The Regulated and Other Activities (Mandatory Reporting of Child Sexual Abuse) Bill makes it an offence for providers listed in the Schedule to fail to report known or reasonably suspected child sexual abuse of children in their care. Reports must go to the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO), Local Authority Children’s Services, or a single point of contact designated by the local authority, and oral reports must be confirmed in writing within seven days.
The bill expands the reporting duty beyond existing statutory “regulated activities,” defines which staff are deemed to be in a position of trust, grants the Secretary of State power to suspend or exempt reporting in limited circumstances, provides immunity and confidentiality protections for good‑faith reporters, and creates two summary‑only offences with set fine levels. For organisations that work with children, this will trigger operational, training, and recordkeeping changes and transfer a new volume of potential safeguarding referrals to local authorities and LADOs.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill imposes a statutory duty on providers listed in the Schedule to report known or reasonably suspected child sexual abuse 'as soon as practicable' to the LADO, local authority children’s services, or a designated single point of contact, and requires written confirmation within seven days of an oral report. It provides immunity for good‑faith reporters and mandates confidentiality for reports and reporters’ identities.
Who It Affects
The Schedule includes a wide set of actors: schools (including private and further education), health providers (hospitals, GP surgeries, clinics), childcare settings, registered social‑care providers, youth organisations (sports, cadet forces), places of worship, transport commissioned by providers, probation and youth offender institutions, and private contractors delivering services to children.
Why It Matters
By sweeping beyond existing 'regulated activity' definitions and creating criminal sanctions for non‑reporting, the bill forces many organisations to formalise safeguarding pathways, expand training, and coordinate with LADOs and local authority children’s services. It also centralises exemption and schedule‑amendment powers with the Secretary of State, creating new constitutional and operational levers over how reporting is applied.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The core duty requires providers listed in the Schedule to report any known or reasonably suspected sexual abuse of children 'in their care' to the LADO, local authority children’s services, or a designated single point of contact, and to confirm any oral report in writing within seven days. The duty applies regardless of whether the activity is already defined elsewhere as a 'regulated activity' and regardless of whether the alleged abuse occurred within the setting or elsewhere.
The bill draws a line around personnel by deeming operators of settings and staff in managerial or general welfare roles to 'stand in a position of trust' and to have direct contact with children for the entire period they are contractually or otherwise required to accommodate or care for them. Other employed, contracted or voluntary staff are treated as in a position of trust only when they have had direct contact with and have attended the child in that role — a distinction that matters for one‑off contractors and volunteers who might otherwise fall outside mandatory duties.To limit unintended harm, the Secretary of State can issue a 'suspension document' for specified children where reporting would prejudice a child’s welfare, or exempt an organisation or specified medical officer from the duty so long as no allegation is made against them.
The Secretary of State may also vary the Schedule by regulation, enabling additional activities to be added or removed without primary legislation.The bill creates two criminal offences on summary conviction: failing to comply with the reporting duty (after the seven‑day window) and causing or threatening detriment to a mandated reporter because of a report or intended report. It specifies level 5 fines for failure to report and level 4 fines for causing detriment.
Separately, the bill provides an explicit defence where the Secretary of State has issued a suspension or exemption or where another party makes the required report within the seven‑day period.Finally, the bill protects good‑faith reporters from civil, criminal or administrative liability and from professional discipline related to making reports, and requires recipients to hold reports and reporters’ identities in confidence. The Act extends to England and Wales and comes into force nine months after enactment, giving organisations limited time to adjust policies, staff training and recordkeeping systems.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Operators and staff in managerial or general welfare roles are always 'deemed' to be in a position of trust and responsible for children in their care for the entire period they are contractually bound to accommodate or care for them.
Other employed, contracted or volunteer staff are only 'deemed' in a position of trust when they have directly attended a child in their role — a functional test that captures front‑line contact but excludes purely remote or background roles.
If an oral report is made, the reporter must provide written confirmation within seven days; failure to fulfil the duty (after that seven‑day period) is an offence punishable on summary conviction by a level 5 fine on the standard scale.
The Secretary of State can issue suspension documents for specified children or exempt organisations or medical officers (provided no allegation is made against them) and may amend the Schedule of covered activities by regulation.
Reporters who act in good faith receive statutory immunity from civil, criminal and administrative liability and protection from professional sanction, and recipients must hold reports and reporters’ identities in confidence.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Statutory duty to report suspected or known child sexual abuse
Section 1 places the substantive duty on providers listed in the Schedule to report known or reasonably suspected child sexual abuse 'as soon as is practicable' to the LADO, local authority children’s services, or a designated single point of contact. It explicitly covers alleged abuse that occurs outside the setting and applies irrespective of whether the activity is classified elsewhere as a 'regulated activity'. Practically, recipients will need to be prepared for cross‑setting referrals and providers must update reporting pathways to meet the 'as soon as practicable' standard and the seven‑day written confirmation requirement.
Who counts as in a position of trust and when children are 'in their care'
Section 2 defines scope: operators and managerial/welfare staff are treated as having direct contact and children are 'in their care' for any period the operator is contractually or otherwise bound to accommodate or care for them (including day attendance). Other staff, contractors and volunteers are covered only while personally attending children in their role. This creates a durable duty for organisations and senior staff while making frontline contact the trigger for peripheral staff; operationally it forces employers to map roles and create clear guidance for contractors and volunteers.
Criminal offences for non‑reporting and for causing detriment to reporters
Section 3 turns failure to comply with the duty (following the seven‑day window after the matter came to attention) into a summary offence carrying a level 5 fine on the standard scale. It also criminalises causing or threatening 'detriment' to a mandated reporter because of their actual or intended report, punishable by a level 4 fine. 'Detriment' is broadly defined to include personal, social, economic and professional harms, making whistleblower protections enforceable but also exposing employers and peers to new criminal exposure if they retaliate.
Secretary of State powers — suspensions, exemptions and schedule amendments
Section 4 gives the Secretary of State power to issue suspension documents that rescind or temporarily suspend the reporting duty for specified children where fulfilling it would prejudice welfare. The Secretary of State may also exempt whole organisations that work with children or specified medical officers provided no allegation exists against them, and may change the Schedule by regulation. That centralised discretion allows targeted relief but raises questions about procedural safeguards, publication of decisions, and oversight of regulatory amendments.
Good‑faith immunity and confidentiality obligations
The bill protects anyone who makes a report in good faith from civil, criminal or administrative liability and from breaches of professional etiquette or conduct rules arising from the report. It also requires recipients to receive and hold reports and reporters’ identities in confidence. Those protections are intended to reduce fear of reprisal, but they intersect with data‑protection duties, statutory disclosure obligations to the police and safeguarding investigations — recipients will need strict internal protocols to reconcile confidentiality with other legal duties.
Territorial extent, commencement and the Schedule of covered activities
The Act extends to England and Wales, comes into force at the end of nine months after enactment, and attaches a broad Schedule listing education, healthcare and a wide range of other activities (childcare, youth organisations, religious bodies, transport commissioned by providers, probation and more). The breadth of the Schedule captures many small providers and community groups, giving them statutory obligations and exposing local authorities to an increased flow of reports.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Social Services across all five countries.
Explore Social Services in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Children in the care of listed providers — the duty obliges providers to flag suspected sexual abuse quickly to specialist local safeguarding routes, increasing the chance of prompt investigation and protection.
- Local Authority Designated Officers (LADOs) and local authority children’s services — the bill creates a direct, legally backed referral stream that strengthens their mandate to coordinate responses to allegations of abuse in non‑criminal settings.
- Staff who report in good faith — statutory immunity and confidentiality reduce the risk of professional discipline, civil suits, or administrative penalties for making a report, lowering barriers to whistleblowing.
- Survivor and child‑protection NGOs — clearer reporting duties and protections will likely increase disclosures that these organisations can support and refer into specialist services.
- Regulatory and safeguarding leads within organisations — the bill provides a legal baseline that organisations can build policies and training around, clarifying expectations for frontline staff and managers.
Who Bears the Cost
- Small charities, volunteer groups and private tuition providers — many face new compliance costs (training, recordkeeping, legal advice) and potential reputational risk from mandatory reporting obligations they have not previously managed.
- Operators and managers of settings — because they are always deemed in a position of trust, proprietors and senior staff carry an enduring duty to ensure systems are in place and may face enforcement risk if processes fail.
- Local authorities and LADOs — expect increased caseloads and administrative burden from a larger volume of referrals, requiring resource and capacity adjustments to triage, investigate and support children.
- Insurance providers and legal teams — new exposure to criminal and civil claims tied to reporting behaviour and retaliation will create new demands on professional indemnity arrangements and legal advice.
- Professional regulators and employers — while reporters gain immunity, employers may still face operational disruption and must balance employment law, duty of care to staff, and safeguarding obligations when dealing with allegations.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill trades broader, legally enforceable reporting to protect children against the risk of over‑reporting, chilling effects on professional relationships, and centralised exemption powers that may introduce inconsistency or politicisation; in short, it tightens the duty to surface abuse while leaving unresolved how to avoid harmful, low‑quality referrals and how to ensure fair, transparent use of suspension or exemption powers.
The bill forces a pragmatic tradeoff between prompt statutory reporting and the practical realities of safeguarding work. 'As soon as practicable' plus a seven‑day written confirmation creates a dual timing rule that is operationally ambiguous: staff will need clear internal escalation protocols to avoid criminal exposure, but overly rigid timelines can produce defensive, low‑value reporting. The distinction between operators/managerial staff (always in a position of trust) and other staff (only when personally attending children) reduces over‑broad capture but shifts legal risk to employers to identify which roles are 'attending' a child.
Centralising suspension and exemption powers in the Secretary of State introduces political and administrative risk. The bill offers no procedural detail on how suspension decisions will be made, communicated, or appealed, nor does it require publication of exemptions.
That concentration of discretion could be useful in narrow, welfare‑protecting cases, but it also opens the door to inconsistent application and uncertainty for organisations. Finally, statutory confidentiality and immunity interact awkwardly with other legal duties (police investigations, data protection, safeguarding disclosures), and the bill leaves it to recipients to reconcile these duties in practice — a process that will need operational guidance and likely litigation to clarify boundaries.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.