Last week the Home Office launched a fresh consultation on the issue of mandatory reporting as recommended by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse.

There was a preliminary consultation between May and August this year but this new consultation - open until 30 November - is much more revealing about the likely direction that the government will take on this issue.

This is because it sets out a series of proposals for how it might work and asks for the relevant professionals to give their views - including teachers and other education workers - on several key areas of how the new requirement would be implemented and enforced.

1. Who it will apply to

The consultation states: “The duty should apply to anyone undertaking regulated activity in relation to children.”

Essentially, then, it is likely the mandatory reporting duty will apply to anyone working directly with children without supervision. This seems logical as restricting the duty to, for instance, safeguarding leads would render it pretty ineffective.

If this comes to pass then it will be vital for the new reporting duty to be communicated extremely carefully by schools, and all organisations working with children.

While the majority of school staff will not see a significant difference in practice from obligations under Keeping Children Safe in Education guidance, other staff, especially volunteers for out-of-school activities, could feel very anxious about the requirement given that getting something wrong could lead to breaking the law.

It is important then that this new legislation does not create a barrier to the recruitment or retention of staff, particularly part-time or voluntary staff, such as parent volunteers, playground supervisors and so on.

2. When the law will apply

The consultation states some clear factors around what will be covered by mandatory reporting.

Firstly, it only applies “in the course of undertaking regulated activity” and secondly only applies when that person directly receives “a disclosure of child sexual abuse from a child or perpetrator; or personally witnesses a child being sexually abused”, which would include seeing images of sexual abuse.

Given the breadth of reporting requirements in terms of mandating almost all those working with children, it makes sense the actual requirements should be quite restricted, and deliberately straightforward so it only applies to directly viewed or reported acts.

The unintended consequence, though, of focusing solely on what people directly see or are told relating to sexual abuse could see a lessening of interest in more subtle signs of abuse that are rightly emphasised in safeguarding training as how abuse - of any sort - might be detected.

Again, it is clear that careful training and guidance will be needed, and while schools have designated safeguarding leads and an infrastructure that can support this, organisations largely staffed by volunteers might find it harder.

3. Age exceptions could pose problems

An exception is suggested in the consultation that a report is not needed “if those involved are between 13 and 16 years old, the relationship between them is consensual and there is no risk of harm present”.

The exception will need to be very carefully thought through because while it makes sense not to criminalise young people in that situation, it could put those working with those children in a very difficult position when being asked to decide if there is “no risk of harm present”.

If one or both sets of parents see the relationship as harmful, or it transpires later there has been an element of coercion, even on just one occasion, would this be an issue for the professionals or volunteers involved?

The concerns that this raises could potentially mean that, in effect, such relationships are always reported just in case.

4. Consequences for breaching the duty

The current consultation states that breaches of the duty will be referred to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) and that all regulated professionals and teachers will be “at a minimum subject to professional sanctions to be determined by the appropriate regulating body”.

It is clear the government has to balance the fears of those working with children about the legal consequences of mandatory reporting with the desire to safeguard children.

Yet, only having professional consequences for not reporting directly viewed or reported sexual abuse seems surprisingly weak. In particular, a report to the DBS seems only a minor inconvenience as a sanction for any non-professionals working with children as volunteers if they breach the duty.

It is true this focus on professional consequences would reassure volunteers about points one and two, but it would go a long way to undermining the effectiveness of mandatory reporting.

Mandatory reporting is an essential part of ensuring that young people get protection from sexual abuse, which remains as big a problem as ever both in schools and in wider society.

It needs to be thought through very carefully so it is effective and that it does not have negative unintended consequences. I hope as many professionals as possible take the time to respond to the consultation to help with this process.

Luke Ramsden is deputy head of an independent school and chair of trustees for the Schools Consent Project