The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chair: †
Bob
Russell
†
Baron,
Mr. John (Billericay)
(Con)
†
Brooke,
Annette (Mid-Dorset and North Poole)
(LD)
†
Brown,
Lyn (West Ham) (Lab)
†
Cooper,
Rosie (West Lancashire)
(Lab)
†
Engel,
Natascha (North-East Derbyshire)
(Lab)
†
Gerrard,
Mr. Neil (Walthamstow)
(Lab)
†
Kelly,
Ruth (Bolton, West)
(Lab)
Laws,
Mr. David (Yeovil)
(LD)
†
Liddell-Grainger,
Mr. Ian (Bridgwater)
(Con)
†
Luff,
Peter (Mid-Worcestershire)
(Con)
†
Miller,
Mrs. Maria (Basingstoke)
(Con)
†
Stuart,
Ms Gisela (Birmingham, Edgbaston)
(Lab)
†
Swire,
Mr. Hugo (East Devon)
(Con)
†
Ussher,
Kitty (Burnley)
(Lab)
†
Whitehead,
Dr. Alan (Southampton, Test)
(Lab)
†
Wright,
Mr. Iain (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Children, Schools and
Families)
Eliot Barrass,
Committee Clerk
† attended
the Committee
Second
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Monday 29
March
2010
[Bob
Russell
in the
Chair]
Draft
Children Act 2004 Information Database (England) (Amendment)
Regulations
2010
4.30
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and
Families (Mr. Iain Wright):
I beg to
move,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Children Act 2004
Information Database (England) (Amendment) Regulations
2010.
It
is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Russell.
You have shouted at me about council housing and about school
involvement in Essex county council, but I have never served under your
chairmanship before. It is an absolute
delight.
The
proposed amendments make eight small changes to the Children Act 2004
Information Database (England) Regulations 2007. These regulations are
commonly known as the ContactPoint regulations. Before we discuss the
amendments I should like to give the Committee some background to
ContactPoint and clear up some of the misinformation and
misunderstanding about the system.
ContactPoint
is a secure online directory that allows professionals working with a
child to find out quickly who else is working with that child. It
enables them to work together so that they can support the child
better. It is important that we improve communication, or at the very
minimum, access to contact information between the different
professionals working with children. That, purely and simply, is why we
have developed ContactPoint.
ContactPoint
is often seen as based purely on safeguarding. It is not. It is not
solely about child protection. Many children in this country, perhaps
as many as 50 per cent., need extra help at some point in their lives.
We have found that identifying the right people to contact can often be
a long, difficult and time-consuming process. For example, last year my
Department conducted a survey of more than 6,000 professionals working
with children. More than 60 per cent. said that they had had difficulty
finding important information, including basic contact details about
who else was working with a child and in what role. ContactPoint exists
to remove that barrier to finding support.
Because no
one can predict which children will need extra help, ContactPoint holds
records for all children in England, but I must stress—this is
an incredibly important point—that these records contain only
very limited information. A ContactPoint record holds basic identifying
information for the child or young person and the contact details of
services working with them. I must also stress, because this is often
not how it is reported in the media and elsewhere, that it does not,
will not and cannot hold case information such as health records
because primary legislation expressly forbids that.
ContactPoint
is being rolled out across England following a successful early adopter
phase. Local authorities and national partners are currently training
people to use the directory. Access is strictly controlled and granted
only to those who need it for their job. All users must complete
mandatory training, identity checks and an enhanced Criminal Records
Bureau disclosure, which is renewed every three years. We estimate that
the directory will save 5 million working hours each year when the
roll-out is complete. That is a potential saving of
£88 million per
year.
Early
adopters of the system are already seeing its benefits. One told us
that it was only through ContactPoint that she was able to find an
up-to-date address for a child whom she was supporting. In her words,
it “helped enormously”, because it saved her time and
meant that she was able to help the child more quickly. Perhaps during
the debate I can bring out other quotes from service users who can
demonstrate how effective and how efficient ContactPoint has been. My
Department has worked with our stakeholders all the way from the
development stage to the rolling-out of ContactPoint. We have looked at
their advice and at what we have learnt through building and testing
the
system.
We
propose a small number of minor changes to the regulations, but I must
stress that those amendments do not alter the fundamental principles or
design of ContactPoint, or our reasons for introducing the system. We
carried out a formal public consultation on the three most significant
amendments and I should like to discuss each in turn. The first, and
perhaps the most substantial, addresses a recommendation in Sir Roger
Singleton’s review of safeguarding arrangements in schools. The
recommendation was accepted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of
State for Children, Schools and Families in a written ministerial
statement on 24 March 2009. Sir Roger recommended
“That
DCSF take steps to ensure that pupils who receive education in schools
in England, but who are not ordinarily resident in England, are covered
by
ContactPoint.”
Sir
Roger correctly acknowledges that under current legislation some groups
of children in England may be excluded from ContactPoint, because the
legislation states that only children who are ordinarily resident in
England should have a record on ContactPoint. In most cases, children
are deemed to have the same ordinary residence as their parents. For
example, children at boarding school in England but whose parents live
abroad may be excluded from ContactPoint on that ordinary residence
criterion. We believe that children who live or attend school in
England should not be excluded from ContactPoint just because their
parents live abroad. In line with Sir Roger’s recommendation, we
propose to change the regulations to state that any
child
“in the area of
a local authority”
in England should have
a ContactPoint
record.
Mrs.
Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con):
The Minister referred to
consultation undertaken and is talking about the regulation concerning
the identification of children covered. How many parents and children
supported that recommendation in the
consultation?
Mr.
Wright:
Off the top of my head, about 47 per cent. of the
number of people consulted supported that. I might be able to seek
enlightenment during the debate, so I shall come back and clarify that
point if I can.
The
second amendment allows ContactPoint to hold the contact details of all
parents of a child, including those who do not have parental
responsibility. For example, some fathers may not have parental
responsibility simply because they were not married to the mother at
the time the child was born. We recognise that parents without parental
responsibility may still be closely involved in their child’s
life and sometimes it is right to consult them on decisions regarding
their child. That is why we want to include those parents’
details on
ContactPoint.
The
third amendment changes the wording that describes the non-universal
services on ContactPoint. Instead of calling them “specialist
and targeted”, they will be known as “additional”
services. That term is used more widely among professionals because it
is less stigmatising, and that view was supported in a number of
comments we received in the public consultation. The remaining five
amendments are small, technical changes that reflect expert advice.
They will ensure that ContactPoint operates in line with policy
intentions.
My
Department published a detailed response to the consultation on its
website when the amendment regulations were laid. Following careful
consideration of the consultation results, and in light of the
generally positive responses, we decided to proceed with the proposed
amendments. The minor changes proposed will improve ContactPoint as a
tool to help professionals to deliver extra support as soon as a child
needs it. On that basis, I commend the regulations to the
Committee.
The
Chair:
We have been allocated one and a half hours for the
debate. It is not necessarily a target to reach but a time that we must
not go
beyond.
4.38
pm
Mrs.
Miller:
It is, of course, a great pleasure to work under
your chairmanship, Mr. Russell—I do not believe that
I have done so before—particularly on such an important piece of
secondary legislation as that presented by the
Minister.
The
regulations concern what we believe to be one of the
Government’s most flawed pieces of thinking: that, to improve
the safeguarding of our children, it is best to establish a nationwide
computer database of every child’s personal details, which is 11
million records in total, and to allow 400,000 people nationwide to
have online access to those details. About two years ago I identified
some security concerns about the Government’s approach, when the
Deloitte report on security failings was originally brought forward,
and those problems are now coming to fruition. Through Freedom of
Information Act 2000 requests and piloting schemes, we are starting to
see some of the security flaws that caused concern two years
ago.
The
Minister asserted in his opening statement that he was talking about a
“secure online database”. Will he confirm whether he will
be detailing and publishing in full the Deloitte report, so that we can
see that his assertion is indeed reflective of its recommendations?
Certainly the summary of the report suggests that he was somewhat
over-optimistic in that
statement.
The
Minister is always keen to be straight with the House and with hon.
Members. In place of his predecessors, he may want to come clean about
some of ContactPoint’s security flaws. Perhaps those flaws are
now being exposed more clearly—through Freedom of Information
Act
requests—and I suggest that he needs to be candid with the
Committee if he is asking us to vote for and support his
recommendations. He must ensure that we are fully aware of the extent
of any security problems before the additional measures can be
considered in
full.
The
statutory instrument is following a well-trodden path, as we have seen
with the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, where the definition
of who and what is to be covered by a new measure gradually expands
over time, as the Government try to fix the considerable flaws in their
cumbersome and unworkable systems and databases. The draft regulations
are another case in point, but this time I fear that the Minister is
also choosing to ignore the very real concerns of parents and children
expressed in his consultation, to which he referred pretty extensively
in his opening
remarks.
Some
important issues are still to be considered, and I hope the Committee
will give us that opportunity. First, let us stay with the
consultation, because the Minister looked carefully at its advice when
deciding to proceed with the amendments. However, the Committee should
be aware that the consultation received only 47
responses—on a database designed for 11 million children, to
which 400,000 people will have access, the Government received just 47
responses. In my previous existence, in the business world, when
looking at matters for clients, I would never have considered anything
based on only 47 responses. That is not statistically significant and
not a robust way to make
legislation.
There
was just one response from a child. When 11 million children
will be covered by the measure, perhaps one response from a child is
not representative of how children might feel about the measure. Was
the Government’s Children’s Commissioner involved in
drawing up the consultation or in getting more children to respond? If
so, they clearly failed. Can the Minister explain why only one child
responded to what are some pretty significant changes to the
legislation? Also, why were there so many negative reactions from
parents and children—in fact, overwhelmingly negative reactions?
Yet he still chooses to proceed.
How much
money did the consultation cost, to yield just 47 responses? As the
provisions do not seem to be scrutinised in that much detail outside
this place, today is the right time to look at them in a little more
substance.
Regulation
4 concerns who is covered by the new database, as outlined by the
Minister in his opening remarks. It has been changed to include all
children
“in
the area of a local
authority”,
rather
than “ordinarily resident in England”. The Minister
outlined very well why he decided to make that change. There are
assertions that the term is defined in case law, yet—going back
to the consultation—a significant minority of respondents were
concerned
that
“in
the area of a local
authority”
is
an unclear term, which might be interpreted to widen the scope of
ContactPoint inappropriately. In fact, one in five respondents to the
consultation put that issue forward. Not having a clear definition of
who is included is not a great starting point. The Department said it
would require training and guidance for people to understand more
clearly what is meant, but that ignores completely the negative
comments received from parents and children.
The new
measure is seen as a way of catching all children in the database,
rather than focusing on identifying those who require the help and
support of specialist services. Those very real concerns will make the
database unworkable, because local authorities will be left attempting
to draw a line between who will and will not be included, rather than
focusing on how to deliver better services to children who need
help.
The
lack of proportionality is inherent in ContactPoint, and has been
raised by me and other organisations such as Action on Rights for
Children on many occasions throughout the lifetime of the legislation.
The issue was highlighted again only last week in the report published
by the Private Fostering Advisory Group, which states on page
52:
“The
NCB/BAAF research study showed that practitioners had also questioned
whether there was a solution that would enable children in greatest
need to be prioritised by local authorities, while children whose
well-being and safety are secure, would be less subject to scrutiny,
thereby avoiding a tick-box culture in performance and
inspection.”
I
could not have put it better myself. Why do the Government think they
are right and everyone else is so wrong on the matter?
Regulation 5
is about the Secretary of State’s involvement in shielding
decisions, a matter on which the Minister did not touch at great length
in his opening remarks. It is clear from the original proposals that
the role of local authorities was to be involved in deciding whether a
child’s details should be shielded from general view for reasons
of safety or security, or because the individual had other reasons for
desiring to obscure their details from the 400,000 people who will have
access to the database. To date, 51,000 records have been shielded. Why
is the Minister asserting now that the Secretary of State will need to
become involved in making those decisions? Will the Minister explain
exactly how the new system will work, with Ministers taking
responsibility for some of the shielding decisions?
When we talk
to local authorities about how the shielding system works, it is clear
that it is a requirement to have quite detailed local knowledge as to
why shielding may need to take place. Each shielding decision is then
reviewed case by case—at three, six and nine months—to
ensure that the right decision has been made. Will the Minister outline
how the new system will work, with the Secretary of State taking some
of those decisions? When does the Minister feel that decisions will
warrant the involvement of the Secretary of State? Will he give some
specific instances? There has been talk of witness protection schemes
as examples, but how many cases will be involved? Is it a handful or
more than that? Why is he changing the rules at this stage, and on what
evidence?
Regulation
6 is about archiving data. Again, I do not think the Minister touched
on that matter in his opening remarks. There are provisions in the
regulations on the need to place data in an archive system. As the
database is so expansive, I understand why that may need to be the
case, but why are the data being archived rather than destroyed? How
will the security of the archived data be monitored, given that they
will still contain personal and private data relating to every child in
the country?
Regulation 7
is probably the most contentious of all, and is worthy of the most
thorough review by the Committee. The assertion is that the database
should hold all information on all parents of a child, not only those
with parental responsibility or care. It is the most concerning
provision because all of us, as constituency MPs, will know of the
complex nature of the family life of some of the children in our
constituencies. Many different adults may be involved in their lives,
some of whom should and quite rightly have input into their upbringing,
and others whose involvement in their lives, perhaps through decisions
of the court, is thought not to be in the best interest of the child,
even if they are a blood relation. Yet the provision that the Minister
is proposing will mean that all the data will be on the ContactPoint
database. In the consultation to which we referred before, the
Under-Secretary of State could only muster the statement that it should
not increase the risk of harm to a child—“should
not” rather than “will not”.
It is
important that we contemplate that point because we have constantly
heard the assertion that the database has not been constructed in a way
that will put children more at risk, yet all the Minister can say is
that it “should not” increase the risk of harm to a
child. That is not good enough for something as important as the safety
of a
child.
It
is clear from the consultation that most participants did not agree
with the change that the Minister is proposing. Only 47 per cent., or
less than half, of those who responded to the consultation—as we
recall there were not many—agreed with the measure. No children
and almost no parents agreed to the change. Their main concern was that
the scope of the database was being widened with no justification. Such
feelings were expressed during the consultation—this is not my
interpretation of them. There was concern that parents—blood
relations, but without a role in the upbringing of their
children—could be contacted inappropriately. One in five people
said that could be a real safeguarding risk.
The Minister
was swift to assert in the commentary about the consultation that it
was never just an administrative convenience to insert all the data on
the database, something that others have said, too. Indeed, such
information would be included on the records forwarded to ContactPoint
from schools. I accept that it would never be administrative
convenience; the Government would have given matters far more thought
than that, but how can the Minister guarantee that parents without
parental responsibility will not be contacted inappropriately by
individuals who look at the database? A social worker might look at
details on ContactPoint about a child in a domestic violence case and
see that three, four, five or more people might have some care or
parental responsibility for the child. How can they decide who is the
most appropriate adult to contact? As the consultation points out, in
some instances it is required that blood relation parents are kept
informed of a child’s progress while, in other cases, they are
not. The issues are complex, so what relevant information will be
included on ContactPoint so that professionals can make the right
judgment?
As
Ministers have done before him, the hon. Gentleman asserted that there
would be no case material on the database, so how would social workers
make their decision? How would they make sure that they knew the right
parent to contact? How would they make sure that they were not
contacting a parent who had been involved in domestic violence and who
had no responsibility for the child? Before the Minister puts the
regulations to the vote, it is important that he is clear about the
issue, particularly in respect of Labour Members, because unlike me
they could resist the measure. Their decision should be based on good,
solid information. How would the information on parents be flagged? Why
do the Government deem it appropriate and proportionate to hold the
data on their database and why are they not in contravention of their
own Data Protection Act 1998? As the Minister has rightly asserted,
schools hold the data, but they know the conditions and the
circumstances in which the children are living, whereas the
ContactPoint database is dealing with 11 million children and will not
have that important richness of information.
Looking
specifically at children who have been adopted, has the Minister
addressed the concern that children will still be listed on the
database under both their old name and new name, leaving them at
greater risk of being tracked down by abusive parents? I hope he has
examined that issue in detail since it was last raised, because there
seems to be no trace of it in the regulations. The key issue for
members of the Committee is that the interface between the NHS and
Department for Work and Pensions databases linked former and new names
using NHS and child benefit numbers. It creates two different entries
for one child, which can create significant risks for children who have
been removed from their parents for reasons of
safeguarding.
Other
issues still require a short explanation. Some professionals who
responded to the report felt that that the change in terminology and
the reference to additional services—not special and targeted
services—was a move in the right direction, while others thought
it risked children being flagged as accessing services when they were
not at risk or not in need of special attention from the authorities.
Parents overwhelmingly did not agree with that concern. How will the
Minister explain to parents that they have got it wrong and that he has
got it right again? That seems to be the theme of the material we are
considering
today.
Some
issues have not been addressed by the Minister today, which is a shame
because they are important, and he should have taken the opportunity
offered by one of the last Delegated Legislation Committees before the
general election. He might want to update the Committee on some of the
issues. Has the Minister thought about releasing the 2008 Deloitte
report on security failings to make it clear that his assertion about
the guarantee of safety of the data, including the database, is
underpinned by professional
judgment?
Perhaps
the Minister will update the Committee on the security failings that we
are reading about in the press. It is always a shame when hon. Members
have to learn things from the press rather than from Ministers. I
understand that freedom of information requests have
highlighted the fact that Surrey county council, Staffordshire,
Peterborough and London have all been subject to security breaches
within ContactPoint as part of their roll-out process. Hon. Members
will agree that that is very concerning.
The Minister
should ensure that the Committee is aware of other breaches of
security, and of the assessment his Department has made of the risks
posed to children
from those breaches. With 400,000 users of the system, what estimate has
he made of the number of security abuses that will occur each year,
based on the roll-out findings and the pilots? Given the
Government’s appalling record on keeping public data safe, that
is an important issue to put before the Committee before we
vote.
The
Minister knows that his Department has been aware of issues with
matching data since 2006. The Atkins report on data matching
highlighted problems of matching different data sets with vulnerable
children, particularly those who are known to youth offender teams, and
Traveller children. What progress has he made to ensure that the data
that he puts on the system marry up with children who are living in a
community, so that we do not end up with numerous duplications or data
hanging in mid-air because they cannot be married up with the
information about the child to which they refer? Again, there have been
media reports about that, but we have heard nothing from the Minister
today.
Finally,
is the Minister being kept apprised of any judicial challenges to the
legislation? He knows that the Select Committee on the Merits of
Statutory Instruments in the other place said that ContactPoint was not
compatible with article 8 of the European convention on human rights
when it reviewed it in 2007. It is important that he updates us on
that.
The
Minister said that things are proceeding well, but the Government are
again choosing to ignore the real concerns of parents and children, as
well as of Conservative Members. Is it not time to admit that the
Government have got it wrong, and that the provisions are trying to fix
a system that is fundamentally flawed, rather than making an attempt to
think again and introduce something that will address the problems that
our local authorities face? There are too many issues that the Minister
has failed to address, and too many unanswered questions. We will
listen to him, but we remain to be convinced that a national database
is the best way
forward.
4.58
pm
Annette
Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole) (LD):
It is a
pleasure, Mr. Russell, to serve under your chairmanship. The
hon. Member for Basingstoke has given us a comprehensive review of most
of the concerns about this statutory instrument and ContactPoint. In
the light of that detailed coverage, I want to concentrate on a few of
the issues that particularly bother
me.
I
would like to start with numbers; I hate getting into numbers games,
but I am genuinely confused. The Minister responding in the other place
said that
“more than 5,000
authorised practitioners have now been trained and are using
ContactPoint.”—[Official Report, House of Lords,
18 March 2010; Vol. 718, c.
741.]
That is
a very small proportion of 400,000, but perhaps I am misinterpreting
the figure. Furthermore, the report, “Lessons Learned from the
Early Adopter Phase”,
states:
“A
survey of 6,000 practitioners this summer told us the
following”.
I
am concerned about how many people are using ContactPoint at this stage
in its life, and I should be grateful if the Minister clarified that
for me. If we are talking about only 5,000 authorised users, which is a
tiny proportion of the ultimate 400,000, the number of security
breaches that have been flagged up already becomes extremely
significant. That is our concern throughout. There are concerns about
security. We can
look at the whole ethos of ContactPoint and see potential advantages,
but in my view the overall costs, including the security fears, do not
outweigh the
benefits.
I
should like to pick up one or two points, starting with the question of
which children will be included. On the face of it, if we are talking
about children at boarding schools going on to this big database, that
would seem to have some sense. But something else struck me as
absolutely absurd. Two sets of key issues emerged in the consultation.
Some stakeholders were concerned that the proposal to include children
in the area of the local authority was an unclear and ambiguous
requirement. On the face of it, it included children who were
temporarily here on holiday; already it has to be backed up by
guidance. The amount of guidance that is going out all the time is
frightening. We know that not all guidance is read and followed word by
word in schools. So that concerns me
greatly.
My
greatest concern is about extending the database beyond parental
responsibility. My first thought as I read that was about what would
happen if an inappropriate contact was made: it could seriously
endanger a child if a contact is made with a parent who had been
violent in the past. It would be so easy for that to happen. I agree
with the hon. Member for Basingstoke that this is the most significant
part of the consultation result—if we can indeed count 47
responses as significant.
When we dip
into the result, we see that 47 per cent. of respondents either agreed
or strongly agreed that the details of parents without parental
responsibility should be included on ContactPoint, and 47 per cent. of
respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed. That is hardly a mandate
to proceed with
something.
Seven
per cent. of respondents felt that the change widened the scope of
ContactPoint without adequate justification; 13 per cent. of
respondents were concerned that including this information could lead
to practitioners making mistakes over the appropriate person to
contact; 20 per cent. of respondents were concerned that the proposed
amendment could involve safeguarding risks. I cannot imagine how the
Government can proceed on the basis of consultation with those sorts of
responses. My single biggest concern is where human error comes in and
somebody connected with the child is contacted inappropriately. Without
a lot more consultation and work, I cannot possibly accept
that.
We
have always been concerned about the stigmatising impact of including
information on specialist and targeted services. It has been a huge
concern because if young people know that that information is available
to others, they may not access some services which they really need to
use. It is a concern because it is difficult for GPs to provide
information when they know that they are building up contact with young
people on the basis of trust and confidence. In certain cases that has
to be in the long-term health interests of the child. So changing the
wording to “additional services” means that the measure
is a bit better phrased. However, we are a long way down the line to
start thinking about that. After all, we have been talking about the
stigmatisation effect since 2003, when we started discussions on what
became the Children Act
2004.
Consideration
of the issue of shielding has always flagged up the fact that the base
is not secure. If the base were secure, we would not need any shielding
whatever—it would not be necessary to shield the names of famous
people’s children. Although the database exists, it is still
necessary to protect children if there has been an issue of domestic
violence. I would like to know why it is necessary to bring the
Government into the decision making as well. It seems that the database
is even more insecure than we had previously been led to
believe.
The adopted
children issue is very difficult if we are going to include both names
on the database. However, that highlights why ContactPoint is fraught
with dangers. There have been many recent examples of child protection
where the issues have related to people not talking to one
another—it was not that those concerned did not know. In the
recent Birmingham case, teachers knew that children in the family were
scrabbling around for food and were starving. I do not think that
ContactPoint would have helped; the relevant people needed to talk to
one another. We should concentrate our resources on getting the key
people talking and acting together
effectively.
5.6
pm
Mr.
Iain Wright:
I pay tribute to the hon. Members for
Basingstoke and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole. I think we all agree
with the last comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North
Poole. The Government have never suggested that ContactPoint will be
some sort of magical panacea that will stop tragedies from taking
place. However, ContactPoint can ensure that contact information that
allows agencies to communicate with one another is made available in a
timely, efficient and effective manner. I think hon. Members from all
parties want
that.
Before
I respond in detail to the challenging points rightly raised by the two
hon. Ladies, I would like to quote what Martin Narey, the chief
executive of Barnardo’s, has
said:
“We
believe that the directory will provide a quick way for professionals
to find out who else is working with a child; making it easier to
deliver better co-ordinated services. Ultimately ContactPoint has the
potential to make the world a safer place for vulnerable
children.”
A
staff nurse from an accident and emergency department has
said:
“I'm
spending far less time finding other practitioners working with the
same child. ContactPoint is helping to make everything smoother,
quicker and more efficient. The assessment can be made and phone calls
made within a short period of
time.”
My
final quote is from a member of a youth offending team, who
says
“I
found what I was looking for in moments, and from that I was able to
phone the surgery and get the name of the lad’s GP. Very useful
- and it’s saved me a lot of otherwise time-consuming detective
work! Getting the info usually involves making phone calls and/or
getting the young person's worker to ask on first appointment.
Frequently the young person doesn’t know and it can take me
several days to track it down, especially as, more often than not,
there are several medical centres in the
vicinity.”
Those
quotes encapsulate how valuable ContactPoint can
be.
The
two hon. Ladies raised about half a dozen key concerns about
ContactPoint. I have written those concerns down as being: security,
the nature and extent of the consultation, the recommendation from
Singleton in respect of the area of a local authority, shielding,
parental responsibility, and possible breaches and
contravention of the Human Rights Act 1998. If I have missed anything
out, I am sure that the hon. Ladies will intervene.
Let me start
with an absolutely fundamental point: security. No one wants a
database—a directory—that has security weaknesses and
that would breach important information regarding a child. The hon.
Member for Basingstoke mentioned the Deloitte review on a number of
occasions. That review confirmed that robust measures are in place for
the security of ContactPoint and it did not find any areas of
significant weaknesses. She has a great deal of justification in asking
us to produce and publish the full report.
I believe
that our stance on the publication of the full report is right. Full
publication would be contrary to what she wants, which is to ensure
that we can have confidence in the security of the system. The Deloitte
review holds important information on the security architecture of the
system. I do not want to give a head start to hackers in breaching the
security system by giving them access to the full report, and I am sure
that the hon. Lady does not want that. I want to make it as difficult
as possible to breach security. It is appropriate to provide
reassurance by publishing the executive summary, but I do not think
that it would help to publish the full report. In fact, I would go
further and say that that would compromise the security of the
system.
Mrs.
Miller:
Is the hon. Gentleman going to come on to the
media coverage of the particular security breaches in half a dozen
local authority
areas?
Mr.
Wright:
I apologise to the Committee because in my
eagerness, I moved further and faster than I anticipated. The hon. Lady
is right to bring me
back.
There
have been about half a dozen security breaches. I will be candid with
the hon. Lady and the Committee. The breaches demonstrate a number of
things. First, they demonstrate that the system works because it was
flagged up that they were outside the normal parameters of what is
acceptable. Secondly, I am reassured by the nature of the breaches
because no malicious or sinister breaches were taking place. In the
vast majority of cases, the security breach stemmed from the user
testing the system by putting his or her child’s details into
the directory to see what would happen. That was outwith the
parameters, requirements and responsibilities of the directory.
However, as I said, that does not demonstrate any sinister or malicious
intent. It does show that the system
works.
I
hope I have reassured the hon. Lady. We should not be hysterical about
this matter. We should be concerned with the security integrity of the
directory, but the breaches that we have seen do not demonstrate a
fundamental weakness in the security, nor a systematic attempt to
access this sensitive
information.
I
will move on to my second point, which is about the nature of the
consultation.
Annette
Brooke:
Before the Minister moves on, will he clarify how
many users of ContactPoint there
are?
Mr.
Wright:
If I am incorrect on this matter, I will write to
the hon. Lady and the Committee. There are about 5,000 users. That
figure is growing all the time. I hope that that satisfies
her.
The hon.
Member for Basingstoke mentioned on a number of occasions that there
were 47 responses to the consultation. If I interpreted her line of
attack correctly, she used that as an argument against the amendments,
but it could show that in the main people are content with the proposed
amendments. As I said, this is not a massive change of policy or a
fundamental shift in the principles of the ContactPoint directory. We
are trying to make things work better following the early adopters
phase.
I
do not think that the fact that there have been 47 responses
to the consultation indicates that the system is fundamentally flawed.
If I may, I would like to go back a step and consider the shaping of
the system. I mentioned earlier that parents, carers and other vital
stakeholders have played a key role in the Government’s
development of ContactPoint, particularly in terms of communication,
security, confidentiality and rights. Children and parents were the
single largest group of respondents to both of our two previous
consultations. As I tried to stress in my opening remarks, throughout
the development of ContactPoint, we have consulted with more than 1,000
children in workshops and in numerous meetings of our children and
young people reference group.
I must stress
that the most recent consultation focused on the amendments to the
regulations. We approached a number of different children’s
groups, such as the National Children’s Bureau, but we were
advised that the nature of the amendments was unsuitable for targeted
consultation.
I think that
the low number of responses indicates a sort of implicit acceptance of
the amendments. It also demonstrates the fact that we are not changing
the principles of the directory; we are altering the technical aspects
with some proposals. Regarding other aspects of the amendments, they
are quite modest administrative changes, which do not affect the
principles or the design of ContactPoint. On that basis, I do not think
that the relatively low number of responses can be held against
us.
The
hon. Member for Basingstoke directly asked me whether the
Children’s Commissioner was involved in the consultation. The
straight answer is no, the Children’s Commissioner was not
involved. The hon. Lady also asked me about the cost of the
consultation. I do not have precise figures. However, I can say that
the consultation was online, that it used existing channels, as I
mentioned earlier, and that it used existing consultation mechanisms,
including stakeholder groups. Although I do not have the precise
figure, on that basis I am satisfied that it will not have been an
immensely or disproportionately expensive consultation. However, I will
certainly write to the Committee in general and to the hon. Lady in
particular to respond to that query.
Mrs.
Miller:
I thank the Minister for giving way again and I am
sorry to detain the Committee. However, he is talking about these
things being “modest administrative” changes. I remind
him that parents and children almost overwhelmingly did not agree with
what he is putting forward. So is he is saying, again, that he knows
better than parents and children when it comes to these
matters?
Mr.
Wright:
No, and let me come on to the third, fourth and
fifth points, which relate to the most significant parts of the
amendment regulations.
Let
me start with Sir Roger Singleton’s recommendation with regard
to the area of a local authority. Having read the consultation and the
responses to it, the hon. Lady will know about question 3, which
was:
“Do
you agree that using each child in the area of a local authority meets
Sir Roger Singleton’s recommendation?”
There were 42
responses to that question. Of those, 59 per cent. of respondents
agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal; 40 per cent. of
respondents strongly agreed. The positive response rate was
particularly high from local authorities.
I fully
accept the point that the hon. Lady raised, rightly, that about a
fifth—21 per cent. actually—of respondents raised the
concern that the phrase
“in the area of
a local authority”
was unclear and
ambiguous. As the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole mentioned,
several respondents felt that there was a risk that that could lead to
children who were passing through England temporarily, for example if
they were on holiday, being inappropriately and disproportionately
included on ContactPoint.
The hon.
Member for Basingstoke will know that we responded to those concerns in
the Government response to the consultation, where we said that we
think that the proposed amendment that we have put in place will meet
Sir Roger Singleton’s recommendation. As I said, we think that
any child living in England, regardless of where they go to school, and
any child who attends school in England, regardless of where they or
their parents ordinarily live, should be included on ContactPoint. We
propose that guidance and training be revised to ensure that the
meaning of the phrase is clear.
The basis of
question 4 of the consultation was, “If you do not like the
phrase, ‘in the area of the local authority’, if you are
not happy with what Sir Roger Singleton is saying, have you any
alternative suggestions?” Some 52 per cent. of responses said,
“No, we have no alternative suggestions.” Nine
respondents—27 per cent. of the consultation—had
alternative suggestions and they are highlighted in the response. There
are essentially three: to include all children who live in the area of
a local authority on ContactPoint, even if for part of the year only;
to list all groups of children, so that they are all included on
ContactPoint; or to specify a minimum length of time that a child must
be in the area of a local authority to be included on ContactPoint. In
our response to the consultation, we addressed each of those three
points in turn.
We had a
number of concerns about the suggestions. To require that only children
who live in England be included on ContactPoint would exclude children
who access services, such as education—whether that is boarding
school, or elsewhere—in England. Crucially and fundamentally,
that does not meet the recommendation of Sir Roger Singleton. I will
come on to the other point in a moment, but those children
are
“in the area of a local
authority”
and that phrase is
defined in case law and primary legislation. Local authorities and
practitioners already have duties towards those children under the
Children Act 2004. ContactPoint is a directory, a mechanism to allow
local authorities and practitioners to meet those duties as enshrined
in primary legislation.
Listing the
groups of children who are to be included on ContactPoint, along with
those who are ordinarily resident in England, would always risk
excluding other unanticipated vulnerable groups of children who are not
listed. As I said in my opening remarks, we do not know how many people
would need access to services. We estimate that 50 per cent. of
children in England would access services at some stage.
On the point
about having a minimum length of time that a child must be in the area
of a local authority to be included on the directory, we thought that
that was an overtly rigid approach. As I said, the
phrase
“in
the area of a local authority”,
has been defined in
case law. There may be exceptional cases that are a matter of
professional judgment as to whether a child should be included on
ContactPoint. Such a decision, as we have said in the response, should
be based on an assessment of the duties of local authorities towards
children under sections 10 and 11 of the Children Act 2004.
To conclude
those points, the element that is most important is the
phrase
“in the area of
a local authority”.
That phrase is well
defined in case law and is already used in primary legislation, so it
is an appropriate use in this particular regulation. On that basis, we
have decided to proceed with the proposed amendment. In coming to that
conclusion, the Government have taken account of the broadly positive
response to the amendment, particularly the overwhelmingly positive
response from local authorities and the fact that it is consistent with
primary legislation. I hope that that gives a clear guide as to how we
came up with the proposals on the amendment.
I would like,
if I may, to move on to the point about shielding. The hon. Ladies
rightly mentioned their concerns with regard to the Secretary of
State’s involvement in shielding ContactPoint records. Let me be
as clear as I can be on that. The Secretary of State will exercise the
power only in appropriate cases, in collaboration with the proper
authorities. That involvement, or intervention, will be clarified in
the revised statutory ContactPoint guidance. The whole Committee will
be aware that those cases will involve some of the most serious
safeguarding and security issues. Related information must be kept
secure and the number of individuals involved in applying the shield to
those records must be minimised for the individual’s own safety.
All of those decisions, including those taken by the Secretary of State
to shield records, will be on a case-by-case basis. I think that it was
the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole who suggested that the
children of celebrities might be included. I have heard that
MPs’ children might also be included as a group of people.
Categorically, that is not the case. All of it has to be followed on a
case-a-case basis, and must follow the criteria set out in the
ContactPoint guidance.
The hon.
Member for Basingstoke asked what sort of issues would result in
shielding. Again, as the matters are dealt with on a case-by-case
basis, it is difficult to prescribe a particular view. However, she
alluded to the issues herself. In cases of witness protection and
domestic violence, if the child or others are at increased risk of harm
if their whereabouts are known, the records will certainly be subject
to shielding. I must stress that only
where the relevant criteria are met will a ContactPoint record be
shielded. I hope that that explains the concerns on
shielding.
The hon.
Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole raised the point about how
including the details of parents without parental responsibility raises
concerns about safeguarding—it was a well made point. The hon.
Member for Basingstoke said that that was a particular concern in
consultation and essentially asked why we have ignored it. We are not
ignoring it. We have taken the views raised in the consultation
extremely seriously and considered the issue very carefully. Where a
record is shielded, only minimal information about the child will be
visible to ContactPoint users. As I have said, the decision to shield a
record will be taken on a case-by-case basis by local authorities or by
the Secretary of State.
It is
important to point out that it cannot and should not be inferred from
that that a parent somehow lacks parental responsibility. As I said in
my opening remarks, a father may lack parental responsibility simply
because he was not married to the mother at the time the child was
born. That does not necessarily mean that the father is not in contact
with the child or that parental responsibility has been
denied.
I want to
mention three things with regard to parents without parental
responsibility, particularly relating to legislation and current
Government policy. Under the Children Act 1989,
“where a child
is ‘looked after’ by a local authority, the local
authority has a statutory duty to consult the child’s parents
about decisions that affect the child, unless it is not reasonably
practicable or consistent with the child’s
welfare”.
That
includes parents who do not have parental responsibility. The
directory, ContactPoint, can facilitate such consultation. In addition,
the Childcare Act 2006 requires local authorities to encourage the
involvement and engagement of parents in early childhood services and
identify parents who may be disengaged from them. That includes parents
without parental responsibility. By allowing ContactPoint to hold
contact details of all parents, the amendment regulations before us
will mean that ContactPoint is an improvement to help practitioners to
make such
contacts.
I
now move on to policy. The amendment, as it stands, is consistent with
our Department’s policy, particularly the Government’s
understanding of the importance of engaging with fathers. For example,
in the “Children’s Plan”, we state
that
“we
need particularly to improve how government and services involve
fathers.”
In
2008, a research report from the Department noted that the difficulty
of
“identifying
young and non-resident fathers was…a critical barrier to
engagement with them across virtually all family
services”.
The
amendment to include contact details for parents without parental
responsibility on ContactPoint will help to overcome that barrier to
engagement.
Mrs.
Miller:
I am not sure that I am still following the
Minister. ContactPoint will potentially have numerous parental contacts
detailed in it. If a child arrives at A and E with an injury, with an
adult who purports to be that child’s parent, how will the
doctor or nurse accessing the database know whether that person was an
appropriate person to talk to? If they saw the person’s name on
the database, professionally, they might assume that that person was
someone appropriate to talk to.
How will we
ensure that it is flagged if that person has a parental relationship
with the child but does not have parental responsibility? It seems
complicated.
Mr.
Wright:
Forgive me; I am probably making it more
complicated than it is. I flag up to the Committee the ContactPoint
report “Lessons learned from the Early Adopter phase”,
which explains some of the benefits. I encourage the Committee to read
it. I have a quote that gives a flavour, although it might not address
the hon. Lady’s concern fully. It gives an idea of how different
names can be
used.
Christopher
is a contact centre supervisor at an information referral team. He
says:
“I
had a case where a mum had been going to different agencies and
authorities using different names for her child. Another area had three
separate chronologies and identities for one child and we had two. This
meant sufficient concerns had not been raised about what was going on
in this child’s life. When I searched ContactPoint, it had
grouped most of the aliases together. This helped me come to the
conclusion that it is just one child, and working with my team we are
now able to act appropriately to support this
child.”
I
know that that does not address the hon. Lady’s point directly,
but I suggest that it indicates that ContactPoint can group information
to allow people
to—
Mrs.
Miller:
I am sorry to intervene again, but time and again,
when Ministers are asked specific questions, as the hon. Member for
Mid-Dorset and North Poole will know, they cannot answer. If the
Minister cannot answer such questions, how does he expect doctors,
nurses, teachers and people working on the front line to answer them
for him? He is supposed to be the expert; he should be able to tell the
Committee.
Mr.
Wright:
The hon. Lady is missing the point. I am trying to
explain it. I stress two things. One is that the directory does not
hold detailed, sensitive information about case history, medical
records and so on. The other, which is very relevant to her question,
is that it does not do the work of practitioners or agencies. It does
not alter the fundamental principle that practitioners must always
ascertain that they are in contact with the appropriate person. As I
said, it is not a magic wand or panacea that will allow every child to
be safeguarded, but it points people in the right direction and cuts
down on how much time is spent and effort duplicated in attempts to
contact the appropriate agency.
The directory
has never relieved practitioners of the need to do the work, and we
have never said that it would. However, it can provide important and
clear directions about how people can access the relevant information.
That is a direct answer to the hon. Lady’s
point.
Moving
on, the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole made a point about
human rights. I think she
mentioned—
Annette
Brooke:
It was the other hon.
Lady.
Mr.
Wright:
I apologise. The hon. Ladies look very similar.
[
Interruption.
] That was meant to be a compliment
to both. Someone take this spade away from
me.
It
goes without saying that we as a Government take extremely seriously
our responsibilities under the convention on human rights. We are
confident that if ContactPoint were to interfere with article 8 of the
convention, which deals with the right to privacy, any interference
would
be proportionate and justified. Article 8 is not breached when
interference with that right is in accordance with the law and
necessary in a society to safeguard certain interests. On that basis,
we are confident that any interference is lawful, proportionate and
justified, and that the requirements in article 8 are
met.
We
have always sought to strike a balance between children’s and
families’ rights to the services to which they are entitled, and
their individual rights to privacy. The regulations strictly define and
limit what information can be held on ContactPoint. As I said, it does
not mention case information such as notes, assessments, medical
records, exam results or anything like that. On that basis, we think
that it complies completely with article 8.
I hope I have
demonstrated the need for these amendment regulations and that my
explanation has reassured the Committee. ContactPoint is a necessary
tool to help practitioners carry out their duty to safeguard
information, and on that basis, I commend the regulations to the
Committee.
Question
put.
The
Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes
6.
Division
No.
1
]
AYES
Brown,
Lyn
Cooper,
Rosie
Engel,
Natascha
Gerrard,
Mr.
Neil
Kelly,
rh
Ruth
Stuart,
Ms
Gisela
Ussher,
Kitty
Whitehead,
Dr.
Alan
Wright,
Mr.
Iain
NOES
Baron,
Mr.
John
Brooke,
Annette
Liddell-Grainger,
Mr.
Ian
Luff,
Peter
Miller,
Mrs.
Maria
Swire,
Mr.
Hugo
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the
Committee has considered the draft Children Act 2004
Information Database (England) (Amendment) Regulations
2010.
5.37
pm
Committee
rose.