Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Written evidence submitted by Liberty to the Public Bill Committee’s call for evidence on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill (CWSB190)

Introduction to Liberty

1. Liberty is an independent membership organisation. We challenge injustice, defend freedom and campaign to make sure everyone in the UK is treated fairly. We are campaigners, lawyers and policy experts who work together to protect rights and hold the powerful to account.

2. Liberty welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the Public Bill Committee. This evidence submission considers Clause 4: New section 16LB of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which seeks to introduce a single unique identifier for use in particular circumstances when sharing information across agencies . This submission identifies areas for further scrutiny of the proposed provision based on civil liberties principles , human rights , and existing evidence.

Aims of Clause 4: New section 16LB

3. Liberty supports the stated aims of the relevant clause (and the Bill generally) as they relate to the need to render child protection and safeguarding practices more effective and to reduce the risk of harm to children and families. The evidence base indicating that current policy contains significant gaps is strong, leading to some children ‘falling through the cracks’ in the system as is laid out in the policy documents associated with the Bill. [1]

Human rights and civil liberties implications

4. In principle, Liberty supports policy and legislative initiatives and changes that seek to improve child protection systems as these systems and their ensuing operational measures seek to fulfil the state’s obligations towards child rights-holders and seek to enable children to exercise their rights.

5. Child protection is a civil liberties and human rights issue: children are entitled to the right to life, [2] the right to be free from inhuman or degrading treatment, [3] and the right to be free from slavery and forced labour, [4] among other rights. Each of these rights confer positive obligations on the state; for instance, the state has a duty to take preventative operational measures and to provide a regulatory framework that safeguard the life and wellbeing of children within its jurisdiction. [5]

6. Other human rights treaties further strengthen children’s rights that are also engaged by child protection policy, for instance in areas such as education and housing. [6] The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), to which the UK is a signatory, further provides for the child’s rights to relax and play (Article 31), to be safe from violence (Article 19), to a sufficient standard of living (Article 27), and to an education (Article 28), among 51 other rights. [7]

7. Policies and laws relating to child protection also engage rights and entitlements related to discrimination. One of four key principles of the UNCRC is non-discrimination (Article 2). The Equality Act 2010 in part seeks to protect this right through the prohibition of discrimination, including when using public services and in education. [8] Public bodies have a positive obligation to advance equality of opportunity and eliminate discrimination. [9]

Relevant evidence related to child protection, civil liberties, and human rights

8. There is evidence that some child protection strategies and systems may exacerbate inequalities and perpetuate harm for children in marginalised groups, including Black and global majority children and children living in deprived areas. Maslaha’s Radical Safeguarding Workbook demonstrates how child protection and crime reduction initiatives can lead to disproportionate harm for Black and global majority children and young people where policies rely upon identity-based risk profiling. [10] Safeguarding initiatives that necessitate elements of profiling and surveillance (e.g., the Prevent duty and the now-scrapped gangs matrix) have been evidenced as harmful for some children, including Black and global majority children. [11] Child Safeguarding Practice Reviews have repeatedly raised concerns around adultification bias among professionals responsible for child protection, wherein Black and global majority children are perceived as threats rather than in need of support, at times contributing to serious violence or death. [12] Organisations such as the NSPCC include in their best practice that unconscious bias may impact child protection professionals’ effectiveness when working with Black and global majority children. [13] Research has further found that "the institutional context and organisational structure of children’s social care is contributing to systematic inequalities in provision" along lines of race and class, whereby factors such as deprivation levels in the local area have a significant effect on the provision of children’s social care services such as child protection plans. [14]

9. The introduction of a single unique identifier seeks, in part, to address forms of inequity and gaps in child protection practices, some of which are identified by research and evidence in the preceding paragraph (9). Given the varied effectiveness and – at times – risks to civil liberties and human rights posed by some current child protection practices and systems, Liberty encourages the Public Bill Committee to consider the following areas for scrutiny that may strengthen Clause 4: New section 16LB.

Areas for scrutiny

10. Liberty recommends the Public Bill Committee consider the following as they seek to strengthen Clause 4: New section 16LB:

a. The steps that will be taken to ensure that children’s right to privacy is protected, as provided for by Article 16 of the UNCRC, Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and under Data Protection legislation. For instance, would the inclusion of a child’s NHS number or other single unique identifier in data relating to a child render them more identifiable, and relatedly would it render the risks posed by data breaches and hacks more acute? Would the relevant data containing the identifier be destroyed when a child turns 18, in accordance with Data Protection requirements? Would the use of an NHS number disproportionately interfere with the right to privacy as it relates to health data?

b. The steps that will be taken mitigate the risk of inequity and discrimination in service provision. For instance, if the single unique identifier is an NHS number, what steps will be taken to ensure that information-sharing for the purposes of child protection does not worsen or is inadequate for children who do not have an NHS number?

c. The steps that will be taken to mitigate a potential discriminatory chilling effect on children or families seeking support who may perceive themselves to become (or materially become) vulnerable to information-sharing for e.g., immigration enforcement purposes as a result of the introduction of a single unique identifier.

i. Relatedly, the steps that will be taken to mitigate the risk of perpetrators using this perception or material reality (e.g., linking seeking child protection help to immigration enforcement) as a method of coercion and control of children, especially in relation to child criminal exploitation and child sexual exploitation and/or abuse which engage Articles 3 and 4 (related to inhuman and degrading treatment, and slavery and forced labour respectively). [15]

d. The steps that will be taken to ensure that the principles contained in the UNCRC are applied in any specification of the single unique identifier, including in future statutory instruments. These principles include that children should not be subjected to discrimination in the enjoyment of their rights, that the best interests of the child are a primary consideration, that the state has a positive obligation to ensure the survival and development of the child, and that the views of children are listened and respected to in matters affecting the child. [16]

February 2025