For several months, professionals in the field have been
protesting about data sharing protocols produced by the Sheffield
and Pan-London Area Child Protection Committees which have been
promoted by the Government as models which other Child Protection
Committees should follow.
The protocols state that professionals must carry out full
personal assessments on anyone under 18 who is in a sexual
relationship, share information about that young person with other
professionals and, in many cases, inform the police of under-age
sexual activity.
In October, more than 20 bodies, including the British Medical
Association and teachers' and youth organisations, released a joint
statement criticising the protocols and expressing concern that the
Government may adopt these protocols as national policy.
They point out that reporting sexual activity to the police
would, in practice, increase the occurrence of sexually transmitted
disease and increase the number teenage pregnancies because young
people would be reluctant to seek advice on sexual matters.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) has
already said that the operation of databases which are intended to
improve data-sharing between professionals in relation to child
protection are likely to breach the obligation, placed on all
public authorities, to show respect for an individual's private and
family life.
One reason for this potential breach of the principle
enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
is that the Government intends to permit the sharing of details of
all children under 16 years old, irrespective of whether
or not the child is at risk. In some cases, the provisions apply to
under-18s.
The JCHR wrote in its report, published last September: "The
creation of databases containing personal information and providing
for its disclosure to third parties involve serious interferences
with the right to respect for private life in Article 8 which must
be strongly justified".
In the case of the Children's Act, it concluded: "Parliament
is being asked to authorise in advance a major interference with
Article 8 rights without the evidence demonstrating its necessity
being available."
The JCHR recommended then that Governments, in relation to any
bill, should: "identify the Convention rights and any other human
rights engaged by the bill"; identify the "specific provisions of
the bill which engage those rights"; and "explain the reasons why
it is thought that there is no incompatibility with the right
engaged".
Dr. Chris Pounder, a privacy law specialist with Pinsent
Masons and editor of Data Protection and Privacy Practices,
commented: "The Government has failed to implement or to respond to
this recommendation. This has meant that human rights questions in
relation to its child protection, ID Cards and anti-terrorism
strategies largely go unresolved."
According to Stephen Grosz, a partner with law firm Bindmans
who produced the new advice, it is difficult to justify automatic
referral to the police.
He added that the protocols “do not set out clearly that
police checks, referral and assessment take place only in cases
where intervention may be necessary to prevent significant harm,"
adding that "there appears to have been little or no attempt to set
out the factors which might be taken into account in striking the
necessary balance.”
He said that the protocols “do not set out with any precision
the safeguards which are to apply to the recording, exchange and
dissemination of information held by the relevant agencies. In
particular it is not clear who will have access to the data which
will be held by the police, and under what conditions”.
Mr Grosz concluded that the routine assessment on all
under-18s involves a disproportionate interference with their right
to respect for their private life.
