UPDATE: On 16 July 2022 we updated our proposal for the introduction of mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse. A few days later Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson tabled it in her Private Members Bill. Lady Grey-Thompson’s bill would have had a significant positive impact on institutional safeguarding unlike the lamentable IICSA final report recommendation of 20.10.22.
The Home Office has finally revealed its thinking in this low-profile month long consultation from the 4th November until 30th November 2023.
The consultation makes proposals that, even according to the Home Office’s own impact statement, will deliver no improvement to safeguarding and importantly for the Government it seems, no discernible increase in referrals to the statutory agencies. The Home Office claims its proposal is “mandatory reporting” when in fact it is nothing of the sort. The claim eases the Government’s ability to sell it to a subject naïve public and assert it has fulfilled one of the key recommendations of the IICSA public inquiry.
Our submission to the consultation, redacted of personal details, is available here in .pdf format.
Our submission to the consultation, redacted of personal details, is available here in .docx.
Here is an extract from our submission:
As a consequence, it appears that government is prepared to leave abused children to their fate rather than take action that would lead to more crimes of child sexual abuse coming to the attention of the authorities.
This Home Office approach to safeguarding children is strikingly similar to this recent allegation made in the Covid inquiry:
The key difference between IICSA’s Recommendation 13 and the Home Office proposal (see further down) is marked in red in both cases. It is this difference which means that (whatever they might choose to call it) the Home Office proposal is not mandatory reporting.
IICSA’s Recommendation 13
| Recommendation 13: Mandatory reporting
The Inquiry recommends that the UK government and Welsh Government introduce legislation which places certain individuals – ‘mandated reporters’ – under a statutory duty to report child sexual abuse where they:
The following persons should be designated ‘mandated reporters’:
For the purposes of mandatory reporting, ‘child sexual abuse’ should be interpreted as any act that would be an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 where the alleged victim is a child under the age of 18. Where the child is aged between 13 and under 16 years old, a report need not be made where the mandated reporter reasonably believes that:
These exceptions should not, however, apply where the alleged perpetrator is in a position of trust within the meaning of the 2003 Act. Where the child is under the age of 13, a report must always be made. Reports should be made to either local authority children’s social care or the police as soon as is practicable. It should be a criminal offence for mandated reporters to fail to report child sexual abuse where they:
|
Home office Proposal
Who the duty should apply to
1. The duty should apply to any person undertaking regulated activity in relation to children (under the Safeguarding and Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, as amended) and any person in a role considered relevant to the duty. A list of these roles will be set out in due course.
2. Organisations which engage with children through the above categories should notify relevant individuals of their responsibilities under the duty.
What should be reported
3. Those subject to the duty must make a report when, in the course of undertaking regulated activity or one of the specified roles, they receive a disclosure of child sexual abuse from a child or perpetrator; or personally witness a child being sexually abused. The duty will not apply outside of the relevant activity or role, though in all cases best practice and / or relevant guidance on reporting concerns should be followed.
For the purposes of the duty, ‘child sexual abuse’ should be interpreted as any act that would be an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 where the alleged victim was under the age of 18 at the time the abuse occurred; and ‘witnessing’ child sexual abuse should include viewing indecent images of children.
A report will not need to be made under the duty if those involved are between 13 and 16 years old, the relationship between them is consensual and there is no risk of harm present.
Process for reports
4. Reports should be made to either local authority children’s services or the police as soon as reasonably practicable.
Territorial extent of the duty
5. The territorial extent of the duty to report is England only. Subject to the conditions of point 3 (above), abuse which relates to a child normally resident in other jurisdictions will be reported under the duty, though the subsequent action taken may follow different processes.
Consequences of breaching the duty to report
6. Breaches of the duty to report will be subject to referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service for barring consideration using existing arrangements under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. Barring decisions will take account of representations made by the individual.
7. All regulated professionals and teachers who are subject to the duty, including those working in private education and healthcare settings, will also be at a minimum subject to professional sanctions to be determined by the appropriate regulating body.
Preventing reports from being made
8. Anyone who obstructs or delays a mandated reporter from making a report under the mandatory reporting duty (or attempts to do so), for example through destroying or hiding evidence; applying pressure, threats, bribes or blackmail will be guilty of a criminal offence, which will be included on the list of automatic barring offences. As a result, all convictions will result in a referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS); barring decisions will take account of representations made by the individual.
9. As above (point 3), a report will not need to be made under the duty if those involved are between 13 and 16 years old, the relationship between them is consensual and there is no risk of harm present.
Protections for reporters
10. The duty will set out that individuals are protected from any repercussions by their employer or wider organisation as a result of a making a report in good faith; or alerting appropriate authorities that a report which should have been made under the duty has been withheld.
11. We will also set out that reports made under the duty do not breach any obligation of confidence owed by the person making the disclosure, or any other restriction on the disclosure of information.
Provided Mandate Now 22.11.23
IICSA’s final report first anniversary – the government is looking on and doing little
October 20th, 2023, brings the first anniversary of the publication of IICSA’s final report. The publication date coincided with the resignation of Liz Truss. As a result, it was largely wiped from media reporting on the day.
To mark this first anniversary, we have undertaken a review the Government’s progress on the recommendations in the last twelve months. (more…)
Here is the Home Office consultation link : Mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse.
The consultation closes 14 August 2023
That is the essence of today’s statement by Home Secretary Suella Braverman giving the Government’s response to the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse. The report was seven years in the making. On the day it was published, the then Home Secretary Grant Shapps promised that “the government will respond in full to the inquiry’s report within six months”. The government missed that deadline by just over a month, and Shapps’ predecessor and successor Suella Braverman perhaps didn’t feel all that inclined to honour a promise made by someone who was Home Secretary for six whole days. (more…)
Occam’s razor leads us to reach this conclusion. For example, the questionnaire in the 2016 consultation “Reporting and Acting on Child Abuse and Neglect”, together with its accompanying commentary revealed the government’s mindset. Here is how on the last day of parliament, the Home Office media department used the press to strike fear into anyone working in institutions with responsibility for children.
Click on the image to view the article
Nick Ferrari, the LBC breakfast presenter, excitedly told his audience “a school secretary could be jailed for not reporting suspected abuse.” (more…)
In the USA two pressure groups are seeking to get their respective State Governments, Pennsylvania and New York City, to scrap their poorly designed versions of mandatory reporting of ‘child abuse’.
We sympathise, with the significant exception of Mandatory Reporting of known and suspected child sexual abuse, on reasonable grounds. Mandatory reporting for CSA has not been revoked in any jurisdiction in the world, indeed many jurisdictions have strengthened and extended the law to more professionals, Switzerland being just one; Western Australia is another even more recent example. Data and empirical evidence demonstrate MR of child sexual abuse by prescribed professionals is a vital component of functioning safeguarding for institutional settings (known in the UK as ‘Regulated Activities’). These key personnel also have a vitally important ‘sentinel’ role of safeguarding children who may be abused in the family or elsewhere.
Here are two articles featuring the campaigns of both US jurisdictions. (more…)
IICSA’s recommendation for mandatory reporting makes little sense. It is also contrary to the evidence and reasoning the inquiry includes in its own report.
This article is a summary of the detailed: Mandate Now two column review of the key recommendations made in the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse.
Deserving of its own article is this: IICSA’s seeming misunderstandings of law contained in its final report.
