British Medical Association, R (On the Application Of) v Northamptonshire County Council & Ors

The claim concerned whether the Local Safeguarding Arrangements Plan 2019–21 for Northamptonshire complied with the duties in the Children Act 2004, in particular sections 16E–16L and the publication duty in section 16G, and whether the Plan or the decision to publish it failed to take into account the funding of general practitioner (GP) input to safeguarding investigations and conferences. The court held that the statutory scheme in sections 16E–16K relates only to the arrangements by which safeguarding partners work together and their shared arrangements (including funding for those shared arrangements under section 16I), not to the entirety of each partner's separate functions or budgets. The Plan’s "Funding and Business Support" section adequately discloses contributions to the joint arrangements and is consistent with the 2018 Working Together guidance.

The judge also rejected the contention that the Plan was unlawful for failure to consider how GPs providing safeguarding information would be funded, finding that arrangements to obtain GP input sit outside the scope of the section 16E obligation and therefore their omission from the Plan did not amount to irrationality or omission of a relevant consideration. The claim that publication of the Plan breached the section 11(2) duty to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children was dismissed because the Plan was directed only to the joint arrangements under section 16E and did not evidence a lack of regard to children's welfare.

Although not necessary to decide the application, the court observed obiter that none of the statutory provisions pressed by defendants (section 16H of the Children Act 2004, section 47 of the Children Act 1989, or the 2014 Regulations concerning regulated activities and CQC guidance) established a legal obligation on GPs to provide safeguarding information such that payment for that work would be precluded; whether payment is due in particular circumstances remains a matter for contract or restitution law and local agreement.

This judicial-review claim was brought by the British Medical Association on behalf of GPs challenging the Northamptonshire Local Safeguarding Arrangements Plan 2019–21. The BMA sought declarations that the Plan was unlawful because it did not specify sums budgeted to meet the cost of obtaining GP safeguarding information, because the Plan was formulated without regard to the funding of GP input (a relevant consideration), and because publication of the Plan breached the duty in section 11(2) of the Children Act 2004 to have regard to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children.

Key factual and procedural background:

• The Plan was published pursuant to the duty in section 16G to publish arrangements made under section 16E for safeguarding partners to work together.
• NHS England had written letters in 2014 and 2019 recording variation in local arrangements and urging CCGs to review local funding arrangements for GP safeguarding work.
• The BMA’s practical aim was to secure payment for GPs providing safeguarding reports and attending conferences, but it pursued that aim indirectly by challenging the Plan and its compliance with statutory duties.

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether the Plan breached the requirement in section 16G or the 2018 Working Together guidance by not specifying the sums budgeted to meet GP safeguarding information costs.
• Whether the omission of arrangements to fund GP input amounted to a failure to have regard to a relevant consideration or irrationality.
• Whether publication of the Plan breached section 11(2) of the Children Act 2004.
• As a subsidiary matter, whether GPs are under a legal duty to provide safeguarding information such that payment could not be payable.

Reasoning and conclusions:

• The court interpreted sections 16E–16K as directed to arrangements for safeguarding partners to work together and to meet costs of those joint arrangements under section 16I; those provisions do not require publication of each partner’s entire budgeting for all functions that bear on safeguarding. Paragraphs 36–37 of the 2018 Guidance about funding were read as referring to funding of the joint arrangements, not all safeguarding-related expenditure of each partner.
• The Plan’s "Funding and Business Support" section sufficiently records contributions to the partnership arrangements and is consistent with the guidance. The BMA’s construction that section 16G required publication of budgets for all safeguarding-related expenditure was rejected.
• The complaint that the Defendants failed to consider how GP input would be funded was rejected because arrangements to obtain GP input lie outside the section 16E obligation; omission of such arrangements from the Plan therefore did not show failure to take a relevant consideration into account or irrationality.
• The section 11(2) challenge failed because publication of a Plan that complied with section 16G and evidenced performance of the section 16E duty did not demonstrate lack of regard to children's welfare; the statutory "have regard" duty does not compel any particular substantive outcome.
• It was unnecessary to resolve whether GPs have a statutory obligation to provide safeguarding information. The court indicated obiter that neither section 16H, section 47 of the 1989 Act nor the 2014 Regulations/CQC guidance established a legal obligation on GPs to provide safeguarding information that would preclude payment; questions of payment remain for contractual or restitutionary remedies or local agreement.

Application dismissed. The court held that the statutory framework in sections 16E–16K of the Children Act 2004 is limited to the arrangements by which safeguarding partners work together and to funding for those joint arrangements; the Plan complied with those obligations and the 2018 Working Together guidance. The omission of provisions about funding GP input did not amount to irrationality or failure to take a relevant consideration into account, and publication of the Plan did not breach section 11(2). It was unnecessary to decide whether GPs are under a legal duty to supply safeguarding information, and obiter the court indicated that the statutory provisions relied on by defendants did not establish such a duty; payment issues depend on contract or restitution or local agreement.