Call to end postcode lottery in children's social care after Sara Sharif tragedy
The Government has been urged to end the postcode lottery in children's social care after the tragic death of Sara Sharif.
Sara was just 10 years old when she was murdered in her own home by her father and stepmother in 2023, despite being known to social services her whole life.
Liberal Democrat peer Lord Mohammed of Tinsley has tabled amendments to the Children's Wellbeing And Schools Bill that aim to give a 'basic level of protection' to every child.
The former youth worker told the House of Lords on Thursday: 'Every child, no matter where they live or what challenges they face, should be guaranteed a basic level of protection.'
One of his amendments, dubbed Sara's Law, would introduce national standards for accessing and receiving support through 'children in need plans' to help reduce regional variations in the type, frequency and duration of support provided.
A second amendment would establish the Child Protection Authority, a body that would work to improve child protection practices, advise Government and the sector, and conduct inspections.
Lord Mohammed told peers: 'Neither of these proposals are theoretical. Both are urgent responses to real-world system failures, failures that we have seen repeated with devastating consequences across our country…
'We cannot ignore the repeated failures of the current framework.
'The names of Sara Sharif, Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Star Hobson will remain etched in our nation's conscience for years to come.
'Each of these children were known to professionals. Each was failed by a system that saw the risk, but lacked the clarity, coordination and accountability to prevent harm.'
Section 17 of the Children's Act 1989 places a duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children 'in need', those whose health or development would suffer without additional support.
However, thresholds are set at a local level, which results in a 'stark regional disparity', Lord Mohammed added.
He told peers: 'In the absence of a national threshold or quality standards, this power is deployed in a deeply inconsistent way…
'It creates a system in which access to help is determined, not by a child's vulnerability, but by their postcode.'
He added that the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) found that existing child protection mechanisms are 'fragmented, inconsistent and insufficiently accountable'.
The former MEP concluded: 'This isn't about removing local flexibility levels, it's about setting a national baseline for protection so that a child's right to support is not dependent on what they have.'
Children's Commissioner Dame Rachel de Souza has declared her support for the national thresholds proposed by Lord Mohammed, a move that aligns with her own recommendations.
Dame Rachel said ahead of the debate: 'Sara Sharif died when she became invisible to local services.
'All the warning signs were missed – a history of domestic abuse, bruises on her body, being removed from school – because her circumstances did not warrant help or support from professionals in Surrey, despite having been known to the local authority since birth.
'As the Children's Wellbeing And Schools Bill returns to Parliament, I urge peers to support the proposed amendment to set national thresholds for triggering an assessment by social care, ending the postcode lottery in children's social care that is putting young lives at risk.
'I also urge them to take this opportunity to give children equal protection from assault, which Sara was cruelly denied.
'My own research shows alarming variation in how and when different areas step in to protect and support a vulnerable child – no child's safety should be determined by inconsistent local decisions.
'The time to act is now, and this amendment is a huge step forward in making sure no child slips through the net.'
Responding, education minister Baroness Smith of Malvern said: 'Prescriptive national criteria with automatic referrals would risk narrowing the cohort of children, actually limiting local flexibility in providing support.'
She said the existing legislation on providing services to children in need gave local authorities discretion.
Lady Smith added: 'A danger of being specific in the way suggested here is that groups are left out, narrowing the cohort who receive support, exactly in fact, what the amendment is seeking to avoid.'
The minister also insisted that there was national guidance to local areas on safeguarding children.
She added: 'This Government is absolutely committed to protecting children from significant harm, providing the right support at the right time, and ultimately improving outcomes so that all children can thrive.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News24
14 minutes ago
- News24
Iranians in Europe share mixed feelings on Israel offensive
Iranian diaspora expresses mixed emotions, torn between hope for change and fears for loved ones in the crisis. Israel launched a campaign against Iran to prevent its nuclear weapon ambitions, escalating regional tensions significantly. Opinions among diaspora vary - some support Israel's actions for regime change, others oppose foreign interference and violence. As Israel and Iran trade fire in their most intense confrontation in history, members of the Iranian diaspora in Europe are torn between hopes for change and fears for their loved ones back home. An Iranian teacher based in Frankfurt, who did not want to give her name, said that "many are caught between hope for change and horror at what is happening right now." Israel launched its offensive on Friday last week after long-running tensions with Iran over its nuclear programme. Many Iranians in Europe see it as a chance to topple the Iranian leadership under Ayatollah Ali Khamenei - long accused of human-rights abuses and brutally repressing dissent. In London, around a dozen members of the Iranian diaspora gathered in front of the Iranian embassy on Monday. READ | 'Peacemaking is the only way,' Ramaphosa says as he calls for Iran, Israel dialogue Some were waving Israeli flags, others the flag of the Pahlavi dynasty - the ruling house of Iran until the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Psychology student Maryam Tavakol, 35, said she supported Israel's assault. "There is no freedom in Iran, no human rights... We support each act that makes the Islamic republic weaker," said Tavakol, who left Iran in 2019 and has been living in the UK for two years. But Ali, 49, a restaurant worker living in London who did not want to give his last name, said he would prefer the arch rivals to "sit down and speak to each other". "(I have) never supported the Iranian regime, I don't like the regime," said Ali, who left Iran in 1997. "(But) who will suffer? The people... I don't support anyone who harms kids and people. I'm really upset," he said. "We still have family and friends in Iran, Tehran," said Paria, 32, another London restaurant worker. "They are fleeing to the north. We are really worried for them." 'Divided' diaspora Israel on Friday launched a surprise aerial campaign targeting sites across Iran, saying the attacks aimed to prevent its enemy from acquiring atomic weapons. Iran's uranium enrichment has for decades caused tension with the West and Israel, which fear the drive is aimed at making an atomic bomb, a charge denied by Tehran. The death toll in Israel from Iranian missile strikes since 13 June was 25 people, according to authorities. READ | 'Are we targeting the downfall of the regime?' Israel claims hit on Iran nuclear site Iran said on Sunday that Israeli strikes had killed at least 224 people, including military commanders, nuclear scientists and civilians. Hamidreza Javdan, a 71-year-old actor and director originally from Tehran and now living in Paris, said the Iranian diaspora was "divided" over the conflict. "Some say 'no one has the right to attack our country'; others think it's a good thing," he said. Javdan said he was "hopeful" for a change of government, but also fears for his brother, who is disabled and unable to quickly leave Tehran. "And there are more than 10 million people in Tehran, where are they going to go?" he said. In Sweden, a 34-year-old lawyer who requested anonymity said she found the conflict "abominable". "I feel no loyalty to the Iranian regime... and want to see it overthrown. But this must come from the Iranian people themselves, not as a result of interference from foreign powers," she said. Baharan Kazemi, 42, a Swedish-Iranian children's author, said Israel's assault was "indirectly an attack on us too, on our families". She said: Like most diaspora Iranians I have spoken to, I feel so many things - fear, sadness, anger, powerlessness. To be separated from your loved ones during a crisis adds another layer to the pain. In Berlin, an Iranian translator who wanted to remain anonymous said she felt "torn" over the conflict. "I hope so much that this war will overthrow the mullah regime. I wish for that so much. Then all the deaths would not have been in vain," she said.
Washington Post
17 minutes ago
- Washington Post
U.K. lawmakers approve assisted-dying law
LONDON — British lawmakers voted Friday to legalize assisted dying — a final step in the House of Commons that means the practice will almost certainly be permitted in England and Wales in the coming years, marking a pivotal societal change. Lawmakers voted 314 to 291 for legalization following an impassioned, four-hour debate. Modeled on a law in Oregon, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will allow terminally ill people to choose to die. Those with less than six months to live will be permitted to seek lethal medication from the National Health Service, subject to approval of two doctors and a panel of experts.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Britain's lawmakers vote to legalize assisted dying, a landmark move after a fraught national debate
Lawmakers in Britain have narrowly approved a bill to legalize assisted dying for terminally ill people, capping a fraught debate in Parliament and across the country that cut across political, religious and legal divides. MPs passed the bill by 314 votes to 291, in their final say on the question. The bill – which has split lawmakers and sparked impassioned conversations with their constituents the breadth of Britain – will now move to the House of Lords for its final rounds of scrutiny. Friday's vote puts Britain firmly on track to join a small club of nations that have legalized the process, and one of the largest by population to allow it. It allows people with a terminal condition and less than six months to live to take a substance to end their lives, as long as they are capable of making the decision themselves. Two doctors and a panel would need to sign off on the choice. Canada, New Zealand, Spain and most of Australia allow assisted dying in some form, as do several US states, including Oregon, Washington and California. Friday's vote in Parliament coincided with a charged public debate about whether the state should be dictating the choices available to Britons in the final moments of their lives. Proponents included Esther Rantzen, a BBC TV presenter with advanced lung cancer, who argued that the choice would save millions from unnecessary suffering. 'If we don't vote to change the law today, what does that mean?,' asked Kim Leadbeater, the MP who introduced the bill last year. 'It means we will have many more years of heartbreaking stories from terminally ill people and their families, of pain and trauma, suicide attempts, PTSD, lonely trips to (clinics in) Switzerland, police investigations.' The option, she said, is 'not a choice between living and dying: it is a choice for terminally ill people about how they die.' But opponents have criticized the bill on religious and ethical grounds, and raised issues with a legislative process they accuse of being opaque. Former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown argued that fixing Britain's strained end-of-live care system should be prioritized, writing in a rare intervention in The Guardian that the bill 'would privilege the legal right to assisted dying without guaranteeing anything approaching an equivalent right to high-quality palliative care for those close to death.' Seriously ill people 'need the health and social care system fixing first,' Labour MP Vicky Foxcroft said in Parliament Friday. 'They want us as parliamentarians to assist them to live, not to die.' Friday's debate was concluded with a free vote, meaning that MPs were allowed to decide for or against the bill according to their conscience, and free from any party-line whipping. The proposed bill is broadly in line with the Oregon model, and does not go as far as Switzerland, the Netherlands and Canada, which allow assisted death in cases of suffering, not just for terminally ill people. It differs from euthanasia, the process in which another person deliberately ends someone's life to relieve suffering. It is currently a crime to help somebody die in England and Wales, punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Performing euthanasia on a person, meanwhile, is considered murder or manslaughter.
