#legislation; #draftlegislation #MandatoryReporting

Amendments to the Policing and Crime Bill 2025 that would make the Mandatory Reporting chapter an effective piece of legislation

At present the government’s “mandatory reporting” section of the bill is designed NOT to help abused children. These are some amendments which would convert it into an effective piece of legislation

Amendment

Replace Section 45(1) with the following text

A person aged 18 or over must make a notification under this section if, in the course of engaging in a relevant activity in England or Wales, they
- know or suspect, or
- have reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting,

that a child sex offence may have been committed (at any time).

Delete Section 47

Reason: For the duty to report to apply to suspicions and all reasonable grounds for suspicion that a child sex abuse offence has been committed, using wording similar to that which exists for instance in Section 330 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 relating to the mandatory duty on certain persons to report suspected money laundering.

For the duty to apply to Wales as well as England.

A court, when deciding whether a person has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting child sex abuse, can take into account any published statutory guidance on the subject, documents such as “Working Together to Safeguard Children” and “Keeping Children Safe in Education”.

Amendment

Delete Section 45(5)

Amend Section 45(2)(c) to it reads as follows

Reason: Statutory guidance already recommends that a report is made as soon as practicable, and does not allow for a delay as described in Section 45(5), particularly in circumstances where there is a risk to the life or safety of a relevant child. Specifically, Keeping Children Safe in Education (2025). Page 93, para 366 states:

The initial response to an allegation.

Where the school or college identifies that a child has been harmed, that there may be an immediate risk of harm to a child or if the situation is an emergency, they should contact local authority children’s social care and as appropriate the police immediately as per the processes explained in Part one of this guidance.

There is no justification for making a statutory provision for a delay in such emergency circumstances.

Amendment

Insert the following subsections into Section 45.

(9a) A person commits an offence if they fail to fulfil the duty under subsection (1).

(9b) A person who commits an offence under this subsection (9a) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 of the standard scale.

Delete Section 54(2)

Reason: To introduce a criminal sanction for failure to fulfil the duty to report child sexual abuse, as recommended in Recommendation 13 of the IICSA final report, replacing the provision to require a DBS referral in certain circumstances.

Amendment

Insert the following subsections into Section 45.

(9c) A person who causes or threatens to cause any detriment to a person placed under the duty to report pursuant to subsection (1), or to another person, either wholly or partly related to the mandated person’s actual or intended provision of a report under this Act, is guilty of an offence.

(9d) Detriment includes any personal, social, economic, professional, or other detriment to the person.

(9e) A person guilty of an offence under Subsection (9c) is liable on summary conviction to a level 4 fine on the standard scale.

Reason: To protect mandated reporters from retaliation, by introducing a criminal offence of threatening or causing any detriment to a mandated reporter related to the act of reporting.

Amendment

In Section 52, delete subsections (2) and (3)

Reason: Beyond the “initial 7-day period” described in section 45(11), there is no justification for anybody attempting to persuade a person to delay making a report under section 45.

Amendment

In Section 45, add subsection (1a) as follows)

(1a) The duty under subsection (1) only applies if

the person has regular unsupervised contact with one or more children, or
the person acts in a supervisory or leadership capacity over other persons who have regular unsupervised contact with one or more children.

Reason: To ensure that persons within the leadership or an organisation providing relevant activities are covered by the duty to report, and to ensure that persons within an organisation which engages in relevant activities but themselves do not supervise children (e.g. cleaning or catering staff) are not subject to the duty.

Amendment (only to be considered if the amendments to insert Sections 45(1b), (9a) and (9b) are passed, will be withdrawn otherwise)

Delete Section 52

Reason: If the duty to report, backed by a criminal sanction, applies equally to the leadership of organisations providing relevant activities as well as to those directly caring for children, there is no need for the separate offence of preventing or deterring a report.

Amendment

Add Subsection 49 (3) (c) as follows

Reason: The difference in maturity between a child who has just reached the age of 13 and one who is almost 18 is very great, and there is a serious reason to be concerned about the degree of consent given by the younger child in such circumstances. Therefore it is appropriate to limit the age difference for this exemption to the reporting duty.

Amendment

Amend Section 50 (1) (b) (i) to read

(i) A is a child aged 13 or over, and

Reason: To ensure that the exemption from reporting certain disclosures by children applies only to disclosures by children aged 13 or over.

April 6th, 2025|

The govt’s “mandatory reporting” bill is designed NOT to help abused children

The Labour government’s “mandatory reporting” section of the Crime and Policing Bill is designed to achieve nothing. It’s certainly NOT intended to help abused children.

We know this because of two things.

It’s an almost word-for-word copy of the bill the Conservatives brought forward just before the general election, and
The Conservatives published a document saying what effect it would have (almost zero).

Let’s start with the word-for-word copy bit. Here is a side-by-side comparison of the two measures.

On the left are the amendments proposed by the Conservatives to their Criminal Justice Bill. It didn’t pass last year because the general election.

On the right are clauses 45 to 54 and Schedule 7 of the Crime and Policing Bill. In the key parts, they are word-for-word identical.

The Conservative bill followed two rounds of public consultation. At the end of the second round, they published their preferred approach, i.e. for the duty to report abuse not to an offence with a criminal sanction (which is what the IICSA public inquiry recommended), and for there to be on offence of “Preventing or deterring” someone from making a report.

When the Conservative amendments were published, we explained why they were useless. This was the actual intention of the Conservative government! Along with the outcome of the consultation, they published an Impact Assessment Statement. The key part of it was Table 1.

The central estimate is that there are about 103,000 child sex abuse reports to the police per year, and this measure will increase that number by just 310. That is about one per year for each local authority in England. It’s nothing.

Labour has copied a Conservative Bill designed to achieve nothing. The only reason to support this measure is if you don’t want to protect children who are being sexually abused.

To convert the bill into an effective mandatory reporting measure, here are some amendments that would make a difference.

April 4th, 2025|

The worst places for safeguarding will by unaffected by Labour’s law

The places with the very worst safeguarding culture will be entirely unaffected by the government’s new “mandatory reporting” law. This is why.

There’s no criminal sanction for non-reporting.

The government makes a lot of the fact that someone failing to report might be referred to the DBS. That referral is done by the non-reporter’s own employer, and only if they sack the person first.

But at the worst settings, they are more likely to reward a nonreporter than sack them. If they don’t sack them, they don’t have to make a DBS referral. Simples!

So the DBS mechanism is entirely ineffective in the places with the worst safeguarding culture.

Preventing or deterring a person from complying with duty to report suspected child sex offence

Then there is the offence of “Preventing or deterring a person from complying with duty to report suspected child sex offence”. It has a huge loophole. It remains perfectly legal to persuade someone to delay reporting child sex abuse. there is no limit to the duration of the delay.

But even without that loophole, the offence will have little effect. In the John Smyth case, nobody was told to shut up about Smyth’s abuses. Nobody’s job was threatened if they went to the police about Smyth.

Instead there was a common unspoken consensus, reaching all the way up to Justin Welby, that keeping quiet about it all was the right thing to do. There was no specific instance of preventing someone that could be used as evidence for a prosecution.

IICSA identified quite a few places with that kind of unspoken consensus. These places, which have the worst safeguarding culture, are therefore safe from any risk of prosecution for “preventing or deterring” a report.

And the government has nothing else to offer. This is a recipe for the next Savile or Smyth.

There is a simple fix

All this is really simple to fix, if the government wants to. An effective mandatory law needs three things.

A criminal sanction directly for non-reporting
For the reporting duty include any reasonable grounds for suspecting abuse.
Protection from retaliation for mandated reporters acting in good faith.

There is already a Private Member’s Bill before Parliament that does all this, the Regulated and Other Activities (Mandatory Reporting of Child Sexual Abuse) Bill. The government could adopt it wholesale tomorrow.

March 30th, 2025|

Home Office “MR” consultation #2. It’s not MR!

The Home Office has finally revealed its thinking in this low-profile month long consultation from the 4^th November until 30^th 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:

A screenshot of a black and white website Description automatically generated

Here is a highlighted note which shows the difference between IICSA’s lamentable recommendation 13, for what it asserted was mandatory reporting, and the dreadful proposal made by the Home Office.

November 23rd, 2023|

The key difference between IICSA’s Recommendation 13 and the Home Office proposal

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:

receive a disclosure of child sexual abuse from a child or perpetrator; or
witness a child being sexually abused; or
observe recognised indicators of child sexual abuse.

The following persons should be designated ‘mandated reporters’:

any person working in regulated activity in relation to children (under the Safeguarding and Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, as amended);
any person working in a position of trust (as defined by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, as amended); and
police officers.

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:

the relationship between the parties is consensual and not intimidatory, exploitative or coercive; and
the child has not been harmed and is not at risk of being harmed; and
there is no material difference in capacity or maturity between the parties engaged in the sexual activity concerned, and there is a difference in age of no more than three years.

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:

are in receipt of a disclosure of child sexual abuse from a child or perpetrator; or
witness a child being sexually abused.

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.

Exemptions

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

November 23rd, 2023|

IICSA’s final report first anniversary – government is looking on and doing little

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…)

October 18th, 2023|

Permalink
Gallery
The Scotsman 31.7.23 – Mandatory reporting laws of child sexual abuse on the table

Media

The Scotsman 31.7.23 – Mandatory reporting laws of child sexual abuse on the table

(more…)

August 11th, 2023|

The impact of poorly designed mandatory reporting is far-reaching

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…)

March 27th, 2023|

Mandate Now’s model for mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse used in Private Members Bill

On 20th July 2022 Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson tabled a Private Members Bill : Regulated and Other Activities (Mandatory Reporting of Child Sexual Abuse) Bill [HL]

Please download it here.

The Bill ran out of time but what it revealed was just how lacklustre the IICSA recommendation was for mandatory reporting in principle.

We are optimistic there will in future be further opportunities to table legislation.

July 21st, 2022|

Update to our legislative proposal for Mandatory Reporting of Child Sexual Abuse by Regulated Activities [16.07.2022]

We are pleased to provide our updated legislative proposal dated 16.07.22 for the introduction of mandatory reporting of known and suspected child sexual abuse by those working in Regulated Activities. Several people have kindly contributed to this important update which conforms to the design expectations of contemporary legislation tabled in Parliament.

Our proposal is available here for download

It’s a timely update in light of the IICSA final report which seems likely to be published in October 2022.

July 16th, 2022|