We protect money better than we protect children — and this must change.

As an accountant I have an obligation to undertake CPD. I have just completed some training on AML anti money laundering.

And I was shocked and staggered to realise that there are more robust checks and balances in place to protect money than there is for child protection!

After 8 years serving on the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) as a Victim and Survivor Consultative Panel member — and 3 years campaigning for the full implementation of IICSA’s 20 recommendations — I am now asking…

Why do we have more robust systems to protect money than to protect children?

In the financial sector, where I also work professionally, the anti-money laundering (AML) regime is clear, enforced, and effective:

🔷 Everyone in a regulated role must report suspicion — or face prosecution.
🔷 The threshold is low: “a possibility, more than fanciful” is enough.
🔷 There are clear, protected reporting routes.
🔷 Reporters are protected from retaliation.
🔷 Audits, oversight, and real consequences keep the system honest.

Because dirty money threatens economies and national security, governments built a strong framework to fight it.

But when it comes to child sexual abuse (CSA) & Exploitation?

The UK government’s proposed mandatory reporting (MR) duty — included in the Crime & Policing Bill — is a start.

But it falls far short:
❌ It only applies when abuse is witnessed, ignoring that most abuse is hidden.
❌ Failure to report is not a criminal offence — only deliberate obstruction is penalised.
❌ No national, independent reporting system.
❌ No robust audit or meaningful enforcement.
❌ No guaranteed protection for those who report.

Meanwhile, the proposed Romeo & Juliet clause — protecting consensual, loving teenage relationships — is a thoughtful detail, but risks confusion without training.

This piecemeal approach is inadequate.

What we need is what IICSA already recommended: a coherent, enforceable package of 20 reforms — a system strong enough to protect children as effectively as AML protects money.

These 20 recommendations include:

🔷 A proper, universal mandatory reporting duty, with a low threshold of suspicion.
🔷 A new Child Protection Authority (CPA) — an independent national body to oversee safeguarding standards, audit compliance, and hold organisations to account.
🔷 Consistent, properly funded support for victims & survivors.
🔷 Mandatory training for professionals and clear guidance on recognising and reporting concerns.
🔷 A cultural shift: embedding child protection as everyone’s responsibility, not just a box to tick.

These recommendations, taken as a package, mirror what already works in AML:

• Universal duty
• Protected reporting channels
• Oversight & audit
• Legal consequences for failure
• Cultural and professional change

Children deserve no less vigilance than money.

Protecting children demands clarity, courage, and commitment — the same qualities we already apply to protecting financial systems.

We cannot accept a weaker standard for children than for cash.

What would it take to implement the IICSA recommendations fully? What ideas or lessons from AML could we apply to child protection?

I’d love to hear your thoughts. Let’s have this conversation — and let’s not stop until children get the protection they deserve.

#ChildProtection #MandatoryReporting #IICSA #Safeguarding #AML #ProtectChildren #Accountability #ChildProtectionAuthority