Government Response to Recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse

Seven months after the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) published its final 20 recommendations the Government has responded to the same.

The response has not been without criticism and no immediate changes will be implemented. In the foreword to the Government’s Response, the Home Secretary says that IICSA found that for far too long stopping child sexual abuse was seen as no-one's responsibility but that she and the Government must now make it everyone’s responsibility. And that seems to be in the form of a lot more consultation so uncertainty remains for victims, survivors and organisations.

Nineteen of the 20 recommendations were in principle accepted, albeit that in several responses the Government made it clear that the recommended course of action was already in place or in progress. Only recommendation 5, a suggested ban on the use of pain compliance techniques on children in custodial institutions, was specifically rejected. 

The full position for each recommendation is listed below. Click on a specific recommendation to jump to our commentary.

1     A single set of core data relating to child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation
2     Creation of a Child Protection Authority (‘CPA’) in England and in Wales 
3     Creation of a cabinet-level Minister for Children 
4     A public awareness campaign on child sexual abuse
5     A ban on the use of pain compliance techniques on children in custodial institutions
6     Amendment of the Children Act 1989 to give parity of legal protection to children in care
7     Registration of staff working in care roles in children’s homes 
8     Registration of staff in young offender institutions and secure training centres
9     Greater use of the barred list – see response to 11 below
10     Improving compliance with the statutory duty to notify the Disclosure & Barring Service – see 
11     Extending disclosure regime to those working with children overseas
12     Mandatory pre-screening for known child sexual abuse material by search services and user-to-user services
13     Mandatory Reporting – introduction of legislation which places certain individuals – ‘mandated reporters’ – under a statutory duty to report child sexual abuse in certain circumstances
14    Inspection of compliance with the Victim’s Code
15     Removal of the three-year limitation period for personal injury claims brought by victims 
16     Specialist therapeutic support for victims of child sexual abuse
17     Introduction of a code of practice on retention of and access to records known to relate to child sexual abuse with a recommendation of retention for 75 years
18    Changes to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 
19     Establishment of a national redress scheme for victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and exploitation in England and Wales
20     Introduction of legislation to require more stringent age verification measures

1    A single set of core data relating to child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation

Government response - in essence nothing new – no single set of data

It is accepted that robust data collection on the scale and nature of child sexual abuse is critical to underpin and drive a more effective response to child sexual abuse. The government is already addressing this through the independent Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse (CSA Centre), established by the Home Office in 2016 and hosted by Barnardo’s. The CSA Centre has produced data templates for completion across the public sector, and it is intended that the data can then be used to drive improvements in the ability of the police to investigate crimes (notably through the Tackling Organised Exploitation programme) safeguarding, social care and education. It is likely that the key to these improvements will be how effectively all of this more detailed, richer, information is then shared across agencies and whether it drives better strategies and decisions in individual cases.

2     Creation of a Child Protection Authority (‘CPA’) in England and in Wales

Government response – no Child Protection Agency as a standalone body

The Government is prepared to acknowledge the need for a stronger safeguarding system. However, the Government points out that several departments (Home, Education and Health and Social Care) are already working together in a Child Protection Ministerial Group ‘to ensure child protection is championed at the highest level’. Many of the proposed CPA’s functions set out by IICSA already exist in current statutory and non-statutory bodies, including oversight and monitoring of child protection, undertaking inspections and advising the government on improvements to child protection policy and practice.

The Government prefers to focus its response upon its ambitious reform programme, ‘Stable Homes, Built on Love’ which was launched in February 2023. There is a great deal of detail in the response, set out over 14 lengthy paragraphs. The principal aim of this strategy is a decisive multi-agency child protection system, but the Government is also keen to put down markers about the work that is going into improving every element of child protection and safeguarding practice and procedure across education, health and social care.

On the face of it, much is being done by several government departments. However, IICSA’s wish for a separate, new, department (which the Government submits would necessitate a full public consultation) seems to be dead in the water.

3     Creation of a cabinet-level Minister for Children 

Government response – no separate Minister for Children

The Government accepts the importance of placing the best interests of the child front and centre in policy and decision-making at cabinet level. However – and this will not come as a surprise in light of the refusal to create a CPA – the government is clear that this role is already within the portfolio of the Secretary of State for Education. In Wales, ministerial responsibility at cabinet level already sits with the deputy minister for social services, the minister for health and social services, the deputy minister for mental health and well-being and the minster for education and Welsh language.

4     A public awareness campaign on child sexual abuse

Government response – this is already happening so no specific need for a campaign

This is a far less controversial recommendation. The Government accepts the importance of creating more national awareness of the scale and nature of the issues and publicising how to report concerns and cases of child sexual abuse. The Government’s response summarises various campaigns that have been funded and delivered over the last 2-3 years as well as its work with the Lucy Faithfull foundation and the National Crime Agency CEOP education team in driving greater awareness of risk, especially online, learning about how to spot the signs of abuse, how to engage with those affected and even the diverting of potential perpetrators to support services.

5     A ban on the use of pain compliance techniques on children in custodial institutions

Government response – recommendation not accepted

For the purposes of this recommendation, a pain compliance technique is defined as any technique that deliberately induces pain (as per IICSA’s February 2019 report: ‘Sexual Abuse of Children in Custodial Institutions: 2009–2017’). IICSA recommended that all such techniques be prohibited.

The Government has rejected this recommendation, taking the view that it is essential that staff are trained and equipped to keep children safe in custodial institutions. The use of safe pain-inducing techniques must be necessary, reasonable and proportionate, and every incident is subject to detailed independent scrutiny. However, staff must be able to deploy pain compliance techniques in emergency situations where they may need to prevent children from self-harming or causing physical harm to other children. 

6     Amendment of the Children Act 1989 to give parity of legal protection to children in care

Government response – no amendment to the Children Act but use of alternative means to try and achieve the same aim

IICSA recommended that the Children Act 1989 be amended so that, in any case where a court is satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that a child who is in the care of a local authority is experiencing or is at risk of experiencing significant harm, on an application by or for that child, the court may either:

•    prohibit a local authority from taking any act (or proposed act) which it otherwise would be entitled to take in exercising its parental responsibility for the child; or 
•    give directions for the purpose of determining a specific question which has arisen, or which may arise, in connection with any aspect of the local authority’s exercise of parental responsibility for a child.

The Government accepts this recommendation in spirit, but not in detail. The Government is specifically concerned that implementing the proposed statutory changes would have adverse consequences in practice. Reading between the lines, the Government is also concerned that local authorities could be bombarded with court applications.  Instead, the Government intends to address this through the Stable Homes, Built on Love strategy which includes a notable focus on independent advocacy for children.

7     Registration of staff working in care roles in children’s homes 

Government response – use of existing strategies to address the concerns behind which led to this recommendation

It still seems extraordinary that in 2023 there is no registration requirement for a residential childcare workforce which is caring for some of the most vulnerable children in society. The Government rightly accepts that rigorous registration of staff working in care roles in children’s homes is essential and intends to implement this as part of the Stable Homes, Built on Love strategy alongside a programme to support improvements in the quality of leadership and management in the children’s homes sector.

8     Registration of staff in young offender institutions and secure training centres

Government response – address through “internal registration”

The Government accepts the need for registration but considers that in view of the relatively limited number of staff involved this lacuna could be addressed through internal registration. The Government is now exploring proposals for how this might operate in practice. This registration process would sit alongside the present suitability requirements, including a compulsory youth justice worker qualification and enhanced DBS check.

9     Greater use of the barred list

See response to 11 below

10     Improving compliance with the statutory duty to notify the Disclosure & Barring Service

See response to 11 below

11     Extending disclosure regime to those working with children overseas

Government response – consider further recommendations and improvement of existing arrangements

The Government has taken recommendations 9-11 together and has also taken into consideration the findings of the Bailey Review of the Disclosure & Barring Regime published in April 2023. The Government has confirmed acceptance of the findings of the Bailey review albeit that acceptance is subject to further assessment of feasibility and impact. There is an acceptance of the need to improve compliance with statutory duties. Current engagement with relevant bodies to achieve that will continue. There will be further consideration of what can be done as far as those working overseas is concerned.

12     Mandatory pre-screening for known child sexual abuse material by search services and user-to-user services

Government response – this will be addressed in the Online Safety Bill

We have commented in many previous blogs about the Online Safety Bill and it has been a subject of much public commentary. The Government expects the bill to receive Royal Assent this Parliamentary session. Whilst pre-screening is considered as an example of a technology that is effective in preventing known child sexual exploitation and abuse content from being uploaded or shared the Bill will not prescribe the use of specific technologies and instead remains technology-neutral. Ofcom will be responsible for policing compliance with the bill once it becomes law. 

13     Mandatory Reporting – introduction of legislation which places certain individuals – ‘mandated reporters’ – under a statutory duty to report child sexual abuse in certain circumstances

Government response – consultation – now open - Mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse: call for evidence - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) – responses due by 14th August 2023

In its response to this recommendation the Government says that it accepts the need for mandatory reporting and has agreed to implement a mandatory reporting regime for child sexual abuse which will be informed by a full public consultation. The consultation is seeking views on how a legal duty to report child sexual abuse would affect children, organisation, workplaces, and volunteers and is particularly aimed at those working with children and young people in regulated activity or positions of trust (including in the charity, voluntary and community sectors), those involved in law enforcement and, more generally, individuals and groups working with children and supporting those affected by child sexual abuse. The call for evidence covers England only as many elements of this recommendation are devolved to Wales; for those elements that are not, namely crime, policing, and criminal justice the Home Office will work closely with the Welsh Government to make them aware of the outcome of the call for evidence.

The Government notes that those who work with children or hold positions of trust are in a unique position to help prevent abuse and identify when a child is suffering abuse. The Government goes on to say that even though it has set clear statutory and non-statutory guidance that practitioners working with children should immediately make a referral to local authority children’s social care if they believe that a child has or is likely to suffer harm, despite these existing safeguards, they know that abuse of children still goes unreported. In making the decision to introduce mandatory reporting the Government has considered the experiences of those victims and survivors who shared their testimonies at IIICSA, 88.6% of whom said that they would like to see mandatory reporting for child sexual abuse introduced.

The Government says that it is mindful that the introduction of mandatory reporting will have a major impact on a wide range of sectors, many of which are already under significant pressure and/or reform. The Government also recognises that some sectors which will be affected by mandatory reporting are less closely regulated but still involve a significant amount of contact with children, and so the call for evidence will enable the Government to canvass all opinions and consider all likely scenarios as it sets about drawing up proposals for mandatory reporting.

The Government say that the aims and objectives for the call for evidence are as follows:

•    Whether a duty to report should remain targeted on child sexual abuse or be extended to cover other forms of abuse and neglect.
•    Whether a duty should be on individuals (as recommended by IICSA), or whether accountability should be at organisational level, or both.
•    The Government would like to understand the potential impact on children and young people who may seek to make disclosures, as well as organisations involved in supporting victims and survivors.
•    The Government is keen to understand any equalities considerations and in particular in relation to those sectors and workforces that may not have engaged directly with IICSA.
•    Where sectors have existing duties and requirements which a mandatory reporting duty will interact with, the Government is keen to understand how that interplay might work in practice.
•    The Government wants to understand what additional support individuals or organisations that are subject to the duty may need in order to understand and comply with the duty ahead of its implementation.
•    The Government queries whether there are any circumstances when the duty might be disapplied and welcomes views on this topic.
•    Finally, what type of sanction might be appropriate for individuals and/or organisations who are found to have breached the duty?

14    Inspection of compliance with the Victim’s Code

Government response – consultation and assessment of how victims and survivors are treated is already occurring

IICSA recommended a joint inspection of compliance to be undertaken by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate and HM Inspectorate of Probation. The Government note that the Criminal Justice Joint Inspectorate has already announced an inspection on “experiences of victims of child sexual abuse of the criminal justice system” which is expected to include Victims’ Code compliance. The Victims and Prisoners Bill will introduce inspection programmes.

15     Removal of the three-year limitation period for personal injury claims brought by victims

Government response – consultation on greater guidance and options for reform

This was one of IICSA’s least surprising recommendations. We have already written on several occasions about potential changes and the likelihood that they would, or would not, make any practical difference to the current limitation regime. 

The Government accepts what it describes as the ‘critical’ issue this recommendation seeks to remedy. Its response then sets out the current regime under the Limitation Act 1980, explaining that, although it often takes decades for victims and survivors to come forward:

•    The current time bar is not absolute
•    The court can disapply the time limit if it considers that it is just and equitable to do so, with regard to all the circumstances of the particular case; and 
•    There is existing case law and guidance on how the court should exercise its discretion under Section 33 in claims of this nature. 

The Government will not commit to changing the black letter law. Instead, the Government will consult on ‘strengthening existing judicial guidance in child sexual abuse cases and set out options to reform limitation law in child sexual abuse cases’. 

The Government will publish a consultation paper later this year exploring options on how the existing judicial guidance in child sexual abuse cases could be strengthened as well as setting out options for the reform of limitation law in child sexual abuse cases. That paper and its questions will be awaited with interest by all stakeholders.

16     Specialist therapeutic support for victims of child sexual abuse

Government response – views will be sought on the future of therapeutic support as part of the engagement and consultation re redress (see comments regarding recommendation 19 below)

The consultation will consider possible systemic changes to provision and the Government notes it is committed to making it easier for all victims, including those who have suffered child sexual abuse, to access support. Some steps towards providing this greater support for victims have already been taken including the Victims Code launched in April 2021, the Victims and Prisoners Bill currently passing through Parliament  and the Support for Victims and Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse Fund launched in June 2022 which provides grant funding of up to £4.5 million to voluntary sector organisations in England & Wales providing nationally accessible services to children, adult survivors and families affected by child sexual abuse. The CSA Centre is currently undertaking work which includes mapping the provision of specialist child sexual abuse services.

17     Introduction of a code of practice on retention of and access to records known to relate to child sexual abuse with a recommendation of retention for 75 years

Government response – the Information Commissioner to consider and issue guidance

There are many requirements for retention of records which already exist, different sectors have different retention periods, hence for education establishments it is until the former pupil has reached 25 whereas in the health sector it is 30 years for sexual assault records and 25 years for children’s records. Further guidance from the ICO should be considered which takes into account current or revised legislation.

18    Changes to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (CICS)

Government response – changes to the scheme should be considered with further consultation

IICSA recommended that the CICS should be amended: 
•    to include other forms of child sexual abuse including online-facilitated sexual abuse;
•    so that victims and survivors with unspent convictions should not be automatically excluded where the crimes are likely to be linked to the sexual abuse they experienced as a child; and
•    so that the time limit to apply for compensation should be increased to seven years with a discretion to extend the time limit.
The Government has confirmed that it will consult on amendments which address the first and third points noted above and that the proposals will also form part of the consultation on redress.

19     Establishment of a national redress scheme for victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and exploitation in England and Wales

Government Response – redress scheme to be established after further consultation

The Home Secretary said she had been "moved" by the personal testimonies of victims and survivors who engaged with IICSA. She went on to say that "This is a real problem of enormous scale and of devastating consequences and today's response to that inquiry report must mark a step change for victims and survivors," and "That's why I'm announcing a new redress scheme to ensure that victims and survivors can secure some finality, some acknowledgement of what they've been through and, hopefully, some closure."

The Home Secretary accepts that the Government cannot go back and erase what happened, but it can start to atone for the past and this is why the Government has accepted the recommendation to set up a redress scheme. She rightly describes this commitment as ‘landmark’ and notes that while delivering it will be complex and challenging, it will be a testament to the Government’s desire to make amends and support those who were not supported or protected as children. The Government will launch an extensive engagement exercise to listen to the views and concerns of a wide range of stakeholders – particularly victims and survivors – on how best to give that acknowledgement through a redress scheme. The detail of the scheme, including eligibility, types of redress available, and application process, will be considered following that engagement exercise.

The engagement exercise will be launched shortly and in the course of that engagement prior to committing to a detailed design for the scheme it will want to look at:
•    the types of redress that might be made available; 
•    the extent of any financial element;
•    eligibility; 
•    and application process

The Government’s response notes the many challenges, complexities and lengthy timelines faced in other jurisdictions which have set up redress schemes in similar circumstances, and sees significant consultation with both institutions and victims and survivors as an important part of the design and implementation of a national redress scheme in England and Wales. One interpretation of this is that the Government hopes to design a national redress scheme and put the underlying funding model in place, prior to establishing and launching the scheme, as was the case in Australia. If this is the case, it is likely to take 2 to 3 years before a national redress scheme in England and Wales is operational.

The Government’s response to the redress recommendation also references the Government’s ex-gratia payment scheme for surviving former child migrants, which provided an equal award to every applicant on the basis that they were all exposed to the risk of sexual abuse in being migrated, due to the child migration policy that had previously existed. Should this be seen as an early indication by the Government that their thinking in terms of the amount of redress payable will more likely be a tariff-based redress payment, (such as currently operates in Northern Ireland and Australia) and not an individual redress payment, based on the unique and individual circumstances of each applicant, (as was provided for in the national redress scheme in the Republic of Ireland)?

It is clear that redress will not only be financial and the Government response to this recommendation also recognises the importance for victims and survivors of receiving genuine and meaningful apologies from the institutions where they say they were abused. To facilitate this the Government will also accept IICSA’s recommendation to consider amending the Compensation Act 2006 to make clear that the provision on apologies extends to cases involving vicarious liability for child sexual abuse. It seems that a further consultation on this issue will also take place at an unknown date in the future.

For now, details of an exact timetable for the engagement exercise have not been provided nor has the Government response made it clear how much redress will be paid or how this redress will be funded. When challenged by shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper for a timetable and further detail about the Government commitment to establish a national redress scheme, the Home Secretary said that no timetable had been given as the Government didn’t want to give a false impression to victims and survivors that these things will happen overnight. 

While the Government acceptance of this recommendation will be welcomed by victims and survivors and by IICSA, providing  an alternative to bringing a civil claim that could re-traumatise victims and survivors, and where there are also a number of legal hurdles to overcome, the total lack of detail as to how this is actually going to be delivered will be a source of concern both for victims and survivors and institutions, who are still completely unable to gauge what benefit and/or impact taking part in a national redress scheme may have for them and how they might need to plan accordingly.

20          Introduction of legislation to require more stringent age verification measures

Government response – this is covered by the Online Safety Bill

The IICSA recommendation was to apply to providers of online services and social media platforms. The Government states that the Online Safety Bill will require all companies within scope to take robust steps to protect children from illegal content and criminal behaviour on their services. As with pre-screening there will be no specific technologies mandated for age verification but Ofcom is expected to take a robust approach to sites that pose the highest risk of harm to children, including those hosting online pornography.