Child Risk Disclosure Scheme

Liz Twist Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

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.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)]

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.

On 28 September, Michael Daymond was being chased for drug debts and was told that his universal credit had been cut off. On that day, he subjected Maya to the most appalling physical violence, leaving her with injuries that were not survivable. She died in hospital two days later, on 30 September 2022.

It has now been more than three years since that tragic day, but Maya’s family and the community of Consett have ensured that her name has not been forgotten. I doubt that there is a single person in Consett and active on social media who has not seen Maya’s beaming smile, which is exactly how her family want her to be remembered. They have held local events, reached out to everyone they can think of and grabbed the attention of local and national media. It is thanks to their tenacity that I am here today and it is a tribute to the entire community, who have got behind the campaign in memory of Maya’s life.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

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?

[Liz Twist]

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.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

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.

[Liz Twist]

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.

[Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)]

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?

[Liz Twist]

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.

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

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?

[Liz Twist]

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:

“Let’s make that phrase mean what it should. Not the end of a case, but the beginning of change.”

We should not be here today. Today Maya should be five and a half years old. She should be enjoying her time at school, making friends and going to birthday parties. Her family will not have the opportunity to watch her grow up and see where life would have taken her, but they want to take every opportunity they can to ensure that no family has to endure the pain that they have. I pay tribute to them and hope the Minister can work with me and Maya’s family on that mission.

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

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.

That tells us one thing clearly: we need fundamental change. I believe that we are now delivering that through the most significant overhaul of children’s social care in a generation, backed by legislative change, which I will speak more about in a moment, and over £2 billion of investment in this spending review period. Through those reforms, we are laying the foundation for much better information sharing, introducing a responsive family help system, and significantly sharpening up our child protection arrangements. I think that is a comprehensive response to the lessons we have learned from Maya’s murder.

My hon. Friend set out that a principle of the child risk disclosure scheme is to enable proactive information sharing where a child is deemed at risk. With the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we are ending misconceptions about when information can and cannot be shared. The new information-sharing duty places a legal obligation on relevant organisations to share information to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. That replaces a duty only to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the wellbeing of children, which is a significant shift.

[Carolyn Harris in the Chair]

The duty responds directly to feedback from my independent review, and it will blow away the fog of confusion between agencies about when it is and is not appropriate to share information. Crucially, and linked specifically to Maya’s story, the duty also states that information about other individuals, if relevant, must be shared. That will allow practitioners to act. In the coming months, we will be consulting on and publishing statutory guidance to support practitioners in implementing the duty, and I welcome contributions from Maya’s family—from Rachael and Gemma—to the process.

I agree with those campaigning for Maya’s law that we need to change the law, and that is what we are doing right now. Given the progress of the current reforms—particularly the information-sharing duty, and the passage of the Bill through Parliament, which is at an advanced stage—I do not believe that now is the time to introduce a child risk disclosure scheme specifically. However, many of the proposals are reflected in what we are taking forward as a Government with the wider children’s social care reforms, and there are other aspects, which I will also mention.

Alongside the introduction of a duty to share information, we are exploring how to support frictionless sharing of information between agencies through technological improvements. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill introduces a single unique identifier for children—in my first week in this role, I went to Wigan to see the pilot for that being successfully rolled out—to meet our manifesto commitment to stop children falling through the cracks of services. We are working closely with NHS England, the Department of Health and Social Care and local authorities to pilot the implementation of that programme, using the NHS number as the identifier.

A single unique identifier will not solve the whole problem on its own, but we believe that it will allow much freer sharing of information between agencies to enable them to spot links and make sure that children do not fall through the gaps. Once needs are identified—this leads to the second major plank of change that we have under way—our reforms will ensure that children and families receive support when they need it, through much more extensive family help services.

That will be delivered through the families first partnership programme, a new model for supporting families earlier to prevent problems from escalating. It has been tested in a number of areas across the country, but we are committed to rolling it out nationally. We want local areas, children’s social care, police, health, education and other partners to deliver the programme as highly skilled, multidisciplinary teams that get around families early in order to provide support when it is needed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett urged me to commit to cross-departmental collaboration to ensure that safeguarding partners work together effectively to uphold their responsibilities. We published the “Families First Partnership Programme Guide” in March—we are updating it for next March—and we are working closely with the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Care to deliver this work. I will chair a new keeping children safe board, which will involve Ministers across Government, to ensure that we deliver these changes effectively.

It is not enough just to share information and provide intensive support to families; we also need a much more responsive and decisive child protection system where there is significant harm. Building on more proactive and intensive family help, we will be making major changes to child protection in England—some of the most dramatic in years. We are introducing new multi-agency child protection teams, which will bring together safeguarding partners so that, where there are concerns about significant harm, we are not waiting for agencies to refer to one another or come together for a meeting. Instead, they will be nested together permanently in a shared multi-agency arrangement.

My hon. Friend rightly outlined the need for the police to protect children from a wide range of harms, not just those traditionally associated with criminal activity. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill introduces a duty on each of those multi-agency child protection teams to include police representatives nominated by the chief officer for the area. There will be, in statute, a requirement on the police to be part of those teams. These reforms will ensure that strong multi-agency protocols are in place locally to better protect children from significant harm.

[Liz Twist]

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?