The new information-sharing duty: why trust matters between commissioners and providers
England’s new statutory information-sharing duty should give practitioners greater confidence to share relevant information before concerns escalate. It is a welcome change but to truly realise the intended outcomes it depends on openness, professional judgement and trusted relationships, not just the legislation alone.
From 30 September 2026, a new statutory information-sharing duty comes into force in England.
The duty is intended to address a longstanding problem that will sadly be familiar to professionals working in safeguarding. Practitioners across education, health, social care, policing and commissioned services can hold different pieces of information about a child, but uncertainty about consent, data protection or thresholds can prevent those pieces from being brought together. By the time the complete picture becomes visible, an opportunity to provide earlier support may already have been missed.
I welcome the new duty and the additional clarity provided by the accompanying statutory guidance. And whilst this is an important step, legislation alone will not create good information sharing. Successful implementation will require more than updated policies and data-sharing agreements. It will depend on the quality and relevance of the information shared, the confidence of practitioners and the relationships between the organisations involved.
For commissioned services, this makes openness and trust between providers and commissioners particularly important.
What does the new duty change?
The duty was introduced through section 16LA of the Children Act 2004, as amended by the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026.
It applies to organisations including local authorities, integrated care boards, NHS trusts, the police, education and early-years agencies, prison and probation services, youth justice services and some providers delivering services under arrangements made by those organisations.
Where an organisation holds information that may help another relevant organisation assess need, make a decision, provide support or take action to safeguard or promote a child’s welfare, that information must be shared unless doing so would be more detrimental to the child than not sharing it.
Importantly, a child does not need to have reached a child-protection or section 47 threshold. The duty extends to emerging needs, early help, prevention and wider welfare concerns.
The guidance also seeks to address a persistent misunderstanding about consent. Consent to share information is not the same as consent to receive a service. Lack of consent does not, in itself, prevent relevant information being shared when there is an appropriate legal basis and the requirements of the duty are met.
That does not mean that every piece of information should be shared or that children and families should be excluded from the conversation. Information must still be relevant, accurate, proportionate and shared securely.
Where it is safe to do so, practitioners should be open with children and families about what is being shared, with whom and why. The guidance is clear that this transparency helps build understanding and trust and can make families more willing to engage with the resulting support.
Why commissioned providers matter
Commissioned providers can hold a distinctive and sometimes detailed understanding of a child and family.
A therapist might notice a change in presentation over several sessions. A short-breaks provider may see increasing pressure within the family. An alternative-provision service may understand patterns that are not visible from attendance data alone. A voluntary-sector organisation may have built sufficient trust for a child or parent to describe difficulties they have not shared elsewhere. Individually, these pieces of information may not appear to meet a statutory threshold. Together, they may reveal an emerging need or a pattern requiring support.
The new duty recognises that information sharing is not confined to the traditional statutory safeguarding system. Providers delivering safeguarding or welfare services under arrangements made by organisations within scope may also be covered. Regardless of whether a particular organisation is directly within scope, the guidance establishes an important expectation: commissioned services must understand how they contribute to the wider safeguarding and welfare system.
Information sharing should be a relationship, not a transaction
One of the most helpful aspects of the final guidance is its recognition that effective information sharing is a dialogue. It expects organisations receiving information to acknowledge it and provide timely feedback about decisions taken. This is particularly important for commissioned providers.
Providers can sometimes feel that they send information into a statutory system without knowing whether it has been received, understood or acted upon. Commissioners may, in turn, receive information without sufficient context to understand why it matters or what response the provider is seeking. Neither situation supports confident decision-making.
A strong provider–commissioner relationship should make it possible to have honest conversations about:
what information is relevant and why;
whether something is known, suspected or a professional opinion;
what has already been tried;
what the provider is asking another organisation to do;
whether the information has been received and considered;
what decision has been made;
whether further information or action is required; and
what can appropriately be shared back with the provider.
This openness is not about removing professional boundaries or sharing information more widely than necessary. It is about creating clarity around roles, responsibilities, reasoning and outcomes. Trust grows when providers know that concerns will be taken seriously and commissioners know that the information they receive will be timely, accurate and properly contextualised. It also grows when both sides can acknowledge uncertainty.
A provider should be able to say, “We have noticed a pattern, but we do not yet understand what it means.” A commissioner should be able to explain why information does—or does not—lead to a particular action. That kind of dialogue is more useful than either silence or defensive certainty.
What good implementation could look like
Commissioners should not assume that publishing the guidance or updating a contract clause will be sufficient.
Providers will need to understand how the duty connects with local pathways and day-to-day practice. This could include:
identifying which commissioned services are within scope;
reviewing specifications, contracts and mobilisation requirements;
explaining local referral and escalation routes;
agreeing how urgent and non-urgent information should be shared;
clarifying who providers should contact when they are unsure;
creating feedback loops so providers know information has been received;
reviewing privacy information and data-sharing agreements;
providing scenario-based, multi-agency training;
ensuring subcontractors understand the relevant expectations; and
monitoring the quality, proportionality and impact of information sharing.
Providers should review their own safeguarding, recording and information-governance arrangements. They should be able to explain:
how staff identify information that may be relevant;
how fact, opinion and unverified information are distinguished;
how the child’s circumstances and the context of the information are recorded;
who makes or supports difficult decisions;
how information is shared securely;
how decisions to share—or not share—are documented;
how children and families are kept informed where it is safe to do so; and
how information-sharing responsibilities are addressed within supervision and training.
Commissioners should also consider the culture created through contract management.
If providers believe that raising a concern, identifying a system gap or acknowledging uncertainty could damage their contractual relationship, openness will be more difficult. Contract-management conversations need to support professional curiosity and constructive challenge, alongside appropriate scrutiny and accountability.
More information does not automatically mean better decisions
The new duty creates an opportunity to move away from uncertainty and hesitation, particularly where children have emerging needs that do not yet meet traditional statutory thresholds. This is welcome. However, it is important that implementation avoids replacing a culture of under-sharing with one of indiscriminate over-sharing.
Large quantities of poorly contextualised information can obscure rather than clarify what is happening. Inaccurate or stigmatising records can follow children and families between services. Bias can be repeated and reinforced when information is shared without challenge. It is incredibly important to distinguish fact from professional opinion and consider the language used in all recordings.
Families may withdraw from voluntary support if they believe anything they say will automatically be passed across the system. Relevant information should be shared with purpose. Children’s and families’ circumstances should be understood holistically. Information should be corrected when it is inaccurate, and organisations should remain alert to discrimination and disproportionality. Transparency should be the default wherever it is safe and appropriate, not because permission is always required, but because trust remains central to effective help.
Questions for commissioners and providers
As the duty comes into force, organisations could begin by asking:
Do we understand whether our organisation and commissioned services are within scope?
Are providers clearly included in our local information-sharing arrangements?
Do practitioners know where and how to share emerging welfare concerns?
Can providers obtain timely advice when a decision is unclear?
Do information requests explain why the information is needed?
Are fact, opinion and unverified information clearly distinguished?
Do providers receive acknowledgement and appropriate feedback?
Are children and families told what is being shared and why, where it is safe to do so?
Are our systems monitoring accuracy, proportionality, bias and unintended consequences?
Does our commissioning culture encourage providers to be open about concerns, uncertainty and service gaps?
A welcome change, but relationships will determine its impact
The new information-sharing duty provides greater clarity and should help practitioners share relevant information earlier and with more confidence. Which is a welcome development.
Its success, however, will not be measured by the volume of information transferred between organisations. It will be measured by whether children’s needs are understood earlier, whether support becomes more coordinated and whether children and families experience better outcomes as a result.
Good information sharing relies on good relationships.
Commissioners need to be clear about what they expect, why it matters and what will happen when information is shared. Providers need to be open about what they know, what they are concerned about and where they require support or a decision. When that openness is reciprocal, it builds trust. When trust is combined with clear responsibilities, sound professional judgement and proportionate information sharing, the new duty has the potential to make a meaningful difference.
Fiona Corless is the founder of FL Collaborative Consulting. She supports commissioners and specialist providers to translate policy and system change into practical, sustainable service design.
This article provides general commissioning and service-development commentary. Organisations should obtain appropriate safeguarding, legal and information-governance advice concerning their specific responsibilities.