Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Lords Chamber

Committee (2nd Day)

Relevant document: 21st Report from the Delegated Powers Committee

12:37

Clause 3: Multi-agency child protection teams for local authority areas

Amendment 29

Moved by

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley]

29: Clause 3, page 3, leave out lines 25 and 26
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to clarify what support the Secretary of State will require multi-agency partners to offer.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

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 safeguarding budgets will not be reduced. There is no additional funding to achieve this. What happens if health and police cannot provide staff for the MACPTs? Where does the buck stop? Many believe that the requirement for MACPTs should be removed from the legislation or that it should be made that they can decide locally how these services will operate.

Amendment 29 seeks to clarify

“what support the Secretary of State will require multi-agency partners to offer”.

There was a conversation here on Tuesday evening about the role of schools, ably led by my noble friend Lady Spielman. Will the Secretary of State be mandating what the partners are responsible for? We know of the discussions about budgets. Will the Secretary of State be determining that money should be ring-fenced, and who will determine what partners are responsible? Health and police are named, education seems to be in question, but there are others that will potentially have a role as well.

Amendment 31 looks to ensure that there is an effective multi-agency team. We are all aware of the need for consistency of involvement in safeguarding. An effective multi-agency team will need to have consistent involvement. There will need to be ownership of involvement, and attendance or participation will need to be assured.

Amendments 39 and 40 seek to clarify how cases that cross local authority borders will be managed. These amendments are clear. It would be good to understand how issues that straddle local authority borders will be managed and where the responsibility lies, because we all know that our borders are porous. I beg to move.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

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.

12:45

The second point is that the police are independent in the operation of their powers. They are not under the control of a local authority or the Government. They are not even under the control of a chief constable, as I discovered on many occasions, because they have discretion under the law. They are held to account by the law in a court, at times. So they can exercise their discretion according to law.

What concerns me about this proposal is that it appears that the police are moving under the auspices of the local authority. I know that there are some great people here from local authorities—I do not judge them at all—but sometimes that independence is vital. This is not because the control of a local authority is inherently bad, but sometimes the police have to investigate local authorities. They have to be separate, and they have to be clear, as they might actually have to investigate a local authority about the care of a child. Therefore, to bring them into the team is dangerous and could confuse that accountability. They can make arrests, they can do searches, and they can search for evidence, but I do not think it is wise to bring them under the control of this team, and I would be really worried if that should happen.

I have a further concern, which the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, has just touched on. There have been pilots of a form of team around the country—I think there are 10 of them—but the evaluation of that has yet to be published. What is not at all clear is that all the pilots are the same. Certainly, my experience has been that where we have multiple pilots of different things but think they are the same, we sometimes come to the wrong conclusions in the evaluation. So we need to see that evaluation.

Some may say that even if they are different pilots, they may draw fundamental points that would inform the principles of how these teams perform in the future. If that is the case, that would be concerning to me. There ought to be a clear model that has been tested and, if it works, we would of course all want to hear that evidence. But we have not heard it, and in such a radical change—well-intended as it is—it ought to be the case that these evaluations are published before this decision is made, rather than afterwards. The Government ought to explain before the Bill reaches the statute book how that is going to be taken into consideration, if there are enough concerns about how it might develop in the future. Well-intended though it is, I have more questions than I have agreement with the proposal as it stands.

[Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)]

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 understand their needs.

Amendments 32 and 35, when taken together, would provide an acknowledgement of the necessity for a member of the specialist health team involved in the provision of care for the child—someone who understands the condition and has the sector experience to understand what is possible—to be involved in the multi-disciplinary child protection teams, to ensure that these teams are assessing all the possible options.

The persons referred to in new subsection (3) relating to the provision of health who are to be involved in the multi-disciplinary child protection teams are only defined in new subsection (4)(c) as

“a registered health professional, nominated by an integrated care board for an area any part of which falls within the area of the local authority, with experience in the provision of healthcare in relation to children”.

Therefore, the health professional, nominated by the board, could be the same person who represents the health board for all the MDCPT assessments. The text does not specify that they have to know anything about the child, the health prognosis of the condition, the services and interventions that might be best for the child or whether they are—or are not—available in any one particular local authority area, nor be able to form a qualified view of the potential of the child, based on specialist experience of children with disabilities.

In Scotland, children with profound disabilities have a nominated “lead health professional” who is responsible for co-ordinating relevant, cross-sector, multi-disciplinary services and liaising with parents to take responsibility for ensuring that the needs of the child are met. Sometimes these needs, as the Committee might imagine, can be quite specific and technical; for example, when dealing with specialist resources for communication, assistive technology and mobility needs, particularly for children with complex disabilities. This lead health professional, who has practical knowledge of the individual child’s circumstances and health condition, would therefore always be included in a multi-disciplinary team discussion. It would not be left just to a representative of the health board, or a generic paediatric clinician.

Only recently, in her letter to the Times, Professor Eileen Munro warned against shifting child protection responsibilities to less-qualified staff. I therefore urge the Minister to accept—or at least to think about—these amendments, which outline the importance of including a member of the children’s disability team, someone who knows the condition or conditions, and not just a generic professional who ticks the boxes specified in the current text referring to the persons referred to in new subsection (3)(a).

Guaranteeing the right representation on these teams will go a long way to ensuring that assessments are likely to be safer, that children at risk have swift access to the resources they require and, where local areas lack appropriate provision and/or expertise, that there is a voice of knowledge to ensure there is no fear of commissioning, a voice that can work with other specialist providers in the best interests of the child.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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 for the work? How can we share information legally? How does information sharing translate into action planning? How do you involve the family? These and many other issues are so important to get right, and we will explore them in more detail in the debates on the other amendments to Clause 3.

My Amendment 36 simply seeks to understand how the Government expect the new statutory multi-agency child protection teams will interact with existing multi-agency work, particularly the multi-agency safeguarding hubs—the MASH teams. There are so many acronyms in this world; I saw that the department has even snuck in a new one: MASA. Who knew what MASA was? Nevertheless, it is in the documentation. The MASH teams, which are now pretty much universal around the country, are not statutory. Some are great, but some are less so. How does this team interact with the multi-agency risk assessment conferences for high-risk domestic abuse or the multi-agency public protection arrangements for high-risk perpetrators? In a world where resources are tight, we need to avoid duplication.

Equally, however, we know that non-statutory agencies—the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, who is in her place, knows this extremely well from her work outside the House—at the very least bring different information to multi-agency work. Frequently, they are really trusted and can build relationships with families that can be harder for statutory agencies, with the powers that they hold. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out how she expects the multi-agency child protection teams to work in practice with the MASHs, the MARACs, the MAPPAs and any other organisation that has an acronym beginning with an “M”.

I will pick up on the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady O’Neill. My key question about Amendments 29 and 31 is: can the Minister say how she expects that the involvement of partners, both statutory and non-statutory, will be funded? What we hear from the pathfinders is that it is very difficult to get other agencies outside the local authorities to participate in the teams, and that some of the extra funding the pathfinders have been given has gone to funding police officers to attend a multi-agency child protection team, which in my world feels like a very odd thing for the local authority to do. I assume that the Minister does not believe that that is a sustainable model, let alone for non-statutory agencies, where, all too often, we rely on their good will and do not acknowledge the pressures on their budgets.

I am also very interested to hear the Minister’s reply in relation to Amendments 39 and 40, which deal with cases across local authority borders. She will know that, for vulnerable families, that happens all too often—one parent lives in one local authority and the other parent lives in another; the family are moved from temporary housing in one local authority to temporary housing in another; or a child lives in one local authority but is being groomed by a gang in another. I think I am right in saying that a contributing factor in the tragic case of Sara Sharif was that she moved local authorities but the understanding of the degree of harm she faced did not move with her.

13:00

The language in the Bill, which includes discussion about child protection teams working only in their local authority area, really worries me. I absolutely support my noble friend’s Amendment 40, which replaces it with a clear statement about the cross-border responsibilities of local authorities in this area.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

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.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

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 is that safeguarding is everybody’s responsibility. You might then end up with them thinking, “It’s not my responsibility”: it is kind of like the blue light service over there, which is the child protection team. We could lose inadvertently. No one is deliberately trying to make our child protection arrangements less effective, but I do worry about the cultural loss of everybody seeing it as their responsibility, in the family help team and through into the social workers. So I ask the Minister: why not wait until you have done your local government reorganisation and do this afterwards, or maybe do it at the same time, because for the staff this is an awful lot of change in various departments of our local authorities?

[Lord Meston (CB)]

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.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

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.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

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 social workers will be working in the most difficult area. We are clear that a fully qualified social worker will be responsible within the multi-agency child protection team. Equally, in family help, where the worker is dealing with a child about which there are child protection concerns, that will also be a fully qualified social worker.

On the detail of this and how we got here in the first place, as many noble Lords have said, both today and in other debates on the Bill, nothing is more important than keeping children safe. Ineffective multi-agency working is a key factor where child protection activity fails, and, despite existing legislation, day-to-day operations can be inconsistent and ineffective. In its review, the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel found that inexperienced practitioners, ineffective multi-agency working and poor information-sharing within and between agencies results in missed opportunities to protect children. As I said, this is a situation I am sure all of us are keen to improve.

Often, several practitioners have information about a child and their family but the lack of joint working means that vital opportunities are missed to protect children from serious harm—for example, the GP treating a parent for their substance misuse, the school that notices a child arriving unwashed and unfed, and the police involved in call-outs for domestic abuse. But no one has the whole picture of the day-to-day life of the child. Early results from the 10 local area pathfinders for Families First—a programme that, as we discussed on Tuesday, is embedding family help, multi-agency child protection and family group decision-making in a single integrated system—demonstrate better management of complex issues, reducing crisis points and enabling quicker, effective interventions where children need protection.

I hear again the calls for publishing the first part of the pathfinders evaluation, which I wholly understand. I hope, even if it is slightly later than spring, that it will be available—I know it will be available for the development of these teams. But we are not even waiting for that. We are using already the experiences of those who are going through the pathfinders to help support practice in other local authority areas, through webinars and through the opportunity to share not just good practice but the challenges they are finding. The fact that some pathfinders are finding some things difficult is precisely the point of having a pathfinder: so that you can work out what works, where you might need to change things, how you are going to operationalise it and what additional support might be needed.

13:15

Through the Bill we will establish multi-agency child protection teams in every local authority area, which is a plan that responds directly to recommendations made by the national Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel. These teams will help to ensure that a lack of join-up between services is not one of the reasons why a child dies or is seriously harmed. Once again today, some noble Lords have called for us to delay this. Arguably, too much time has passed during which people understood the problem, but the necessary change was not made. That is not to say that I do not believe there will be challenges, but the sooner we start, the sooner we will be able to overcome those challenges and put in place a system that is better for and safer for children.

I was very pleased that, at the moment when the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, was making a point about local authority reorganisation, my noble friend Lady Taylor was sitting next to me. She reassured me that there is already such a provision in the plans for local authority reorganisation, and great care is being taken to make sure that while long-term reorganisation is going on, short-term transition and activities are also clearly being carried out and planned for. Although some people might always wish for a period of calm in which to make any change, I am afraid that, in my getting on for 40 years in a whole range of child-related public services, there has never been a period when everything has been calm and unchanging and you could therefore safely and easily introduce a change. So I am not convinced that waiting would best serve children or all the professionals working in these areas at this point.

Amendment 29, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, concerns the type of support the Secretary of State will require multi-agency child protection teams to provide to the local authority by regulations. I want to reassure noble Lords that this power is strictly limited to the provision of support related to the local authority’s discharge of its duties under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989—in other words, the child protection provisions—and that the regulations this amendment seeks to remove are subject to scrutiny under the affirmative procedure. In addition, the support and operational functions of these new teams will be set out in regulations following a consultation informed by input from sector experts, safeguarding partners and evidence, as I have said, from the Families First Partnership programme.

Turning to Amendment 31, on the membership of the multi-agency child protection teams, I think that here, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, was referring to the group of relevant agencies that are required to support and co-operate with safeguarding partners when it comes to safeguarding and protecting children. The Bill is clear that there will be a core compulsory membership of each of the teams—a police officer, a social worker, and people with experience in education and health—and those from education and health will have to have experience of working with children. When we consider later amendments, we will talk about the qualifications that might be necessary in this area.

Section 16E of the Children Act 2004 already allows safeguarding partners to determine which relevant agencies—those other than the core members that I have outlined—should be included in safeguarding arrangements, and, under Section 16G, such relevant agencies must act in accordance with these arrangements. The new duty and regulations acknowledge the arrangements that some of these agencies may enter into in supporting local multi-agency child protection teams to respond to local demographics, needs and harms.

You could imagine, could you not, that in certain areas, or at certain times, the core team may well decide that it has a particular need to draw on the expertise of other agencies. For example, in Warwickshire, multi-agency working on child protection has been strengthened by collocation with probation and youth justice teams. The regulations will designate the relevant agencies that can be required to work with the safeguarding partners to support the teams, and then the partners will be able to identify from that list the relevant agencies appropriate for their local area and enter into a memorandum with them. We are confident that setting out agencies in regulations achieves the intention of this amendment while maintaining flexibility in local delivery.

I respond to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who obviously, as I know from personal experience, has considerable knowledge and experience in the leadership of policing. Where, however, I disagree with him is in his suggestion—I do not think he quite meant it like this—that there is no role for policing in safeguarding and protecting children. I do not think that was what he meant. Therefore, it is wholly right to consider that, in order to build that whole picture of children, you would want and need to have police officers with a particular expertise in that type of work. My recent experience in children’s social care was in the West Midlands, where the police determined that certain police officers would take a specific responsibility around child protection. I understand that different forces might want to have different ways of responding to that, but that may well be a way that police forces will respond.

On the point about accountability, which I agree with the noble Lord is important, while we are saying that there has to be representation from the police in the new team, they will remain linked to their force. The local authority will not have any authority over them. The police person is there to provide the team with the information that they have. For example, if they have been called out on a domestic abuse call or to child criminal exploitation, they are there to help the social worker and team come to the right decision for the child. I have to say that I would have thought that for policing, as for other agencies, getting the decision right for the child at this absolutely critical moment is, frankly—although this is not the primary reason for doing it—likely to prevent further work and, more importantly, prevent damage to that child further down the track, so it feels like a worthwhile activity to me.

There is no change in accountability between the local authority—

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

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 intervention. They are the two core issues: basically, did kids get protected more by getting hurt less, and can we prove it? The rest, I am afraid, is a bit soft, in my view.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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, there is more investment for this initiative that the Government have put in place, but I would also, as I think I have been saying, be clear to policing that this is part of their responsibility. In very many police forces, they are recognising that the multi-agency child protection team enables that to be as effective as possible in the way in which it is put together.

Turning to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, and spoken to today by the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, which seek to include social workers with expertise in working with children with disabilities in the multi-agency teams, I absolutely agree that the teams should be equipped to identify, understand and respond effectively to all children and their families. I reassure the noble Baroness that there is, as I was describing earlier, already sufficient flexibility for safeguarding partners to determine which social work and health practitioners are most suited to work in these teams. I could imagine that there would be times when it would be appropriate to have a social worker or a health worker with expertise in disability involved.

The point is that it is important to determine in the legislation, as this Bill does, who the key, compulsory members of the team are, then to have in regulations the other agencies that could be called on to support the multi-agency child protection team. It is just not appropriate to list in the legislation every single agency or worker who might potentially be involved, but that does not mean that they are not important.

13:30

However, I recognise that disabled children and those with special educational needs have particular vulnerabilities. With that in mind, it is also worth noting that the statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, was strengthened in 2023 to recognise the specific needs of disabled children and emphasise a whole-family approach to support and services. The noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, also touched on the wider concern around special educational needs and disabilities in education. I assure her that this Government are very seized of the enormously difficult position in which the SEND system finds itself at the moment. We have already increased investment and, having worked with parents and others, will certainly come forward with reforms to help us to ensure that this system works better. Frankly, it is not working well enough for families, children or their parents at the moment.

Amendment 36, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks express confirmation that these teams have regard to existing multi-agency arrangements. She is right that there is a complex set of arrangements in children’s social care, and it is important that we are clear about how these new multi-agency teams will fit with the other arrangements that she outlined. The integration of those teams working across the safeguarding system is essential.

However, as I suggested earlier, this duty is clear that new child protection teams will be distinct from other existing arrangements, because they specifically support local authorities to deliver their Section 47 duties under the Children Act. In other words, they are focused on child protection. They will bring expert, multi-agency focus to child protection concerns and swift intervention where needed—a sharp and fresh focus when a concern is raised about significant harm. The point is that, within this specific area of child protection, there is no multi-agency team at the moment.

I recognise the noble Baroness’s previous experience, as well as her knowledge from ministerial life and in this place, but she will understand that the day-to-day operational detail will, first, be worked up in the light of consultation with pathfinders and others on the way that this will best work and, secondly, be set down in regulations and guidance, enabling local flexibility in how these new teams fit within existing local multi-agency child and adult safeguarding systems.

Amendments 39 and 40 are in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. She and other noble Lords rightly wanted clarity on how areas will work together across local authority boundaries and make sure that they do not lose sight of any child who needs protection from harm. I recognise, as several noble Lords did, that working across boundaries may often be the most effective way to deliver this service.

The Children Act 2004 allows safeguarding partners to combine for the purpose of delivering safeguarding in a local area. In future, this will include the running of new multi-agency child protection teams, but accountability is important here. These teams’ primary focus is the children who are the subject of the child protection concerns. We know from national and local reviews that clarity about agency responsibilities for individual children who need protection prevents serious harm.

Provisions in Clause 3 allow flexibility for safeguarding partners to combine for the purposes of multi-agency child protection teams, but they require that the social worker and the education practitioner nominated by the local authority to work in these teams can do so only in relation to the local authority area that nominated them. This is the right approach to take for the children and, importantly, it ensures that the local authority with statutory responsibility for the child continues to be accountable for that child, even where the team covers more than one local authority. We do not want to change this and risk children slipping between the cracks.

However, I stress that this, as I have suggested, does not prevent collaboration or consultation with other local authority areas on decision-making or information sharing, not least because of the examples that noble Lords used. It also does not prevent more than one local authority being included in a combined multi-agency team; it just prevents any confusion about accountability for individual children, which is clear.

I hope noble Lords are reassured that we have considered the functions, flexibilities and expertise of these teams carefully. We will continue to consider them as we learn from the pathfinders and from our engagement, and as we develop the regulations. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

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.

Amendment 29 withdrawn.

Amendment 30

Moved by

[Baroness Barran]

30: Clause 3, page 3, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 4
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to confirm that Local Authorities can use their discretion in how the MACPTs are implemented operationally in their areas.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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 Clause 3, but this is whole-system reform. The Minister rightly referred to the document published in November; there is also this document, which was published in March, and there have been a number of others. The Committee needs to think about it in the round, even if only parts of it are in the Bill. The programme guide gives a very tight timescale for directors of children’s services to implement these changes and it is very clear in its expectations about how the additional funding should be spent. I am sure that the Minister is advised to talk about flexibility but, if I were a director of children’s services, it would not feel very flexible from reading the document.

The concerns we have heard would, I hope, be addressed by my amendment, but the spirit of my amendment goes wider in its aim to align autonomy and accountability. Local authorities will ultimately be held responsible for the effectiveness of the multi-agency child protection teams—in part, for some of the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who is no longer in his place, expressed in his remarks earlier. With that responsibility, surely more discretion over implementation should be permitted. Could the Minister address that point in her closing remarks?

As I mentioned, the worries I have heard come from some of the details that are set out in what I am now going to call the FFPPG—only those in this Committee will know what that means—which risk disrupting the finely balanced approach that currently exists in the best local authorities between early help and targeted support, under Sections 17 and 47. They also risk adding cost, with the need for additional lead child protection social workers for the separate multi-agency child protection arrangements—where are those social workers going to come from, and how will they be funded? They risk losing the critical fresh pair of eyes that an independent child protection case conference chair currently provides. It is obviously important, as we have seen in many cases, to have that independence, from someone who is experienced and can think again about the risks that remain to a child. Those families in child protection arrangements will now have two social workers, with all the resource and case management implications that brings, and indeed the risk that the family play one social worker off against another.

As my noble friend Lady Berridge said, rather than focusing on the cultural and organisational issues that make all the difference in the quality of social work, the Government seem to be focusing on process. There is a risk of adding complexity, and there is no question that it adds cost. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why. It has been said, but it deserves saying again, that there are real concerns that there is not a sufficient evidence base for this. I will cover that a bit more in the following group.

Amendment 37, in my name, would require the Secretary of State to produce a report on the impact of the multi-agency child protection teams. This would work well if, first, the Government publish the evaluation of the pathfinder sites—the Minister has committed that that will happen—and, secondly, address any practical issues arising. As she said, and I agree completely, the whole point of a pathfinder is to find out what works in practice and what does not. The timeline in the programme guide says March 2025 for 12 months; local authorities are expected to have implemented the changes needed in their teams to start these reforms by spring next year. I do not know how we can address practical issues and expect local authorities to do that transformation work with no further visibility on funding at the same time.

Thirdly, it would make sense that the Government agree with some version of my Amendment 30, so that there is some discretion for a director of children’s services in, say, Cumbria to implement these arrangements slightly differently from one in, say, Hackney. There will be variation in approach, and it is responsible and, I would argue, useful for the Secretary of State to report on this, so that we reinforce a culture of learning across the sector and support local authorities to evolve the model based on effective practice. I look forward to the Minister’s reply. I beg to move.

13:45

[Lord Addington (LD)]

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.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

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 services or the lead members, who are the statutory leads for safeguarding. There is a risk of fragmenting the governance. For those reasons it seems sensible to trust the local authority to use its discretion in how the multi-agency child protection teams are implemented locally in their own area. I support my noble friend Lady Barran’s amendment.

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

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.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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, Lady Barran, referenced, and, later, of the impact of the teams.

Amendment 30 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks local discretion in multi-agency team membership and organisation. Requiring safeguarding partners to nominate a minimum team reflects partners’ collective duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area. They will also have, as I outlined in the previous group, flexibility to add other agencies or individuals, reflecting local needs and to tackle local harms. We know from Families First pathfinders that these teams are already making a real difference. In Ofsted’s recent inspection of children’s services, Dorset, one of the pathfinders, received an “outstanding” judgment. The report noted that when children are at risk of significant harm, strategy meetings are well attended by partner agencies and that effective information-sharing and analysis of risk lead to children receiving the right intervention and support. It is right that we celebrate the success of and learning from pathfinders and, as I suggested previously, learn from where things have been more challenging. On the resourcing, as I said on Tuesday, this transformation journey is being supported from our £500 million Families First Partnership Programme funding.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, made a couple of specific points. On whether this is doing away with an independent chair, one of the main purposes of multi-agency child protection teams is to have a fresh pair of eyes coming in at the point of the Section 47 inquiry. The new lead child protection practitioner role will work—in fact, is working in pathfinders—in a very similar way to the current independent chairs. I take her point about the need for a fresh view and independence, but that is built into the design of the teams.

On whether this would mean children having more than one social worker, children and families will stay rooted in family help throughout. Multi-agency child protection teams will lead the child protection functions, working with and wrapping support around children, families and the family help lead practitioner. The multi-agency child protection team brings expertise and a fresh focus on significant harm. The lead child protection practitioner will be an experienced social worker but will not be the case lead. In other words, the important ongoing relationship, which I know children feel strongly about, with a person they can understand, work with and gain a relationship with, will remain in place, but additional expertise will be brought to this from the multi-agency child protection team.

On Amendment 37, which would place in the Bill a requirement for the Secretary of State to report annually on the team’s impact and activities, I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that it is essential that we understand how multi-agency teams are leading to better outcomes for children and that that learning be shared across the system. That being said, safeguarding partners already have a statutory responsibility to publish annual reports on their multi-agency safeguarding arrangements. This will include reporting on multi-agency child protection teams once the teams come into force. Statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, already sets out the information that should be included in yearly reports, and that will include evidence of impact. Guidance will be updated to include the reporting requirements for these new multi-agency teams. There will be, at the level at which it really matters, a responsibility to account for and report on the nature and success of the multi-agency safeguarding arrangements.

On that basis, and with those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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.

14:00

The Minister talked about feedback from the pathfinders, and cited Dorset as having just received an “outstanding” judgment. My understanding—she will correct me if I am wrong—is that the pathfinders are all very strong areas; they were chosen because they were strong and have the capacity. Leaving aside the much-trodden argument about where the evaluation is, where is the testing in areas that are not as strong? Perhaps the Minister would like to say a word about that, as it has not yet happened.

On the point about independent chairs, there was an article in Community Care at the end of 2023, in which the director of children’s services in Dorset—I am not sure if it is still the same person—said that, as a pathfinder, they were testing this out in one of its localities, but that that they were

“not sure that’s the greatest idea in the pathfinder programme”.

He added:

“While we’re testing it out, we will have one of our quality assurance professionals in that meeting to offer a bit of scrutiny and independence and also to make sure that parent voice is heard in that meeting”.

Maybe it is all running as smoothly as the Minister suggests, or maybe it is not.

The Minister has cited on a number of occasions the figure of £500 million in funding, which of course is correct, but can she confirm that, within that, £290 million is new money that is predominantly for the early help function rather than the multi-agency child protection teams? I may have misunderstood that last balance, but perhaps she will have a chance to feed back on that in the debate on a later group of amendments.

On Amendment 30, one can argue in both directions. These agencies already have statutory responsibilities and, as we have heard, already work together in a multi-agency way in multiple different fora around the country. A child protection focus is obviously imperative; I do not argue with that at all. But I do not think you can say—I am not saying that this is what the Minister was saying, but I just want to be clear—that support for a high-risk victim of domestic abuse or work with a perpetrator of domestic abuse does not have an impact on the safety of the child. I know that the Minister understands that it does, but the risk of locking down one bit of the system in this way and the ramifications for the other parts that are already working are at the root of our concern.

I think the Minister said that we will have a report “where it matters”, at the individual local authority level. My amendment does not suggest that those reports should be lost; I am sure they serve a very important purpose. But this is system-level change, and I am therefore surprised that the Minister is not more open to an opportunity to have system-level, dare I say critical thinking such as that which we will introduce in the curriculum. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 30 withdrawn.

Amendments 31 and 32 not moved.

Amendment 33

Moved by

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley]

33: Clause 3, page 4, leave out lines 8 to 11
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to leave discretion about the qualifications of those who are part of MACPTs 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.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

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.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

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 that by the independent chair. Of course, if there is any kind of change of that function, a child who has already disclosed may decide, “No, I can’t disclose to somebody else”. There may be that loss of trust, adding to their trauma. So the arrangements that we put in place in Clause 3—which everyone is intending to aid the joint working of all the different agencies—could inadvertently open up new cracks in the system.

While we have seen and are aware of the tragic failings that have led to the MacAlister review, it is important to remember how foundational the Children Act is—that it has stood the test of time, is understood by practitioners and has been built on, particularly in 2004. Many of our outstanding local authorities are not just chosen to be pathfinder places; they are visited by people from many European countries to see how they have embedded over many decades child protection systems that are—I know we find it hard to believe—the envy of some other countries.

Where is the adequate evidence to support this change? Yes, there was a recommendation in the MacAlister review, but where is the adequate evidence that we have used previously to make changes to our child protection system? I know that the pathfinders will be publishing soon, but are these actually what we would usually understand to be operational pilots? Where is the rigorous academic research that has so often been the evidential basis for previous changes to our child protection system over many decades?

While Clause 3 may seem logical and that in principle it will work, could it actually open up different problems? Will the Minister agree—if she has not already done so, because she said that there is evidence out there to support these changes—to meet the director of children’s services who advised the MacAlister review, Eileen Munro and other concerned academics, and the DCSs from outstanding local authorities who are concerned? Those are the practitioners who will have to implement this. The Minister may need to talk to her colleague in the Department of Health, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, as this was precisely the issue with the Mental Health Bill—whether approved mental professionals were behind that change. Are the directors of children’s services behind this change? Although the honourable Member, Josh MacAlister, whom I have met, is passionate about looked-after children and adoption and fostering, the review was not chaired by somebody who was an expert in deciding child protection cases or operationally dealing with child protection cases. That is why I wish that the Minister could meet that type of expert and reassure your Lordships’ House that these practitioners support this.

Although everyone here intends Clause 3 to help, I have thought, as we are required to do, about what the situation would be if the experts who have concerns—it might not be every single expert—about unintended consequences are proved to be right. If a child discloses sexual harm then loses confidence, with a switch of social worker or the multi-agency team that comes in, and then will not talk, and the mum’s partner, as it often is, senses that something has changed with the child, as disclosure psychologically affects individuals, and that person then harms the child to shut them up, what kind of report will come back from the local authority’s child safeguarding panel to the Department for Education? It will not be the responsibility of the DCS that the systems were not working. If the concerns are valid, the report that comes back could very well be, “We advised you not to make this kind of statutory change and you did, and this is what has happened”. I would not want anybody to be in that situation—that inadvertently, while trying to improve the system, with experts advising that there could be unintended consequences, we do not take time to pause and make sure that this recommendation is supported by adequate evidence before it is implemented.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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.

14:15

To be clear once again, I do not oppose Clause 3 because I doubt the value of a multi-agency response in child protection, nor do I doubt for a second the importance of early help for families, but the Government’s programme guide for the Families First partnerships seems to have an expectation of speed that does not have space in it to absorb some of the concerns that my noble friend mentioned and which I have mentioned on several occasions in your Lordships’ House. The guide says:

“Changes to service structure, workforce roles, practice frameworks and oversight arrangements will require time to design and implement”.

So far, so much everyone in agreement. It goes on:

“Our expectation is that the next year (April 2025 to March 2026)”—

forgive me; I said March 2025 instead of April 2025 in an earlier remark—

“will feature ongoing business as usual service delivery alongside transformation activity”.

That is the sort of thing that is easy to write down and slightly harder to deliver in real life. It continues:

“It is crucial that reform is multi-agency and implemented effectively, with improving the safety and well-being of children at its heart”.

There is a clear expectation that the transformation work will be completed by March 2026, and indeed that the funding that has been given to local areas—30%, I think it says—is expected to be spent on that transformation work.

On earlier groups, I referred to three main concerns that are held by many who will be responsible for implementing these changes, including of course—although she is not responsible for implementation—Professor Munro in her letter to the Times on Monday, and the ADCS and the LGA. It is a great pleasure, if I may say so, to see the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, in her place, because we worked together very closely many years ago—about 20 years ago—on some of this multi-agency stuff when it was a little less popular than maybe it is today. It is very good to see her here.

I turn to the evidence from the ADCS and the LGA. In its evidence to the Public Bill Committee in the other place, the LGA wrote:

“Every (upper tier) local authority area will have a duty to establish a multi-agency child protection unit … These are integrated local authority-led teams staffed with multi-agency, experienced child protection practitioners”.

This is my emphasis, not theirs:

“We recognise the potential value in this approach, though have concerns around resourcing—both financial and staff—across all partners and urge the Government to enable councils to be flexible in how they design these units to ensure that they can build on local strengths. Additional funding will be needed to implement this duty, recognising the need to design and adapt to new ways of working. There must also be clear accountability for all partners in relation to their roles in these teams, ensuring that sole responsibility does not lie with councils for their creation and success”.

Similarly, the British Association of Social Workers wrote:

“BASW England supports good multi-agency collaboration but believes that mandating multi-agency teams risks undermining social work’s role and safeguarding principles, with”—

again, this is my emphasis, not theirs—

“little or no evidence to support this as an effective model. We emphasise investment in early help, relationship-based practice, and clarity on professional priorities to prevent detrimental impacts on children’s rights and social worker retention. We also believe greater clarity is needed on the remit, structure and governance of these teams and remain concerned that they are being mandated prior to the full evaluation of the pilots”.

The noble Baroness does not need to listen to me, but she could comment on those concerns. It goes on to say:

“Additionally, we note that pilot areas received significant funding to implement the MASH model and seek clarity on whether similar levels of funding will be provided to support all local authorities in implementing this model”.

I looked again, and the funding, as written in the programme guide, appears to be for the early help part rather than the child protection teams. Again, it would be good to get clarity on that.

So the first of the three major concerns is about scale. This is a huge change and, as I said in earlier remarks, I think many of us—I can certainly speak for myself—underestimated this because so much of it sits outside the Bill in the programme guide and the other guidance that the noble Baroness referred to.

Clause 3 needs to be seen together with the changes to early help, targeted help and the response to children under Section 17 of the Children Act, as my noble friend Lady Berridge said, which is set out in various bits of guidance—now running, I am told, to several hundred pages—and funding announcements published this year by the department. The Government must remember that safeguarding, from early universal help to child protection and care proceedings, is like a carefully woven or embroidered cloth: if you pull on one thread, you need to understand how it will affect all the others.

As other noble Lords have said, this is happening at a time of massive change in local authorities and in integrated care boards. I was told the other day—maybe the noble Baroness can confirm this—that the new blueprint for the reorganisation of ICBs that is circulating in draft includes a reduction in their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding and SEND. Is that correct? If so, how will these reforms in Clause 3 and in the programme guide work in real life?

The second big concern is that this is too soon. We have heard from a number of noble Lords that there is not yet evidence that the proposed approach will work safely in practice. The evaluation has not been published, implementation problems have not yet been addressed, and we have what feels like a very prescriptive programme guide, which has a timeline, budget and scrutiny of the number of social workers versus family help staff that local authorities will employ. I understand the Government’s sense of urgency, and I think I understand the desire to act and to move ahead, but I suppose I do not understand what feels like resistance to very valid concerns.

I will take some of the things that were said publicly at the end of 2023 about the pathfinder areas by those involved. The first is about the role of the lead child protection practitioner. Worries have been expressed about staff burnout if someone’s sole role is those Section 47 cases, but it is a clear requirement in the programme guide. The second concern that has come out publicly has been about a deskilling of colleagues if all the child protection expertise sits in that team. I mentioned worries about the independent case conference chair earlier. Ironically, because I know that the honourable Member for Whitehaven and Workington expressly wanted to reduce this, there have been worries about case handovers—the move from the lead family help practitioner to a new lead child protection practitioner at a moment of significant stress as the case meets the Section 47 threshold.

It was said publicly, 18 or so months ago, that areas were addressing this by keeping the lead family health practitioner involved in the case, but that obviously increases the cost. This is unchanged in the programme guide. I beg the Committee’s leave and patience over my going into such detail; the Minister has heard of private conversations, so I am trying to articulate that we have also heard serious concerns expressed in public, which do not seem to be picked up in the guidance.

Thirdly, this needs proper funding, for both the early help duties and the new child protection teams. The pathfinders got significant funding, and I have been told by one director of children’s services that they had to pay their multi-agency partners to attend. In the words of one DCS I spoke to, changes in child protection need to be thoughtful and evidenced. They are concerned that the proposed merging of targeted, non-social work-led work with Section 17 will lead to a ballooning in case numbers, as my noble friend Lady Berridge said, similar to what we have seen with SEND. Ultimately, that risks translating into more children in the care system, not fewer, which none of us wants to see.

No one is suggesting that our system is perfect. However, in her 2011 report to the then Secretary of State—then my very recent noble friend Lord Gove—Professor Munro warned against too much focus on process over the quality and effectiveness of help given. Today, 14 years later, directors of children’s services are telling me that the DfE’s approach to these reforms is all about process and not practice. I could add other questions about referral criteria, capacity, membership, special educational needs and unaccompanied asylum-seeking children—there are all sorts of questions worthy of debate, but today I will focus on those three.

The Government are introducing a huge set of changes to our system. We do not have enough evidence of how this will work in practice and there is not sufficient funding, or any visibility on funding, beyond next year to pay for this. To be crystal clear, we support the aspiration to expand early help and early intervention, and the aspiration that every child in every family who needs it should get support. However, we introduced the pathfinder approach for good reason: we needed to test it out in practice, listen to and follow the evidence, adjust course and identify the necessary long-term funding before national rollout.

The system currently involves a clear boundary between voluntary help and imposed state intervention. I am told that the DfE has been drip-feeding guidance on the new early help arrangements on an almost daily basis, which risks blurring that boundary. That has the potential to create huge confusion between what parents must do and what they are advised to do. This is just one example of why it is so important for the Government to pause and get this right.

Our worry is that the Government want to press ahead before this is ready. To be clear, directors of children’s services tell me they think children will be harmed if these reforms are implemented too early and without sufficient funding. They do not say those things lightly. They have said that to implement before we are ready risks putting children in danger. The Government must listen to them and meet them, as my noble friend suggested, and meet Professor Munro. Surely the responsible thing is to pause.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

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.

14:30

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

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.

[Baroness Longfield (Lab)]

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 that those individuals will not have their own expertise in delivering.

When there are experts involved in delivering these expert practitioner roles, they are actually going to use their judgment all the time. It is not going to be about process; it has to be about children and about those families. Anyone who is just following a process because the process is there is not the expert practitioner in that role that we have the ambition for. They are going to be looking at children’s lives and responding to individuals, but at the heart of it, we have to move boldly forwards, to—

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

Boldly go?

[Baroness Longfield (Lab)]

Yes—I apologise for that on many levels. We have to move forward at pace, but also with confidence and determination, while also checking along the way that we are giving support where it is needed.

Finally, we need to ensure that investment is there, but we have to get to the point where we are investing money to prevent rather than to just pay the costly bills when things have got to acute status.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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 regulations. Setting out clear requirements for the skills, knowledge and qualifications of multi-agency child protection team members ensures a consistent national standard and consistent expectations for the practitioners making decisions that protect our most vulnerable children. These children deserve this level of consistency and qualification—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey.

As I have said, we know from national reviews that those on the front line of complex child protection do not always have the support and experience they need. We are determined to change that through the regulations that will accompany this legislation. The point about regulations is important, and I will come back to it again when responding to the clause stand part debate. As parliamentarians, we all know that, while it is important that primary legislation sets out the intent, design and most important elements of legislative change, operational detail is best suited to regulations, where there is more flexibility to accommodate developments in sector standards—for example, if new evidence emerges, this good practice can be reflected in the regulations. We are working with other government departments and will publicly consult on these regulations before bringing them before Parliament for scrutiny.

I turn to the clause stand part debate that seeks to remove Clause 3, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has given notice. Annie Hudson chaired the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel, and one of its recommendations led to the development of this legislation. There has been an important discussion about the need to enable sufficient time for appropriate implementation. However, when you have very clear recommendations—as we have here, which I will demonstrate shortly—it is incumbent on Governments to take action on the basis of that. We must ensure that the implementation is right, but we must also, as this Government have done, set out the ambition for the reform necessary in children’s social care to achieve both the strategic change that my noble friend discussed and to overcome some of the shortcomings that we have—sadly—seen evidenced in recent cases. That is what this legislation aims to do.

Annie Hudson said:

“In my time as chair of the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel I have seen reviews about several thousands of serious incidents where children have died or been seriously harmed as a result of abuse and neglect. It is the learning from those incidents, and most particularly the repeated lack of join up between agencies, that led to the Panel’s recommendation in our report Child Protection in England about the tragic deaths of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Star Hobson to introduce multi-agency child protection teams. High quality social work is critical to effective child protection, but we must also draw on the expertise of practitioners from across different professions and agencies (including police, health and education) to meet the complex safeguarding needs of some children and families. The need for multi-agency child protection teams was also clearly evidenced in our recent national review about child sexual abuse in the family environment. This review found that, once concerns had been raised, too often there was a lack of thorough child protection investigation and effective action to protect and help children. This was in part due to ‘silo’ working across agencies, and inadequate multi-agency exploration and sharing of concerns that children may be at risk”.

14:45

As the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, said, in many ways we have excellent services in this country, and we certainly have excellent and committed staff working in children’s social care. But when we see recommendations such as this coming from investigations of times when the system tragically failed to work properly, it is important for us to take notice of those and make progress as quickly as possible.

The Bill includes several important measures, which, when combined, will improve the quality and effectiveness of safeguarding and child protection, including strengthening information sharing through the new unique identifier—which we will come on to in a moment—and the establishment of multi-agency child protection teams, which will provide children with a more timely, sensitive, skilled and coherent response. There has been a challenge—particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran—about the extent to which we are clear about how these fit together. I am more than happy to share a slide I have here, which shows exactly how they fit together. That is based on the work we have done already. I am very happy to share it and the argument we set out in the policy paper last autumn with other noble Lords. Let me be absolutely clear: every child deserves to be protected from harm, and legislating for these teams will take us a significant step closer to making sure that action is co-ordinated to protect every child from every type of harm, whether that it is inside or outside the home.

To come to the reasonable point that has been made by noble Lords about the detail of the implementation, although not—as I have just outlined—the principle of the change that is being made, of course it is important for us to be able to work alongside practitioners, leaders of children’s social care and experts in the field to be able to ensure that the implementation of this recommendation is what we would hope it would be for children. It is important to note that Clause 3 allows the Secretary of State to set out, in regulations, the day-to-day operations of multi-agency child protection teams—the requirements for members and the relevant agencies which can be required to co-operate with safeguarding partners. I remind noble Lords that this approach means that the sector, local partners, experts, pathfinder areas, national experts, DCSs and many of those mentioned today can all inform how these teams will work in the reformed system. What is more, the affirmative procedure will bring further scrutiny to these regulations as well.

On the point made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Berridge and Lady Barran, about the handover between two social workers, I responded to this previously, but I will just take that a bit further now. There is no duplication of roles in what is being proposed. It is about an integrated system. Keeping children’s relationships with family help lead practitioners is really important. As I outlined previously, for child protection cases, those family help practitioners will be qualified social workers—we are completely clear about that—and child protection expertise through the multi-agency teams will be wrapped around that. The family help lead practitioner will be a key part of the child protection discussion. It is all about information sharing and joint decision-making.

I hope I can provide some reassurance that not only have we built these proposals on recommendations from people who have looked very carefully at the system and at its most tragic failures but we are also continuing to build the implementation on the basis of ongoing engagement with experts and others throughout the system. What is more, those regulations will come before this House under the affirmative procedure so that further scrutiny will be available there.

Finally, I speak to Amendments 508 and 509, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on the issue of shared and equal responsibility of safeguarding partners. I am not sure whether she gave much emphasis to this in her contribution but it is in the amendment, and I will also respond to the point about funding and resource.

As has been noted previously, I have talked—and, I have no doubt, will continue to do so—about the £500 million that we have made available in 2025-26 to support, yes, the national rollout of family help, child protection and family network reforms. I can confirm that, out of that £500 million, £270 million is new funding in the children’s social care prevention grant for that work. We will of course be making further announcements about support for this work after the spending review expected in June, which will confirm funding beyond 2026.

Under their existing duties, safeguarding partners already agree and dedicate resource as part of their local multi-agency safeguarding arrangements. Clause 3 provides flexibility for safeguarding partners in how they meet this new duty to establish multi-agency child protection teams. It provides the flexibility that noble Lords have asked for, including through combining teams across local authority boundaries to align with police or health footprints, creating consistencies and efficiencies. However, on this point about responsibility, it is clear that safeguarding partners are each responsible for nominating a representative to the multi-agency team, and they have equal responsibility for safeguarding, as I spelled out earlier.

I understand the issues that have been raised about implementation. I hope I have provided some assurance about the continued engagement of our teams with experts and practitioners as we develop the detail of the implementation and the regulations, and the ability for this House to scrutinise those as well. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

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.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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.

15:00

I have clearly spelled out where these proposals came from and the engagement we will continue to have. I have demonstrated how the regulations will be subject to scrutiny, both in the sector and in this place. I have said that I am willing, alongside my honourable friend Janet Daby, to continue meeting a whole range of people about this, and that is pretty reasonable on my part, even if other noble Lords do not think it is.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her responses and all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. Like many of them, I am an absolute believer in early intervention, although my priority around early intervention is better outcomes. If we can change a pathway or avoid a tragedy, we will all have made a big difference. I hope that is where the intention is. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 33 withdrawn.

Amendment 34

Moved by

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

34: Clause 3, page 4, line 14, at end insert—
“(7A) The local authority must provide the resources to enable continuous professional development training to be provided to all teachers and teaching assistants with responsibilities for supporting vulnerable children that interact with multi agency child protection teams.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that schools have the resources to meet their statutory commitments.

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

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 schools to budget. Unforeseen burdens are particularly likely in schools in areas of high deprivation, which are seeing the backwash of so much suffering of vulnerable children. The point, of which I hope the Minister will be mindful, is that we have only 1,265 hours a year of directed time for our teaching cohort, so every hour doing something other than teaching is salami-slicing away our ability to provide good education. Something has to give.

The other area I am puzzled by—this, again, is my ignorance—is these pilots that have been running. I have been trying to find some feedback on these pilots but have not been able to find anything. The Commons Select Committee raised this issue of a lack of clarity, so can any be provided? My noble friend Lady Barran said that some of these pilots had received extra money to juice them up and get more participation, which is great, but will that be rolled out more widely?

I am very worried about this because, as noble Lords know, we are facing something of a financial bloodbath in the school sector. If we have to start hiring supply teachers to enable ordinary teachers to be released to go to safeguarding meetings, these costs will hit us. Can the Minister give us a timeline on the implications for schools and assure us that schools will have sufficient time between the publishing of the guidance and the setting of their budgets? For example, we really need to set our budgets in April to go live in September, because that tends to be when teacher recruitment goes on, as people resign and are appointed. I hope the Minister will understand where I am coming from. I acknowledge that I have a lot less knowledge of this sector, but I am worried about the backwash into the school sector. I beg to move.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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 that is not the plan. Even smaller local authorities, particularly rural local authorities, have multiple child protection teams already, so adding one more will not be that useful to them if they have multiple existing teams that need that multi-agency engagement.

When I led the charity SafeLives and we did the rollout of multi-agency risk assessment conferences around the country, we gave estimates to every area based on evidence of realistic case loads, resource requirements and so forth—and we had rather less influence than the Government do. My challenge to the Minister is: if a small charity can do that, surely the Government can do something similar or work with the ADCS or the LGA to develop appropriate clarity and guidance. I would be very grateful if the Minister could explain the Government’s plans.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

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.

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

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.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

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.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

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.

15:15

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

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?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I think there is a misunderstanding about my noble friend Lord Agnew’s remarks. My understanding is that he said that schools have got very good at safeguarding, but there are new responsibilities on schools in this Bill and he asked whether additional training would be required and where the resource would be, rather than saying, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, seemed to infer, that this was a new thing. My noble friend knows extremely well that it is not a new thing.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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 will now also have a more explicit role in the multi-agency child protection teams. I hope I can reassure noble Lords by saying that the statutory guidance is also clear that the statutory safeguarding partners, which include the other partners that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, referred to, should support practitioners that work with children, including through creating a learning culture where practitioners stay up to date on best practice. We are clear and confident that the education practitioner in the multi-agency child protection teams will be able to operate as a crucial link to and from education and childcare settings, ensuring that school staff are supported to work effectively with vulnerable children and the child protection teams.

The pathfinder areas have developed multi-agency workforce development plans and delivered comprehensive multi-agency training that has provided opportunities not just to ensure that practitioners have the knowledge and skills they need to deliver effective child protection but to align on shared values and build these vital cross-agency relationships. Training typically covers the reforms, safeguarding responsibilities, local practice frameworks and how different roles fit together across the system. There is both an opportunity within schools and an improved opportunity, from the role of the education practitioner in the multi-agency child protection teams, to ensure that that expertise is there.

I turn now to Amendment 38, which relates to sufficient resource and delegated functions. I spoke on this in the previous group. In fact, we have, understandably, talked about it in several groups so far in Committee. I will briefly revisit the key points. The new teams will be delivered as part of the existing joint and equal duty on safeguarding partners. I have previously mentioned the flexibility in the new measures, which enables teams to operate along police and health footprints, balanced with a sharp focus on multi-agency child protection delivery, where agencies are clear about their responsibilities and accountabilities. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, answered her own question. Of course it would not be the case that you would have the same number of multi-agency child protection teams in an authority such as Birmingham as you would have in Rutland; that would not be logical.

I am not sure that I would characterise this system as simply adding another child protection team alongside the current ones, as I think the noble Baroness said. As I said in my explanations on the previous group in particular, the intention is very much that these teams will be the place where agencies will be able to work together in the consideration of child protection cases and issues. They are quite distinct from the child protection teams that might currently exist.

In terms of resources, safeguarding partners already agree and dedicate resources as part of their local multi-agency safeguarding arrangements, and the Government have provided £500 million to support the rollout of the Families First Partnership Programme, of which multi-agency child protection teams are a part, as I said previously.

I do not want to be churlish about this, but I am not sure I would have rolled up to this Committee at this point to focus particularly on how difficult school and local government funding is if I had spent the last 14 years supporting the last Government. Nevertheless, it is an important point that we ensure that there is sufficient funding, which is why this Government have already increased, in real terms, funding going to both schools and local government.

On the group before last, we responded to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, about the consequences and the process of local government reorganisation. I think I gave some reassurance on that, provided to me by my noble friend Lady Taylor.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

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?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

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.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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.

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her answers. I reassure her that I was not trying to suggest that this is a whole new scale of undertaking for teachers. My noble friend Lady Barran was right: I was trying to understand the scale of it, because this is a big and complex Bill. The Minister was helpful in saying that her son, who is dealing with this on the front line, feels that one inset day will be sufficient for the kind of familiarisation that will be needed. I am not trying to put words in her mouth. I am trying to say that, in my experience, a Bill of this complexity will need quite a lot of CPD for our teaching cohort—that is where I am coming from.

We have a specific amount of time available, because of the 1,265 rule, which, again, we will work to. Every hour that is taken away from what teachers are doing at the moment is one that has to be filled. I take absolutely at face value what the Minister has said, and I am encouraged that she has in her immediate life someone who can give her front-line experience. I genuinely mean that, because that is where I am coming from. I tabled this amendment because head teachers in my academy trust had asked me to clarify the situation. It was put forward with the best of intentions.

15:30

I completely agree with the point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, about schools being at the forefront of child protection, because I was one of those children nearly 60 years ago. My family collapsed and my father was left with seven children, and it was my school that provided the continuity and care for my well-being. I absolutely accept that schools should be part of this, but I want to make sure that there is real understanding in the department, and as part of this legislation, and that the Minister is mindful of the overhead that will apply. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, made a point about co-ordinating the timetable so that, if this measure was to be implemented from 1 September, we would know about it so we can plan what we put into the training day.

I thank the Minister for her answer and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 34 withdrawn.

Amendments 35 to 40 not moved.

Clause 3 agreed.

Clause 4: Information sharing and consistent identifiers

Amendment 41

Moved by

[Baroness Barran]

41: Clause 4, page 6, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 19 on page 7
Member's explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment which seeks to question the effectiveness of the drafting of 16LA

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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 guidance, and it would be helpful if the Minister could elaborate and say exactly what the guidance will cover.

My other worry is that, in real life, you often do not know the significance of the information that you hold until you join it together with information from other agencies. We used to say at SafeLives, “You don’t know what you don’t know”. When the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, was the Minister, I remember taking one of her colleagues from the Home Office to visit one of these multi-agency meetings, which I thought would almost certainly be the kiss of death for our future relationship with the Home Office, but we survived. There was a case of sharing information, which I remember very vividly, where the police officer said that they knew about the case, they had attended the address seven times, the woman was always drunk and, on the final occasion, they fined her for wasting police time. As we went around the table, it came to the representative from the A&E team, a nurse, who looked at the police officer as only nurses can and asked him to run through the dates of those attendances, which he did. She said that they had had an attendance on every one of those nights for that woman, she had several broken bones and they had an attendance from the child the next day who had, they were told, fallen off his bike. We do not need miles of domestic abuse training to know that neither party could probably put those things together until they had heard the other side.

Even on a simpler level, any of your Lordships who have been involved in this work will know that in the same family you can have one child who is causing all sorts of trouble in school and is visibly disturbed, and a sibling who wants to stay for every after-school club and is the most immaculately behaved. I know that a Bill cannot address all those permutations, but we just need reassurance that the Government have thought this through in practice.

It is also frequently not responsible to share information if nothing is going to happen with it. We are not just offloading risk from what we know on to another agency. The balancing considerations in the data protection legislation are there for a reason and we should respect people’s privacy unless we think that, by sharing information, we will make them safer.

It is important to have a full picture of a child’s life when considering safeguarding concerns. I wonder how this works where, say, the school shares a low-level concern with health because it is the most relevant statutory agency but, in the same case, the police share different information with the local authority. That is not clear to me. I know who, in theory, should hold the full picture, but in practice how does the local authority social work team hold the whole picture? Crucially, how is that picture kept up to date? Similarly, where is the duty for the lead safeguarding agencies to share back with wider organisations what action they have taken based on the information that was shared? Those organisations need to know how they can help, what they can do that would make a child safer and, indeed, what they could do that might increase risk to a child.

It is also not clear to me from the Bill what the threshold is for sharing. The duty in new Section 16LA(1)(a) and (b) states that a person to whom the section applies—in this case, all the 400-plus schools, nurseries and childminders in a typical local authority that my noble friend Lady Spielman referred to on Tuesday—will have a duty to share information that is

“relevant to safeguarding or promoting the welfare of the child”.

That is obviously incredibly broad and would require a lot of resource if it is followed to the letter. Again, when I look at the impact assessment, I cannot see how that has been fully accounted for. If the Minister could elaborate, that would be very helpful.

I also think that agencies will need guidance about when to disclose information, as the law obviously allows them to do this today, and this does not change those duties. Even statutory partners such as the police benefit from guidance, and we need to strike a balance between hypervigilance, on one hand, and information dumping—sharing everything and risk aversion—on the other.

It is also not clear to me from the Bill whether education and childcare agencies should seek consent, presumably from the parent rather than the child, before sharing information, and where public interest overrides consent. In practice, as the Minister knows, there is a blurry line when sharing information about a child. Say the child came into school unwashed, in unwashed clothes, for the fourth day in a row. That might be something specific about the child that is legal to share, but it implicitly shares information about the parents, where the balancing considerations might play out differently.

In a world where agencies trust one another, this becomes a two-way street. The local authority makes a request of a nursery for information, for example, but can the nursery make a request of the local authority? More specifically, how do the Government think that subject access requests will be handled? I think of my grandson’s former childminder, who was wonderful. How do we expect those mom-and-pop or mom-and-mom organisations to deal with this, both administratively and in human terms?

My noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 49 raises the point about retaining public trust in the process, including by clarifying the need to maintain records of processing disclosures made under this new section. I could go on, but I do not think I need to. Inserting new Section 16LA is the right thing to do, but getting it right in practice is fiendishly difficult. Moving from a world where education and childcare agencies can and do share information with statutory agencies about the safeguarding and welfare of children to a world where they have a duty to do so, without having tested this in practice, may throw up all sorts of unintended consequences, so I would be grateful if the Minister could reassure me. I think it would be unfair to expect her to address each of those points in detail, but will she consider them, comment on those that she can and perhaps find out from the department whether there have been any pilots of this approach? If there have been any in the Families First Partnership areas, how is that going?

I turn to my other amendments. As noble Lords will know, the Public Bill Office here has done a beyond superhuman job in tabling a huge number of amendments. I am ashamed to say that some came from me at a very late hour, and I am hugely grateful, but I think that my Amendments 45 and 46 overlap; we do not need them both.

These amendments link to some of the points that we raised on Clause 3. I am thinking about cases in which information unexpectedly emerges about significant risk, either to another sibling or to an adult in the family or extended family, which is, if I can sneak it back in, why I prefer Amendment 45 over Amendment 46. The former, in relation to a sibling, is easier to deal with. Domestic abuse is an obvious concern, and I know that the Minister shares my concerns about that. Our actions must be prioritised to safeguard the child, but that could in turn increase risk to the victim, which ironically could then make things worse for the child. The victim discloses domestic abuse to the childminder, who then reports it to the local authority and the police. The police turn up and, as we know, in many cases no further action is taken, and that perhaps silences the victim from seeking help. I know the Minister is familiar with the fact that we cannot legislate for every human behaviour, but I am just thinking through the risks, both to the victim and to the child, in such a case.

I will give another true case from many years ago. An abusive father was the carer for his mother, and adult services were unaware of the concerns about his behaviour despite the fact that his mother kept falling out of bed and injuring herself. Within this approach, I wonder how those wider information-sharing gaps will be bridged. My amendment is probing, but I want reassurance that the Government have thought these things through. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply and the contributions of other noble Lords.

15:45

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

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 being lost in a subsequent Parliament if it is no longer considered a priority. That is why many in the sector, particularly children’s charities, are working together to scrutinise the planned timescales and implementation plan.

As things stand, there is a risk that full implementation of this identifier will not take place before the next general election. The NHS and local authorities might be using a common identifier by 2029, but schools, early years settings and the police might not. Partial implementation would fundamentally undermine the benefits of a single identifier. Either all services should be supported to use it soon, or the purpose will be lost and children will continue to be at risk. Hence Amendment 53 would ensure that full implementation of this part of the Bill takes place before the next election, as set out in the Labour manifesto.

I will say a brief word about some of the other amendments. I also have concerns about other possible vulnerable members of the family, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, raised. I look forward to hearing reassurances on that from the Minister.

On Amendment 69 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, which has not yet been introduced, it sounds to me like a good idea that the data should be consistent, so that those accessing it will understand exactly what it means. I am concerned it might turn into a tick-box exercise, although I hope that would not be the case. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

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 decide it is important to share information and override privacy. The process of sharing is itself time-consuming and expensive, because these systems do not work to any common standard. There would be potential improvement in the management of individual cases if we can reach the kind of common open data standard that is being developed and used in other sectors.

In the care review, everybody realised quite how hard it often is to put together a national picture with data about social care. The understandable protection around individual children, and the kinds of disconnect that have already been referred to, mean that information about those who are causing harm, or the children or others who are collateral damage in the same situation, is not necessarily neatly joined up. It is genuinely hard to find out about types of abuse and all its different aspects, and who is implicated. This is a real problem; it should not be down only to journalists armed with FOIs to go hunting for things that we should already know about and be acting on.

As chief inspector, I served until the end of 2023 on the national implementation board for the care review. I was sitting alongside the eminent professor, Sir Anthony Finkelstein, who is a data systems expert and gave me valuable input into the framing of this amendment.

Data was an important strand of the initial care review and the report, and an important part of the initial plan for its implementation, but it seems to have got largely lost. So, I have put forward this amendment to bring this strand to the fore. The Minister should make sure that this opportunity is not lost to enable all the players in this complex system. By making this provision now, she will have the flexibility to set a sensible, reasonable and proportionate timescale for all these proprietary providers to start creating the kinds of alignment that can help us going into the future to do the best for all children.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

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.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

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 and sharing, and on the compliance cost across the many bodies and agencies involved, including, as she said, even childminders.

However, I want to go somewhere different. I read with particular interest page 219 in section 8.8 of Josh McAllister’s Independent Review of Children’s Social Care. The report, I believe, is the inspiration for much of the Government’s reforms. For today’s purposes, the proposal for a national data and technology taskforce is of particular importance. The case study on the positive experience in Bristol, using the Think Family Database, is instructive. It brought together data from 30 sources, including the council, the police, the DfE, the NHS, the DWP and social care itself. That is the kind of joined-up approach we need—and it is happening here and now. I just hope that this is not one of the areas with issues.

16:00

A national system and the single unique identifier for children will take time, even if we agree Amendment 53, which was so eloquently introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. Have the Government set up the proposed taskforce? If not, why not? In any event, can the Minister describe what is happening in the absence of the cross-cutting data standard in the meantime, and in other areas of social care? We need that to encourage good practice.

I was a director in the start-up phase of Health Data Research UK. This has hubs across the country providing data from hospitals, GPs and many other sources—anonymised at the point of transfer—for the research communities in our universities. This is transforming the results of vaccine trials and medical devices. The work was led by Professor Andrew Morris at the University of Edinburgh, who is now also a senior government adviser. In some ways, it parallels the data systems around Tesco Clubcard, where we aggregated customer data so that we could spot trends and needs to serve our customers better.

Four things are relevant from my experience to the establishment of the data sharing that we are discussing today. First, we ensured that the datasets were established on a compatible basis and as robustly as possible. Datasets have to be able to talk to each other. My noble friend Lady Spielman explained the importance of this, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply to her.

Secondly, at HDR UK we led a training programme for more than 10,000 individuals involved with such databases. Qualifications are important, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, but so is on-the-job training of this kind. It is different from the general safeguarding training, which the Minister described so clearly in the light of the experience of her own son’s time at school. That is an important consideration.

Thirdly, we had a programme of engagements, citizens panels and seminars to generate trust in what we were doing. People are worried about making their data available, particularly health data. Trust in the transfer of data is a subject of concern to my noble friend Lord Lucas, who has an amendment in his group.

Finally, although we were funded by UKRI, we ran the operation like a commercial one, with clear objectives, focus and prioritisation, the appointment of talented individuals and the pursuit of value for money. This means that the money goes further, which appears to be very important given all the questions that have been asked about resources. I hope that the Minister will agree that this kind of approach merits consideration.

I will make one more point. I had a contrasting experience with the whistleblowing systems we set up at Tesco in our supply chain. If you visited an Indian factory supplying us, you would find a notice on the wall with a central telephone number and an email that could be used to report poor practice. The feedback from these telephone lines was useful individually, since complaints are jewels to be treasured in improving a business or an organisation such as the health service. However, it was even more useful in aggregate, because the audit and compliance committees were able to look at complaint hotspots according to location or category of concern, and therefore hold executives to account. Happily, however, they had already taken action in most cases.

A feedback loop of this kind could be helpful in the care system. I know one person who complained to the police about 15 years ago because she suspected that a local Asian restaurant was the scene for the abuse of young white girls. She was told by the police that, if she persisted, they might want to accuse her of racism. I hope and believe that such attitudes are behind us, but the need for better information sharing and knowing where to complain when you see problems is a very important part of improving social care.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

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.

[Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)]

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.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

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 thought to work in practice and where the central repository of data will be. There is a concern that you can put data into a system, whatever the system is, but if you do not mine that data—if you do not have flags that come up that put the pieces together—you may get a lot of people, all saying, “Oh, but I reported it in”, and it goes into some kind of data black hole without really being joined up. There will need to be a responsibility for saying, “This looks like more than a one-off occurrence. There’s something going on here and it needs to be investigated”.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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 feedback in the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, which found that, despite legislation permitting information sharing for safeguarding, practitioners often see it as a barrier due to confusing organisational agreements and arrangements.

In developing this duty, officials have worked closely with the Information Commissioner’s Office, practitioners and other government departments to draft the measure. The duty is not about increasing the number of referrals to children’s social care—in fact, precisely the opposite, we could argue. It is about enabling practitioners to share and request information so that they can understand what life is truly like for a child and the significance of the information they hold. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, gave a good example of a whole range of different sets of information coming together to create a very different and worrying story about a child. I would also argue that it is probably a good example of a multi-agency child protection team being able to bring all that information together to decide on the action needed, but it exemplified how we can get a much clearer picture if we promote information sharing, which is what this duty is all about.

16:15

Some questions were raised with respect to the detail. As I say, those I do not manage to cover, I will try to cover off later. First, regarding what safeguarding and welfare means—I will give some examples a bit later as well—we will be providing further clarity through statutory guidance, which agencies in scope must have regard to. We will set out the kinds of information that may be relevant in particular contexts, so that practitioners have some support in thinking about how to apply the legislation. There is, of course, also an issue about whether the information has to be relevant to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. Why do people not just share everything or anything about a child?

In developing this measure, we have sought to deliver on our manifesto commitment to improve information sharing so that children do not fall between the cracks, but also to ensure that the duty adheres as far as possible to data protection principles, particularly around purpose limitation and data minimisation. We will again provide statutory guidance that relevant agencies must have regard to, and which will give examples of what this is likely to encompass. It is likely broadly to reflect the matters covered by the definition of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children used in Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023, and in the Information Commissioner’s Office’s 10-step guide to sharing information to safeguard children.

On the point about consent, if the terms of the duty are met, the duty provides a clear legal basis for sharing information without consent, but, of course, practitioners should aim to be as transparent as possible by telling families what information they are sharing and with whom, provided that it is safe to do so. We intend to publish guidance on this in due course. Over the summer, we plan to undertake user testing to identify the key information that safeguarding practitioners want and need to carry out their functions effectively. That will help to inform the associated statutory guidance, which we will also consult on before bringing these provisions into force.

I turn to Amendment 42, which I do not think has been spoken to by the noble Lord, Lucas; nevertheless, I have some good stuff here, so I am going to say some of it, which I think will also respond to some of the other points raised. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, for example, raised the important discussion about the breadth and interpretation of the term “safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children” and what the test should be.

I tend to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on this: it will be not so much an objective test as a professional judgment, bound by some of the conditions that I will talk about. While the Bill does not define safeguarding or promotion of welfare, these are not unfamiliar concepts; they are well-established in children’s social care legislation and widely understood by practitioners across the sector.

It may be helpful to remind the Committee how safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children is defined in statutory guidance—specifically in Working Together to Safeguard Children. It includes:

“providing help and support to meet the needs of children as soon as problems emerge … protecting children from maltreatment, whether that is within or outside the home, including online … preventing impairment of children’s mental and physical health or development … ensuring that children grow up in”

safe, stable and nurturing environments and, ultimately,

“taking action to enable all children to have the best outcomes in line with the outcomes set out in the Children’s Social Care National Framework”.

These are not abstract principles; they are the foundation of effective safeguarding practice and are precisely the outcomes the Bill seeks to support through clearer, more confident information sharing. This focused and familiar framing is intentional, because it empowers professionals to use their judgment—to share information when they believe it will help another agency to fulfil its safeguarding and welfare responsibilities.

Moving on to Amendments 43, 45 and 46, I noticed that Amendments 45 and 46 are very similar, although one—I have now forgotten which—includes “elder abuse” as well as children. The general theme of Amendments 45 and 46 seeks to broaden the information-sharing duty, or at least to pose questions about it, to consider the safety and welfare of others—not just the child—when sharing or receiving information. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, outlined, this is particularly relevant in cases involving domestic abuse.

I fully acknowledge the importance of recognising when a parent or carer may themselves be a victim of abuse. The noble Baroness gave a vivid example of that. Our wider reforms are underpinned by a whole-family approach and understanding the needs of the adults in the household. The statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, already includes guidance for practitioners to focus on the needs of the child and their family. However, we must be clear that the child’s safety and welfare is paramount in all decisions about information sharing. Statutory guidance issued as part of this duty will support practitioners to discharge their duty, including a consideration of other factors such as domestic abuse, to help with the complex and difficult situation alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran.

Amendment 53, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, was introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. It seeks to place timelines on the implementation of a consistent identifier—the other part of this clause. It is a manifesto commitment to deliver on this ambition as soon as possible, which is why we have taken swift action to include provisions in the Bill that will allow us to implement it as soon as possible.

However, there are important considerations, including technical and legal considerations such as data security, monitoring and oversight, cost and IT system compatibility. It is for this reason that we are piloting implementation. As others have argued in other areas of the Bill, it would not be prudent to pre-empt the outcome of these pilots and include a timeline in the legislation.

As I think noble Lords know, with Wigan local authority we are currently exploring the suitability of using the NHS number as the consistent identifier, and that process will take several months. This first phase of work will explore whether success rates of linking children’s records can be improved within a local authority by using the NHS number provided by the NHS Personal Demographics Service. This work will inform future tests and pilots. These pilots will inform us on how to incrementally increase coverage across the datasets used to manage safeguarding and welfare.

If our initial pilot over the summer is successful, then, at this stage, we anticipate being able to begin giving children’s social care teams within local authorities access to NHS numbers during 2026 while, in parallel, we test its ability to be used within wider areas such as local authority data feeds. The point here is that we will not need to wait for a big bang to introduce it. Assuming that this is the appropriate way to proceed, we will be able to do it on an incremental basis as quickly as possible in different areas and with different agencies.

I turn to Amendment 69 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, and I wish her a happy birthday. I am not sure this is the way I would have chosen to spend my birthday, but I hope we will finish in time for at least some celebration. This amendment, as we have heard, seeks to add a new clause to enable the Secretary of State to introduce a common open data standard by regulations, and noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, have made a good case for this.

Data standards help different systems—for example, those used by GPs, hospitals, schools and social workers—to speak the same language. Without them, joining fragmented information from across systems becomes difficult or, at times, impossible. Standards play a role in the accuracy, consistency and reliability of data. In this case, they can ensure that a child’s name, date of birth or safeguarding status is recorded in the same way wherever they are seen. This is a matter of not just efficiency but safety. Standards also enable interoperability. They are key to linking information across agencies to build a fuller picture of a child’s needs and to intervene earlier and more effectively. This is why we have a proper programme under way to develop and implement common data standards as a mechanism to improve information sharing.

We will work with sector representatives to ensure that standards work focuses on the biggest information challenges that they face. We will draw, for example, on the Cabinet Office examples that the noble Baroness identified. We need to develop and test these standards prior to their implementation, and assess the most appropriate method to introduce them, but I hope that that gives the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, and others some certainty and assurance that we are making progress on this. With all the explanation that I have given, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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.

16:30

The noble Lord, Lord Meston, is right about having some kind of objective criteria against which you decide whether or not to share information. Indeed, in a multi-agency world, you want those to be multi-agency criteria, because the gold dust is when the police start to worry about pregnant women and their vulnerability, and midwives start to worry about allegations of kidnap. The police know what that means and midwives know the significance of abuse in pregnancy and harm to an unborn child, but we want them to worry about each other’s risks.

I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, about the importance of professional judgment. Clearly, that is absolutely critical, but it is helpful to have objective criteria. With those remarks, and with apologies to the Minister about yet another letter, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 41 withdrawn.

Amendments 42 and 43 not moved.

Amendment 44

Moved by

[Baroness Barran]

44: Clause 4, page 6, line 30, at end insert—
“(3A) Where the relevant person considers that the disclosure would be more detrimental to the child than not disclosing the information, this decision must be recorded.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require that decisions made not to disclose information must be recorded.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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 in practice? I can see that, if you are a strong local authority, a strong trust or a large college, this might be close to business as usual, but what about the single small primary school head who has to deal with this, along with 55 other responsibilities, or the nursery or the childminder? I look forward to the Minister’s remarks. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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 trails are in place, as she outlined, without placing unnecessary administrative burdens on practitioners who are already, as she said, working under significant pressure. I hope that has reassured the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

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.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Only 10 steps. I am reassured that the Minister has considered this carefully. I think my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe is right to probe gently in relation to the smallest organisations, where familiarity with this degree of responsibility may be less great and it could cause some anxiety. So, in addition to the guidance, there might need to be some support for those organisations—but I am sure the Minister will consider that. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 44 withdrawn.

Amendments 45 to 49 not moved.

Amendment 50

Moved by

[Baroness Cash]

50: Clause 4, page 7, leave out from beginning of line 20 to end of line 41 on page 8
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to enable a general discussion of inserted section 16LB.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

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 all of us who are concerned with these matters and work in this area in some capacity or other. In this sense, I declare my interest as the co-founder of Parent Gym and the owner of Mind Gym.

I turn to the individual amendments, some of which are quite self-explanatory. As the Minister will have seen, Amendment 50 is a general probing amendment to facilitate a discussion looking at the use of a single consistent identifier and the data issues.

16:45

The Committee will be aware that I was a practising barrister for many years in the field of media law and data. GDPR issues and confidentiality around medical information are a major problem when data sharing, even when, as the Minister pointed out, the duty to share often overrides. Sometimes, information in one context—take, for example, a teenage girl obtaining contraception, which she is entitled to do without sharing that with adults—might, in another context, such as grooming gangs, have flagged to authorities that she was in a situation where that was problematic, especially if a hotspot of a number of children showed up. That is a very difficult call for a GP to make.

There is a question about whether this is all medical information. I note what the Minister said about the pilot using the NHS number as the identifier, and I am very grateful for that indication, but is all medical information then to be shared, or is the information to be assessed as to whether it is relevant to a particular case? How is that to be done?

Who is to own or have the right to access the data system and enter information using the consistent identifier? Tragically, not only have we seen the terrible cases of the children I have referenced, and many others, but we know that, sometimes, the malfeasance has been committed by those who have been trusted to care for the child. Take the terrible case of child abuse in care homes in Wales, which went on systematically for years. Of course, those are the exception, but there are serious questions to be asked here, and I hope the Minister understands that it is in that spirit that these amendments have been tabled. We have careful thinking to do about how we achieve the shared and agreed aim of all those concerned about sharing data on children, as well as protecting against erroneous or mischievous use of the data—not to mention the medical confidentiality.

After that general opening, I turn to the individual amendments. The first, of course, is a probing amendment, and the second seeks clarification. I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that the NHS number will be used, but how is it to be used? How is any medical practitioner to assess what information does or does not go in there? With Amendment 54 we are looking to understand, and would be very grateful for clarification, what a

“set of similar identifiers that is of general application”

actually means. I am afraid I certainly have not understood that, and I deduce that the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, who tabled the amendment, feels the same way.

Amendment 55 may be slightly tongue-in-cheek, with its point about tattooing, but I certainly would want to clarify the limitation—I think that is what was being hinted at—and whether electronic tagging and so on is excluded. It is a point around tightening the drafting.

Amendment 56 references the points I have just made about who will be in control of this data and who will be allowed access to the system. How will we know that they are using this properly? What will be the consequences? How will errors be caught and so on? The pilot referred to earlier will no doubt throw up some of these answers, but I would be grateful to understand some of the answers to these questions. There is a question at the bottom, in proposed new paragraph (g), on what happens when a child reaches 18. If, in this context, we use an NHS number, those records will presumably continue. Has that been thought through? What other mechanisms will there be to protect the child from identification in respect of other diagnoses carrying into adulthood and being accessed in other contexts?

Amendment 57 deals with a similar point, but here there is a basic error that needs to be addressed. How do we ensure that the identification is used correctly and not attached to the wrong individual? There would need to be some safety mechanisms to comply with GDPR provisions to make sure that errors are caught or can be prevented in the first place.

The question for the Government and the Minister embodied in Amendment 58 is who the Government intend will be the designated persons under new subsection (10).

Amendments 59 and 60 are again probing, on the points that I have already raised. In particular, with Amendment 60, we need to know what the deterrents are likely to be, by reference to some of the terrible tragedies that we have seen where there has been malfeasance or abuse of children by those responsible for looking after them. How is a data-sharing system to protect against that? What filters and checks will there be? What regular monitoring will there be to prevent that?

Amendments 62 and 63 ask what services these provisions will apply to. The Minister will appreciate that there are a lot of questions here, but it is a probing group of amendments. It is not intended to reduce the level of agreement and support for the principle of the consistent identifier but to understand how it will be safely deployed.

Finally, on Amendment 63A, there are questions about when a consistent identifier is to first be applied. Examples there of issues that might arise relate to whether it is to be at birth or at entry into the country, or whether it is to be at the time of the first issue being raised regarding the child’s care. At what point is the consistent identifier to be applied? I note that the Minister has referenced a pilot using the NHS number. That would be self-explanatory, because that number applies from birth—but if that were not to be the case, and if there are other identifiers being considered, what are those identifiers and what is the system around them and the protections that will be attached to them? I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

I advise noble Lords that, if Amendment 50 were agreed to, Amendments 51 to 64 could not be called because of pre-emption.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

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.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

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 of Victoria Climbié, the noble Lord, Lord Laming, recommended the establishment of a new national children’s database for all children under the age of 16. While scrutinising this report six months later, the Health Select Committee in the other place expressed reservations, saying:

“We believe that establishing a national database for children along the lines envisaged by the Laming Report would represent a major practical and technical challenge that should not be underestimated”.


The committee was instinctively open to the concept, likely for the same reasons that many are advocating for it today: if good data can save children’s lives, it of course needs further exploration. The committee went on to say that the implementation difficulties should not be a deterrent and endorsed the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, for a feasibility study to explore the value and practicality of setting up a national database for children.

In 2004, as we heard, trailblazer pilots were conducted to assess the feasibility of implementing a children’s information index. Nine local authorities piloted a range of IT applications and a government study of the indexes concluded that implementation was operationally and technically feasible. By 2009, the Children’s Information Sharing Index had been renamed ContactPoint, with the aim of all local authority ContactPoint management teams having access to the database by autumn 2009. In old money, the estimated development and set-up cost of ContactPoint was £224 million and the estimated maintenance cost in 2009-10 was just under £44 million; most of this latter sum was for local staff to operate, maintain and ensure the security of ContactPoint.

Some giving evidence to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee in the Commons—and arguing strenuously for the SUI—were among those running ContactPoint back then and benefiting from those sizeable contracts. In their defence, they saw this as part of a bigger package and emphasised the need for early intervention in communities and strong relationships with families. The Children’s Charities Coalition said that,

“to really shift the dial we need further investment in early intervention and early help across our communities, and much greater focus on embedding that consistently and universally”.

It also called for further clarification on how the single unique identifier will be effectively applied.

Returning to the ContactPoint database, which was, as I said, abolished by the incoming Government in 2010, it was designed to contain names, ages, addresses and information of all children aged under 18, as well as information about their parents, schools and medical records. Respected organisations such as the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust quantified the scale and financial cost of data collection, the methods used to maintain and secure the data, and the treatment of critical issues such as consent, as part of a wider study. Its researchers found that children are among “the most at risk” from what they called Britain’s “database state”, with three of the largest databases set up to support and protect children failing to achieve their aims.

17:00

Police were also intended to use the database to find out whether a child has had contact with a youth offending team or services such as drug rehabilitation. The Joseph Rowntree Trust report found that this was deterring teenagers from accessing health advice. One of its case studies was of a single mum who was terrified that social services would take her child away if she talked to her GP about postnatal depression. It called for 11 of the 46 systems assessed, including ContactPoint, to be scrapped or redesigned immediately, and for the right for citizens to access most public services anonymously. More broadly, and beyond this report, the civil liberties element was a key factor in ContactPoint’s demise. The then Government never satisfied critics that the security arrangements were enough to assuage concerns about the access of an estimated 400,000 people to children’s names, ages, addresses, et cetera. It was not only that this information might be misused; there was much discomfort with the basic intrusiveness of the whole approach.

Yet despite all this history, there has been only one mention of ContactPoint in all stages of the Bill so far: when my noble friend Lord Farmer asked the Minister at Second Reading what would stop the single unique identifier becoming ContactPoint mark 2. There are many questions to be asked to address my noble friend’s points. When will the Secretary of State introduce regulations for the single unique identifier? Have Ministers consulted the Information Commissioner’s Office, and do they intend to do so before they draft regulations and lay them before Parliament?

Obviously, if this major change is all done through secondary legislation, there will be scant scrutiny of how the single unique identifier will operate. How will people in organisations be required to use the information within their systems? Who will have access to the records associated with the SUI, and under what conditions? What happens if erroneous information is entered? How can we guarantee that false data will be wiped? For example, a vexatious and unfounded allegation made about one parent by another in the context of an acrimonious family split might be associated with the SUI and stay on a child’s record indefinitely, leading to all sorts of injustices. We have seen the misuse of the Malicious Communications Act, and non-crime hate incidents have been improperly recorded and retained, for instance.

Academic literature describes how legal administrative abuse, which weaponises official information systems against a person, is another form of domestic abuse. In this highly sensitive area, what safeguards will there be against this happening? What boundaries will there be on extending the use of the identifier? Again, one organisation giving evidence to the Commons Committee pointed to its scope being currently limited in the Bill to safeguarding and welfare purposes, but said:

“A wider emphasis on wellbeing of children and young people and positive outcomes is one of the things that could be further considered here”.—[Official Report, Commons, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee, 21/5/25; col. 53.]

Again, this all sounds very well-intentioned, but what are the data protection and privacy implications of every interaction with children being captured and stored? Are we trying to achieve through data what can only really be effectively achieved through good relationships between professionals and trusted people in the community, with each other and with the families they are helping?

Finally, it is important to remember that particularly vulnerable children, such as newly arriving asylum seekers, will have no number and not be on a database. For them, local networks of relationships could literally be their saving grace. I trust that the Minister will address these important issues in her remarks. In the interim, I support Amendment 50, 54, 62 and 63.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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 Jackson, is a small but important amendment. Noble Lords have referred to the terrible death of Victoria Climbié. I remember reading the report many years ago; if I remember rightly, eight different files were held on her, partly because she had lived in two local authorities and partly because her name kept being spelled differently, which was one of the reasons why the risk of harm to her was missed. That is an argument in favour of a consistent identifier, but information can still be inputted incorrectly, including numbers—we will have a debate soon on dyscalculia. It is a very serious issue, as is the point, which I had not thought of but should have done, about how malicious information that is shared and recorded could ever be removed. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

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.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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 pilot the use of the NHS number, for example, and to address the wide barriers to effective information sharing. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that we recognise in the piloting the need to ensure that this can be implemented for all organisations, including some of the small organisations that she identified, and we will test this through the piloting. Let me be clear: we will proceed only when we are confident of the benefits, costs, security, and governance of such a system.

17:15

As outlined in my response to an earlier group, we are currently exploring the suitability of using the NHS number as the consistent identifier, with a series of test and learn pilots. This provision will allow us to mandate its use as and when we are confident of its benefit.

Amendment 54 seeks to clarify what is meant by

“a similar set of identifiers that is of general application”.

This wording is not new. It mirrors the language used in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which underpins the adult consistent identifier. The intention here is to provide reassurance that any identifier introduced for children will follow the same principles as those already established, such as the NHS number or national insurance number. In short, this is about consistency, familiarity and interoperability, and ensuring that the system we build for children aligns with existing frameworks and supports safe and effective information sharing.

Amendment 55 seeks to explicitly rule out the use of any physical identifiers, such as tattooing or electronic tagging. I am laughing not because I do not think this is a really important point but because it is so far away from any intention that I can categorically reassure the Committee that this Government have absolutely no intention of introducing a consistent identifier in any physical form, such as a tattoo. The suggestion is entirely contrary to the purpose and spirit of this policy.

The provisions in the Bill are clear. The consistent identifier is to be included in information processed about a child. It is to enable the information to be identified and to be recognised more clearly across organisations. There is nothing to suggest, nor any basis to infer, that it would be physically attached to a child in any way. In fact, it would not perform that function of identifying the information if it were.

I welcome the intention behind Amendment 56, to ensure that the governance of a consistent identifier is both appropriate and transparent. Let me be absolutely clear: these clauses do not require, nor do they imply the creation of, a central register for children. There is no intention to establish a national register. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, took us through a history of ContactPoint and the controversies around it but, to reiterate, this consistent identifier is to enable organisations to much more clearly be able to link information. It is not intended to feed information to a database, the nature of which I can understand some of the concerns around.

The clauses already make it explicit that any organisation subject to the duty must comply fully with data protection legislation. This includes the principles of lawfulness, fairness, transparency, and accountability. As such, this amendment would simply duplicate existing legal requirements, which are already robust and well established. I take the point about what happens at the age of 18. Of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, identified, if the consistent identifier is the NHS number, that obviously would continue into adulthood. I assure the noble Baroness that we have thought through the implications of what would happen if it were not the NHS number as well.

Amendment 57 seeks to guard against the risk of information being attached to the wrong child when using a consistent identifier. This is a valid concern, but it is, in fact, one of the very problems that a consistent identifier is designed to help solve. We have heard how, in previous tragic cases, the problem was caused by the use of the wrong identification or the information not being recorded correctly.

Without a consistent number, professionals must rely on variable identifiers—names, dates of birth and addresses—which are prone to error, take time to verify and can lead to mismatches. This not only delays support but limits the potential for fully integrated services. The accuracy of information is already a core principle of data protection legislation, and practitioners will be expected to uphold this standard. Moreover, where there is any uncertainty in matching a child to their consistent identifier, this is already addressed by new Section 16LB(7) in Clause 4.

Amendment 58 opens an important discussion about how the consistent identifier provisions interact with the professional responsibilities of medical practitioners. I fully recognise the importance of maintaining patient confidentiality. Health professionals are often eager to share relevant information earlier to help identify needs and support families, but many feel uncertain about doing so unless the situation is extremely serious—a point made earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.

That is precisely why new Section 16LB(8) is so important. It provides clarity on how these provisions align with the common-law duty of confidentiality, giving practitioners the confidence to act lawfully and appropriately. In drafting this clause, we have engaged with key health stakeholders, including the National Data Guardian, the General Medical Council and the British Medical Association. We will continue to work closely with them as we develop the statutory guidance. Practitioners will still be expected to inform children and families about the information they have shared, in line with existing best practice. To support them in doing so, we will produce clear and practical statutory guidance to ensure clarity, consistency and confidence in implementation.

Amendment 59 seeks to remove new Section 16LB(9), a provision that makes it clear that the provisions relating to the consistent identifier do not override data protection legislation. To be clear: this is an important safeguard. The new duty sets out the circumstances in which the consistent identifier must be included, but it does so within the framework of existing data protection law. That law provides well-established principles for how personal data must be processed—principles that remain fully in force. This is a standard provision that is routinely included in legislation that introduces new duties or powers to process personal data. It ensures consistency and legal clarity, and it aligns with other measures in the Bill.

Amendment 60 probes the penalties that might be introduced for organisations that fail to use the consistent identifier. There is, I think, broad support in the Committee for ensuring that the identifier is used effectively. These provisions already allow the Secretary of State to mandate the use of the consistent identifier, but only once pilots have demonstrated clear benefit. As with other statutory duties, we will work closely with the relevant regulatory bodies to monitor compliance. This approach—grounded in evidence, collaboration and phased implementation—is the right one. At this stage, we do not believe that penalties are necessary to promote the use of the consistent identifier.

Amendment 62 seeks to require the Secretary of State to establish a strategy for the accurate and secure collection of data obtained under the consistent identifier provisions. I will respond first to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, about whether we have engaged with the Information Commissioner’s Office. I assure noble Lords that we are working closely with the ICO, which is clear that data protection does not get in the way of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children and young people. In fact, data protection law allows practitioners to share information, when needed, to identify children who need safeguarding or have welfare needs. It provides a framework that enables the sharing of information in a fair, proportionate and lawful way.

We will continue to engage with the ICO and expect to work closely with all sectors to plan for the effective implementation of both the duty and exercise of the power to specify a consistent identifier and the agencies required to use it.

Those subject to these duties are already required to comply with existing data protection legislation, which sets out clear and robust rules for the secure and lawful processing of personal data. I will just reiterate a point I made earlier; it is not the intention to use the consistent identifier to develop a database. I hope, therefore, that some of the concerns expressed by some noble Lords are alleviated by that.

Following the pilot phase, we will issue statutory guidance to provide the necessary detail on how these new duties should operate in practice, including how data should be handled securely and accurately.

On Amendment 63, which seeks to place timelines on implementation, as I have outlined previously, there are a number of important delivery questions that must be answered through pilots before we can confirm, via regulations, the identifier to be used and the organisations required to use it. These include technical and legal considerations such as data security, monitoring and oversight, cost and IT system compatibility. It would not be prudent to pre-empt the outcome of these pilots by placing a timeline in the legislation—doing so risks undermining the careful, evidence-based approach we are taking.

That said, this is a manifesto commitment and we are determined to deliver on it. That is why we have taken swift action to begin piloting in Wigan local authority and to include the necessary provisions in the Bill, so that we are ready to implement as soon as the evidence supports doing so.

Amendment 63A would enable consequential amendments to ensure that the consistent identifier is established and recorded at the earliest appropriate moment. It is important that the consistent identifier is allocated at birth, or as soon as possible for children born overseas, and that it is recorded accordingly. As has already been made clear in the other place, the requirement to use the consistent identifier will apply to all children from birth up to the age of 18.

The department, as we have said, is currently piloting the use of the NHS number as the consistent identifier. It is considered the most universal option, with the widest data coverage and known data quality. Through these pilots, we are also testing its limitations and coverage, particularly for children who may not be captured through standard NHS registration processes.

Following the pilot, we will of course consider whether any legislative changes are needed to ensure full coverage of whichever identifier is ultimately chosen. Here, I think the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, also talked about children who had come from overseas. We are working through the implications of those children who come from overseas, perhaps as unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, where we would certainly expect that, at the point at which they were being cared for by children’s social care, their registration with a GP would prompt them to have an NHS number. There are also issues around adoptive children who change their NHS number that we are also working through carefully.

On the point about whether it would be possible to produce draft regs alongside this, for the reasons that I have outlined around both the current piloting and the issues that we are working through on that, it probably would be more appropriate for those regulations to be based on the learning that we have from that piloting and from working through those issues. So I am not going to commit to introducing draft regulations alongside this legislation, but I hope I have gone some considerable way towards reassuring the noble Lords about some of the details of the implementation and the scope of what is being proposed here. I hope that noble Lords will therefore feel able to withdraw their amendments.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

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?

17:30

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

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.

Amendment 50 withdrawn.

Amendment 51

Moved by

[Baroness Barran]

51: Clause 4, page 7, leave out lines 21 to 27 and insert—
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision relating to the consistent identifier.(2) For the purposes of this section the NHS number is the consistent identifier.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the single use identifier is described on the face of the Bill.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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 are not tempted by another major IT adventure in this area. Secondly, it would allow the Secretary of State by regulations to make provision relating to the consistent identifier. Our intention is to get clarity in the Bill that it is the NHS number, but then give the Secretary of State the flexibility she needs to keep the approach up to date. I know that the Minister has said—I do not want to put words into her mouth—that the Government are exploring using the NHS number, and it looks like the front-runner. Those are definitely not the words she used. I wonder whether she could elaborate a little, to the extent that she feels able, on whether it is really the NHS number or whether anything else is realistically in contention. Therefore, if that pilot was not successful, how much time and money would this set us back?

In debates on earlier groups, other noble Lords mentioned the limitations of the NHS number. Of course, there are children who do not have one, including unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, but the Minister has already given a constructive way through that, and there are also adoptive children. I know there are real concerns that adoptive children should have a single NHS number that does not change. I felt there was a hopeful hint behind her words, but maybe she can expand on that. I think there have been cases where changing numbers and not having that history of a child’s health has not been in the best interests of the child.

It would also be good to hear the Minister’s reflections on the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Jackson about families who might be driven away from registering with a GP because of concerns about how their data might be used, thus preventing access to basic healthcare for their children. How real a risk does she believe that to be? Either way, we think that those risks just pale in comparison with those of another new IT project and a number created purely for these purposes. If I have understood correctly that the NHS number is the front-runner, could she expand a little more on the Wigan pilot? Is it the only pilot that the Government are intending to run? How long will it run for? Will there be others? Will they be evaluated? Can she give us any hint on a timeline? I assume there will be no wider rollout until that work is complete. With that, I beg to move.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

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 called David Williams, let alone Siân and Ceri. They are great names but, if you are trying to differentiate between them, you have to be really careful.

The final reason why I think this is particularly important is about transition and children who have learning difficulties and neurodiversity. Transition is an extremely difficult time for children. In those late teens, hormones are kicking in all over the place and all kinds of things are happening. Their relationships with the people who have been their carers through childhood change, and they can be at particular risk during those times, particularly during puberty if they have real learning difficulties.

I really hope that the pilot with the NHS number continues. When the Minister responds, it will be very helpful to know what kinds of numbers are being evaluated in those pilot areas—I hope there are more than one—so that the studies are sufficiently powered to be valid. Where have the objections come from? Who has not complied with being engaged? There may be some education needed to remove any sense of threat, because it will make safeguarding easier for people who have responsibility for children.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

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.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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.

17:45

The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, is not with us, but I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that the noble Baroness has a long record of campaigning for this, as has she. Many people have expressed support for this, and there has clearly been a strong campaign led by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, which we should all recognise.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for recognising that we have, in this case, managed to get some cross-government work between the DfE and the Department of Health. It would probably be wrong for me to say on behalf of the team that it has always been easy and straightforward; nevertheless, it has been happening, and that is really important.

This group of amendments relates to the specification of the NHS number as the consistent identifier in the Bill. I acknowledge that the NHS number is widely regarded as the most obvious and practical choice for a consistent identifier for children. It is universal and assigned at birth to almost every child in the UK, making it one of the most consistently applied identifiers across the public sector. As other noble Lords have identified, it solves some of the problems with other numbers. It offers high data quality and broad coverage, is centrally managed, reducing the risk of duplication or error, and it is already in use across a wide range of healthcare settings. It supports interoperability being embedded in systems used by GPs, hospitals and public health services. This makes it far easier to link data across agencies, which is vital for effective safeguarding and early intervention. Importantly, it is governed by robust data protection standards. It is not publicly visible, and its use is tightly controlled, aligning well with the principles of confidentiality and security that underpin this legislation.

At this point, I will respond to a point raised earlier, and provide reassurance that the use of the NHS number would not imply access to any health records related to that particular number. That is a really important principle of its use as a consistent identifier.

Finally, it is likely to be the most cost-effective choice. By building on an existing system, we would avoid the complexity and expense of creating a new identifier from scratch, which I know will be welcomed by practitioners, the public purse and Members of your Lordships’ House.

However, despite these clear benefits, it is right that we are proceeding with some care. We are currently piloting the NHS number as a consistent identifier, and it would not be prudent to pre-empt the outcome of that work. We will proceed only when we are confident in its benefits, cost, security and governance. This approach allows us to be certain that the consistent identifier will achieve the desired outcomes before mandating its use.

I was asked whether it was the intention to do lots of other pilots. It would be fair to say that, without going too far, we are not piloting a whole range of different options here; we are piloting the NHS number to see that it works, with all the provisos that I have said, and to make sure that it achieves the desired outcomes before mandating its use. It is consistent with the approach taken for the adult identifier in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which provided the legislative framework for the NHS number to be specified via regulations.

I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about adoptive children. There are conflicting views about whether adopted children should or should not have a new NHS number at the point at which they become adopted. Obviously, there are those who are concerned about the continuity of medical information for that child; there are also those who are concerned about whether it would enable birth parents to identify a child making a new start with a new family. All I will say is that there are conflicting views about whether there should be a consistent NHS number there.

That is not to say that there are not ways round that that are being worked through or that the NHS number is not, for all the reasons I have suggested, a very strong contender—I think the noble Baroness asked me to call it a front-runner—but the approach that is being taken with the piloting is an appropriate way to do it.

I reiterate the point I made earlier that it is not necessary for everything to be determined before the NHS number—if it is to be that—could start to be used. We can have an incremental introduction of the NHS number. We do not need to wait until everything is sorted. I hope that, with those reassurances, noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

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.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I again thank the Minister for her reply. I am not sure I heard exactly whether there will be more than one pilot or quite what the timeline was, but, at this hour on a Thursday evening, I will not press her on that. I trust her to update the House when she is able to say more.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her intervention. It is a reminder that we are so fortunate to be surrounded by such experts, and such patient and persistent ones—in a good way. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 51 withdrawn.

Amendments 52 to 60 not moved.

Amendment 61

Moved by

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

61: Clause 4, page 8, leave out lines 31 to 34
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that SUIs can be used for research and commissioning purposes in order to improve outcomes for babies, children and young people.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

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. However, enabling local commissioners and researchers to use anonymised linked datasets could transform our understanding of the impact of particular interventions across traditional service boundaries.

Information is the new gold. We have already seen how relevant and rich data can be used to form policy in education and health, so why not take advantage of this new source of information? There seems to be a lot of saying that they are not going to be databases. Will the Minister define in her answer what she means by databases? I beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

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.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

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?

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

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.

18:00

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, having listened to what has been said about Amendment 61, I say briefly that it is very sensible, providing that the data can be kept safe. That is the caveat. If the Minister could address that point, that would inform the Committee as to where we can go with this.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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 will feel able to withdraw his amendment, having achieved his objective.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

I thank everybody who took part in that debate and say how optimistic the Minister’s answer has made me. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 61 withdrawn.

Amendments 62 to 64 not moved.

Clause 4 agreed.

Amendment 65

Moved by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

65: After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
“Child contact centres(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations—(a) require all child contact centres and organisations that offer child contact services to be accredited in accordance with national standards in relation to safeguarding and preventing domestic abuse;(b) require all child contact centre staff and volunteers to undertake mandatory safeguarding and domestic abuse training which must establish processes to centre the voice and experience of the child and parent or carer at all stages of parental involvement;(c) establish mechanisms to support and develop the role of contact centres in multi-agency risk assessment at a local level;(d) set out a system-wide approach to risk assessment and risk management in child contact centres, including the provision of specialist support for parents, carers and children;(e) ensure adequate funding and investment into child contact centres to ensure locally accessible and affordable provision.(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

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.

While the amendment was not agreed to by the Government at that time, they committed to building the evidence base on the robustness of current safeguarding policies and practices across contact centres. This amendment reflects that and is based on the results of that research and the recommendations contained in that report. The amendment recognises that there is a high prevalence of referrals to contact centres with a history of domestic abuse and the research in the report that reflected that there was at least one referral with a history of domestic abuse in the 12 months preceding the publication of the report in June 2023. I believe that that justifies the need for training and management of a particularly sensitive nature, as set out in the amendment.

I hope that the amendment speaks for itself. I will not go through each proposal in turn, given the lateness of the hour. I was delighted to attend the briefing hosted by the Minister and led by the Secretary of State for Education, which I think shows the commitment and interest of the Government in this Bill. That was appreciated. The Secretary of State, and indeed the Minister, showed a real interest in this matter. I hope that the Minister sees fit to adopt and accept the provisions as set out in Amendment 65, accept that they are needed and agree to them. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Dundee (Con)]

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.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

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.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

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.

18:15

I support this amendment because it recognises and underpins the work done by the National Association of Child Contact Centres. The latest protocol issued by the President of the Family Division urges courts to ensure that they refer families only to accredited centres. Accredited centres meet agreed national standards for safeguarding, data protection, volunteer and staff checks, and training. There is at present still no legal requirement for any centres to have accreditation and therefore no minimum standards for unaccredited centres, even for DBS checks. This amendment would rectify that.

It is my experience, and that of other family judges, magistrates and Cafcass officers, that good centres are vital to the work done to normalise family arrangements wherever possible. The courts now understand when and how best to use the centres, recognising that they are not necessarily the solution to the most intractable cases, and also recognising, as the president has pointed out, that a contact centre is to be seen as a temporary arrangement, a stepping stone to be used for about three to six months, to include some exit plan to move contact away from the centre when the situation has settled down.

Importantly, the protocol requires the centre to be provided with court orders and reports so that it understands what and who it is getting, which may include a mother worried that the contact may not be safe enough, even in a centre, and a father resentful of the use of a centre that he feels to be unnecessary and rather demeaning. There is also sometimes a problem about meeting the fees charged by the centres, which vary, and meeting the travel costs when they are too far away from one or the other party’s home. In my experience, it is gratifying when it works. The parents’ trust is rebuilt, the children’s confidence is increased, and the children enjoy it.

My understanding is that there are, in fact, now only a few unaccredited centres. If that is correct, it is a sign of the success of the accredited centres and the support they have had from the courts. Of course, centres are not the answer to every case, and more informal arrangements using suitable family members or friends to supervise or help may sometimes be safe and workable. The expertise of accredited centres should be recognised and supported.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak incredibly briefly. My noble friend has supported this and, having listened to the debate, I am absolutely convinced that she is right. I hope the Government will give a positive answer.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

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.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

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.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

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.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

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.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

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.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh for her intervention and I very much look forward to discussing this further.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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 national association has now introduced a mandatory coercive control training course for its members and has reviewed and updated its national standards to take account of the findings of the report. It has also revised materials such as its risk assessment template. Additionally, the Ministry of Justice has established a child contact centre forum with representatives from across the family justice system to discuss the issues facing the sector and its role within the system.

In addition, as we have heard, in private law cases judicial protocol guidance, endorsed by the President of the Family Division, encourages judges and magistrates to refer families to NACCC-accredited centres only. This limits the extent to which unaccredited centres are used. We are becoming increasingly confident that NACCC accreditation delivers the protections that people rightly want to see and that there are very few unaccredited centres.

This amendment, however, would mean that there could never be any unaccredited centres. It is worth saying that there are limited circumstances in which unaccredited centres might be used. This could include, for example, unaccredited centres for specific and short-term purposes because of the individual circumstances of the case. One example might be when a child has a foster care placement some distance away from the nearest accredited contact centre; rather than requiring the child to travel a significant distance to undertake contact, the local authority might assess it to be in the child’s best interest to remain at a location closer to their home. However, in doing that—when considering child contact with parents and children—the local authority must ensure consistency with safeguarding and promoting the child’s welfare.

18:30

Even where the provision in such a case was made via an unaccredited centre, the local authority would remain responsible for ensuring that the services and the delivery commissions are of good quality. That is carried out through commissioning, contracting, inspection and evaluation processes, and would of course ensure that the way in which the centre was operating fulfilled the requirements for safeguarding, about which noble Lords are obviously concerned.

Our view, therefore, is that national accreditation via the Secretary of State is unnecessary. Children are already kept safe through the NACCC national standards and, where these do not apply, through the legal duties placed on local authorities for children in their care.

I recognise the point being made about how to improve the amount of funding being provided to child contact centres. The Government are committed to supporting the child contact centre sector. The Ministry of Justice provides £450,000 annually to assist the activities of supported child contact centres. It also provides annual funding directly to the NACCC to support the vital work it carries out in the sector, particularly, as have heard, the accreditation that is so important for ensuring that the standards are maintained. Officials in the Ministry of Justice continue to work closely with the NACCC on its funding needs. While we cannot make commitments about future funding before the spending review or departmental allocations within the Ministry of Justice have been concluded, there has been, as we can see, a record of supporting this work.

The common view is that it is important that accreditation, or local authority oversight, ensures that, in cases of potential domestic abuse or coercion, the necessary standards are in place. Given these assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, will be sufficiently reassured to withdraw this amendment.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

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.

Amendment 65 withdrawn.

House resumed.