Child Risk Disclosure Scheme

I will call the hon. Member to move the motion and then I will call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a child risk disclosure scheme.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. The focus of this debate, a child risk disclosure scheme, might sound a bit complicated and dry. In some ways, it is. It is about how our laws, policies and institutions come together to protect some of the most vulnerable children in this country, and about how we close gaps in a complex web involving our police, the NHS, local authorities, our education system and families. Ultimately, however, it is about the children at the heart of those cases and the lives that have been altered forever by the most horrifying abuse. Some we may never know the names of, but their lives were still important, still cherished and still worth protecting.

My constituent Gemma Chappell and her sister Rachael know that pain all too well. Their great-niece, Maya Chappell, was cruelly murdered by her mother’s new partner in September 2022, aged just two and a half. The case shocked the community of Consett in my constituency, as well as communities in Shotton Colliery, County Durham and across the north-east.

Before I talk more about the case, I want to talk about Maya. If one thing was clear from my conversations with Gemma and her family, it is that Maya was a treasured little girl. She had family, friends and an entire community who loved her and who looked after her. Despite her tender age, she touched the hearts of everyone she met with her huge smile, infectious laugh and friendly nature. She was full of life, mischief and personality. She loved cake, playtime and “Peppa Pig”. Although it is a privilege to remember Maya here in Parliament, it is with a deep sadness that we are here today because this much-loved little girl was failed so terribly by those who were supposed to protect her.

Maya was born on 7 March 2020, just before the start of the pandemic. Being born at that time meant that she was not seen by others. Although her mother was not known to statutory services, Maya’s family say there were early red flags, including missed health visits, concerns about drugs being in and around the house, and her parents being involved in controlling or concerning relationships.

In summer 2022, Maya’s mother began a relationship with Michael Daymond, and they quickly moved in together. A judge would later conclude that from that moment, Daymond began hurting Maya regularly. She soon began to sustain bruises that were noticed by other people. Relatives flagged these injuries to Maya’s mother, but she did not act. Instead, Maya was kept away from her father, James, and from the staff at her nursery so that they could not see the impact of Daymond’s abuse. In fact, following Maya’s move to Peterlee, members of her family did not even know where she lived.

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on making such a powerful and moving speech. I also want to pay a personal tribute to Gemma Chappell and her family for launching the Maya’s law campaign. We have already accepted that the right to know can prevent abuse and murder in domestic and sexual violence cases—that is, for adults. Surely it is now time for Parliament to extend the same protection and safeguards to children who cannot speak for themselves. Does my hon. Friend agree that the key aims of the Maya’s law campaign—a child risk disclosure scheme, mandatory multi-agency safeguarding protocols, and new powers for professionals to raise alerts and trigger family court interventions—would represent a vital step towards a genuinely progressive safeguarding approach?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I congratulate the hon, Lady on bringing forward this important debate and on speaking powerfully on behalf of her constituents. My heart goes out to Gemma, Rachael and the entire family.

My constituent, 11-year-old Tony Hudgell, was just 41 days old when his birth parents abused him so badly that he had both of his legs amputated. Tony will have to live with the consequences of that abuse for the rest of his life. His birth parents have served eight years of a 10-year sentence and have now been released. They will be managed and monitored by police and probation for the remaining two years of their sentence, but after that there will be absolutely nothing—no supervision, monitoring, managing, or reporting of changes in circumstances. The case details will be archived. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is another terrible gap in the system, and that we urgently need a child cruelty register, so that those who remain a risk to children—vulnerable little innocent children and babies—will continue to be monitored and managed?

I know that Gemma, Rachael and the family have been working together with other families who have been affected, including Tony’s family. What happened to him is absolutely tragic. We need to take a number of steps along the way, and today we are arguing for this disclosure arrangement. I am very happy to talk to the hon. Member further about Tony’s case and how it can be improved.

The Government have taken vital steps forward with the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill by placing a duty on certain agencies to disclose information to other agencies where they consider it to be relevant to safeguarding or promoting the welfare of children. That is a recognition of the regulatory barriers perceived by practitioners when sharing information, and of the culture change that is required. I am in no doubt that those measures, including the establishment of multi-agency child protection teams and the introduction of a single unique identifier for children, will help to save lives.

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Maya’s tragic story has touched many people across the north-east. I am pleased to support the family’s campaign. As my hon. Friend mentioned, one key ask from the family is the disclosure of information about wider caregivers. The recurring theme of serious case reviews into child deaths is that agencies have not worked together as they should. Does she agree that, for this law to be effective, there needs to be a laser focus on ensuring that statutory agencies genuinely work together?

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is really important that we keep the focus on protecting our children and taking the steps we have outlined today.

Although it is vital that we improve safeguarding mechanisms among professionals, there is still more to do to ensure that families like the Chappell family are empowered to escalate their concerns, and that their concerns are taken seriously. We need greater awareness among the public and professionals of safeguarding risks that fall outside a narrow view of sexual abuse and intimate partner violence, we need to support safeguarding agencies to fulfil their obligations and hold them to account when those obligations are not fulfilled, and we need to close gaps to protect vulnerable children from slipping through the cracks of a fragmented system.

What steps is the Minister taking, alongside colleagues in the Department for Education, to ensure that our legislation is watertight? Will he commit to working across Departments to ensure that safeguarding partners work alongside each other to uphold their responsibilities? Will the Department for Education, working alongside the Home Office and others, consider the role of the police in protecting children from a broad range of potential risks? Finally, will the Minister meet me and Maya’s family, who are here today, to hear about their concerns and the changes we believe are necessary to prevent future tragedies?

Every loss of this nature causes unbearable pain for loved ones and carers. Maya’s family have worked so hard to get the campaign to this point. Sadly, her death is not the first high-profile case in which more could have been done. Had this debate been longer, I am sure we would have heard testimonies about many more children whose deaths could have been prevented. To put it simply, in each of these cases, reports are produced, and they almost invariably cite lessons learned, as was the case with Maya. The family and I are calling for those lessons to be put into action. As Gemma Chappell says:

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for securing a debate on this important subject, and for her powerful and heartfelt speech.

We are here today because of Maya Chappell, a two-year-old girl whose life was cruelly taken far too soon. Maya’s death was a tragedy. No child should suffer at the hands of someone entrusted to love them, and no family should endure such a loss. I begin by paying tribute to Maya’s great-aunts Gemma and Rachael, who I believe are here today. Their tireless campaigning has brought us together for this debate. Their petition, now signed by more than 6,000 people, calls for Maya’s law. It is a call born out of unimaginable pain but also a deep commitment to protect other children from harm. In Gemma’s words,

“it is a call for prevention, accountability and a united commitment to child safety”.

This is my first parliamentary duty as a Minister, so it is fitting that I am here to talk about keeping children safe, which is a top priority for this Government and, unquestionably, the top priority for me in my role as the new children and families Minister. Every child should feel safe and loved. Sadly, Maya’s family are not alone in calling for change; the stories of Star Hobson and Tony Hudgell have also been mentioned, and their families echo that call.

When I led the independent review of children’s social care, which my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett referred to, I heard from families, professionals, frontline practitioners and many others who shared exactly those concerns. The child safeguarding practice review panel’s most recent annual report found that 81% of serious incidents involved poor co-ordination or handover between services. That theme has been repeated over many decades; to date, we have failed to grasp it.

Clearly, there is a whole lot of activity going on to improve child protection, but we think there are some significant gaps. Would the Minister be prepared to meet me and the family so that we can explain where we think the gaps are and how we could improve the legislation?

Of course I will.

All of us in this room agree that keeping children safe is a top priority. To quote my hon. Friend, the lives of the children we have been talking about were still important, still cherished and still worth protecting. To do that effectively, we need to share data, provide intensive help to families when they need it and sharpen up our children’s social care system.

My hon. Friend made a number of asks of me. We are firmly committed to working across Departments to improve how safeguarding partners work together and ensure that police are fulfilling their obligations for children, and yes, I will meet her and Maya’s family to hear their concerns and the changes they wish to see. I would also welcome their views and experiences being heard as these changes are progressed through the roll-out—