Multi-agency information sharing protocol

Effective information sharing is essential to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. It enables practitioners to build a fuller picture of a child’s circumstances, identify emerging needs, recognise cumulative or contextual risk and coordinate appropriate support.

​

The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 introduced a new statutory information sharing duty through section 16LA of the Children Act 2004. The duty comes into force on 30 September 2026.

​

The duty provides greater clarity about when relevant information must be shared between organisations involved in safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. It applies not only where there is a risk of significant harm, but also where information may support early identification of need, prevention, assessment or support. There is no requirement for a child to meet a particular statutory threshold before relevant information can be shared.

​

The new duty works alongside, and does not replace, existing safeguarding procedures, Working Together to Safeguard Children, Keeping Children Safe in Education and data protection legislation.

 

Who does the duty apply to?

The statutory duty applies to specified safeguarding organisations, including local authorities, Integrated Care Boards, NHS trusts, police, probation, youth justice services, designated education and childcare agencies, and organisations providing relevant safeguarding services on their behalf.

​

Other organisations and practitioners may not themselves fall directly within section 16LA but should use the guidance as good safeguarding practice and continue to follow local safeguarding procedures.

 

When must information be shared?

Where an organisation covered by the duty:

• holds information about a child, or another person connected to that child;

• considers that information relevant to safeguarding or promoting the child's welfare; and

• considers that sharing it may help another relevant organisation assess need or risk, make a decision, provide support or take safeguarding action, the information must be shared, subject to the limited detriment exception described below.

 

The duty also applies when relevant information is requested by another organisation covered by the legislation.

This includes information relating to:

​

• emerging or unmet need

• early help and prevention

• abuse, neglect or exploitation

• contextual and extra-familial harm

• risks a child may pose to other children

• cumulative or historical concerns

• patterns of behaviour or incidents

• relevant information about parents, carers, siblings, peers or other adults connected to the child.

​​

Information should therefore not be considered in isolation. Information that appears limited within one organisation may become significant when combined with information held elsewhere.

​

There is no safeguarding threshold for information sharing

Practitioners do not need to wait until a child meets the threshold for statutory intervention or a section 47 enquiry.

The new duty specifically addresses this misconception. Relevant information should be shared where it may help identify need, prevent concerns escalating, provide support or safeguard and promote the welfare of a child.

 

Consent and working openly with families

Consent is not normally required in order to share information under the statutory information sharing duty.

However, this does not mean that families should routinely be excluded from information-sharing decisions. Practitioners should be open and transparent with children and families wherever it is safe and appropriate to do so, explaining what information is being shared and why.

​

Lack of consent, parental objection, fear of complaint or practitioner uncertainty are not, by themselves, reasons to withhold relevant information where the statutory duty applies.

​

Where informing a child or family could increase risk, prejudice safeguarding activity or otherwise be inappropriate, practitioners should use professional judgement and record the reasons for their decision.

​

Data protection does not prevent appropriate safeguarding information sharing

UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 continue to apply.

​

Practitioners must ensure that information sharing is lawful, fair, relevant, accurate, proportionate and secure. However, data protection legislation should not normally prevent information being shared where it is necessary to safeguard or promote a child's welfare.

​

A formal Data Sharing Agreement does not have to be in place before relevant information can be shared under the duty.

 

The limited exception: detriment to the child

There is a very limited exception to the duty.

​

Information does not have to be shared where, through professional judgement, the practitioner determines that sharing the information would be more detrimental to the child than not sharing it.

​

This should be rare.

​

Examples may include circumstances where disclosure could:

• place the child at immediate risk of harm;

• seriously interfere with an ongoing police investigation in a way that would create greater risk to a child; or

• breach restrictions imposed by the Family Court or High Court.

 

Practitioners should consider whether the risk can instead be reduced by limiting, sanitising or restricting the information shared.

Where information is withheld on this basis, the decision and rationale should be clearly recorded and reviewed.

​

A simple decision-making test

Before sharing, practitioners should consider three questions:

​

1. Relevance
Is the information relevant to safeguarding or promoting the child's welfare?

​

2. May it help?
Could sharing the information help another relevant organisation assess need or risk, make a decision, provide support or take action?

​

3. Detriment
Would sharing cause greater detriment to the child than not sharing it, and could any potential harm be mitigated?

​

If the first two tests are met and the limited detriment exception does not apply, the information should be shared.

​

Information about other people

Relevant safeguarding information may relate to someone other than the child.

​

This could include information about a parent, carer, sibling, peer, partner or another adult connected to the child's life. Where that information is relevant to understanding the child's safety or welfare and the statutory criteria are met, it must be shared appropriately.

​

This is particularly important where different agencies hold separate pieces of information which, when brought together, reveal a pattern of vulnerability or risk.

​

Recording decisions

Practitioners should record:

• what information was shared;

• who it was shared with;

• why the information was considered relevant;

• how sharing could support safeguarding or promote the child's welfare;

• whether the child or family was informed;

• any decision not to inform them and the rationale;

• any decision to withhold information because sharing would cause greater detriment to the child; and

• any advice or management oversight obtained where appropriate.

​​

Professional judgement remains important, but uncertainty should not create delay. Practitioners should seek prompt advice from their safeguarding lead, manager, Data Protection Officer or Caldicott Guardian where necessary.

​

Sharing across geographical boundaries

Relevant information must not be lost because a child moves between local authority or organisational boundaries within England.

​

Where the statutory criteria are met, organisations should share relevant information with the appropriate organisation in the child's new area. The absence of an established Data Sharing Agreement should not prevent this.

​

Anti-discriminatory practice

Information sharing should be informed by anti-racist, anti-discriminatory and culturally aware practice.

Practitioners should remain alert to how assumptions, bias, stereotypes and language can influence the interpretation and recording of information. Information shared should be relevant and proportionate, with unnecessary stigmatising descriptions, identity labels or historical information avoided.

​

Escalation and professional challenge

If relevant safeguarding information is being withheld because of an incorrect interpretation of consent, confidentiality or data protection law, practitioners should challenge this through their organisation's safeguarding and management arrangements.

​

Where disagreement cannot be resolved, practitioners should use the CSCP Escalation and Resolution Policy.