Government agrees to consult on mandatory reporting law

The move, announced in the House of Lords yesterday, follows growing pressure on the government to act to make it easier for professionals to report abuse concerns in the wake of recent high-profile child sexual abuse and exploitation cases.

Speaking during a debate on the Serious Crime Bill, an amendment to which, if backed, would have introduced mandatory reporting for children’s professionals, Home Office minister Lord Bates said to legislate now without debating the merits and pitfalls of such a law would be “a leap in the dark”.

“I can therefore advise the House that we will now hold a full public consultation on the issue of mandatory reporting. We will consult broadly on the advisability, risk, nature and scope of any reporting duty, including questions on which forms of abuse it should apply to, and to whom it should attach,” he said.

“I should emphasise that the government will look at all the responses they receive with an open mind. It will be a thorough, open and transparent consultation with a rigorous evaluation of the responses.

“Although hitherto the government, like the opposition, have taken the view that we have concerns about the specific wording of this amendment, we are entering into this consultation in good faith, in our desire to evaluate the evidence that comes forward.”

The government’s announcement meant the amendment to the Serious Crime Bill was withdrawn by Baroness Walmsley, the Liberal Democrat peer who proposed it.

The amendment would have placed a duty on providers of “regulated activity”, and anyone whose services were used by providers of regulated activity, to report known or suspected abuse against children and vulnerable adults to a local authority within 10 days. Breach of the duty would be a criminal offence punishable by up to three years in prison.

Bates said such a move would mean that anyone who works or volunteers in any capacity with children or vulnerable adults would commit a criminal offence if they did not report suspected abuse of any kind.

He added that in countries that have mandatory reporting systems, research is “inconclusive” as to whether it “helps, hinders or makes no difference to child safeguarding outcomes”.

He added: “In the USA, Canada and Australia, mandatory reporting legislation has been accompanied by significant increases in the number of referrals of suspected child abuse and neglect made to the authorities, a large percentage of which have not been substantiated.

“There is a real risk that, in introducing a duty, we would divert child protection services from the task of increasing the safety of our most vulnerable children to evidence gathering and investigation of cases that are eventually unsubstantiated and which often lead to significant disruption of family life.”

But Baroness Walmsley said that the decision on whether to introduce such a law should not be judged on the impact it might have on resources.

She said: “I accept that resources would be needed to deal with all the hidden child abuse that would come to light. But you cannot fail to turn over a stone because you are afraid of the slime that you might find underneath—and of course, the long-term benefits of a step change in the protection of children are obvious.”

She added that a legal duty would improve professionals’ ability to recognise abuse and protect whistleblowers, who have been reluctant to speak out until now because they feared for their jobs.