The Children's Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 – What Does It Mean for Healthcare Providers?

One of the most important safeguards within the legislation is that information should not be shared if the person making the decision reasonably believes that doing so would be more detrimental to the child than not sharing it.

If you've spoken to us recently, you'll know this new legislation has been a regular topic of conversation. We've had some fantastic discussions with GP practices, safeguarding teams, DPOs and healthcare professionals, all asking very similar questions:

"What does this actually change?"

The legislation comes into effect in September 2026 and the supporting statutory guidance is still being developed. That means some of the practical questions remain unanswered.

We thought it would be useful to share our current understanding, together with some of the conversations we've been having with clients. As always, this reflects our current interpretation of the legislation, and we expect to refine our understanding as further guidance is published.

So, what's actually changed?

One of the questions we've been asked most often is whether this legislation fundamentally changes the way organisations should approach safeguarding information sharing.

Our view is that the answer is both yes and no.

Many of the underlying principles already existed. Organisations could already share information to safeguard children where there was an appropriate legal basis, and national safeguarding guidance has long encouraged professionals to do so.

What the new Act does is place those principles on a clearer statutory footing, while introducing a legal duty to share information in certain circumstances.

Before the Act	What the new Act does
Organisations could already share information under the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 where there was an appropriate lawful basis.	Introduces a statutory duty to share information in defined circumstances, moving beyond simply permitting information sharing.
Working Together to Safeguard Children made it clear that practitioners should share information where necessary to protect children and promote their welfare.	Clarifies when that duty arises and which organisations and individuals it applies to.
The Common Law Duty of Confidentiality could already be overridden where there was sufficient public interest or another legal obligation.	Creates a clearer statutory gateway for sharing information, giving organisations greater confidence when making safeguarding decisions.
Organisations already worked together to safeguard children through established multi-agency safeguarding arrangements.	Introduces the framework for a consistent child identifier to support more effective multi-agency working.

Our view

Our current view is that the Act largely codifies and strengthens existing safeguarding information-sharing principles.

Most organisations that were already following Working Together to Safeguard Children should not need to fundamentally change the way they approach safeguarding disclosures. However, the Act strengthens those existing principles by introducing a statutory duty to share information in specified circumstances, providing greater legal certainty and placing existing good practice on a firmer legislative footing.

Does this mean everything now has to be shared?

No.

One of the most important safeguards within the legislation is that information should not be shared if the person making the decision reasonably believes that doing so would be more detrimental to the child than not sharing it.

For healthcare organisations, the legislation also provides a statutory basis for sharing information where the duty applies. This means that, where the statutory criteria are met, the Common Law Duty of Confidentiality should not, on its own, prevent an appropriate safeguarding disclosure.

Professional judgement remains just as important as ever.

The questions we're hearing from customers

This is where our conversations become really interesting.

Whilst the legislation sets out the broad principles, it's the practical application that people are understandably asking about.

Some of the most common questions we've been discussing include:

• How widely will "wellbeing" be interpreted in practice?

• How will the proposed consistent child identifier work alongside existing healthcare identifiers such as the NHS Number?

• When another safeguarding organisation requests information, how much assessment is expected from the healthcare provider receiving that request?

• Should the receiving organisation independently assess whether the request is necessary, proportionate and limited to the minimum information required?

• Or should it be entitled to rely on the requesting organisation's assessment that those considerations have already been made?

• Where does accountability sit if excessive or inappropriate information is disclosed?

These are all areas where we hope the forthcoming statutory guidance will provide greater clarity.

One discussion that really stood out

One scenario generated a fascinating discussion with several clients.

Imagine a young person attending therapy who casually mentions there is no food at home.

They haven't asked for help.

They aren't making a safeguarding referral.

They're simply talking honestly in what they believe is a safe therapeutic environment.

Does the new legislation create a duty to share that information with another safeguarding lead?

And if it does, how should practitioners balance the potential safeguarding benefit against the possibility of damaging one of the few trusted spaces that young person has?

The legislation recognises that information should not be shared where doing so would be more detrimental to the child than not sharing it. Understanding how that judgement should be exercised in situations like this is something we're particularly interested to see addressed in the statutory guidance.

Our thoughts

Overall, we welcome the direction of travel.

Good safeguarding relies on professionals having the confidence to share information appropriately, and greater legal clarity should help organisations make those decisions with confidence.

At the same time, we don't think this legislation removes the need for professional judgement. Healthcare providers will still need to balance confidentiality, necessity, proportionality and, above all, what's in the best interests of the child.

The Act gives organisations greater certainty about when information should be shared, but it doesn't remove the need to make careful, well-reasoned decisions in every individual case.

We'll continue reviewing the legislation as further guidance is published and will share updates through MyKafico as our understanding develops.

We'd love to hear your views

This legislation is already generating some really interesting discussions, and we'd love to hear yours.

How is your organisation preparing for these changes? Are there particular aspects of the legislation that you'd like greater clarity on? Have you started reviewing your safeguarding processes or information-sharing procedures?

If you'd like to discuss how the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 may affect your organisation, we'd be delighted to continue the conversation.

Viki Baines, Disclosures Nerd