The Information Sharing Duty: What Children's Homes Need to Know from 30 September 2026

1. What changed on 30 September 2026

The Children's Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 inserted section 16LA into the Children Act 2004. The provision was commenced on 30 September 2026. It supplements, rather than replaces, the wider information-sharing expectations in Working Together to Safeguard Children 2026 and existing safeguarding practice.

The duty is designed to reduce harmful delays and uncertainty when information may help another organisation safeguard or promote the welfare of a child. It covers proactive sharing as well as responding to a request. The statutory test should be applied to the information and circumstances at the time.

2. Who is within scope

Section 16LA applies to relevant persons specified by the legislation. This includes bodies already listed in section 11 of the Children Act 2004, designated education and childcare agencies, and people providing safeguarding or welfare services under arrangements made by an in-scope body.

Even where the specific section 16LA duty does not apply to a particular exchange, other statutory duties, lawful bases and safeguarding responsibilities may still permit or require information to be shared. The absence of this duty is not a general prohibition on sharing.

3. The decision test

For each proposed disclosure, ask three questions. First, is the information relevant to safeguarding or promoting the welfare of a child? Second, may sharing it help the recipient exercise a safeguarding or welfare function? Third, would sharing be more detrimental to the child than not sharing? If the first two tests are met and the detriment exception does not apply, the statutory duty points towards sharing.

4. Do not wait for a crisis threshold

Relevant information may relate to early help, an emerging pattern, a change in behaviour, family circumstances, exploitation, missing episodes, health, education or another welfare concern. The test is not limited to evidence that significant harm has already occurred.

Staff should avoid treating an isolated detail as meaningless when it may form part of a wider pattern held by another agency. Equally, relevance should be explained rather than assumed. Share the information that may help the recipient act, not an unrestricted case file.

5. Consent and transparency

Consent is not the only lawful basis for safeguarding information sharing and is not the determining test under section 16LA. Where the duty applies, staff should not delay necessary sharing solely because consent has not been obtained. They should identify and document the applicable lawful basis and any special-category condition with the organisation's data protection arrangements.

Children and families should normally be told how their information may be used and shared, in language they can understand, unless doing so would create risk, prejudice an investigation or otherwise be inappropriate. Being open about information sharing helps build trust, but transparency is not the same as asking permission in every safeguarding situation.

6. Data protection still applies

The new duty operates alongside the UK GDPR, the Data Protection Act 2018, human rights duties, the common law duty of confidentiality and professional obligations. Staff should share information lawfully, fairly, securely and only to the extent necessary for the safeguarding or welfare purpose.

7. Information about connected people

Relevant information may concern a parent, sibling, staff member, peer, alleged perpetrator or another connected person, not only the child who is the immediate focus. The decision should remain tied to safeguarding or promoting a child's welfare and should be necessary and proportionate.

Where information concerns several people, separate what the recipient needs from what is merely available. Consider the privacy and safety of each person, and record why including or excluding particular details was justified.

8. Requests and proactive sharing

The duty is relevant both when another in-scope organisation asks for information and when the home recognises that information may assist another organisation. A request should be considered promptly, but the fact that a request has been made does not remove the need to check identity, purpose, relevance and proportionality.

If staff decide not to share, they should record the reason, including any identified detriment to the child, and consider whether a limited disclosure, a different recipient or escalation to a safeguarding lead would address the concern.

9. Record the decision, not just the outcome

A defensible record should show the information considered, the child's circumstances and views where appropriate, the purpose, the recipient, the legal basis, the balance of benefit and detriment, the decision-maker, the time of the decision and any follow-up. A short, contemporaneous rationale is more useful than a formula copied into every record.

10. Cross-boundary placements and moves

Children's homes regularly work across local authority and partnership boundaries. The provider should know which placing authority, host authority, police force, health service, education setting and safeguarding partnership need information. Placement moves, hospital attendance, missing episodes and changes of school are points at which information can be lost unless responsibilities are explicit.

11. What providers and managers should do now

12. Common mistakes to avoid

• Assuming consent is always required before safeguarding information can be shared.
• Treating the duty as permission to disclose an entire file.
• Waiting until a concern reaches a crisis or significant-harm threshold.
• Sharing with an unverified recipient or through an insecure channel.
• Failing to consider the risk that sharing itself may create for the child.
• Recording only that information was shared, without explaining why.
• Assuming every provider is automatically within scope without checking the statutory route.
• Using data protection as a blanket reason not to share.
• Failing to follow up where the information indicates immediate risk.

Child-centred question

If information about me is shared, would I understand what was shared, why it mattered and how adults tried to keep me safe?