Committee stage in the Lords
Lords Committee scrutinised the operational design of multi-agency child protection teams under Clauses 3 and 4, pressing the Government on accountability, evidence, school costs, information-sharing duties, the consistent identifier, and child contact centre standards.
B(The requirement in Clause 3 to embed multi-agency child protection teams in statute concerns me deeply. Statutory responsibility for safeguarding sits with directors of children's services — mandating a specific operational model removes their discretion to arrange services in ways that work locally. The model separates family help from child protection, but workers in family help still need to spot when a child tips into danger; if they assume that's someone else's job, we could lose the cultural embedding that makes safeguarding everybody's responsibility. The pilots haven't reported yet — we're going into summer without research to validate this model. And if police and health can't supply staff, where does the buck stop? My amendments seek clarity on what the Secretary of State will require of partners, how cross-border cases will be managed, and how effective multi-agency attendance will be assured.My Lords, in moving Amendment 29, I will speak to Amendments 31, 39 and 40. In my previous contribution, I suggested that there were many parts of this Bill about which there are major concerns, and the multiagency child protection teams for local authority areas is the most concerning. The main concern is that statutorily responsible directors of children’s services should not be mandated in statute to develop this way of working. The preference would be that the local working practice should be at the discretion of local areas in how they arrange child protection services. The problem this is trying to solve—the sad deaths of Star and Arthur—will not be solved by this proposal. The proposal is set to separate out family help and child protection, but that could mean that workers in family help will believe that they are not responsible for child protection, as it is managed by a team elsewhere. However, the reality of life is that the family help team need to be able to identify when a child or a family situation has tipped into risk and is unsafe, in order for the MACPT to be alerted to get involved. In Star and Arthur’s case, even if the team had been in place, the children may not have been referred, because the workers involved did not recognise the potential risks to both children. I know the Minister said the other day that the findings of the pilots would be published in spring 2025, but we are about to go into summer, and they have not been seen yet. That means that the model has not been fully tested and has no research to back its veracity. Surely that has to be done before the Bill comes into effect. The MACPTs are predicated on staff being supplied from the police and health as a core for the team. We know the financial pressures these services are under, so this is likely to be impossible to achieve at this national scale. There is also the uncertainty around the future of the integrated care boards—ICBs—in the health world, and no certainty that safe…
These teams are well-intentioned, but including the police risks confusion about their role. Police skills are investigative — they enforce the law and gather intelligence. Child protection expertise belongs to social services, health visitors and schools. If the team turns to a police officer and says 'your turn to go and see this father', that is not for the team to call; that is a policing decision. And the information-sharing gap the teams are meant to fill is exactly what MASHs were created for — if MASHs aren't working well enough, fix them rather than layering a new structure on top.My Lords, I am really concerned about these child protection teams. Well-intended as they are, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, has explained, there are some dangers in the arrangements that are being proposed. The good intention behind this is that it addresses one of the fundamental problems we have had in child protection in the past: many of the authorities that are charged with confronting the child abuser have become frightened of them. Consequently, when someone should have gone into the house and dealt with it, they have walked away. I am afraid it has happened to the police at times, as well. Generally speaking, it is better that, when it is necessary, there is someone there who is prepared to take on that frightening person who has done so much damage to a child or a baby. My concern is that if the police are to be included in this team, it will lead to a certain amount of confusion about their role. First, why are the police there? Generally, the police are there to enforce the law and to use the skills they have in that respect. They are not there because they are particularly good at child protection. That is why social services and health visitors exist and why schools receive incredible training and are very good at helping children and their development. For police officers, that is generally not their skill set. They are there to investigate crime and to confront the people who are the suspects.
Children with disabilities — particularly those with cerebral palsy — are disproportionately at risk and their needs are technically complex. The health professional nominated by an integrated care board under Clause 3 could be the same generic person for every assessment, with no knowledge of the individual child's condition, prognosis or what specialist interventions are possible. Scotland gives children with profound disabilities a named lead health professional who co-ordinates across disciplines. These amendments would require the multi-agency team to include someone who actually knows the child's condition — not just someone who ticks the statutory box.My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 32 and 35, which relate to children with disabilities, because these children are, sadly, more at risk and so need our protection. Also, before I begin, could I just say that my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie is sorry that she cannot be here today—frankly, as am I, as she is exceptionally knowledgeable in this area and so I hope she will approve of the following arguments, particularly in relation to children with cerebral palsy, who I will talk about today? While there are many different forms of ability and disability in children, if policy, systems and practice can get things right for children with cerebral palsy—the most common cause of physical disability in childhood—then the benefits will be felt by children with other conditions too. Evidence gathered by the APPG for its report Best Practice in Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs), Teaching, and Learning for Children with Cerebral Palsy found that many parents of children with cerebral palsy lack confidence in their local authority’s ability to make suitable arrangements for their child. Some even view their local authorities as being obstructive, inconsistent and unaccountable. Provision inevitably tends to reflect what local authorities are able to provide, rather than what the child concerned requires to have the best chances in life. Much of this stems from the reality that when it comes to issues relating to children with profound disabilities, local authorities are not always the people who have the relevant condition-specific knowledge, nor the experience of the lifelong trajectory of a condition, to be able to make the right assessments of potential and be suitably ambitious for the child. Section 17 of the Children Act, as referred to in Amendment 35, outlines the local authority’s duty to assess children who are “in need”, and this definition includes children with disabilities, who may require a paediatric developmental assessment to fully unde…
My experience setting up multi-agency risk assessment conferences for high-risk domestic abuse across every local authority in England tells me the operational detail here is critical. Who attends these teams? Is it the same person each time? How senior are they? Who is accountable? How does information-sharing translate into action? My amendment asks the Government to explain how the new statutory multi-agency child protection teams will interact with the existing MASHs, MARACs and MAPPAs. In a world of tight resources, we must avoid duplication — but equally, non-statutory agencies bring relationships with families that statutory bodies sometimes cannot. Can the Minister also say how she expects partners outside the local authority — including police and non-statutory agencies — to be funded to participate?My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 36. I am also delighted to support my noble friend Lady O’Neill on her amendments, as well as those of my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, who was so ably represented by my noble friend Lady Sanderson of Welton today. All these amendments seek to clarify some of the operational issues with the proposed multi-agency child protection teams. I do not want to steal from the Minister’s remarks, but she might remind the Committee that the context for introducing these teams came from the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, which the previous Government commissioned and was led by the honourable Member for Whitehaven and Workington. Following a key recommendation from his review, we established 10 pathfinder sites to pilot and test out these teams, alongside a number of wider reforms to early help, targeted family help and support for children in need, as defined under the Children Act. We support the spirit and direction in which this draft legislation is going, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, pointed out, we have concerns about how it will be operationalised in practice. Noble Lords may be aware that, in a former life before joining your Lordships’ House, I was involved in the establishment of multi-agency teams all around the country to address high-risk cases of domestic abuse, which were known as multi-agency risk assessment conferences—MARACs. We did that in every local authority in the country. At the end, those teams were managing about 60,000 adult cases a year and over 100,000 children. They involved statutory and non-statutory agencies. For better or worse, I am very familiar with the issues that are important when operationalising this kind of work. The detail is important. Who attends these teams? Is it the same person? How senior are they? Is it the caseworker or a representative covering all cases? As my noble friend Lady O’Neill and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, asked, who is accountable f…
How does the approach in Clause 3 align with the devolution agenda? The move to combined mayoral authorities is encouraging regions to work more closely together — that seems to jar with local-authority-by-local-authority child protection teams. Please set this in that broader context.My Lords, I would like to build on the point just made by my noble friend Lady Barran and add my support for Amendments 39 and 40. I wonder whether, in her response, the Minister could explain how this approach in the current Bill aligns with the move to combine mayoral authorities. It seems as if the devolution agenda is actually encouraging regions and areas to work more closely together, which seems to slightly jar with the approach currently set out in the Bill. I would appreciate the Minister putting it in that broader context when she responds.
Clause 3 is not a political matter — it is a well-intentioned response to the tragic cases of Arthur and Star. But local authorities are simultaneously dealing with ICB restructuring and the biggest local government reorganisation since Ted Heath. Why impose this structural change on child protection now, when the evidence base from the pilots isn't published and the devolution boundaries are still shifting? Many outstanding local authorities have prioritised children's social care even in restricted funding. Why not wait until the new arrangements are bedded in and there is robust evidence that this organisational change actually improves outcomes rather than inadvertently making them worse?My Lords, I support Amendment 40 and flag—similarly to my noble friend Lady Evans—a pragmatic timing issue, which I have previously mentioned in your Lordships’ House. Clause 3 is not a political matter. It is a well-intentioned response, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, outlined, to the tragic cases of Arthur and Star that led to the MacAlister review. I would be grateful, as would the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, to know whether these changes will in fact solve the problem highlighted in those two cases that led to the review. Of course, any new Government will bring in operational and structural changes, and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, that local authorities are dealing with the integrated care board situations at the moment and of course are preparing for perhaps the biggest local government reorganisation since that of Ted Heath. In terms of timing, I ask the Minister why it is necessary at the moment to do the structural changes to child protection arrangements when the local authorities are dealing with other changes at the time. Many local authorities, even in times of very restricted finance, have shown that they have prioritised children’s social care, and overall, England’s local authorities are on an improvement journey, in that the “good” and “outstanding” Ofsted inspections are increasing. Why not wait to do any further structural changes until the new devolution arrangements and local authority boundaries are in place and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, stated, when there is more evidence that such organisational changes in Clause 3 will improve matters, rather than inadvertently potentially making matters worse? I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, in relation to the culture that might be changed here. If the family help teams do not see that child protection is part of their role, it risks the cultural embedding that has been happening over decades that is similar to a school, where what you need to embed i…
Cases crossing local authority borders present real practical and sometimes jurisdictional problems — families move, parents live apart, children are sometimes moved deliberately to avoid attention. We also need to understand whether these new teams will disrupt the workable arrangements that already exist, including child protection conferences and child protection plans that have been built up since the Children Act 1989. It takes time for a social worker to build a relationship with a child and family; changes bewilder children and frustrate parents. Consistency and ownership are not clichés — they are essential.My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 36 and 40 and respectfully agree with almost everything that has been said so far. Amendment 40 concerns cases which cross local authority borders, which can present practical problems and sometimes jurisdictional problems. Families, both parents and children, move around and do not conveniently live together at the same time in the same local authority area. Sometimes, as has been suggested, they move to avoid attention, and there needs to be clarification of how and by whom these situations are to be dealt with. Amendment 36 seems to be more fundamental. There are, of course, existing established arrangements focusing on children in need. Since at least the Children Act 1989, these can involve child protection conferences and child protection plans, which identify risks and assign responsibilities and expectations. It is perhaps not surprising that there are now operational concerns about the new clauses—in particular, whether they will unnecessarily duplicate or even disrupt workable and working existing arrangements. In particular, we need to know whether the new teams provided for in these clauses will require the introduction of new personnel in a way that will deprive the family of the continuity and familiarity established by the original social work team. It takes time for a social worker to build a relationship with a child and family, and that should not be jeopardised. Changes bewilder the children and frustrate the parents. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, referred to consistency and ownership. Those are not just clichés, they are important and should, wherever possible, be preserved.
When a key member of staff moves on, the whole process can grind to a halt — the new person buried in case files cannot access the knowledge that was built up, and that disruption is often very damaging. The Children's Commissioner's suggestion of a common threshold for assessment would help bring consistency. The resources must be right too — and on the point about police involvement, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, is right that there can be a real conflict of roles. This Committee can only get to a workable answer by sharing these ideas.My Lords, we have not got any amendments in this group, but I will make a few observations. First, it is really important we get this right and we have the opportunity to do so between Committee and Report. I have personal experience of multi-agency working in terms of child protection—not a great deal, but a few cases. The thing that nobody has mentioned is that, when a member of staff has left the job or moved to another authority, the whole process grinds to a halt; the new person who is busy looking at the case files is not able to benefit from the knowledge that has been gained. It is often very disruptive. Often in Committee, somebody will get up and make a point that you have never really thought about. When the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, had finished, I thought, “Absolutely right”. But I had not thought about the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and he is absolutely right: in terms of police involvement, there can be a real conflict. It just proved to me, yet again, the importance of sharing these ideas so that we get a result which is actually workable. It is interesting that the Children’s Commissioner suggests a “threshold for assessment and support” to bring greater consistency. This also picks up on the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, raised about resources—that it is important that we get the resources absolutely right. I was interested in the point about sharing practice with those practitioners—that they do not come with their own particular viewpoint but have that training and expertise to share and listen. Cross-border working can be very difficult indeed and can sometimes cause real issues as well, but, if we listen to each other, we can get this right.
It is simply not true that there is no professional support for multi-agency child protection teams. Plenty of practitioners back these reforms. The problem the provisions in Clause 3 address is real: child protection has too often been carried out by less experienced social workers working without the full picture, because other agencies haven't been brought in properly. Early results from the 10 Families First pathfinders show better management of complex cases and quicker, effective interventions. The fact that some pathfinders are finding things difficult is precisely the point — so that the system can learn what works and what needs adjusting before national rollout. The evaluation will be published; we are already using the pathfinder learning through webinars and practice-sharing across local authorities.My Lords, as we start on these amendments relating to the operational delivery of multi-agency child protection teams, I will just respond to a few general points before I go into the details of the points that have been made and the amendments. First, on the point the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, made both today and on Tuesday, it is not true that there is no support for these arrangements among local authority children’s services and organisations concerned about child protection and keeping children safe. There is plenty of support. Nor has this idea somehow or other fallen out of the sky. In fact, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, gave us a good explanation of the history of this. Of course, last autumn this Government published Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive, which included the provisions that are in this legislation. So there has been plenty of time, and in fact the department has taken the opportunity to talk to a broad range of professionals and others about how we will ensure that all the provisions in the Bill work properly. The provisions in Clause 3 particularly relate to the duty to protect children with respect to the legislative arrangements on child protection. The experience of child protection is that too often, this most difficult and crucial area of children’s social work has been carried out by social workers who are perhaps less experienced and not necessarily experts in child protection. They have had to do it without the full story of the children they are trying to protect, because of the lack of the strongest possible input from a range of different agencies to create that full story about the child and their needs, in order to ensure that they are protected properly. On one of the concerns expressed by Professor Munro, as I emphasised on Tuesday, these provisions do not downgrade the quality or nature of social workers who will be working on child protection. They will increase the likelihood that the most experienced socia…
- On accountability: the team can call on the right skills at the right time, but the only professional power the police hold is the power to investigate crime. If the team turns to a police officer and says 'go and see this father', that is not a team decision to make — it is the police's. On information sharing: isn't that exactly what MASHs were created for? They may not be working as well as they should, but I'm not sure this new team fills the gap they were supposed to fill. And on evaluation — the only data I'll be interested in is how many fewer children got hurt or died. Everything else is soft.
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister on one point that she raised. I can hear that she feels that the accountability point is probably going to be okay, but, to combine a couple of things that she mentioned, the team can call on the right skills at the right time. That is obviously a major argument for this team. The only skills that the police really bring, because they are not child protection experts or experts in children’s development, is the ability to investigate crime; they bring nothing else to the table, really, apart from the fact that they are generally, I hope, innately nice people and reasonable people. I am not saying that they have no skills—that is really not my point—but the professional skills they bring to the table and the professional powers which are invested in them by law are all about how they investigate. If the team turns to them and says, “So it is your turn now to go and see this father”, or this mother, actually, that is not for them to call; that is for the police to call. That is the fundamental thing. While I am on my feet, and to save a later interruption, although the Minister may be coming to it, on the point that has been identified about the gap in knowledge where each of the agencies holds data that the others may not have access to, that is why the MASHs were created. That is why we have people sat in groups around the country, as has been mentioned already. That is what they are supposed to be doing. It may be that this report has concluded they are not doing it as well as they could, but I am not sure this team is going to fill the gap. That is what the MASHs were really intended to do. My final point is on the evaluation, which I know the Minister said is going to be published. The only piece of data I will be really interested in is how many fewer children got hurt or died, or whose development was not interrupted, or to what extent the satisfaction of the families involved was enhanced, as a result of this team’s interve…
- I wholeheartedly agree: fewer children harmed is exactly the objective. On the police — officers know intelligence about gang exploitation risks, domestic patterns, who in the community is creating danger. All of that information, at the right point in a child's case, gives the multi-agency team the full picture. That is why police involvement is right. On funding: yes, that is why there is additional investment, and I would also be clear to policing that participation in these teams is part of their responsibility. On disability expertise: flexibility already exists for safeguarding partners to bring in the right specialist health or social work expertise — the Bill sets the compulsory core and regulations allow others to be added. On local authority borders and devolution: the design is structured to address exactly those cross-boundary challenges.
I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord on his final point. That is exactly the objective in what we are trying to do here. Whether or not the evaluation, after a relatively short period of time, will give us conclusive proof about that, I would be unsure, but that is absolutely the objective. Working backwards through the noble Lord’s points, I think he is right that the police play a very important role in multi-agency safeguarding hubs. But that, of course, is what happens at the point at which people or other agencies are thinking about referring into the system. Quite often, it helps to provide earlier support or more clarity about whether or not children should be being referred into the system. It is not specifically about child protection, which, as I was saying at the beginning, is probably the most difficult and the most crucial point in thinking about the point at which the child is in the system. I am surprised at the noble Lord, because I think he undersells what police officers do. He knows that the officers that he was responsible for would have known, when they were being called out to domestic abuse cases, what intelligence they had about the likelihood of children being exploited through gangs or in other ways. They would have known who in the local community were, frankly, getting into trouble and whose children were therefore likely to be in danger. They would have known the events that had happened that had brought disharmony or difficulties into communities. They would have known who was taking drugs and who was dealing them. All of that information, you could imagine, could you not, at the right point in the consideration of a child’s case, would be really, really important for getting that full story about the child. That is why I think it is right that police are involved in this. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, raised the point about funding, which is a fair point. That is why, as I have previously talked about and will talk about again…
- Nobody wants to get child protection wrong — which is exactly why sharing the pilot findings is so important. I beg leave to withdraw.
I thank the Minister for her detailed response and all noble Lords for their contributions. They have shown their passion for keeping young people safe. Nobody wants to get that wrong, which is why everyone is making such passionate contributions. To do so, you really need as much information as possible, and sharing those pilots is pivotal to all of that. I thank everyone for their contributions and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
- Directors of children's services support the aims of these reforms — but their real concern is implementation. The Local Government Association and ADCS have flagged worries about how much discretion local authorities will actually have. The department's Families First Partnership Programme Guide says it is not guidance, but it sets 'delivery expectations', specifies lead child protection practitioner roles, says independent chairs of child protection case conferences will often be removed, and gives a very tight implementation timeline — that does not feel flexible. Where are the experienced social workers going to come from? How will the fresh-eyes role of an independent chair be preserved? Families in child protection will now have two social workers — with all the resource implications and the risk of being played off against each other. And there is still no adequate evidence base. My amendment would remove some prescription over team membership so directors have genuine discretion; my other amendment would require the Secretary of State to report annually on the teams' impact and activities, so there is real learning across the sector.
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 30 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley, and to Amendment 37 in my name. Amendment 30 goes to the heart of one of the three major concerns expressed to me by several directors of children’s services. I wonder whether, with the Minister’s permission, we could park what feels like a false argument that is developing about whether directors of children’s services support the aims of these reforms. I think they are all supportive; certainly all those I spoke to—I cannot speak for others—were supportive of the aims. The concerns that we are trying to flag are that they are worried about implementation. I worry that the Minister is not seeing the whole picture, which may be something that she wants to explore further outside the Chamber. It is not just about those private conversations. Perhaps in gentler terms, the Local Government Association and the ADCS have highlighted concerns about the degree of discretion that local authorities will have in how they implement the new multi-agency child protection arrangements. My amendment would remove some of the prescription in the Bill around membership. Also, I commend to all your Lordships who are interested in this area the department’s cunningly titled Families First Partnership Programme Guide, because it very firmly states that it is not guidance but—trust me—when you read it and it keeps saying that it is going to set “delivery expectations”, it feels a lot like guidance. That document is prescriptive. In closing the previous group, the Minister talked about flexibility, learning and so on, but that programme guide does not feel very flexible. It says that you must have lead child protection practitioner roles and that, in many cases, independent chairs of child protection case conferences will be removed. It gives an overview of the reform across the whole system. I can speak only personally, and it may be that I woke up a bit late to some of the problems with…
If the Government are doing something new, where in the process will they actually assess whether the teams have worked? If the Minister can set out where that evaluation is going to happen in a convincing way, I hope we can move forward.My Lords, having listened to the noble Baroness introduce these amendments, I think they are quite interesting. Let us see what the answer is. The one that really attracts my attention is Amendment 37: how are you going to assess how the teams have worked? The point that the noble Baroness made was reasonable—that you might want different types of implementation teams in different areas—but if you are doing something new, how do you assess where it has or has not been successful? If the Minister could point out where in the Government’s process that is going to happen—if it is—I would be very interested to hear that. If it is convincing, I hope we can put this to bed and move on.
- The statutory responsibility for safeguarding will still rest with local authorities, not with the multi-agency partnerships. But if all functions are consolidated into a joint team, it could become unclear who is ultimately accountable in a serious case review or legal proceedings. Current guidance under Working Together to Safeguard Children is explicit: functions can be delegated, but accountability cannot be transferred. There is also a risk that overconsolidation disempowers directors of children's services and lead members who are the statutory safeguarding leads. Trust local authorities to use their discretion in how they implement these teams.
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Barran on Amendment 30, which builds on the previous conversation in seeking to confirm that local authorities can use their discretion in how the multi-agency child protection teams are implemented operationally in their areas. In addition to the contributions previously made about the pilots and having the information about those pilots, I want to add two very good reasons why it is imperative to ensure that local decision-making will become effective: how there could be confusion over legal accountability, and how the Bill could weaken local authority leadership. The statutory responsibility for safeguarding will still rest with the local authorities, as has previously been said, not with the partnerships or multi-agency teams. If all functions are located within a multi-agency team, it may become unclear who is ultimately accountable, especially in the case of a serious case review or legal proceedings. As was referred to previously, current DfE guidance, through Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023, emphasises that, although functions can be delegated, accountability cannot be transferred. I have previously referred to the issue of budgets from other partners, especially police and health, and how that might impact their involvement, but we also need to consider the fact that not all agencies are coterminous. In my area, our police, under the leadership of the Mayor of London, are a tri-borough relationship. The NHS is a six-borough relationship. I quite often get notices from the police identifying a child in Lewisham, and I have to ask my team whether there is a connection to Bexley. There is a potential confusion there and, of course, with that confusion comes the ownership. This could create issues in determining not least the ownership but also the cost implications. The other risk is weakened local authority leadership. Overconsolidation into multi-agency spaces could disempower directors of children service…
There are potentially alarming parallels with the SEND reforms, where a new model was expected to simplify, reduce costs and reduce numbers — and has sadly done the opposite. On accountability: people seem to find it hard to say what they really think to Ministers. An annual report that is genuinely transparent about how these reforms are working in practice is essential.My Lords, for several reasons I support Amendment 37 from my noble friend Lady Barran. She and others have spoken about the enormous amount of change being imposed on the sector, both to current structures and prospectively with local government reorganisation and with many processes through these reforms. We have now heard from enough people here and outside to think that there is good reason to be concerned about poor decision-making arising from the blurring of early help, targeted support, work with children in need and child protection. There are potentially parallels with the SEND reforms a few years ago, when a new model was expected to simplify and reduce costs, and reduce numbers in the system, but has, sadly, done the opposite. On the points that have been made about the blurring of accountability, there is again reason to be concerned. I was part of a national implementation board after the care review and, in that process, I was struck, more than in most government processes I have been involved with, that many people seemed to find it hard to say what they really thought to Ministers. They perhaps pulled punches a little bit. It is incredibly important to make sure that there is a report that all can see and that is really transparent about how these reforms are working in practice.
- Safeguarding partners — local authorities, health and police — already have joint and equal responsibilities for safeguarding in legislation. The multi-agency child protection teams make that real day to day, at the case level, by bringing different agencies' information together. Dorset, a pathfinder, just received an 'outstanding' Ofsted judgment, with the report noting effective information sharing and analysis leading to the right intervention. On local discretion: the Bill sets a minimum team and then allows safeguarding partners to add other agencies for local needs. On the independent chair: the lead child protection practitioner role already works in a very similar way in pathfinders — fresh eyes are built into the design. On dual social workers: the ongoing relationship stays in family help; the multi-agency team leads the child protection function and wraps support around it. On annual reporting: safeguarding partners already have a statutory responsibility to publish annual reports on their multi-agency safeguarding arrangements, and that will cover these new teams. Statutory guidance will be updated accordingly.
We have come on to more understandable consideration of how the teams will work in practice, particularly with respect to local authority responsibility. Multi-agency child protection teams will be effective only if they are truly multi-agency. There is an understandable concern here about the significance of the role of local authorities, but it is probably also worth remembering, as we discussed on Tuesday, that safeguarding partners—local authorities, health and police—have joint and equal responsibilities for safeguarding in legislation. Through the multi-agency child protection teams, we are trying to ensure that day to day, in operational terms, with respect to individual children and cases, there is a practical way for those responsibilities, and the information that those agencies may have, to be brought together in that full picture about the child. I spoke earlier about the findings from the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel on child protection. To tackle the issues it identified, we need, as I have suggested, multi-agency experts in a room together, sharing information and bringing their different perspectives to decisions that protect children. It is important that we ensure the right people are deployed to those teams so that expert, swift and decisive action is taken to protect children, and we recognise the importance of safeguarding partners reporting on the impact of their arrangements to make sure that is happening. We need to base that, as has been the argument on other parts of the Bill, on the best possible evidence, which is both the professional work that constituted the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel and, as others have mentioned, the independent review by my honourable friend Josh MacAlister. Of course, we also need the evaluation that noble Lords have talked about. It will come in more than one stage. There will be evaluation of the process and some of the practicalities of setting up the process that the noble Baroness, La…
- I'm worried there's a great deal of confirmation bias in the Minister's remarks that this will all work exactly as we wish. Most big, complicated reforms like this do not go exactly as planned — some things go well and others do not. I hope the Government will keep an open mind.
My Lords, I thank warmly all those who contributed to this short debate, in particular my noble friend Lady O’Neill for her practical examples of how it works on the ground and the very reasonable concerns she and colleagues have about these reforms. If I am honest, I was worried when I listened to the Minister about the amount of confirmation bias in her remarks that this will work exactly as we all wish. If that turns out to be the case, I will be the first to admit that I am wrong, but most big, complicated reforms such as this do not go exactly as planned: some things go well, and others do not. I hope the Government will keep an open mind on this.
- Local areas need flexibility over the qualifications of those nominated to multi-agency child protection teams, and clarity about when the Secretary of State can lift qualification requirements. One size fits all risks undermining local innovation and stunting workforce development. The qualifications of all team members need to be considered relative to each other, and if local areas are responsible for arranging child protection services, they need discretion over who is on the team and what they bring.
My Lords, Amendment 33 aims to leave discretion about the qualifications of those involved in the multi-agency child protection team to the relevant agency responsible. It also aims for clarity about where the Secretary of State might lift the requirement for qualifications in this work. My previous contributions have sought flexibility for those statutorily responsible for the safety of our young people, and this amendment follows that theme. The Minister, thankfully, gave us some reassurances earlier, and I hope this will continue. Life changes, and the areas will not all be the same. It will need some local discretion, so one would hope that it would not be too prescriptive. In addition to considering the local needs of those responsible, we need to consider what already exists and, if change needs to happen, from what base will it happen? There needs to be flexibility for those who are part of the processes. It is also possible that this being one size fits all risks undermining local innovation, which we all know is important, as well as stunting workforce development. Consideration will also need to be given to the relative qualifications of all members of the teams and those in other agencies. If it is to be the responsibility of a local area to arrange its child protection services, it will need to consider who is part of the multi-agency child protection team and their qualifications. I beg to move.
- Nobody would dare say multi-disciplinary working for child protection is wrong. But is Clause 3 the right mechanism? When I first read the MacAlister recommendation I thought this was an oversight body — like an independent chair bringing everyone together to make sure there are no gaps. But the understanding out there among practitioners is that it could be an investigative and operational mechanism, which would mean duplicating the function that a lead social worker already performs. Worse: if a child has disclosed sexual harm and the case is then transferred to a new social worker or a new multi-agency team, that child may refuse to disclose again. The perpetrator, sensing something has changed, may then harm the child to silence them. If the concerns of experts who are raising these unintended consequences turn out to be right, the report that comes back from the local authority child safeguarding panel will say: 'We advised you not to make this statutory change.' Will the Minister meet the director of children's services who advised the MacAlister review, Professor Eileen Munro, concerned academics, and the DCS leads from outstanding authorities before Report?
My Lords, I support the amendments, particularly the clause stand part notice. I have known the Minister to be a listener and Committee is entirely the time to listen. The noble Baroness mentioned that we need to solve the lack of joint working. I think nobody would disagree, and no one would dare to say that multidisciplinary team working for child protection is not the way to do it. But there are, I believe, genuine concerns about whether the functions outlined in Clause 3 are the way to achieve that. When I first read the review recommendation and the description of multi-agency child protection teams—I have not yet come up with an acronym that I can pronounce quickly enough—I thought that would be an oversight mechanism akin to the independent chair of child protection cases. But the understanding out there among certain practitioners seems to be that it could be an investigative/operational mechanism. I thought it was a mechanism about oversight where you pull together everybody involved in that particular case, to make sure that everyone in the room knows everything that they need to know and there are no gaps in the information. However, the understanding that is out there and that has been communicated is that, in fact, what could be happening here is a duplication of the investigative function. With this new system, what is understood out there is that, when a social worker has maybe had a very sensitive disclosure made to them—usually after many months of knowing the child and gaining their confidence—there can be a transfer at that moment to a different social worker to take over the investigative role. Obviously, that would be a duplication of resource and it would potentially sever the relationship that the child has. Currently, as I understand it, the multidisciplinary team investigation is basically built around a lead expert social worker, who then draws in—at casework level—health, benefits, housing and the police interview. There is oversight of th…
- I fully support the clause stand part challenge and my noble friend Lady Berridge's very practical suggestion that the Minister should meet those practitioners and experts.
My Lords, I oppose Clause 3 standing part of the Bill and I fully support Amendment 33 in the name of my noble friend Lady O’Neill. I thank my noble friend Lady Berridge for her support and for her very practical suggestion that the Minister meets those practitioners and experts. I hope very much that when the Minister winds up she will be able to say that she will have such a meeting.
- On the evidence: how many directors of children's services actually oppose these changes versus how many does the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, speak for? She cannot influence these discussions by saying 'directors have told me' without telling us how many and who. I have spoken to directors with different views.
I have a few observations to make, although this is not my natural area of expertise. On Amendment 1, I said it was important that, when we propose to make a change and we run a pilot, that pilot is the lodestone of future developments. First, I am concerned about the comments made by Professor Munro. Secondly, I am slightly concerned by what the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said—that directors had frequently spoken to her. Perhaps she can tell us if that was one director or five directors? Was it a professional association? That is important to know. She cannot influence important discussions by saying, “Well, the directors have said”—we need to know who they are and how many there are. I could equally quote directors who have spoken to me and who have different opinions. We have to be very careful about that. The noble Baroness can talk to me afterwards, if she likes.
- I spoke personally to three directors of children's services and one deputy director — I rang them explaining I was responding for the Opposition and asked for their views; the concerns were unprompted. I won't name them at the Dispatch Box — it is for them to decide whether to speak to Ministers privately.
I am more than happy to clarify for the benefit of the Committee. I have spoken personally to three directors of children’s services and one deputy director, and I have encouraged some of my colleagues to talk to their local director of children’s services. I stress that I was surprised at their response. I did not ring up and ask them to tell me about all the problems with the Bill; I rang up and explained that I would be responding on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. I always prefer to talk to someone who is directly affected before I give my views, which may or may not be on message. It was an unprompted response. It is for them to decide if they wish to speak privately to Ministers, rather than for me to say at the Dispatch Box who they are. If the noble Lord has spoken to others who say something different, I am sure it is helpful for the Minister to hear that too.
- Our child protection procedures are genuinely among the best in the world — but that doesn't mean we stand still. Every policy needs constant review and improvement. What concerns me here is qualifications: they are the hallmark of safety. You wouldn't want an unqualified plumber or electrician in your house. The same goes for child safety. If the Minister can explain simply why she wants to change the qualification requirements against expert advice — including Professor Munro's letter to the Times — that would help enormously.
Actually, I have spoken to only one director and I would not wish to comment on what they said, because it would perhaps give the wrong impression. The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, rightly said that our child protection procedures are the envy of the world. She is right to say that, but it does not mean that we are complacent about the fact that we have good child protection procedures. You have to constantly look at any policies or systems and change and improve them. I am always impressed that children are at the heart of everything we do. When we had the Question on media literacy, and I rather cheekily asked what the Government’s number one priority was, the Minister rightly said that it was child protection. That is symptomatic of how we as a House react. We cannot stand still but, when we make detailed changes, we have to be sure that they are right. We should pilot them, perhaps learn from the pilot, and then use that to change and adapt, and we have to make the resources available. I am particularly concerned about qualifications—they are the hallmark of safety. You would not want a plumber without any plumbing qualifications to come to your house, nor would you want an electrician without qualifications to look at the wiring. So it is in child safety, where we must make sure that the people around the table are qualified to give judgments and opinions to protect children. As somebody who has said that he is not an expert by any means in this area, I hope that, when the Minister replies, she might simply spell out for me why she wants to make those changes and why she has not taken the advice of somebody who clearly is an expert and knows what they are talking about, and who has—probably through frustration—had to write a letter to the Times.
As Children's Commissioner for six years, what was absolutely clear to me was this: spending on early intervention halved; spending on crisis doubled. The MacAlister review was extensively consulted at every level — practitioners, care-experienced people, directors of children's services. Its conclusion was that we must boldly reset the system towards early intervention, urgently, because the public purse cannot sustain crisis-led spending and more children are being left without support. The directors I speak to want this change urgently and support the framework being put forward.Perhaps I might add a few thoughts from my experience. As Children’s Commissioner for six years, I found that the greatest level of responsibility was around children in care, and I looked in detail at the experience of children in care throughout that time. One of the things that was absolutely clear to me was that the ability of local authorities to focus on early intervention diminished hugely during that period. The amount that was spent on early intervention halved during that period, while the amount that was spent on crisis doubled. You do not need to be a great mathematician to realise that the more you spend on crisis, the less you will have for early intervention. At the heart of Josh MacAlister’s review and recommendations, which were incredibly and extensively consulted on with people at all levels, from expert practitioners to leaders of children’s services and care-experienced people themselves, was that we had to move and reset the system towards early intervention, and do so boldly in a timely manner, because it was unsustainable for the public purse to do anything other. As important, if not more important, is that more children were being left without support. Everyone needs to be alert at any time to the consequences of any move towards increasing harm for children. What we now know and have known for some time is that more children are coming to harm now because they are not getting that support early, so it is absolutely essential that there is an urgency about that. As I said on Tuesday, those directors of children’s services that I speak to want to see that change urgently and are very much in line with the proposals that are being put forward. There will always be things that directors of children’s services will want to amend locally and test out—that is absolutely right—but what they want to know is that there is a framework nationally for them to work within and clear guidance. So, it is so important that this is here. That is not to say t…
- Two of the pathfinders are in fact 'requires improvement', so the picture is more mixed than was suggested. In Warwickshire, teams have reported the lowest number of children on child protection plans since July 2023 — attributed to a more efficient, targeted approach getting the right children the right intervention earlier. On Amendment 33: qualification requirements for team members will be set in regulations, which allows flexibility for different skill sets while maintaining safeguards. On Clause 3 standing part: these teams address inexperienced social workers working without the full agency picture — and the response to concerns from the likes of Professor Munro is that this model increases, not decreases, the likelihood that the most experienced social workers work on the most difficult cases.
We are now on group three on multi-agency child protection teams. As I have already said, these teams seek to address the problems we repeatedly see when children are seriously harmed or killed, including poor information sharing, weak decision-making based on single-service perspectives, and inexperienced social workers without the support, knowledge and experience needed to make tough decisions and ensure children and families get the support they need. One of the areas in which these teams are already being delivered is Warwickshire. Perhaps at this point, before I talk about Warwickshire, I could also respond to the point made in the previous group by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about the pathfinders. Actually, two of the pathfinders are not “good” or “outstanding”; they are, in fact, “requires improvement”, so that was wrong. Teams in Warwickshire have reported, to the department, the lowest number of children on child protection plans since July 2023. This reduction is attributed to a more efficient and targeted approach by the multi-agency team, ensuring that the right children are getting the right intervention at the right time—and, crucially, as early as possible in the system. My noble friend Lady Longfield made a very important point about the nature of the objectives of this reform, which are encompassed in this Bill and in the policy paper that I referenced earlier. The objective is to shift support for children much earlier in the process and, where necessary, for a Section 47 child protection intervention to be carried out by the most experienced and senior social workers, who should be supported by a team that brings together the whole range of agencies that may well have information about the child. With this in mind, I turn to Amendment 33, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, which seeks to allow discretion about the qualifications of persons nominated to teams and seeks clarity on the qualifications prescribed through regul…
- The reduction in child protection plans in Warwickshire is welcome — but it's a national trend: down 1.7% last year, 3.1% since 2020, despite increases in unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. On regulations: could the Minister commit to publishing draft regulations during the Bill's passage, as other Governments have done? On the £500 million: the department's own documentation states that £253.5 million of that is mainstreamed funding from the Supporting Families programme — what is genuinely new money? And on my noble friend Lady Berridge's request for a meeting with concerned practitioners: will the Minister accept that invitation?
Can I just clarify a few points that the noble Baroness made in her remarks? She gave the example of Warwickshire reducing the number of children on child protection plans, but of course the number of children on child protection plans nationally fell last year by 1.7% and has fallen by 3.1% since 2020, and that is despite the increase in unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Clearly, we welcome the progress in Warwickshire and anywhere in the country that is achieving that, but I think the impression that she gave was that this was an unusual occurrence, and it is just important to acknowledge that that is a national trend. Secondly, the regulations the Minister refers to are obviously extremely important in terms of implementation. I can remember other Governments publishing draft regulations during the passage of a Bill so that the House had clarity on their intentions. I wonder whether she would be very kind and take that back to the department and see if that is an option in this and potentially other areas of the Bill. I am not sure whether I followed the Minister’s comments about the duplication of caseworkers, but page 13 of the department’s guidance appears to suggest that, in Section 47 cases, both the family help lead practitioner and the lead child protection practitioner will be involved. I am sorry to be picky about the money, and of course she is right on the £500 million, but, again, her department’s own documentation states that £253.5 million of that is mainstreamed funding originally for the Supporting Families programme. Again, this is just to be clear about what is new money and what it is for. Finally, I wonder whether the Minister might pick up on my noble friend Lady Berridge’s suggestion about a meeting. She talked about the general engagement the department rightly has, but can she comment on whether she feels able to accept that invitation?
- On Warwickshire: good, we should celebrate it — that is exactly my point. On draft regulations: there is a tension between ongoing engagement on detail and publishing regulations during the Bill — I will reflect and come back. On duplication of social workers: I will write to noble Lords explaining the operational distinction between the family help lead practitioner and the lead child protection practitioner. On new money: I have been explicit. On a meeting: between my honourable friend the Minister for children's social care and myself, we will be able to continue meeting practitioners and directors as suggested.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said that she did not want to undermine the good work happening in Warwickshire by pointing out a general downturn in the number of child protection plans. Good, because, as I suggested earlier, we should celebrate where there has been good work, which in Warwickshire they certainly attributed to the changes they had made. On the point about draft regulations, there is a tension here, because on the one hand people are asking us to continue to engage on the detail of how this is going to be implemented, yet also to have the regulations alongside the Bill. I will reflect on this and come back to her. On the point about duplication, I have explained it twice, but, clearly, I have not explained it well enough. So I will undertake to write to noble Lords about the operational details, and particularly the role of the family help lead practitioner and the lead practitioner for child protection, and the operational detail that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, was talking about. On the point about new money, I think I have been pretty clear about what is new money; I said it explicitly. On the meeting, my point was that there will be a whole range of meetings and engagement; I did not say I would not have a meeting. My honourable friend the Minister with responsibility for children’s social care has met many practitioners, experts and DCSs as this process has gone on. I suspect that, between us, we will be able to continue meeting people in the way suggested.
- If the Minister comes back at Report with support from the British Association of Social Workers and the Association of Directors of Children's Services — those representative practitioner bodies — these concerns will melt away. That is the assurance the House needs.
I am grateful for that clarification. Let me assure the Minister on what this concern is born out of, as I hope I explained. We can all pick off one or two experts in a group of people, but there are sector bodies such as the British Association of Social Workers and the Association of Directors of Children’s Services. I mentioned a particular individual because there was particular engagement in the independent review we are all relying on. I assure the Minister that if she comes back at Report with support from those organisations, saying, “We support this; we understand; we have engaged”, these problems will fall away. She has a busy diary—obviously, I do not want to suggest how she allocates her diary—but if she comes back with the support of those representative practitioner bodies, with that assurance, the concerns will melt away.
- I have never done a Bill about which absolutely everybody was content. I am not going to accept that the only way to progress this legislation is if every single expert, representative body and professional organisation backs it.
I am not sure that picking off experts is the way the department has engaged in consultation or engagement so far, nor will it do in the future. I am realistic: over my time in both Houses, this is probably my 12th Bill, and frankly, I have never done a Bill about which absolutely everybody was content. I am not going to accept that the only way we can progress this legislation is if every single expert, representative and professional body supports it.
This is a probing amendment on the impact on schools. Clause 3 doesn't impose new direct financial obligations on schools, but they will face indirect costs — staff time for meetings, participation in safeguarding arrangements, training. How does that differ from current arrangements? And the money: even if half of the £270 million new funding went to schools — which it won't — that's only £6,000 per school. When will guidance be available so schools can plan?My Lords, this is really a probing amendment. I am the first to admit that this is not an area in which I have deep expertise, but my questioning comes from the angle of the impact on schools and is on how much time and cost would be involved. I understand that Clause 3(4) amends Section 16J of the Children Act 2004 to require safeguarding partners—local authorities, police and health—to ensure that multi-agency child protection teams are adequately staffed. This includes representation from education. Schools themselves are not made statutory partners, but safeguarding partners must secure the participation and representation of education and childcare agencies at both operational and strategic levels in local safeguarding arrangements. I also understand that the legislation does not impose new direct financial obligations on individual schools. The duty to ensure that teams are sufficiently staffed falls on the safeguarding partners, not the schools themselves. However, I presume that schools will incur some indirect costs related to staff time for participating in safeguarding arrangements, meetings and training. How will this change from the current arrangements? What additional obligations are likely to occur? I listened carefully to the Minister’s point on the new money for implementation—£270 million. I respect the fact that she cannot give any clarity on long-term funding until the spending review in a few weeks’ time, so I do not have an issue with that. However, if we take that money—£270 million—and assume that even half goes to schools, when of course it will be a fraction of that, it is only £6,000 a school. I will come on to this in a minute. I understand that the Government are planning to provide guidance to support implementation and that safeguarding partners are expected to tailor arrangements to local needs, which may help manage additional burdens on schools. When will that information be available? This is important because of the need for scho…
- The same question about capacity applies to local drug and alcohol services, mental health services, domestic abuse services, housing associations and others. The real issue is that practitioners need to be confident about how to engage, how information they share will be used, and that they have time in their working day to participate responsibly. What does Clause 3 mean in practice in terms of team size — could it really mean Birmingham has one team and Rutland has one team?
My Lords, I am delighted to support my noble friend Lord Agnew of Oulton’s amendment. The example that he gave of teachers and teaching assistants, as cited in his Amendment 34, could obviously be replicated for many other agencies, with a valuable contribution to make to multi-agency child protection teams and wider safeguarding activities, including local drug and alcohol services, mental health services, domestic abuse services, housing associations and more. The key point here is that practitioners need to feel confident about how to engage in the process and how any information they share will be used, confident that it will not put anyone at risk and, as my noble friend so ably put it, confident that they have the time in their working day to be able to participate responsibly. From my own experience, I know we make assumptions at our peril about how confident even statutory agencies are in some of these areas, so any programme that promotes safe and effective partnership work is to be commended. My Amendment 38 seeks to understand what capacity the Government think will be needed on the ground and what guidance they plan to give for this. The Bill says in Clause 3, page 3, lines 16 to 21: “Arrangements … must include the establishment of one or more multi-agency child protection teams … for the purpose of providing support to the local authority in connection with the discharge of its duties under section 47 of the Children Act 1989”. In Clause 3, page 3, lines 27 to 31, it says: “A multi-agency child protection team is to consist of … at least one of each of the persons mentioned in subsection (4), and … such other persons as the local authority considers appropriate after consulting the other safeguarding partners”. My cracked-record question is this: what does this mean in real life? I am sure that the answer to this is no, but, as written, it could mean that Birmingham has one team and Rutland has one team. I am sure the Minister will reassure me that tha…
- Where will the resources and training come from, particularly for teachers and TAs being brought into this process on a more formal basis? If someone doesn't know what they're doing or where to get support, the system will fail them.
My Lords, having read both these amendments, I think it is reasonable to ask the Government what resources are required. When it comes to teachers, we have often dealt with the question of what is required and, if it is a new skill, how they will acquire it. Having enough awareness to call in an expert is another thing we have often talked about in other fields—I certainly have on special educational needs. If you do not have that training in place, it is a matter of where you go to get that support. Asking for that is one of the things we should do here. I hope the Minister will give us a reply that at least starts to push us towards looking to where these resources are and, more importantly for the people on the ground, where they can look to for support and help, or be trained to do so. Without that linkage, people who are only now being brought into this process on an official basis will fail if they do not know what they are doing.
Schools have already become the fourth emergency service — precisely because children's social work, child protection and safeguarding were decimated by austerity under the last Government, when real-terms school funding fell by 9% and central grants to local authorities by 40%. Schools are extremely good at identifying children who need protection. Multi-agency teams legally responsible for working with schools will strengthen safeguarding — not burden it.My Lords, I was not going to speak to this amendment, but I have to say that the idea that schools have not been at the centre of child protection and safeguarding over the last 20 years is just ludicrous. Under the last Government, the central grant to local authorities decreased by 40%. Real-terms school funding decreased by 9%. In that period, schools became the fourth emergency service as children’s social work, child protection and all the safeguarding systems around the child were absolutely decimated by austerity. Schools have become extremely good at identifying children in need of safeguarding and protection. They have become extremely good at providing information, support and training to their staff, and they did this very well at a time when the last Government were reducing real-terms support to schools. They have had to become experts in child safeguarding and child protection because the other services that should have been there to work with schools simply were not. Multi-agency professional teams, legally responsible for working with schools to support them to protect children, will strengthen child safeguarding and child protection. CPD, or professional development, is always helpful, but the idea that schools need extensive CPD on this, that they have not been doing this, and that it will be a new thing to them is, frankly, ridiculous.
Schools are facing a severe funding shortfall and may have to make redundancies. If the Government's target of 6,500 new teachers is a net figure, redundancies will push them off that target. Whatever the existing training level, participation in these new arrangements will have a cost, and that cost needs to be funded.Although I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, about schools becoming very good at child protection in recent years, there will be a cost to engaging in this activity. I support my noble friend Lord Agnew and his point about the cost for schools. All schools are facing a very severe funding shortfall, and I am concerned that they will have to make a lot of redundancies. None of us wants to see that but schools are telling me that it is the only way they will be able to balance their budgets. If the Government’s worthy target of getting 6,500 new teachers into the profession is a net figure of leavers and people coming into the profession, then redundancies will make them miss that target. I support the point about money being needed to support this activity.
Any child who has started school — their teachers know more about them than almost anyone except the parents, and in some cases more than the parents. Involving schools at the earliest possible moment is absolutely fundamental. Any amendment that supports that should be backed.My Lords, schools are absolutely fundamental to knowledge about children. For any child who has started at school, any of that child’s teachers are extremely likely to know more about the child than anybody else except the parents. In some cases, they know more than the parents. The idea that they are being looked at for the first time, as it appears is being said, is, as the noble Baroness said, ludicrous. I hope that the Minister will underline the importance of involving schools at the earliest possible moment. Any amendment that can help with that should be supported.
Norfolk County Council has to find another £40 million of savings and is facing reorganisation into unitary government. If a large county like Norfolk ends up with more than one unitary authority, what happens to safeguarding resources — will they be duplicated or spread thin? And if training for teachers and TAs isn't available from the local authority, where can they go to develop on their own initiative?My Lords, I was not going to speak in this group, but I want to add my support to my fellow Norfolk Peer and noble friend Lord Agnew and ask the Minister a question. We have talked about local authority resources and the pressure that local authorities are under. Norfolk County Council is the strategic authority and its competences include education, special needs, vulnerable children, et cetera. Its budget is under a great deal of pressure, as the Minister will know. Norfolk County Council said recently that it has to find another £40 million of savings. As we move towards unitary government, there are plans to bring in unitary government across Norfolk, which basically means getting rid of the districts and maybe replacing them with one unitary council, which would be Norfolk County Council, plus all the other competences. However, if we move to more than one unitary authority in a large county such as Norfolk, and maybe in counties such as Suffolk as well, and have possibly one or two unitaries replacing the county and the districts, what will happen in terms of the dissipation of resources going into this type of work with vulnerable children? Would they be spread between one or more authorities? What are going to be the consequences in terms of replication of services and cost pressures on those authorities, at a time when budgets are very tight anyway? The other question I have follows on from the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. If resources are not going to be made available, what possibilities are there going to be for teachers and TAs to get that extra training outside their local authority? If they want to enhance their career or widen their experience on their own initiative because there is nothing available for them in terms of provision within the authority, what can they do and who can they turn to to get that extra training?
- Schools already receive statutory safeguarding update training at induction and at least annually thereafter — as confirmed by a teacher I know personally who describes one inset day plus fortnightly briefing updates and half-termly CPD throughout the year. The education lead practitioner role will need additional training, and some of the extra funding available will support that. But the suggestion that this is a wholly new burden on schools misunderstands how far schools have already come.
In previous groups, I have spoken at some length about the purpose and functions of these new multi-agency child protection teams and how they will be delivered as part of the existing joint and equal duty on safeguarding partners to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children in their area. On Amendment 34, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, for his contribution on ensuring that teachers and teaching assistants have the right training to work effectively in child protection. Statutory guidance is clear that teaching staff should receive safeguarding training at induction and at least annually thereafter. My noble friend Lady Bousted was very clear about that position. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, was also very passionate about the need for schools to be involved in this issue, which is precisely why on Tuesday we debated the clause about education and childcare settings being key safeguarding partners, and the improved emphasis on that in this legislation. However, despite having this assurance, I decided in the spirit of the previous discussion that we were having that I would consult an expert about whether this is in fact the case. I consulted a teacher very close to me about the sort of training that he is receiving. He told me, “Every year, we receive statutory update training at the beginning of the year. This can take most of one of our inset days and requires us to read the updates for KCSIE”—Keeping Children Safe in Education—“guidance. Then we get update training through the year, every couple of weeks in briefing, and then about once a half-term in an after-school CPD”. He is an excellent teacher, although as his mother I am completely biased, and he is in a very good school. I think this makes the point about the current position in terms of training for teachers and teaching assistants. There is a reasonable point to be made about the education partners. Although they already have a responsibility for safeguarding, they wil…
- Can the Minister confirm: will the new duties in this Bill require additional training and cost beyond the excellent programme she has just described, or is all of that covered?
It was great to hear about the training that the Minister’s son gets—that is fantastic. Can we therefore take it that these new duties in the Bill will involve no additional training, and that everything is covered by the training that she eloquently set out? Alternatively, will there be additional costs or training implications? It would be interesting to know that. Obviously, there is an array, as she rightly pointed out, but does she foresee that there will be any additional requirements?
- Good training already exists, but the education lead practitioner role will need more. Some of the additional funding will support that. The broader point is that multi-agency child protection teams will enable existing partner resources to be spent more effectively at the moment that matters for a child.
Good training is already provided for teachers and teaching assistants, but my point was that the role of the education lead practitioner would both enable and need more training to be provided. I used the example of one of the pathfinders where that training had taken place. I suspect that, with those pathfinders, it would be appropriate if some of the additional money that had been made available contributed to that. I also made the point that it is already the case that statutory partners in safeguarding are providing resources for their safeguarding responsibilities. The point about multi-agency child protection teams is that they will enable that resource to be spent more effectively at the point when it will impact on children’s lives.
As a working teacher: inset days and ongoing CPD on Keeping Children Safe in Education already happen routinely. A practical request though: when the KCSIE guidance is updated, could it be published before the beginning of September, so schools can plan their inset days around the new guidance rather than the old?I add to the Minister’s son’s view that a lot of this training is already being done. As a working teacher, I note that we do inset days and online and offline CPD. As far as I remember, it is still a requirement of Ofsted that every teacher, when questioned, should have a working knowledge of Keeping Children Safe in Education. A plea that has oft been made to me is to ask the Minister—I have asked previous Ministers too—whether, when Keeping Children Safe in Education is updated, that could be done before the beginning of September, so that inset days can be planned with the new guidance rather than the old.
- That is a very fair point — if we want people trained and updated on KCSIE guidance at an inset day at the start of the school year, the guidance needs to be available in time. I will take that back to the department.
I am glad that the noble Lord reinforced my point—I think I am in big trouble with my son for having outed him in this debate. I am glad to hear that other excellent teachers have experienced this training. The noble Lord makes a very fair point. I will certainly go back to my colleagues in the department and say that, in reality, if we want people to be trained and updated on Keeping Children Safe in Education guidance, and if we expect that to happen at an inset day at the start of a school year, it would be a good idea if the guidance was there in time for them to be able to do that. That is a fair request.
- My concern about the information-sharing duty in Clause 4 is that it reads in isolation — as if a school has a concern, passes information to the local authority, and that's it. In practice, you need information-sharing protocols, a shared space to discuss what has been shared, and a process to agree what action to take. None of that is visible in the Bill. Who exactly is captured by new paragraph (c) of the duty — those undertaking functions on behalf of organisations with Section 11 duties? Can the Minister clarify? And what capacity will be needed on the ground?
My Lords, in moving Amendment 41, I shall speak to Amendments 45 and 46 in my name. I look forward the speech of my noble friend Lady Spielman, on her Amendment 69, and take this opportunity, on behalf of the Committee, to wish her a very happy birthday. As I set out in an earlier group, I hope that my prior experience in setting up information-sharing fora at scale in relation to high-risk domestic abuse will be useful as the Committee debates these important changes. My Amendment 41, as well as Amendment 42, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, would remove the duty to share information in relation to safeguarding welfare for the agencies referred to in new subsection (4), which include the statutory safeguarding partners—police, local authorities and health, education and childcare agencies, and any person who is doing work for either group. That could refer to, for example, an independent chair in a serious case review. Can the Minister be clear about who is intended to be covered by new paragraph (c)? My concerns about this part of the Bill are that it feels, when you read it, as if it is taking information-sharing in isolation. It seems to imagine a world where a relevant partner—let us say a school or a child-minding agency—has information that it is concerned about a child, which it passes on to the local authority, and then that is it. I know that that is not the Government’s intention, but I am trying to make sure that the Bill does what the Government intend it to do. In practice, you need information-sharing protocols, and a place where you can discuss the information that you have shared. The Minister earlier referred to Annie Hudson’s comments about people being in the same place. You also need to be together to agree what actions to take in relation to that information. I cannot see how any of that works in the Bill. The Minister may say that it is not for the Government to prescribe these things, but we have a lot here in regulation and guidanc…
Timely access to joined-up services is fundamental for good childhood outcomes. Too many serious case reviews have said that better data sharing is urgently needed — and Clause 4 takes a welcome step. We argued strongly for a single unique identifier during the passage of the Children and Families Act 2014 and the Health and Care Act. Implementation within this Parliament, as promised in the Government's manifesto, is paramount — please ensure this doesn't slip.My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 53 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Tyler of Enfield. It is designed to ensure timely implementation of the single unique identifier, otherwise known in the Bill as the consistent identifier. Timely access to high-quality and personalised education, health and social care services is fundamental for good childhood outcomes and reducing inequalities. Important information on children’s needs and outcomes is, as we know, held by many different services across health, local authorities, police, education and beyond, but so often these services have not communicated with each other and crucial parts of the jigsaw around a child’s life have not been fitted together by professionals interacting with the child. Sometimes that results in tragic cases, as the Minister mentioned earlier. Clause 4 inserts two new sections into the Children Act 2004 on information sharing. This includes a provision to introduce a consistent identifier for children, which is to be welcomed. Many Peers from around the House, including my noble friend Lady Tyler, argued strongly for the introduction of a single unique identifier for children during the passage of the Health and Care Act 2022, in which I also took part. We know that too many serious safeguarding case reviews—especially the heartbreaking and harrowing ones that hit the headlines—have said that better data sharing between services is urgently needed to properly safeguard children and improve their wider health and well-being outcomes. This very welcome clause is intended to provide a clearer legal basis for sharing information to promote the welfare of children and prevent them falling through the gaps. Through the introduction of this unique consistent identifier, it will be much easier to match records and share information confidently. Implementation within this Parliament of this crucial measure, as promised in the Government’s manifesto, is paramount. We cannot run the risk of it be…
- Every single serious case review points out failures in data sharing. Yet Clause 4 creates more structures and complexity, which could unintentionally take more resource and time away from front-line work. A common open data standard would be transformative — not just for sharing information about individual children, but for aggregating and analysing outcomes at population level. Every service working with vulnerable children uses a different proprietary system with no common data standard; that is what makes sharing genuinely hard even when there is a legal duty to share.
My Lords, Amendment 69 would make provision for a common open data standard for those with responsibilities for individual children. I will start with a couple of wider comments. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, as chief inspector at Ofsted, I reported each year, for many years, on the concerning shift of local authority spend into acute services and away from early help and targeted support. The reasons why that was happening seemed fairly simple: resources were constrained and these were the statutory services, so it was logical for local authorities to prioritise their spend on those. I was therefore surprised when the Minister cited this concerning shift as a reason for the changes proposed in the care review and in the Bill. There are potentially much simpler solutions, such as rebalancing the obligations or providing funding. Yet this Bill creates a lot of additional structures, duties and complexity, which could unintentionally take more resources and time away from front-line work, which I know everybody would like to prioritise. I would like to get more sense of the thinking as to how the Bill can enable all the players in an extremely complex system, rather than simply direct and control from the ministerial office. A particular missed opportunity is data and the value of a common open data standard to help facilitate sharing at individual level, but also to make it easier to aggregate and analyse. Every service working with vulnerable children has its own data system. Typically, a number of proprietary systems are available in each sector; each of those is set up and works in different ways. There are no common data standards for the bodies involved. This makes it genuinely hard. There have been obligations to share data between the different parties for very many years, yet every serious case review points out failures in data sharing, almost without exception. It is right that we have privacy by default, so it is a hard decision each time you de…
- At the Cleveland inquiry it was obvious that nobody was speaking to anybody — police, social workers, paediatricians, psychiatrists. Last month, a senior police officer told me that Peterborough local authority refused to speak to him about the issues he needed to discuss. That problem has not gone away. Whatever amendments are necessary, Clause 4 is essential and must be passed — nothing is more important than information sharing and adequate data.
My Lords, I cannot resist picking up on what the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said about the two children whose approach to education was so different. It happened exactly in my family. What I can tell noble Lords is that, as a parent, it makes life very interesting. I particularly support the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, and her Amendment 69. I also take this opportunity to strongly support Clause 4, and I will give two examples of its unbelievable importance. First, when I did the Cleveland child abuse inquiry, it was absolutely obvious that nobody was speaking to anybody—the police, social workers, paediatricians and the psychiatrists. Literally nobody was sharing information about anything. Okay, that was a very long time ago. However, I was very recently at a conference where we were discussing certain aspects of safeguarding. A senior police officer told me that he was trying to work with Peterborough local authority, which would not speak to him about the issues he wanted to discuss. I have wondered ever since what on earth I could say about it, so I am raising it here today. It was last month that I was being told that. The real problem is getting people to talk to each other. I understood and listened with great interest to the various problems that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, raised, but at the end of the day, what really matters is that Clause 4 be agreed to with whatever alterations are necessary, because nothing could be more important than these two things: information sharing and sensible, adequate data.
Of the approximately 12 million children in the UK, about 400,000 are in the social care system — far too many. Poor recording and sharing of information lies behind avoidable scandals and lets down children, young people and families. It also makes social services harder to recruit for and pushes them into firefighting instead of improving lives. Information sharing in a timely fashion is critical to any reform. We need to understand what will be in subordinate legislation and what standards will be required.My Lords, I am sorry not to have been able to speak at Second Reading, but I take a great interest in the effectiveness of public services and improving them where we can. I was sorry that there was not much discussion that day of the importance of information-sharing across agencies involved in social care, although the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, spoke about it, and we have of course heard eloquently today from the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, in introducing her amendment. Of the 12 million children in the UK, about 400,000 are in the social care system, which is far too many. History and avoidable scandals show that in this sector, poor recording and sharing of information, as well as, of course, poor follow-up, are sometimes responsible for failures in our care system, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has borne witness to that again today. This lets down children, young people and the families who are served, and it is bad for social services, which find it harder to recruit, and spend time fighting fires rather than improving people’s lives. As the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, has already said, intervention needs to be timely. The fallout from mistakes also increases the ever-rising cost of the system and delays essential appointments and training, so there needs to be much more success in getting things right first time and intervening early enough. All of that means the sharing of information in a timely fashion is critical to the reforms to social care. In scrutinising this Bill, we need to be sure that the system of data collection, use and aggregation to improve the system learns from the best, and we need to understand how much of that will be in subordinate legislation—a question my noble friend Lady Barran has already asked. I support Amendment 41 and other probing amendments in my noble friend’s name. She is rightly seeking answers to some important questions on consent, on the threshold for information recording…
- The duty to share and the discretion to withhold in the proposed new sections added by Clause 4 should depend on an objective test, not solely on the subjective view of the information holder. If the information is relevant, it should be disclosed; if disclosure would be more detrimental to the child than non-disclosure, it should not — but that judgment should be assessed objectively, not just by whatever the holder happens to think.
My Lords, I make just one point about the proposed new sections to be added by Clause 4 to the 2004 Act, as probed by these amendments. They would introduce an all-important duty to share information and, it should be noted, a discretion to withhold information. It is important to appreciate that, as drafted, the duty to share and the discretion not to share depend only, as I read it, on the subjective views of the person holding the information as to the relevance of that information to safeguarding or welfare and as to the potential detriment of disclosure. Those are crucial factors, but I question whether what happens or does not happen should depend solely on the subjective views of the information holder, which is what appears to be in the new section. I suggest it should be an objective test: if the information is relevant, it should be disclosed; if disclosure would be more detrimental to the child than non-disclosure, it should not be disclosed. Those decisions should not necessarily depend on what the individual information holder considers appropriate. Surely, the holder should be expected to apply an objective test when considering what is best for a vulnerable child.
- The Cabinet Office Evaluation Task Force has identified children's social care as one of its ten priority areas for improving data across government. If the department spoke to the Cabinet Office alongside pursuing the open data standard amendment, the reach of that work could be far greater.
My Lords, the Minister may mention this in her response to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s question about the data task force, but I just wanted to mention the Cabinet Office Evaluation Task Force, which is tasked with improving and addressing data across every area of government. Obviously, it cannot do that with every area of government, so it picked 10 priority areas, one of which is children’s social care. I mention it in the context of the excellent amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, because it could make a huge far-reaching difference. If it were to be looked at, then perhaps speaking to the Cabinet Office might be useful.
These clauses will be critically important for empowering information sharing — but an objective test for when to share may be impossible to draw cleanly. From my experience in general practice and paediatrics, there are often only shades of grey and an index of suspicion long before any objective evidence crystallises. The child dipped in boiling water — I was the admitting junior doctor. By the time there was objective evidence, things had been going wrong for a long time. Subsection (7) helps — it clarifies that sharing doesn't breach confidentiality obligations, so a clinician can document each encounter and build a picture without triggering the referral prematurely. Can the Minister explain how the documentation requirements interact with the practical reality of multiple encounters where concern is building but not yet confirmed?My Lords, briefly, these clauses are going to be incredibly important to empower information sharing, but I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for having raised so many of the practical concerns. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, has just asked for some objective criteria, but from my experience in general practice and, many years ago, in paediatrics, there did not seem to be a clear line very often—there were of shades of grey, an index of suspicion and a sense that something might not be right long before you could establish any objective evidence. The objective evidence sometimes came far too late. I will never forget a child who, 50 years ago, had been dipped in boiling water. I was the admitting person in the A&E department as a junior doctor, having only just started in paediatrics. There were children admitted with injuries, and then when we went into it, we discovered that things had been going wrong for a long time previously. Later on, when I was on the health authority for Gwent, we had some tragic cases there, which I cannot disclose details of, but one of the recurring themes was that people had not put together the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle or connected the dots to realise what was happening. So I worry that we will not ever be able to have absolute criteria; we have to allow discretion, which is what this amendment does. I note that subsection (7) of the new section states that: “A disclosure of information … does not breach any obligation of confidence owed by the person making the disclosure.” That is helpful, because, hopefully, you will see the person over and over again once you have an index of suspicion to try to ascertain what is going on before you trigger the referral, and the Bill says that each of those encounters must be documented. So you would document why you had not triggered at that point but you might trigger later. It would be really helpful if, when the Minister responds to this debate, she can outline the way that the system is…
- Since the 1945 inquiry into the death of Dennis O'Neill, poor information sharing has lain at the heart of serious child safeguarding failures. The new information-sharing duty in Clause 4 is a significant development — a legal obligation on relevant organisations to share information to safeguard children. New paragraph (c) of the duty covers those undertaking functions on behalf of organisations with Section 11 duties — for example, GPs working on behalf of NHS England. On consent: guidance will address this, including for situations where getting consent from a parent could itself put a child at risk. On open data standards: work is already under way with key bodies. On the objective versus subjective test: practitioners need to exercise professional judgment about what is relevant, and the Bill provides a clear legal basis for sharing when that judgment is made. A statutory duty to share — backed by statutory guidance on record keeping, supported by the ICO — is the right framework.
My Lords, since the very first inquiry into the tragic death of Dennis O’Neill in 1945, we have seen time and again that poor information sharing lies at the heart of serious child safeguarding failures. It is a persistent and deeply troubling issue, and if we are serious about protecting children, we must be serious about fixing this. I think there has been in this group of amendments with respect to this clause a pretty strong consensus around this House on that point. The introduction of an information-sharing duty in Clause 4 marks a step forward in that mission, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, identified why, despite there being some progress, there is nevertheless still a need for the clarity and the permission provided by the duty in the Bill. In speaking to the amendments, I recognise that they raise important questions about how we will make this legislation work in practice. I will attempt to respond to as many as possible, and where I do not, I will try to ensure that I provide that information later. Amendment 41 challenges the clarity and effectiveness of the duty to share information as set out in new Section 16LA. Let me be clear: as I have suggested, the new information-sharing duty is a significant development. It places a legal obligation on relevant organisations to share information to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. These organisations are already bound by a statutory duty to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children when exercising their functions. I think it might be at this point that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, asked who was captured in new Section 16LA(4)(c) of the information-sharing duty. New paragraph (c) relates to those relevant people undertaking functions on behalf of those organisations with Section 11 duties—so, for example, GPs who work on behalf of NHSE and other individuals relating to those organisations with Section 11 duties. It responds directly to fee…
- Reassuring to hear there will be user testing. The consent guidance will be genuinely hard — if a nursery is worried about neglect and getting consent from the parent risks the child's safety, there is no clean answer. On open data standards: could the Government give a clearer sense of timing? One of the biggest blocks to multi-agency work is how slow it is to get data out of different systems. The pandemic showed we can do these big data transformation projects quickly when we need to — attendance data has already been a game-changer.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her detailed response, and I look forward to her letter on some of the even more detailed points that I think deserve clarification. It was reassuring to hear her confirmation that there will be user testing going on, as she said. I wish her and colleagues in the department good luck with the consent guidance, because it is hard. If you are in a nursery and you are worried that a child is being neglected, getting consent from the parent is not a comfortable conversation, but not telling them and them finding out could put the child at greater risk. It always was hard and does not get any easier. On my noble friend Lady Spielman’s amendment on open data standards, it was good to hear the Minister’s response that work is going on in that area. Maybe in future debates we can get clarity about some sense of timing. Going back to the earlier debates on Clause 3, one of the biggest blocks to multi-agency work is just how slow it is to get data out of different systems to be able to share it. Can the Government do anything to smooth that along? I thought the experience of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe was extremely helpful in that regard. We have at least two examples—there may be more—of doing these big data transformation projects quickly when we need to. The first was the linking of primary and secondary healthcare data—not schools—during the pandemic, so that we could predict ICU bed capacity needs. The second is, as the Minister knows, my favourite: attendance data. That has been a game-changer and, happily, we are seeing attendance start to improve. I am glad to hear that the department is taking that seriously.
- What are the expectations on agencies — from the smallest childminder to the largest college — for recording information-sharing decisions, whether they share or decide not to share? Good record-keeping is essential but takes time and requires secure storage. Defensible decision-making — not defensive — is what we need. Will the Minister clarify what subsections (5) and (6) require and how that will work in serious case incident reviews?
My Lords, my Amendments 44, 47 and 48 all relate to the recording of information-sharing decisions, and they cover the two obvious situations: one where information is shared and one where it is not shared because the relevant person considers that sharing it would be more detrimental to the child than not sharing it. These amendments seek to clarify what the expectations are on all agencies, from the smallest childminder to the largest college, in terms of recording their decisions and the reasons for those decisions. Keeping good records is obviously essential but it takes time and requires secure storage and access rights. Good record-keeping can improve safeguarding situations; for example, where there are changes of staff or somebody is on holiday and a new or temporary member of staff may not know the history of the case. Similarly, an agency may decide not to share information at one point and then decide at a subsequent point that it is in the best interests of the child’s safety and welfare to do so. I would like to press the Minister on cases where the decision is made not to share information because of the fear that it would be detrimental to the child’s safety. As discussed earlier, we do not know what we do not know. So one piece of information might not seem overly worrying but, when pieced together with others, as we have discussed, the picture changes. Also, we need confidence that practitioners are considering these decisions with care. No one expects perfection in these areas but, rather, defensible not defensive decision-making. Will the Minister comment in this regard on subsections (5) and (6), which I assume will be clarified in regulations? Having a clear decision-making process, to record as simply as possible the decision taken and the reasons for it, will improve the quality of decision-making. In a serious case incident, by which I mean when a child is killed or seriously harmed, it will be vital, so I ask again: how is this going to work…
- Recording decisions is already built into non-statutory guidance on information sharing and the ICO's ten-step guide, as well as data protection legislation's accountability principle. The plan is to introduce statutory guidance on record keeping — agencies must have regard to it. This strikes the right balance: it ensures audit trails without being so prescriptive as to crush smaller organisations.
My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments in group six, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Amendments 44, 47 and 48 seek to require practitioners to keep records of decisions made when processing information under the new information-sharing duty. I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that documenting such decisions is important for the reasons that she outlined. This principle is already embedded in the non-statutory guidance Information Sharing: Guidance for Practitioners and Managers, as well as in the Information Commissioner’s Office’s A 10 Step Guide to Sharing Information to Safeguard Children, both of which promote clear and proportionate record keeping. In relation to the points that the noble Baroness made about smaller organisations having to carry this out, I shall read an extract from the non-statutory guidance that I think is helpful. It includes the advice: “Record the reasons for your information sharing decision, irrespective of whether or not you decide to share information. When another practitioner or organisation requests information from you, and you decide not to share it, be prepared to explain why you chose not to do so. Be willing to reconsider your decision if the requestor shares new information that might cause you to regard information you hold in a new light. When recording any decision, clearly set out the rationale and be prepared to explain your reasons if you are asked”. Furthermore, data protection legislation includes key principles such as lawfulness, transparency and, crucially, accountability, which require organisations to demonstrate compliance with data protection obligations. Our plan is, as the noble Baroness surmised, to introduce statutory guidance covering matters such as appropriate record keeping. Agencies must have regard to the guidance in discharging the duty, which further strengthens the position of recording decisions. We think this strikes the right balance by ensuring that audit t…
- Could the Minister show an example of the guidance already given to a childminder or small primary school? Thirty questions? An online form? Generation Z increasingly wants to engage digitally.
Could the Minister perhaps show us an example of the kind of guidance that is already given to a childminder or a small primary school? Presumably that is going to be enhanced—I think she said that earlier. Are there, say, 30 questions? Is it just a small form? Is there an online option? Generation Z, of course, is increasingly keen to report online.
- The non-statutory guidance already exists — Information Sharing: Advice for Practitioners — and the ICO publishes a 10 Step Guide to Sharing Information to Safeguard Children. I am sure they are 10 straightforward steps.
I did read an extract from the non-statutory guidance that already exists, Information Sharing: Advice for Practitioners Providing Safeguarding Services for Children, Young People, Parents and Carers. As I also said, there is the Information Commissioner’s Office’s A 10 Step Guide to Sharing Information to Safeguard Children. I am sure they are 10 straightforward steps.
Fifty-two years since Maria Colwell, thirty since Victoria Climbié, and the recent case of Sara Sharif — each time, lack of a shared case file and common identifier was part of the failure. In 2004 ContactPoint was legislated and then abandoned for privacy reasons. These amendments probe the consistent identifier in Clause 4: how will it work technically, what privacy and data security safeguards will apply, how will it interact with devolved systems, and what will regulations be permitted to specify?My Lords, in moving Amendment 50, tabled by my noble friends Lord Lucas, Lord Farmer and Lady Barran, I will speak also to the other amendments in this group: Amendments 54 to 60 and 62 to 63A. I list them at the outset because some of the same points apply in respect of several amendments. These amendments were tabled in the same spirit of probing and collaboration that has seen this House at its very best this afternoon. I pay tribute to the extremely experienced and knowledgeable voices we have heard, including from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and others across the House who unfortunately have departed but who shared their expertise of working in this area and with this challenge. It is reassuring to us all that we are united in support of data sharing—there appears to be no dispute on that—and the questions are about how we do it and how we make sure that it is easily accessible and safe. It was in that spirit that these amendments were tabled in respect of the consistent identifier. We would be very grateful to the Minister for her assistance in answering some of the questions they give rise to. It is 52 years since the country first woke up to the dangers of not sharing information, in the case of Maria Colwell. Her school, neighbours and social worker all had concerns, but they were not pieced together. Fifty-two years later, we are here in this House, in spite of the efforts of all parties in the other place to do their very best to find a way to data share at different times since. Thirty years later, the Victoria Climbié case highlighted the same, and we know that, recently, too, no common identifier and shared case file was the issue in the terrible case of Sara Sharif. However, there are problems with data sharing. In fact, the last time that noble Lords on the opposite Benches were in government, in 2004, the introduction of ContactPoint under the Children Act 2004 had to be abandoned for privacy reasons, to the great regret of al…
- These are exactly the practical questions that Committee is for. The structure to cope with the system's inevitable flaws matters more than perfection. I give fair warning: I will not move my amendment on the NHS number identifier later.
My Lords, these are probably the sorts of things that we should be doing in Committee. The noble Baroness introduced these amendments very well but I did, I am afraid—having known him for a long time—see the hand of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in them. It is definitely his style, as all those who have known him for a long time would say. These are definitely the sorts of questions that we need answered, about the practicality of what is going to happen. All systems will have their flaws, but this is about having the structure to cope with those flaws. Getting that through would be very valuable. To give fair warning, I will not move my amendment on the NHS number identifier later on.
We need clarity on the Government's intention in adding new Section 16LB to the Children Act 2004 — it would enable a far-reaching regime via secondary legislation that was previously abandoned in 2010. A single unique identifier would prevent children getting lost in systems, as happened with Victoria Climbié. But what qualitative, not just quantitative, data will be collected? And are subsections (5) and (14) of new Section 16LB at variance with each other — could the Minister comment?I support Amendment 50, as well as the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, who gives his apologies to your Lordships’ Committee, as he is unable to be here to speak to his own amendments. I do so in the spirit of my noble friend Lady Cash, because these are probing amendments by and large, from a position of broad support for the objectives that the Government have laid down in this part of the Bill. Nevertheless, they are amendments that seek clarity in respect of the proposals that the Government are putting forward. We need more information about the Government’s intention in adding new Section 16LB to the Children Act 2004. Such scrutiny is essential given that it would enable the Government to set in train a process that will be achieved through regulations—secondary legislation —but nevertheless is very far reaching and potentially re-establishes a regime that, as we have heard previously, was abolished in 2010 by the coalition Government for reasons that I will come on to. It is hard to disagree with the logic that a single unique identifier would prevent children getting lost in systems that are meant to keep them safe, for example, if they are known by different names or their names are not spelled correctly, as happened in the tragic case of Victoria Climbié. I absolutely concur with my noble friend: the name Maria Colwell and other tragic cases hang over someone like me, who served on a social services committee, and many social workers and other professionals over many years. Ensuring that children do not slip through the net or disappear without services knowing where they have gone is paramount, as so many appalling national scandals involving dead or desperately abused children have shown. It is appropriate that we look at the history and genesis of ContactPoint. It is important to be mindful of the need for qualitative data, not just quantitative data collection; there is a difference. Hence in 2003, in his report about the death o…
- The risks of data protection breaches, privacy violations and malicious use of the consistent identifier must be resolved before rollout. The cyberattack on the Legal Aid Agency is a live reminder. Will the Minister confirm whether the identifier has been tested with the smallest organisations — childminders and small primaries — in the Wigan pilot? And can she address Amendment 62 on accurate and secure data collection and storage?
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 59, ably introduced by my noble friend Lady Cash, and Amendment 62 in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer. The points made by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough about some of the risks with the consistent identifier are incredibly important to get right. Nearly all of us in this House support the introduction of a consistent identifier, but the points about data protection, privacy and malicious use that he raised, as well as a potential extension of scope, need to be resolved before it can be implemented safely at scale. My thinking behind probing Amendment 59 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lucas was to ask the Minister—if she can bear it at this stage of the afternoon—to run through again how we think this will work in practice for the smallest organisations. In the last group, she set out clearly the non-statutory guidance around balancing considerations and recording information. It sounds straightforward when read out like that, but, as we know, it is more complicated in real life. We are expecting those very small organisations to input and hold data on a consistent identifier in a way that is secure. I do not think previous speakers raised the risk of data hacking. We recently had concerns over the cyberattack on the legal aid database, where personal, sensitive information was stolen by the cyberhackers. Clearly, this is not the kind of thing that should happen with children’s data. What thought have the Minister and her team given to that? Can the Minister also confirm whether the use of the single unique identifier has been tested with all types of practitioner? I think she mentioned the pilot in Wigan, but does that include the smallest practitioners as well as the largest, and what practical implementation lessons can be learned from that? Amendment 62 in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer—who cannot be in his place today—which was very well introduced by my noble friend Lord Jac…
Will the Government consider publishing draft regulations during the Bill's passage, as my colleagues have asked? The child benefit data loss in 2007 and recent cyberattacks are a real and present danger. The loose drafting of this clause creates justifiable concerns — particularly on Amendment 54, which asks the Minister to give an example of a similar identifier of general application.My Lords, this has been an interesting and thought-provoking debate on an important topic: namely, how we use a unique identifier in the interests of safeguarding our children. Noble Lords have quite rightly raised some crucial questions for the Minister to answer, particularly relating to privacy and aiming to clarify His Majesty’s Government’s purpose in this clause. We hope that the Minister will be able to shed further light on both the specific and broader issues. I believe Amendment 56, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, and Amendment 63, in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer, are both important as they seek to outline what should be in future regulations. We are interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on these, and seek to clarify if the Government would consider publishing draft regulations during the passage of the Bill. Similarly, Amendment 62 in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer highlights the crucial issue of accurate and secure data collection, as well as the recording and storage of that data. I appreciate that technology has moved on, but many noble Lords will remember the child benefit data loss in 2007, the cyberattack and theft of data from the Legal Aid Agency only last week and the current disruptions from a cyberattack that one of our major high street retailers is facing. This is a real and present danger, which is only going to increase. The loose nature of the clause creates veritable and justifiable concerns. On more specific issues, we are particularly interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on Amendment 54 in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer. Can she please give the Committee an example of a similar set of identifiers that is of general application? We also look forward to the Minister’s response to Amendment 59, in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran, which would, if accepted, allow this project to move forward on a much lower risk and much more affordable basis.
- A consistent identifier for children is a manifesto commitment and a foundational step towards integrated, effective support. Without it, professionals rely on a patchwork of names, dates of birth and addresses that can change, be misspelt or be incomplete — slowing everything and increasing the risk of missing a child in danger. We have deliberately made provision through regulations rather than the Bill to preserve flexibility. There will not be a central database. Privacy-by-design is built in. The pilot in Wigan has been working with both large and small organisations. Amendment 50 would remove this provision — I understand the probing intent but cannot accept that. On ContactPoint: the lessons of that project are built into our design. On subsections (5) and (14): I will clarify in writing. On publication of draft regulations: I will reflect.
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in group 7, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Farmer and Lord Lucas, and ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Cash. There has been consensus, once again, on a consistent identifier for children, also referred to as a single unique identifier, which has long been recognised as a powerful tool to improve information sharing across agencies. It featured prominently in both the Children’s Commissioner’s Family Review and theIndependent Review of Children’s Social Care, which described its potential to “ensure that data can be easily, quickly and accurately linked”. The reality is that, without a consistent identifier, professionals are forced to rely on a patchwork of variable data—names, dates of birth, addresses—all of which can change, be misspelled or be incomplete, as has been pointed out. This not only slows down the process but increases the risk of mismatches and missed opportunities to intervene early. If we are serious about improving multi-agency working and safeguarding outcomes, then we must be equally serious about the infrastructure that underpins it. A consistent identifier is not a silver bullet, but it is a foundational step towards more integrated, responsive and effective support for children and families. I recognise the spirit in which the amendments have been proposed and I will answer almost all the questions—in fact, I will be more ambitious and say that I will answer all the questions in my response. Amendment 50 provides an opportunity for a broader —and welcome—discussion of the consistent identifier. This amendment, however, seeks to remove the provision for a consistent identifier for children, despite it being a clear manifesto commitment. I understand why that is the case. I say in response to that probing amendment that we have deliberately made provision for the specification of a consistent identifier through regulations, rather than in the Bill. This allows us the necessary flexibility to…
- How many wrong NHS numbers are there each year, and is there a viable, reliable process for correcting them?
I have a factual question. How many wrong NHS numbers are there each year, and is there a viable and reliable process for sorting them out?
- There are no publicly available figures on incorrect NHS numbers issued annually. If it is possible to find that out, I will let the noble Baroness know.
I thought I was doing quite well, but I am afraid that I do not have the answer to that. If it is possible to find it out, I will let the noble Baroness know.
- The Government have an unenviable but laudable task. The detail the Minister has given — particularly on engagement with medical professionals and the Information Commissioner — is extremely reassuring. I beg leave to withdraw.
My Lords, I thank the Minister profusely for the detailed response and thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. It has been a very helpful, probing debate and an opportunity for expression by so many experts of their concerns in this respect. I am grateful to the Minister for explaining in such detail the consideration already given to these matters, particularly by reference to the conversations that have been taking place with medical professionals and the Information Commissioner. That is extremely reassuring to know, and we hope that that will continue and will be helpful. The Government have an unenviable but laudable task ahead to implement this. I am sure I share the view of many of my noble friends in wishing them extremely strong success in achieving it, in the interests of all children and to safeguard against all future possible tragedies. The Minister will be grateful to know that I have nothing further to add, and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 50.
- This is an opportunity to confirm the Minister's earlier comments on using the NHS number as the consistent identifier. The Children's Commissioner and leading children's charities all support a consistent identifier that 'will enable a child to be identified with more confidence' across all information management systems. My amendment would put in the Bill that the identifier be the NHS number, rather than leaving it entirely to regulations — and would require a reasonable implementation timeline.
My Lords, my remarks on this group have shrunk somewhat, thanks to the Minister’s earlier reply, so this is really an opportunity for her to confirm and clarify some of her earlier comments in relation to the use of the NHS number, which is addressed through my Amendment 51, which I think shares the aims of Amendment 52, which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, presented in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, earlier. The context for considering this group of amendments is the long debate that has run for many years about whether there should be a consistent identifier for children and, if so, what that number should be. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, has campaigned on this very actively over many years, so I am sure she is here with us in spirit. I was very reassured to hear the Minister say that there would not be a database and therefore that we do not have to worry about some of the concerns surrounding ContactPoint and other similar projects today. As your Lordships’ House knows, the Children’s Commissioner and leading children’s charities all support this move and believe that a consistent identifier “will enable a child to be identified with more confidence” across the multiplicity of information management systems that we know exist and therefore allow information “to be shared more efficiently and securely when consent has been received or a safeguarding decision has been made to do so”. Rightly, the assumption in their statement is that is that information can be shared only with consent—or, to be fair, if a safeguarding decision has been made to do so, which implies that there is no consent. So obviously, this will apply in both cases. My amendment would do two things. First, it would put in the Bill that the consistent identifier would be a child’s NHS number. Many commentators on the Bill have said that it is important to do this rather than leaving it to regulations, and we need to be clear that the Government…
- There are no publicly available figures on incorrect NHS numbers. The Personal Demographics Service manages and corrects NHS number issues — duplicates, misassignments, demographic errors — but those numbers are not published.
Speaking as a Smith, I can say that those of us with very popular names recognise the point made by both the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston —although obviously not in quite the same way. Before starting, I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that there are no publicly available figures specifically detailing how many incorrect NHS numbers are issued annually. If there were, obviously I would have them at my fingertips. The Personal Demographics Service is responsible for managing and correcting NHS number issues, including duplicates, misassignments and demographic errors, but those numbers are not publicly available.
- The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has campaigned for a unique child identifier for a very long time. Please confirm that officials have involved the royal college in discussions — it represents the doctors who see some of the most severely damaged children and would want to be very helpful.
As the Minister was speaking, I was thinking that the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has been campaigning for this for a very long time. I hope that she will be able to confirm that her officials would have involved the royal college in any discussions over any difficulties and doubts, because I think it would want to be very helpful. It represents, of course, the group of doctors who end up seeing some of the most severely damaged children.
- I am pretty certain officials have already consulted the royal college — but if they have not, I give an undertaking that they will.
I am pretty certain that officials will have already consulted with the royal college, but, if they have not, I give the noble Baroness an undertaking that they will.
- The NHS number is the right choice — it moves with the child when they move area or register with a new GP, it persists across the devolved nations, and it is fixed in a way that names are not. Different hospitals have had different patient numbers and the resulting clinical muddles show exactly why we need one consistent number. Children with the highest risk have multiple addresses across cities — the NHS number follows them regardless.
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group and strongly congratulate the Government on having picked up the concept of a unique child identifier. I was part of the group, with the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, when we did not get there on previous legislation, and we were told that one reason was that the Department for Education could not see how it could do that and link with health, so seeing the Department for Education involved is particularly cheering. I will make a case quite strongly for the NHS number rather than anything else, partly because I think we need to learn lessons from other number systems. If we look just at hospital records, different hospitals have different numbers and then there is the NHS number, and that has resulted in all kinds of clinical muddles and potential errors. The other thing is that children move around. People do not stay in the same area all the time, and the NHS number moves with them. If they have one number and move to a new area and register with a GP, for example, and then go to register with a school, if there have been major concerns then eventually those case notes will come through and people will become aware. Going back to my previous experience, sometimes we found that the families with the highest risk had multiple addresses, out of town and in different cities. The other advantage is that, although we have devolved healthcare systems, we have a unique NHS number so, if people move between Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, that number will persist. That is not a central database; it is simply saying that the number is there. Children’s names change and their “known as” also changes. They may be known as another name but the number, a little like their genetic make-up, is fixed, which is really helpful. It will also avoid problems of lots of children having the same name, which is when muddles happen. I am from Wales, and we have a lot of people called David Jones and David Evans, and quite a few…
- I cannot help but recall dealing with the children of a man who had 11 sons by 11 different women — each insisted upon having his name. A unique identifier that does not depend on names is not an abstract policy point.
My Lords, I was not going to intervene but, after hearing my noble friend, I cannot help but recall having to deal with some of the children of a man who, on inquiry, had had 11 sons by 11 different women. Because he was the sort of man he was, he insisted that each of them had his name.
- The current legislation explicitly excludes research studies and evaluation from the mandated purposes of the consistent identifier. Using a single unique identifier across anonymised, linked datasets could transform our understanding of which children are at risk across cohorts, and evaluate which interventions actually work — without adding any material data-protection risk. This is not about a national database; it is about the power of properly anonymised, linked data in the hands of researchers and commissioners.
My Lords, I will be quick. In moving my Amendment 61, I put on record my thanks to Laura Anderson of the National Children’s Bureau, not only for her help on this amendment but for her heroic collating of the many briefings from the children’s charity sector for a group of interested Peers. We have talked about the SUI a lot. We know that information sharing is urgently needed—we do not need any more serious case reviews to tell us so. We know that when a child is interacting with many different services, it is important these services communicate with each other, particularly in the case of, for example, disabled children who may need the support of health services, as well as special education provision in their school, as was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff. A single unique identifier can mean a better, more joined up assessment of a child’s needs and a better understanding of the impact that services make on a child’s progress and development. However, this benefit should be considered not just for individual children but children as a population group. A more holistic view of children’s needs across the local area will lead to better commissioning. A more holistic view of children’s outcomes will ensure we can evaluate what interventions work best. Yet currently, the legislation explicitly excludes research studies and evaluation from the mandated purposes of the SUI. Using an SUI across anonymised, linked datasets could have a transformative effect on identifying risks across cohorts of children and conducting research about service impact. This would not add any considerable risk to children, as the legislation does not change or weaken any existing data protection but states explicitly that the duty to share information does not authorise or require the disclosure of information if the disclosure would contravene data protection legislation. The Government’s intention for the SUI appears focused solely on direct service provision. Howeve…
- The precedent of HDR UK — which anonymises health data consistently for research purposes — is directly relevant here. If the identifier can't be used for research, how will the Government gather aggregated data by NHS trust, social services area, education authority or medical condition? Aggregated group data is how we reduce future mistakes, target resources and improve efficiency.
My Lords, I very much hope that the NHS number works, so that we can get on with data sharing. When I spoke in an earlier group, I explained the importance of feedback loops in a successful organisation. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is about using the single unique data system to inform research and commissioning. I think he has a point. The precedent of government-supported HDR UK, which I spoke about in the earlier group, is highly relevant as we found a way to anonymise such data on a consistent basis for research purposes. Indeed, the Minister might find HDR UK a useful collaborator in speeding up her excellent work and avoiding Big Brother fears. We have heard that the single unique identifier will not be used to create a giant database. I am therefore interested in how the Government can gather aggregated data, for example by NHS trust, social service area, education authority, type of family or medical condition. Examination of such group data can reduce future mistakes and costs, target resources and improve efficiency—all the things that I tend to talk about—and make social services and the police more effective. So I would appreciate an answer about how this can be done if we are ruling out a database—by letter if need be, because it obviously goes slightly beyond the scope of the amendment. I am grateful for all the information that has been given today. It has been very reassuring.
- If we are spending significant money building this infrastructure and we have some of the world's best research facilities, it makes no sense not to use the data for longitudinal studies. And are subsections (5) and (14) of the new section at variance with each other? The noble Lord, Lord Hampton's amendment has exposed what looks like a drafting inconsistency.
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the very good amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. If we are spending significant amounts of money on collecting this data and building a database and we have some of the best research facilities in the world, it seems to be sensible when looking at longitudinal studies to utilise that data properly. My second and more prosaic point is that maybe I am missing something, but it seems to me that subsection (5) and subsection (14) are at variance with each other. They are quite loosely drafted in new Section 16LB. Will the Minister comment on that, because the great thing about the noble Lord’s amendment is that it has pointed out that there seems to be a discrepancy between the two subsections?
- Research does not require a national database — research ethics committees scrutinise every proposal, and representative samples of areas with properly anonymised data could be used today. We need to know which flags should become red flags, which do not correlate with harm despite the urban myth that they do, and what the best triggers for early intervention actually are. Good research gives us those answers.
My Lords, I shall briefly speak in support of these amendments and of research. We do not need to have a national database established in order to do research because, first, research has to go through research ethics committees, so that is carefully scrutinised. You could take a representative sample of areas and use properly anonymised data. We can do that now. We can anonymise properly rather than using the old-fashioned pseudo-anonymisation, which was not helpful. But in all these areas, I am afraid, we lack the evidence that we need to make sure that all our services are best targeted. When we are looking at very vulnerable children, we need to know which flags that are currently yellow flags should become red flags and which items do not show a correlation—although there has been an urban myth that they do correlate—so that the index of suspicion is appropriately targeted. To pick up on the point made by my noble friend earlier about having criteria, it is only through good research that we will get good criteria to determine the point at which we trigger an alert that a child is at risk and get that to happen earlier. It may well be that we are missing some important pointers just because they are not in people’s current consciousness, and there is a real danger in reacting to what I would call urban myths.
- This legislation sets when the consistent identifier must be used — it does not prevent it being used for research if that use is authorised under UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act. We recognise the potential benefits and officials are discussing this with key organisations. If additional benefits from research use are realised, we will be in a strong position to explore how to facilitate that. The priority now is safeguarding and welfare functions directly — the basis on which our pilot is testing implementation.
I hope I can provide some reassurance to noble Lords about this. Amendment 61 seeks to ensure that the consistent identifier could be used for research purposes. I understand the concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton—and I commend him for his persistence in sitting this long to move his amendment—that the provision may appear to limit the use of the consistent identifier for research, which many stakeholders, and many noble Lords today, have rightly highlighted as a potential benefit. However, to be clear, these measures make provision for the Secretary of State to specify which agencies must use the consistent identifier and in what circumstances. Importantly, this does not prevent a consistent identifier being used for research purposes, provided that any such use is authorised in accordance with data protection and other relevant legislation. We recognise the role of data in improving outcomes for babies, children and young people. As I say, this legislation is about when the consistent identifier must be used, rather than when it can be used, as regulations will mandate the number and the organisations required to use it. The consistent identifier could be used for research purposes, if this is authorised in accordance with UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act. We are aware of concerns around this, and officials are discussing this with key organisations. I hope that provides some assurance about the possibility of using the consistent identifier. We have, in this legislation, deliberately prioritised use of the consistent identifier to facilitate the exercise of safeguarding and welfare functions directly. That is the basis on which we are testing its implementation and benefits through our pilot programme. If additional benefits, such as those for research, are realised, we will be in a strong position to explore how this could be facilitated. For the reasons I have outlined, and with some of the reassurance that I have provided, I hope the noble Lord…
- We strongly support Amendment 61. Aggregated, anonymised data — cut by geography, family type, medical condition — would be invaluable for both practitioners and policymakers. If the open data standard work my noble friend Lady Spielman proposed were also pursued, that could achieve similar research and commissioning purposes.
My Lords, we on these Benches are very supportive of Amendment 61 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. Of course, there is detail to be worked out, although we have already heard some encouraging ways through about how to use this anonymised data in practice. Clearly, if it could be aggregated and anonymised in whatever cut—so to speak—that would help us interrogate it and get some answers to some of the systemic issues that exist in child safeguarding and welfare. We are interested in both parts of the noble Lord’s amendment: namely, research and commissioning. Having a better understanding of the patterns of safeguarding issues, which children are most likely to be affected and what works would be invaluable for practitioners and policymakers alike. As my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe said, understanding what does not work and where the glitches are in the system is equally valuable. The more transparency we have on these issues, the better the commissioning of services will be. This made me think back to my noble friend Lady Spielman’s Amendment 69 on open data standards, and I know the Minister said that work is going on in that regard. If that was successful, it could be shared for some of the same purposes as Amendment 61 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. I wonder whether that might be another way through, if the Government are unable to accept his amendment.
Child contact centres give approximately 20,000 children a year safe contact with the non-resident parent. They are patchy — especially in the north, where distances increase costs. A 2023 Ministry of Justice report commissioned under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 identified limited evidence of unaccredited centres but also found variable safeguarding standards. My amendment would require all child contact centres to be accredited as regards safeguarding and prevention of domestic abuse, and all staff to receive specific training.My Lords, I realise I am coming between noble Lords and the Whit Recess at this stage. Before I speak to Amendment 65, I declare my interest as patron of the National Association of Child Contact Centres and celebrate all the work it does. Amendment 65 is a probing amendment. I thank warmly the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady Burt of Solihull, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for kindly supporting the purposes and contents of this amendment. I believe that we benefit greatly from having a good number of and variety of facilities for child contact centres—places where, in the event of a breakdown in a relationship or a marriage, the absent parent or carer can spend time with their children in a safe and comfortable environment. There is a particular issue that we tried to address in a previous Bill, which I will come on to in a moment: effective safeguarding of adults and children, particularly from the risk of domestic abuse or harm. We benefit greatly from the network of child contact centres, but they are patchy. I pay particular attention to the fact that distances—especially in the north of England, where people have to travel further—increase the costs for parents and carers in reaching contact centres. These contact centres play a crucial role: they enable thousands of parents and carers to have contact with their children safely, and approximately 20,000 children are visited in this way each year. Their facilities are offered both in private law proceedings and by local authorities during public law proceedings. Amendment 65 is based very much on a report written in June 2023 and drafted from research into child contact centres in England by Cordis Bright, commissioned by the Ministry of Justice. This was required under Section 83(1) of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. I pay fulsome tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for moving the amendment so eloquently and vigorously during that Bill’s passage through the House of Lords.…
These proposals would ensure contact centres are adequately funded and staff and volunteers properly trained against domestic abuse. A greater exchange of learning and good practices across and beyond regions would also raise standards both here and abroad.My Lords, I support these very useful proposals, which, as my noble friend has just outlined, would ensure that child contact centres are adequately funded and their staff and volunteers properly trained to guard against domestic abuse. However, I would add a further recommendation, also made within the final report of the Ministry of Justice on research into safeguarding processes in child contact centres in England. This urges a greater exchange of learning and good practices, to improve consistency across contact centre procedures and policies. Child contact centres themselves can benefit from learning networks, across and beyond their region or local authority, by comparing notes on what is necessary and what works best, including not only the prescriptions of this proposed amendment but the advocacy of certain other proven expedients, whereby the spread of knowledge of their collective efficacy then serves to raise standards, both here and abroad.
- These centres are important for children from extremely disturbed backgrounds — contact with a non-resident parent, even where full custody isn't safe, is essential; otherwise children can grow up resenting the state for separating them. The problem is variability: some centres have excellent safeguarding standards, others have a lack of basic training. Courts struggle to identify safe and affordable contact arrangements. Before Report, could there be a conversation with the Government about whether the principles behind this amendment could be incorporated into the legislation, even if the current wording needs work?
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for her generous words. These centres are really important for children who have come from extremely disturbed backgrounds. One thing that they need to be able to do is to have contact with the parent with whom it is not safe for them to be in custody in another area. As they grow up, if they do not have that contact, they can end up feeling resentful towards the state, and that the state separated them from the parent, rather than understanding what happened. I will not go into the various cases and stories, but there are certainly quite a lot to illustrate that issue. The reason this amendment is important is that we know that there is a lack of basic safeguarding training in some contact centres; in others, it is at an extremely high standard. There is variability of practice around picking up and escalating concerns, and challenges are faced by the courts in identifying safe and affordable contact arrangements. As has already been alluded to, the harm panel report of 2020 highlighted that child contact centres have a role. I could speak for a long time about them, but I will not. I hope that the amendment speaks for itself, and that we might be able to have some conversations beyond Committee and before Report about whether there is some way that the Government would like to incorporate in the legislation the principles behind this amendment, accepting that they may not like the wording as it is on the page at the moment.
- Inspection need not be the heavy-handed process the noble Earl of Effingham fears. A concerned parent will look up the contact centre on its website before their first visit; grandparents and aunts and uncles who are worried about a tragic family situation will check the standards — and they will spot if standards are not being met. That kind of informal oversight, combined with a legislative standard, is how quality can be ensured without a full formal inspection regime.
I slightly question the noble Lord’s assumption that inspection would be required at the level that he has outlined. Very often, you have a very caring parent who is extremely worried about the welfare of their child or children, who is then having contact with another parent about whom there has been a great deal of concern. If that very caring parent finds that the contact centre to which they have been referred has not had mandatory training—and I would expect them, in this day and age, to look up on the internet details about the contact centre on its website—they are likely to raise a complaint early, and waiting until there is a formal inspection may be too late. The problem is that, if we do not require training and set some standards, it becomes extremely difficult for a court determining what is to happen to a child to be able to go in-depth and know whether its recommendation and judgment are going to be in the best interests of the child. So I respectfully slightly challenge the noble Lord over that and suggest that other people, such as grandparents and aunts and uncles, who are very concerned too about what will have been a tragic situation in their family, would be very likely to check out whichever contact centre it is and would want to know the standards that should be there—because they can see whether they are happening or not. A bit like the Care Quality Commission doing spot checks on hospitals, that is how they will get the data: not through a formal inspection. So identification of problems could emerge if this is written into the Bill.
- I take the noble Baroness's point on inspection — and I note that according to the NACCC website, DBS checking and provision is already in place. We are having this discussion precisely to get everyone's views aired.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her intervention and contribution. It was very interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Meston, say that a lot, if not all, of the contact centres are accredited. According to the NACCC website, there is DBS checking and there is provision in place. I take on board what the noble Baroness is saying, and that is why we are having this discussion—to get everyone’s views aired and come to an agreement.
- My understanding is that accreditation by the national association lasts for three years.
My Lords, just to add to what has just been said, my understanding is that accreditation depends on the centre having been approved by the national association, and that accreditation lasts, I think, for three years.
- What we are asking for is proper training and management — specifically so that in cases of domestic abuse presenting at a contact centre (perhaps only one a year, but that matters), volunteers will know how to manage the situation safely. This is not about inspection fees; it is about giving volunteers the confidence to act.
On a point of clarification, I can confirm to my noble friend that what we are asking for, and what we asked for in the earlier amendment, is proper training and management, so that in those cases—perhaps only one a year, but to me that is sufficiently important—of domestic abuse that present to a child contact centre, the volunteers will be properly trained and will be able to manage the situation. It is not a case of inspection and increasing fees; it is giving them the confidence so that they know how to deal with that situation.
- There is absolute agreement that contact centres must be able to safeguard in domestic abuse situations. The question is whether that requires Secretary of State regulation and accreditation in the way the amendment proposes. The NACCC already accredits centres to national standards covering risk assessments, safeguarding and children's voices; the 2023 MoJ report found limited evidence of unaccredited centres. Since that review, the Ministry of Justice has worked with the NACCC to consider further action. The commitment to ensuring that all families, however they access contact centres, receive a safe experience is there — the question is the most appropriate legislative mechanism.
That last intervention from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, was very interesting and useful in helping us through this amendment. There is absolute agreement about the need for contact centres, given the very important work that all noble Lords recognise they have done, also to be able to safeguard in the sorts of circumstances that she outlined. The question is whether that is most appropriately done through the provisions in this amendment, which would require all child contact centres to be nationally accredited and regulated by the Secretary of State and all staff to undertake specific training on safeguarding and domestic abuse. I hope I can provide some reassurance and outline why it is not necessary in this case for the Secretary of State to undertake the regulation and accreditation in the way that the amendment—if not the way it has been introduced—suggests. We recognise the enormous importance of child contact centres in enabling children to spend time with a non-resident parent in a safe environment and the important work of the National Association of Child Contact Centres, which accredits centres across England and Wales and ensures high standards among its members via its national standards, which cover points such as risk assessments, safeguarding and hearing the voices of children. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, identified, Research into Safeguarding Processes in Child Contact Centres in England, commissioned by the Ministry of Justice and completed in 2023, identified limited evidence of unaccredited centres. In other words, most centres are accredited by the National Association of Child Contact Centres. Here we come to the crux of whether there are ways of ensuring that children can be safeguarded in those circumstances. Since the 2023 review and report on child contact centres, which some noble Lords have referenced, the Ministry of Justice has worked with the National Association of Child Contact Centres to consider where action can be taken…
- The key point is not accreditation per se — it's the evidence. Lord Wolfson felt that evidence wasn't available at the time of the Domestic Abuse Act; the Cordis Bright report now provides it, showing cases of coercion that are not being sufficiently addressed by all contact centres. We want all centres — public and private — to work to the same standards. A short meeting between the amendment's authors and the Minister would allow us to find wording that achieves that in the Bill.
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken—my noble friend Lord Dundee, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston—and for the support of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in her absence. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, put her finger on it: it is not so much the accreditation. I am very aware of the protocol, which is a great step forward, and I would like the Bill to reflect where we are in that protocol. It would be extremely helpful to have a very short meeting between the authors of the amendment and the Minister, because it is not so much the accreditation as the fact that her predecessor, my noble friend Lord Wolfson, felt that the evidence was not available at the time of the Domestic Abuse Act. The beauty of the Cordis Bright report is that we now have evidence of the cases involving coercion and other forms of domestic abuse. We do not think that this is necessarily being sufficiently catered for by all the contact centres. We want them all to work to the same standards, whether they are a private or a public facility, and I would like to have the opportunity to take that forward with the Minister. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, indicated, the wording that I have come up with might not be the most sophisticated—so it will be a wonderful opportunity to have that meeting so that we can reach agreement and have that in the Bill. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
- Accredited contact centres are safe, neutral places providing both supported and supervised contact — that distinction matters. These provisions are admirable and should be incorporated into the legislation.
My Lords, I would like the Government to incorporate the wording of this amendment into the legislation—it seems admirable. I am asked by my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss to indicate her support for it as well. Accredited child contact centres are safe, neutral places providing for both supported contact and supervised contact arrangements—that is an important distinction. They allow children in separated families to see and enjoy contact with the non-resident parent and sometimes other family members.
- Child contact centres do integral work — allowing parents to see their children safely, sometimes reconnecting following long periods of no contact. Most are under the National Association of Child Contact Centres umbrella. We are concerned about the ongoing cost of additional accreditation requirements and inspections on charities already under pressure from national insurance increases, but we respect the views of noble Lords and agree these centres should be safe.
My Lords, this has been a valuable discussion, and I thank all noble Lords for their insightful and knowledgeable contributions. Child contact centres do indeed play an integral role in allowing parents to see their child in a safe environment for both parties involved. They allow parents not only to see their children, which is precious, but can act as a service to reconnect following significant time with no contact. Wherever safe and possible, parents should be able to see their children, and child contact centres allow this to happen. Amendment 65 seeks to introduce regulations on child contact centres to ensure that they are accredited as regards safeguarding and prevention of domestic abuse. Child contact centres appear to be mostly under the umbrella organisation, the National Association of Child Contact Centres. This is a charitable organisation and, while these regulations appear sensible, we are concerned about the ongoing cost of implementation and structure. It would require inspections to take place, which would be a further financial burden, requiring additional staff to ensure compliance with these standards. We know that charities are already under pressure from increased national insurance contributions. Of course, we respect the views of the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh, Lady Finlay and Lady Burt, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and we absolutely agree that these child centres should operate as a safe and enjoyable place for children to play, but we believe that this amendment has the potential to act as a regulatory burden on those very charities that are providing the service.