As the Bill received its second reading last week and was debated in the House of Lords, the charity Barnardo's said the proposal to create a database of information on vulnerable children had not been thought through. It added, 'There is no threshold for the kind of concerns which should be recorded, nor is it clear who should have responsibility to take action when a number of concerns are registered.'
Under the Bill's proposals, professionals from health, education and social services are able to enter data about children, and concerns will be flagged, but they will not be able to see information entered by others on the database.
Chris Hanvey, Barnado's director of childcare operations, said too much was being left to the discretion of individual professionals that 'could leave significant gaps in the safety net for children'. He added, 'It was poor professional judgement that contributed to the death of Victoria Climbie, and there is a risk this could happen again unless it is clearly established what kind of concerns should be recorded about a child, and who is responsible for following them up and when.'
The NSPCC warned against an 'over-reliance' on information technology and said that 'heavy investment' in this area could detract from investment in frontline staff. Natalie Cronin, NSPCC policy officer, said, 'No amount of technology can replace the basic requirement for a properly resourced and trained workforce which provides all children with someone to turn to. Everyone involved in child protection must always listen hard to what children are trying to tell them and act on the information.'
In a debate in the House of Lords last week Baroness Ashton, Sure Start minister, said the database would 'support professional judgement, not replace it'. She added, 'It will not remove the need for professionals to talk to each other. It will help them to do so more confidently and effectively.'
Baroness Walmsley of the Liberal Democrats said the title of the Green Paper, Every Child Matters, on which the Bill was based, was a misnomer, because groups such as young offenders, refugee and asylum-seekers, the disabled and runaways 'do not appear to matter quite so much since little account of their special needs has been taken'. She also noted that the Bill conferred much weaker powers on the proposed children's commissioner in England compared with those of commissioners in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.