It took seven home secretaries, including a Suella Braverman encore, and 10 years of relentless lobbying, but last month the UK Government finally confirmed the law under which it will introduce mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse (CSA). It is a move welcomed by survivors, but one local government experts warn requires careful oversight and funding.

Current home secretary James Cleverly confirmed on 21 February he will add to the forthcoming Criminal Justice Bill a legal requirement for individuals in regulated activity relating to children in England to report CSA. The move will include a compulsory duty for many staff in local authority care settings and schools.

It follows decades in which CSA was hugely under-reported as a crime.

In 2020, the Office for National Statistics estimated that 3.1 million adults across England and Wales had experienced some form of CSA before they were 16. The seven-year Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) – which concluded in 2022 with mandated reporting as its flagship recommendation – found that, too often, UK institutions or staff knew about child abuse within their ranks and did little. Worse, some swept it under the carpet.

‘There is no excuse for turning a blind eye to a child's pain. We are working at pace to get a mandatory reporting duty for CSA onto the statute book,' Cleverly said.

The home secretary warned that, once the law is active, individuals who fail to report CSA could be barred from working with youngsters. ‘Anyone who actively protects sexual abusers – by intentionally blocking others from reporting or covering up the crime – could go to prison for seven years,' a Home Office statement added.

Any implementation of more effective child protection systems will have been achieved primarily by the UK's amazing CSA survivors, including more than 6,000 victims who gave evidence to the IICSA.

But what are the implications for councils?

The Local Government Association (LGA) recently shared with The MJ its response to the Home Office's consultation on mandatory reporting, which took place in late 2023. It is a considered assessment and ministers would be well-advised to heed its warnings.

Smith Square supports mandatory reporting ‘as part of a holistic approach to improving the response to CSA, both in relation to keeping children safe and ensuring victims receive the best possible support'. Meaning councils believe the law should form part of a suite of tools designed to improve safeguarding across society – including tackling social media normalising the over-sexualisation of children, grooming and misconceptions about consent.

But the LGA's response also reveals councils' reservations about policy consultation, as well as concerns about scope and oversight, a lack of specialist support for victims and the potential cost.

In particular, the LGA last year urged ministers to delay implementation until after the Criminal Justice Bill to provide more time to consult with children.

Council experts want the outcome to be a system under which children feel comfortable reporting abuse to adults and know they will be supported by trained professionals once they do. Those familiar with IICSA's reports into abuse at council care homes will understand that, in circumstances where former staff were often the abusers, it is crucial youngsters know who they can turn to for safety – and how. Part of that, the LGA reports, involves ‘expanding specialist support'.

Cllr Louise Gittins, chair of the LGA's children and young people board, told The MJ: ‘Should mandatory reporting increase the number of cases of CSA identified, this will generate an increase in need for specialist support.

‘We are concerned by the significant shortfalls in specialist support for children and young people. We are calling on the Government to commit to ensuring that… services for victims of CSA are fully and sustainably funded.'

The LGA's consultation response also raises ‘significant concerns' about the Home Office's policy impact assessment published in October.

Councils are worried the Home Office failed to fully consult the Department for Education, leaving questions over whether Whitehall considered the ‘significant impacts on children's social care departments' – including potentially expensive training requirements.

Advisedly, the Home Office modelled what might happen if staff are compelled to report sexual abuse. But surprisingly, Whitehall estimated a ‘high' increase in reported abuse of just 3%, a ‘medium' impact as a 2% increase and a ‘low' impact as a 1% increase.

Perhaps the Home Office's figures will be accurate. But many local government experts believe the public sector will experience a higher volume of reports, which would carry further costs.

The LGA response warns: ‘We are concerned that these issues will not lead to the best policy or implementation of the duty, with the impact assessment indicating a limited understanding of the impact of the duty and legislation on practice.'

Part of the uncertainty about future referral volumes is because ministers have not yet produced a definitive list of jobs and individuals covered by mandatory reporting. Some are obvious: teachers, other school staff, police officers, and care home workers.

But requirements for other roles – such as volunteers assisting post-school sports or religious teaching – remain uncertain.

The LGA submission states ‘clear guidance will be vital'. Some council experts have even suggested the duty could apply to all staff within specified institutions, to avoid ‘loopholes'.

Understandably, the LGA has also raised ‘significant concerns' about Home Office estimates for the full cost of mandatory reporting. Whitehall's impact assessment estimates the cost of supporting additional looked-after children alone will be £62.6m over ten years. But the LGA points out the total policy cost on the front page of the impact assessment is estimated at £57.7m.

Smith Square warns: ‘It is unclear why the cost to support looked-after children has been omitted from the total policy cost.' That has sparked fears local government could be expected to pick up a sizable bill.

Resourcing concerns are also reflected in the LGA's observation that the Home Office has undervalued the wage – and therefore training – costs for key roles such as directors of children's services and care home managers.

The impact assessment suggests ‘there will be limited training costs associated with the introduction of the duty as it is not envisaged the duty would add extra safeguarding burdens on regulated professionals that work with children'.

But the LGA response states: ‘This fails to take account of concerns around the level of training on CSA many professionals have undergone or their confidence and skills to talk about it.'

Councils are worried some staff do not yet understand how to spot signs of abuse among groups where there is no obvious disclosure – such as younger children, those with disabilities, or those for whom English is not their first language.

Warnings over staff training are also shared by survivors' charities.

Gabrielle Shaw, chief executive of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood, said: ‘The introduction of mandatory reporting is a big step in the right direction, which must be implemented alongside an approach that prioritises the wellbeing of the child and ensures they have access to ongoing, specialist support. This will require investment in training requirements.'

As the LGA consultation submission states, the proposed mandatory reporting regime is ‘not a silver bullet'. It requires more work, and the House of Lords has a crucial role to play in scrutinising the Criminal Justice Bill.

Professor Alexis Jay, who chaired the IICSA, is watching closely. After Cleverly's announcement last month, she said: ‘I look forward to working with the home secretary on the detail of this as the bill progresses.'

Mandatory reporting will not stop all CSA linked to public bodies. But, if it is properly targeted, appropriately funded and accompanied by effective staff training, it has the potential to significantly reduce the abuse and exploitation of society's most vulnerable people.

What bigger incentive to get this right?