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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.