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

The statutory arrangements under sections 16E to 16K of the Children Act 2004 concern the safeguarding partners’ arrangements for working together. They do not extend to every safeguarding function or to the funding of information obtained from individual professionals. A plan published under section 16G need only identify funding for those inter-agency arrangements. A failure to address payments to GPs therefore does not, without more, establish irrationality, failure to consider a relevant matter, or breach of a duty to have regard to children’s welfare. A duty to have regard does not require any particular substantive outcome. Obiter, the relevant statutory provisions did not impose a general legal duty on GPs to provide safeguarding information, although contractual or restitutionary payment issues might arise separately.

The British Medical Association sought judicial review of a Local Safeguarding Arrangements Plan published by Northamptonshire’s safeguarding partners under section 16G of the Children Act 2004. It argued that the Plan was unlawful because it did not identify funding for GP safeguarding reports and attendance at child safeguarding conferences, failed to consider that issue, and breached the duty under section 11(2) of the 2004 Act.

The defendants disputed those arguments and contended, additionally, that GPs were legally obliged to provide the information without payment. The central issues were the scope of the statutory arrangements and guidance, the relevance of GP payment arrangements to the Plan, and the alleged statutory duty on GPs.

1. Claim dismissed. The Plan lawfully identified the contributions to the costs of arrangements made under sections 16E and 16F of the Children Act 2004.
2. Sections 16E to 16K concern arrangements enabling safeguarding partners and relevant agencies to work together. They do not govern the generality of each partner’s safeguarding functions or the cost of exercising those functions. Section 16I provides a power to meet expenditure connected with the inter-agency arrangements, not a duty to fund all safeguarding expenditure.
3. The funding provisions in the Secretary of State’s 2018 guidance therefore concerned only the costs of the section 16E arrangements. The Plan was consistent with that guidance. GP safeguarding reports and conference attendance fell outside the arrangements required to be published under section 16G.
4. The defendants did not act irrationally or disregard a relevant consideration by omitting arrangements for obtaining or paying for GP information. The section 11(2) duty to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote children’s welfare did not require any particular substantive outcome, and the Plan itself demonstrated regard to that need.
5. Obiter, section 16H did not impose a general obligation on GPs to provide information for routine safeguarding investigations or conferences. Section 47(9) of the Children Act 1989 applied only to persons within section 47(11), and GPs were not thereby made part of NHS England. Regulation 13(2) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 concerned systems to prevent abuse during regulated activities and did not create such a general obligation.
6. The court expressed no concluded view on whether GPs should be paid. The defendants had power in principle to contract to make payments, and any entitlement would depend on ordinary contractual or restitutionary principles.