting have provided a wealth of expert evidence,” said Thirtyone:eight chief executive, Justin Humphreys.

“The task ahead is to enact legislation that reflects this to create a more robust set of safeguards.”

LGA supportive but says duty ‘not a silver bullet’

The Local Government Association said it supported the government amendments on mandatory reporting “as part of a holistic approach to improving the response to CSA”.

However, it added: “While it is a positive step forward, the duty must not be considered a silver bullet nor introduced in isolation.

“It must be supported by wider national action to ensure all professionals are trained to identify abuse, support victims to disclose abuse and ensure they receive the best possible support when they do.”

Exemptions for consensual sex and child  disclosures

In its response to the consultation, the Home Office confirmed that it was exempting from the duty cases of consensual sexual activity between children aged over 13, where the potential reporter was satisfied that a report would not be appropriate.

It also said it would exclude disclosures by children of harmful sexual behaviour (HSB) towards peers to avoid deterring them from seeking support and in acknowledgement of HSB being an indicator of having been a victim of CSA.

Duty ‘will ensure children are heard’

“The mandatory reporting duty will, first and foremost, be a safeguarding measure,” the Home Office said.

“It will ensure that the words of children and young people who are seeking help are heard. It sets high standards of conduct and provides reporters with clear instructions on how to act when they are made aware of child sexual abuse.”

It added: “The reporting duty itself is accompanied by tough, punitive measures for anyone who seeks to cover up abuse. An individual who seeks to obstruct a reporter from carrying out their duty to report will face the prospect of up to seven years imprisonment.”