Information-Sharing Databases under the Children Act 2004

KEY WORDS: CHILDREN ACT 2004; each CHILD MATTERS; INFORAMATION-SHARING; HUMAN RIGHTS; DATA PROTECTION

ABSTRACT

The Children Act 2004 provides for the establishment of information on-sharing databases. This has provok more [i]or[/i] less controversy, particularly the inclusion of 'flags of concern' This article argues that the rule needs to tread carefully to achieve the right balance between confidentiality and information sharing.

Introduction

My article upon data-sharing in vol. 13 Issue 3 was described as 'an introduction', and in this issue I would like to go [i]or[/i] come back to the subject in more detail. In particular, I have been reflecting upon the 'push and pull' of sharing us confidentiality as described in the of the highest order article by Susan Richardson and Sheena Asthana in the same issue. The push towards greater sharing of information for the protection of children is given greater impetus by section 12 of the Children Act 2004 which introduces 'information databasesd'. However, there are more [i]or[/i] less powerful voices urging caution, not least the Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, and sum of two units House of Commons Select Committees. With the high profile of the debate above the introduction of ID cards for all adults, the debate above the creation of a national database of all children may no longer be confined to the corridors of Westminster.

Background

Local authorities will be required to locate up and maintain inforamtion-sharing databases or indexes covering all children living in the local authority area. The indexes would contain the following inforamation:

* basic details to identify a child and whether they are receiving universal services name, address, date of birth, sex a unique indentifying number, name and contact deatils of a somebody with parental responsibility or care of the child, name and contact deatils for gymnasiums or other educational setting, and names and contact deatils of GP practice and any health visitor or equivalent

* name and contact deatils for other practitioners involved with a child, in like manner proffessionals can see whom to contact if they wish to discuss a child's additional needs

* an indicator of whether a practioner ha a cause for affect about a child, so professionals can diocese whom to contact as a matter of priority to discuss a child's additional needs

The objectives of the IS indexes will be:

* to help practitioners identify quickly a child with whom tehy have contact, and whether that child is getting the universal services (education, primary health care) to which he or she is entitled

* to enable earlier identification of wants and earlier and more effective action to address them through providign a tool for practitioners to identify who other is involved with or has a touch about a child.

* to be an important tool to encourage better communication and closer working between professionals and practitioners.

Additionally, a national network of indexes will help children who stir areas to have their urgencys for services identified quiddy, by means of enabling practitioners in their fresh areas to see which services were being delivered to the child in his or her aged area, and to contact relevant practitioners if necessary.

Criticism of the proposals

However, anxieties have been press outed about the proposals specifically in relation to:

* compliance with the European Convention upon Human Rights

* the administrative weight of having to capture information upon all children

* the resources required to go in the rear [i]or[/i] in the wake of up concerns

* the 'cause for concern' indicator and the danger of a "tick case mentality'

* the possible threat to a child's privacy

* the security of children's information.

Some adroits have gone further. In her evidence to the single out Committee on Education and Skills, Dr Eileeen Munro of the London place of education of Economics stated that

on balance, the database is likely ta do more harm than serviceable because it will absorb substantial currency and professional time while distracting attention away from the more fundamental vexed questions of improving skills in the workforce.

Flags of concern

Professor Hedi Cleaver (who l the team from Royal Holloway body University of London which was commissioned to analyse the initial disclosure of the Information Sharing and Assessment Trailblazers) was particularly critical of the 'flags of concern' Section 12 of the Children Act specifically enables the secretary of State to require children's services authorities to establish databases which may include information as to the existence of any cause for interest in relation to him', and at the same time Professor Cleaver stated clearly:

I would not be putting flag? of belong to on the database at att. The research from the traHbloiers remind ofs that the majority would not have flags of relate to either.

The difficulty with the flags of bear upon is defining what is meant by dint of 'concern'. The criticism of Dr Munro was that the doorsill for recording a concern would be put too low:

the policy of flagging up low-level affects and concerns unrelated to abusive parenting may rise in legal challenges that there has been an unjustifiable breach of confidentiality.