Disclosure and Safeguarding: At-risk Children

Lewis Atkinson Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 731497 relating to a disclosure and safeguarding mechanism for at-risk children.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and to open this important debate as a member of the Petitions Committee. The petition creator, Gemma Chappell, is the great-aunt of Maya Chappell, who was just two years old when she was tragically killed in September 2022 in County Durham. Maya was killed while in the care of her mother’s partner of nine weeks, Michael Daymond, who was subsequently convicted of Maya’s murder, while Maya’s mum was convicted of child cruelty and allowing her death. We are here today because of the extraordinary campaigning efforts of Gemma, her sister Rachael and other members of the family who refused to let what happened to Maya be forgotten.

Across the north-east of England, Maya’s smiling, innocent face has continued to be prominent, posing a devastating but simple question: will we as a society do everything possible to prevent a tragic death such as Maya’s from happening again? As a result, and aided by campaign support from The Northern Echo newspaper, more than 110,000 people have signed the petition asking that a new, proactive information-sharing safeguarding framework be put in place to protect at-risk children.

I would like to place on record my condolences to Maya’s family, as well as my admiration for how they are working on this issue through their grief. By telling Maya’s story in the media and in their campaign, they are encouraging others who have concerns about abuse to come forward and raise issues for investigation.

However, awareness is not the family’s sole aim. Gemma says it is time to move from expressions of sympathy to action. To spur that action, Maya’s family told me in our conversation in advance of today that they want every MP here to have a vivid idea of who Maya was. She was a loving, happy, adventurous child who enjoyed nothing more than running around the park and who loved Peppa Pig. Rachel calls her “the smiliest girl”. Maya had a notably sweet tooth, and her family remember her cheeky look as she ate two slices of cake at another child’s holy communion—and then went back for more. Maya was learning how to talk, and she had only just started speaking before she died. Her favourite words were “park”, “Peppa” and “daddy”.

As a parent, it is hard for me to comprehend the pain of losing a child, not least in such awful circumstances. Maya’s dad, James, was an important and loved part of her life. He raised concerns after seeing marks on her body, but those queries were dismissed by Maya’s mum. He was so concerned that he contacted police to ask about Daymond’s background, but Maya’s mum falsely claimed that she was not seeing him any longer, and that was accepted without corroboration.

Gemma is clear that we must not shy away from the awful realities of this case and what Maya suffered—the type of horrors suffered by the around 60 children a year who are killed by abuse or neglect. Maya was abused over a period of time; this was not a one-off event. She was abused for weeks. She was hurt. She lived in fear. Pathologists found a catalogue of injuries. In the end, Maya died as a result of being deliberately shaken and having a head injury inflicted.

The children such as Maya who are killed every year are not statistics: they are wonderful children, full of life and with their lives ahead of them. They are loved by many, but without a voice. Maya was too young to be able to alert anyone to the horror she was experiencing. It is for us in this House to be a voice for children such as Maya and to advocate for all possible steps we can take to prevent such deaths in the future.

I now come to the four specific asks in the petition, which together are being termed Maya’s law. The first ask is to

“Introduce a Child Risk Disclosure Scheme”

that would operate similarly to Clare’s law, or the domestic violence disclosure scheme, and Sarah’s law, or the child sex offender disclosure scheme, but that would be

“focused on the broader risk history of caregivers.”

The second ask is to

“Require statutory services (police, social care, health) to disclose relevant past”

information

“to the child’s parent or legal guardian when a risk is identified.”

The third ask is to

“Establish multi-agency response protocols, particularly where child contact, custody, or unsupervised access is being considered.”

The fourth ask is to

“Empower professionals to raise safeguarding alerts and initiate family court safeguarding interventions where known risks exist, even if not currently under active investigation.”

Thanks to the work of Gemma’s MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist), these matters—particularly the introduction of a child risk disclosure scheme—were subject to debate in this Chamber six months ago and received a response from the Children and Families Minister, whom we look forward to hearing from again today. That debate, and the Government’s response to the petition, highlighted that the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will take key steps to strengthen safeguarding, including introducing a new information-sharing duty between agencies, which will end misconceptions about when information can and cannot be shared. In the six months since the last debate, the Bill has continued its passage through Parliament, and it should hopefully finally become law in the next few weeks.

The petitioner welcomes the action taken in the Bill, but they want to see a clear timeline for implementation and they emphasise that any new duties can be implemented only with improved professional training and practice. The petition’s key ask, though, remains outstanding and is not included in the Bill: strengthening the right of parents and close family members to request and to be proactively given information about the risks that other adults might pose to a child.

As part of my preparation for the debate, I had the opportunity to speak to a range of organisations working to protect children, as well as to organisations involved in existing disclosure and notification schemes, including Operation Encompass, which ensures that schools and, soon, early years education providers are notified when a child is at a home where there has been an attended incident of domestic abuse.

A child risk disclosure scheme along the lines requested in Maya’s law would be a significant undertaking. It would need to be clear about thresholds. For example, would only convictions be disclosed, or would wider intelligence about risk be too? I note that, last month, the Government announced they would create a new child cruelty register, following campaigning from the adoptive mother of Tony Hudgell. Will the Minister say a little about how the Government envisage the information held in that register being disclosable and to whom? Could that serve as the first step to the wider disclosure scheme that the petition seeks?

Any disclosure scheme would also have to specify who has the right to request or receive information. It is important to note at this point the range of different family structures that safeguarding, in practice and law, must operate with. In many cases, including Maya’s, a child’s parents may be separated. In some circumstances, wider family members, such as aunts, provide important supplementary caring roles, and their involvement is a contributing factor in strengthening the safety of a child. It is important that the professionals involved have the time and curiosity to understand the different structures and dynamics of the families they are working with.

In Maya’s case, disclosure was directed towards her mother, who tragically did not ensure her safety. In the review of Maya’s death, it was recommended that agencies should have shown greater professional curiosity and follow-up when a separated father such as James shared worries about his child. Across all serious case reviews of child deaths, the failure to share information between professionals is the most common issue identified and the main area where improvement could prevent harm.

However, it has also been flagged to me that there can sometimes be risks of sharing too much information beyond professionals, depending on the relationship dynamics of a particular family. Operation Encompass notifications are limited to trained recipients of information in professional settings. Gemma’s view is that the benefits afforded by proactive sharing would outweigh such risks, and she wants any disclosures to be as full as possible. I would be grateful if the Minister set out in his response what opportunities there are safely to increase the information available to families about the risks that children face, whether that be through a disclosure scheme or other mechanisms.

Everyone I have spoken to recognises that any new disclosure scheme would require significant resourcing in order to be implemented appropriately. I have heard consistently that resources too often do not meet demand in the current safeguarding system, with many organisations concerned that police forces do not have the capacity to meet the growing requirements on them. Can the Minister say something about the level of resources he envisages will be required to implement measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill? Can he also say whether, following implementation of steps such as the unique child identifier, which may in time enable more automated sharing of information between agencies, there will be a release of resource that could then be utilised for disclosure schemes such as that sought through Maya’s law?

Maya’s family believe that a disclosure scheme would have made a big difference in their tragic case, but they know that keeping children safe also requires child-focused services that can provide proactive and independent assessment of a child’s wellbeing and safety. That is a matter not of legislative change, but of clear service standards and proper resourcing. The Government rightly highlight their commitment to expanding early support for families, including through family hubs, but can the Minister say a bit more about his assessment of the wider services that contribute to safeguarding, especially health visiting, which the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has raised particular concern about? Maya did not receive the health visitor visits she should have, and such a visit could potentially have resulted in someone spotting the abuse she was being subjected to. Health visitor numbers have fallen by 43% since 2015, and some health visitors report caseloads of up to 1,000 families. One in five children does not receive their final health visitor review at age two—the age Maya was when she was killed. How do the Government plan to close that gap? Given that we know that child deaths from abuse and neglect are concentrated in the infant years, does the Minister believe that health visiting should be a priority area for investment in the forthcoming NHS workforce plan?

I will draw my speech to a close with a reflection on the emphasis by Maya’s family on the need for urgent action. It is frustrating to me—I am sure that it is to other Members as well, but it is perhaps particularly frustrating to a new Member of Parliament—that the landmark child protection legislation introduced by the Government, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which we voted on for the first time in January 2025, has still not completed its passage through Parliament to become law. Although proper legislative scrutiny is of course necessary, I think it is fair to say that the public do not understand why it takes so long to pass changes in the law through this place. I think MPs and peers of all parties need to reflect on how we work here and how that impacts on the pace of change that families such as Maya’s rightly demand.

When that law is enacted, what can each of us do to ensure that its changes are implemented as quickly as possible? Perhaps the Minister can say whether an implementation timescale will be published and reported back on. How quickly can we get to the point at which further changes, including a disclosure scheme bearing Maya’s name, are possible? Her family expect action, the 110,000 signatories of this petition expect action and our constituents expect action—action to ensure that fewer children are killed by abuse and neglect, action to share more information and action to develop better safeguarding systems to protect wonderful, smiling children like Maya. I look forward to hearing Members’ contributions to this important debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for securing this debate, and for doing so in a way that builds on the important debate held in this Chamber on 14 October, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist). I also thank all the Members who have contributed to this debate today from across different parties and have recognised the amazing young children whose lives were tragically cut far too short.

I also want to reiterate what I said on 14 October because it underpins the whole debate: no child should ever suffer at the hands of someone who was entrusted with their care and

“no family should endure such a loss.”—[Official Report, 14 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 94WH.]

I want to recognise Maya’s family, in particular Gemma and Rachael who I have had the privilege to meet and spend time with over the past few months. Their unwavering determination took the petition from more than 6,000 responses back in October to 110,000 when it closed in February. I am grateful to them for giving up their time to meet with not just me, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and officials from the Home Office. I am grateful for their ongoing, tireless campaign to bring about change.

Through their petition, they are calling for the creation of a child risk disclosure scheme known as Maya’s law, which would require statutory services to disclose relevant past history when a risk is identified, establish multi-agency responses with protocols, and empower professionals to raise alerts where known risks exist. Changes to deliver the goals of Maya’s law are, I believe, in train. We are taking a number of steps to further strengthen existing schemes and improve multi-agency working. I hope to set out in some detail how the Government are doing that.

At the moment, the Government are taking action to strengthen information sharing in particular in three separate but complimentary ways. First, through strengthening the child sex offender disclosure scheme, which been referenced throughout the debate; secondly, through the introduction of a child cruelty register, which was not something on the cards when we last had this debate in October; and thirdly, through introducing a new information sharing duty in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Those changes cover different aspects of sharing information; they are changes that will come into effect in law and some of them are new since the debate we had at the end of last year.

As referenced in the petition, Sarah’s law already allows members of the public to make an application to the police for information where they have a child protection concern, enabling the police to disclose information to those best placed to safeguard a child from harm. Although formally known as the child sex offender disclosure scheme, it extends well beyond those offences to the disclosure of any relevant information that the police hold that is necessary to protect a child. That may include previous convictions for child sexual abuse, a history of child cruelty, domestic violence or intelligence relating to violent or sexual offences. The maximum timescale for Sarah’s law applications to be completed is 28 days from start to finish unless extenuating circumstances justify an extension. Where an imminent risk of harm to a child is identified, the police must take immediate action to safeguard those at risk.

Sarah’s law does not rely solely on applications from members of the public; it also provides a framework for the police to make proactive disclosures when they believe a child is at risk of serious harm. For example, if the police become aware of an adult with a conviction, caution or charge for child abuse having unsupervised access to a child, they can and will disclose that information to the person best placed to protect that child—usually a parent, carer or guardian—whether or not a Sarah’s law application has been made.

That is the current situation, which goes far beyond just cases of child sexual abuse, but in the Crime and Policing Bill currently before Parliament the Government are going further by strengthening Sarah’s law and placing it on a statutory footing. The clauses in that Bill will mean that chief police officers will have a statutory duty to follow the Secretary of State’s guidance, which will be issued shortly after the passage of the Bill on Sarah’s law. In practice, that will reinforce and strengthen the police’s responsibility to make disclosures whenever necessary to protect a child.

In addition, the same Bill will establish a new child cruelty register. That will require adults convicted of child cruelty offences to notify the police of key changes in their circumstances in the same way that registered sex offenders need to at the moment. That improves the visibility of known risks and supports police to make informed decisions, including where disclosure under existing schemes, such as Sarah’s law, may be necessary to protect a child. At this point, I want to pay particular tribute to Tony Hudgell’s family for their campaigning on this specific change.

Finally, through our Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we are addressing long-standing misconceptions about when information can and cannot be shared. We are introducing a new information-sharing duty and placing a clear legal obligation on police, children’s social care, health and other relevant agencies to share information to safeguard children. That responds directly to findings from, among others, the independent review of children’s social care, which I led before being elected to this House. It found that despite existing legislation there were both perceived and real barriers to sharing information between different agencies. We have worked closely with the Information Commissioner’s Office, practitioners and other Government Departments to ensure that the duty supports sharing across the full breadth of safeguarding or when promoting the welfare of children. That, along with the single unique identifier—which I referenced in the debate on this matter in October—will help professionals build a clearer picture of a child’s life.

Crucially, and relevant to Maya’s story, the information-sharing duty requires practitioners to share information with each other about other individuals in a child’s life where that information is relevant to safeguarding or promoting a child’s welfare. More robust information sharing will enable practitioners to act on and inform families of concerns appropriately. It also makes clear that any information that could protect a child should be shared at the earliest opportunity to prevent harm. Once the Bill is passed, I will be eager to fully involve Gemma and Rachael in the early drafts of the statutory guidance that would deliver on this commitment in the Bill. There will be an implementation plan published imminently after the Bill, and I am just as eager as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central to see that the Bill is passed soon.

I also want to underscore that there have been debates in this House about the issue of malicious allegations. These are often made and are a feature of the children’s social care system where we have complicated family circumstances and people coming forward with information that may not always be wholly accurate. With that being a large feature of some of the information that services have access to, we should note that we need to design information-sharing systems that account for those kinds of malicious allegations.

[Lewis Atkinson]

I thank the Minister for his response and the very welcome commitment that he has made to involve the family in the development of the statutory guidance. As he alludes to, family circumstances differ significantly and the person in the family best placed to keep a child safe may or may not have parental responsibility—in some cases, it may be a grandparent, an aunt or so on. Will the Minister ensure that the statutory guidance reflects that in terms of the wider disclosure beyond just parents?

[Josh MacAlister]

My hon. Friend is quite right to highlight that the question for children’s social care teams and anyone involved as a statutory safeguarding partner for these children needs to be: who is around this child who loves and cares about them? That will differ significantly among children. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) mentioned a case where it was the grandparent who was a really important part of a child’s life and was missing from the picture. We need to make sure the statutory guidance reflects that among children it will often be very different.

Strengthening child protection is this Government’s absolute priority, which means acting early so that the right support is in place before harms occur. That is why we are delivering landmark reforms by overhauling children’s social care, not just through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill in the ways that I have highlighted, but with £2.4 billion of investment in changing our family help and child protection systems. We are also introducing multi-agency child protection teams, which will be mandated through the Bill, enhancing the child sex offender disclosure scheme and introducing the new child cruelty register. Together, those reforms put learning into action.

I hope to continue working with Gemma, Rachael and other family members who have been affected by these awful tragic stories to strengthen the implementation of these reforms, as well as others in the future. They reflect the loud call for change that this petition rightly demands. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central for opening this debate, and all those who have contributed to it. Let us honour Maya’s memory with not just words but change as soon as possible, so that no child is left unprotected, and no family unheard.

[Lewis Atkinson]

I thank all Members for contributing to this important and serious debate. As we can tell from the Members present, this issue has a particular north-east focus, because it was our part of the world where Maya lived and was loved, and where she was tragically killed. However, this issue is far from specific to the north-east, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster), made clear when he referred to the case of Sara Sharif. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) also made that clear.

Too many children across the whole country are killed by abuse and neglect, and I really welcome the Minister’s commitment to involving the family in the development of the statutory guidance, and the recognition that, in many cases, families come in different shapes and sizes. They sometimes have different dynamics, and social workers and other agencies need to have the professional space and time to figure out who in any family is best placed to help safeguard a child. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill delivers on the Government’s commitment to introduce a duty to share information between agencies, which is absolutely right and welcome. However, there will always be a family member who potentially has additional information. They will love the child as they are, and—no disrespect to any professionals involved—that is a key part of the safety picture for any individual child.

I welcome the Minister’s commitments on this issue. Let us hope that we can get this legislation passed, as well as the following statutory guidance, which will take us a step closer to Maya’s law and the progress and action that the family requires. I know that Gemma and Rachael wanted to ensure that Maya’s voice was heard in Parliament today, and I hope they feel that it has been. I thank all Members again, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for the work she has done on this issue and for her contribution today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 731497 relating to a disclosure and safeguarding mechanism for at-risk children.