Child Risk Disclosure Scheme

Sam Rushworth Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Liz Twist]

I know that people in my hon. Friend’s community were also affected by the case. I certainly agree that the law would make a real difference to people and children in future. That is what we want to do—protect other children.

I have been particularly moved by Gemma and Rachael’s determination to work with other families who have had their lives changed irrevocably by child abuse, including the families of Star Hobson and Tony Hudgell, who is thankfully still alive. This campaign is not only about remembering Maya; it is about preventing other children from enduring the unimaginable pain that Maya did on that day and in the weeks preceding her death.

Although the family were not known to statutory services, the child safeguarding practice review highlighted instances in which professionals could have stepped in—for example, when Maya’s mother contacted a health visitor asking for support or when Maya’s father, James, approached Durham’s First Contact service with concerns about Michael Daymond. James was told to contact the police, where the matter was progressed under Clare’s law and Sarah’s law, but when an officer followed that up, Maya’s mother told them that she was no longer with Daymond and the matter was closed. Clearly, there was a need for more professional curiosity on the part of the First Contact service and the police, but the incident highlighted the fact that neither of those laws is designed to protect children from known risks of non-sexual abuse.

Sarah’s law and Clare’s law operate on a right to ask and right to know basis. Relevant third parties can request information and the police can make disclosures of their own accord if they become aware that a person may be at risk. Clare’s law, which focuses on intimate partner violence, covers children only when they are linked to a primary adult who is at risk of domestic abuse. Although children are the focus of Sarah’s law, its primary concern is sexual offending. Sarah’s law does permit the disclosure of wider safeguarding concerns, but that is discretionary, and there is a presumption to disclose information about an individual only where they have convictions for child sex offences. However, children are killed and harmed in households where non-sexual abuse is taking place and where family members have raised concerns but had no legal standing to insist on intervention.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent speech. Like all people around Durham, I have been deeply touched by Maya’s case. When I first heard about it, I have to admit that I asked myself whether the guidelines had been incorrectly followed or whether we needed a new law. My hon. Friend is making that point excellently, and I put on record my support for what she is doing and for the family. This place is about being a voice for people like Maya.

[Liz Twist]

I am glad to have my hon. Friend’s support in this campaign. As a police officer in Durham constabulary, Maya’s auntie Gemma is well acquainted with these laws and their pitfalls. That is why she and the family are campaigning for Maya’s law, a child risk disclosure scheme modelled on the existing frameworks of Sarah’s law and Clare’s law, and designed to bridge the gaps between them. The scheme should enable proactive information sharing where a child is deemed at risk owing to a parent or caregiver’s known history, even where current laws do not trigger disclosure.

It has long been recognised that information sharing is a serious issue when it comes to child safeguarding. Over 50% of serious case reviews cite communication failure as a primary cause. The independent review of children’s social care in 2022 put it plainly:

“Poor multi-agency working...is a perennial issue that has been raised in every recent review that has considered child protection”.

Existing legislation has attempted to solve this problem. The Children Act 2004 outlines the statutory safeguarding duties of local authorities and how they must work with the NHS and police in multi-agency safeguarding hubs to protect children in their areas. In practice, however, we know that multi-agency working has been more fractured than it should be. Furthermore, the thresholds for intervention are perceived as extremely high, and with a rising number of section 47 inquiries, existing services have been stretched. The result is that, 25 years on from the Victoria Climbié inquiry, we are still seeing children being harmed where opportunities to intervene have been missed.