Session 2009-10
Publications on the internet
General Committee Debates
Delegated Legislation Committee Debates

DRAFT CHILDREN ACT 2004 INFORMATION DATABASE (ENGLAND) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2010



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

Column number: 3 

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. 

Column number: 4 

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. 

Column number: 5 

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

Column number: 6 
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. 

Column number: 7 

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? 

Column number: 8 

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

Column number: 9 
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

Column number: 10 
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

Column number: 11 
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

Column number: 12 
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

Column number: 13 
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. 

Column number: 14 

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. 

Column number: 15 

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. 

Column number: 16 

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

Column number: 17 
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. 

Column number: 18 

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

Column number: 19 
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.  

Column number: 20 

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.  


©Parliamentary copyright
Prepared 10:34 on 30th March 2010