Mandatory Reporting Task and Finish Group minutes: June 2026

Attendees and apologies

Chair

•    Dr Ariane Critchley, University of Stirling

Group members in attendance

•    Association of Directors of Education in Scotland (ADES)
•    Child Protection Unit Officials and Professional Advisors, Scottish Government
•    COSLA
•    Child Protection Committees Scotland
•    CYCJ
•    Disclosure Scotland
•    Edinburgh Women’s Aid
•    Education Scotland
•    Lucy Faithfull Foundation Scotland
•    Police Scotland
•    Scottish Nursing Leadership for Child Protection (SNLCP)
•    Scottish Children’s Reporter’s Administration (SCRA)
•    Social Work Scotland

Apologies

•    Centre for Excellence for Children's Care and Protection (CELCIS)
•    Children First
•    COPFS
•    National Social Work Agency
•    Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC)
•    Society of Personnel and Development Scotland (SPDS)
•    Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH)

Secretariat

•    Child Protection Unit, Scottish Government

Items and actions

Welcome, introductions and apologies

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting, introduced new group members and noted apologies.

Feedback from the last meeting

The Chair noted that the group had a really helpful meeting in person in Edinburgh the previous month discussing the aims for mandatory reporting. The third section of the aims focused on the consequences of not reporting. Time had not allowed for a full discussion of this at the previous meeting so it would be considered in full at a session later in the year. 

Progress update on work between meetings

The Chair provided an update on the work she had been progressing between meetings of the wider group. The process to plan and undertake consultation with adult survivors, Children First, and Edinburgh Women’s Aid was now underway. This work aimed to bring in the voice and experience of adult survivors and engage young people and families with experience of the current child protection system, with further meetings planned. The Chair would continue to update the group on this work. 

In terms of international perspectives, the Chair has been engaging with colleagues in various jurisdictions in order to learn from the experiences of those who have considered or implemented mandatory reporting.

The group will have a programme of planned inputs from external speakers and international partners in the autumn. These will include a session with Ben Mathews, Professor of Law at the Queensland University of Technology, where he will share experiences of the implementation of mandatory reporting in Australia. 

Dr. Amitai Marmor, a qualitative researcher at the University of Haifa, Israel, and an Honorary Fellow at the University of Edinburgh and Professor John Devaney, Dean and Head of the School of Social and Political Science at Edinburgh University, will share learning from their research into, and experience of, mandatory reporting.

The group will also hear from Rebecca J Macy, Honorary Professor at the University of Edinburgh and Overseas Distinguished Scholar at the Beijing Institute of Technology, and colleagues from the Institutt for sosialfag, Høgskulen, Volda and Oslo University Hospital, Norway. These colleagues can offer expert and specialist knowledge about the possible benefits of mandatory reporting, the unintended consequences that we would wish to avoid in Scotland, and the complexity of mandatory reporting in relation to domestic abuse and Intimate Partner Violence. 

The Chair noted that there will also be sessions focused on engaging with communities who are often over-represented in our child protection systems. 

Over the coming months the Chair will be working with CELCIS around research gaps. The Chair will also engage with colleagues in Ireland and Wales to draw on learning from their experiences and share this with the group. 

The Chair highlighted areas of consensus in last meeting, including a view that the introduction of mandatory reporting without additional resources for services could risk making things worse for young people instead of better. There was also a general view that a duty to report all forms of harm should be considered, but a recognition that it would be useful to consider the identification and reporting of child sexual abuse specifically and whether mandatory reporting has a unique contribution here in particular. 

The Chair noted that considering the inclusion of all forms of harm in a reporting duty fits within our existing policy and legislation landscape, particularly GIRFEC and the UNCRC Act, and recognises that children and young people can and do experience multiple forms of harm. However, it was important to consider some quite distinct challenges in terms of identifying and reporting child sexual abuse which had led to the focus in that day’s session, supported by the Lucy Faithfull Foundation Scotland.

Identification of child sexual abuse

The Lucy Faithfull Foundation Scotland shared a presentation with the group that explained why child sexual abuse can be challenging to identify. In terms of the prevalence, 15% of girls and 5% of boys in the UK have experienced child sexual abuse by the age of 16 (Karsna and Kelly 2021). Evidence tells us that CSAE occurs online, in and around families, in communities and institutional settings. It can occur at any age, but half of all CSAE is experienced by children aged 12 – 16 and at least 1/3 of incidents are perpetrated by children and young people themselves. 

Evidence shows that the majority of children don’t disclose in childhood. The Truth Project, linked to IICSA, found that the average length of time before an individual was able to disclose abuse was 26 years. The average time period over which abuse had occurred was 4 years. Often, a key driver for disclosure is the survivor reaching the stage where they are having children themselves and reflecting on their own experiences in childhood.

There can be many reasons for children not disclosing sexual abuse, including the perpetrator manipulating the child to prevent disclosure. Children can be afraid of the consequences of disclosing or feel shame and self-blame for what they have experienced. There can be developmental limitations where the child may lack the vocabulary or ability to talk about what they are experiencing and this can be particularly so in respect of peer on peer abuse.

Often, the abuser is someone the child knows, which creates a range of complexities, and we recognise that trauma can affect memory and communication. 

We know that disclosure is a process, with children reaching out in various ways. Where children experience negative reactions, this may discourage disclosure.

Structural inequalities, such as poverty and poor housing, can impact on both disclosure and prevalence of abuse. Where children are on the margins, they often have a lack of voice in the first place which increases their vulnerability. 

Sexual abuse is frequently invisible to outsiders, so when it is detected, a child’s disclosure is often the crucial piece of information.

While child sexual abuse is a relatively common and widespread form of social harm, it is highly under-disclosed overall, and more dependent on child disclosure for detection when compared with other maltreatment types.

Case study work in breakout rooms

Several case studies were considered in breakout rooms, followed by wider discussion of themes in the main group. These case studies were developed to consider a range of situations where different types of professionals or volunteers have varying levels of information about potential harm available to them, and where a duty to report may have an impact on relational practice with children and young people. 

Some group members noted that the existence of current duties to report abuse mean that mandatory reporting would not significantly impact child protection processes for some professions, but it may change how and where the responsibilities sit within organisations and how widely these duties apply. 

The discussion focused on the threshold for reporting and considered whether there was a need for some time to support the accumulation of evidence and allow for the process of disclosure. They viewed clarity on timing and thresholds at which the duty would be triggered as important areas to set out in any duty to report. 

The group considered whether mandatory reporting may be a more effective instrument in some areas of children’s lives than others, for example, areas where there are currently higher risks of harm and less regulation or oversight. 

Next Steps and Close

The Chair summarised the meeting and set out next steps, including the previously highlighted engagement work which will continue over the coming months.