In recent months several Area Child Protection Committees (ACPCs) have issued protocols to professionals setting out the way in which they should give sexual health and relationship advice to people under 18. Common to several such protocols are requirements that a full personal assessment be carried out on every young person believed to be in a sexual relationship; that information about the young person be discussed with other professionals, and that enquiries be made to the police about young people and their partners. In some areas, the police have indicated that they will hold all such enquiries as ‘soft’ intelligence, even where there is found to be no cause for concern.

It should be noted that the definition of ‘sexual’ is unclear. Within the terms of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, this can cover any kind of activity that a ‘reasonable person’ would consider to be sexual, including kissing.

We understand that the Government is now considering incorporating the content of such protocols into a revised version of the national child protection guidance: ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’.

We fully appreciate that the aim of the Government and ACPCs is to afford young people the fullest possible protection against exploitation and abuse. We share that aim unreservedly; however, we believe that these protocols will actually damage the health and wellbeing of young people.

Practitioners are aware that where there is a serious risk of harm to a child or young person, confidentiality can be breached even without consent. Nevertheless there is an underlying presumption of confidentiality in all other circumstances which we are opposed to seeing weakened because it was introduced for sound reasons which are still persuasive.

When young people choose a professional to whom they can confide intimate personal information, they trust that their privacy will be respected. Maintaining that confidence is fundamental to good professional practice, and to the creation of a safe environment in which possible abuse can be disclosed. For the majority of practitioners, an assumption of confidentiality is stipulated by their respective professional bodies.

The removal from adolescent sexual health services of the strong bias towards confidentiality is likely to delay the stage at which young people seek professional advice, or cause them to misrepresent their age and circumstances. Indeed, it is in our view probable that such a policy will deter many young people from asking for help altogether. Given that the UK already has unacceptably high levels of sexually transmitted infection, and of unwanted teenage pregnancy, the implications are immense both for the health of young people themselves and for the public health.

Guidance issued by the Department of Health in July 2004, concerning sexual and contraceptive advice to those under 16, underlined the duty of confidentiality enshrined in professional codes of conduct, and made it clear that those under 16 have the same right to confidentiality as adults. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 does not affect practitioners’ duty of care and confidentiality towards young people. Rather than seeing any weakening of this position, we would prefer that the principles of confidentiality contained within this guidance were extended to all who work with young people.

Consideration should also be given to the potential impact of intrusive questions upon a young person’s emotional wellbeing and sexual development. Many young people guard their privacy closely, or feel embarrassed and anxious when discussing their sexuality. For such a young person to approach a practitioner for advice takes considerable courage. If the result of asking for help is the triggering of a process over which they have little or no control, a young person’s experience is liable to be one of distressing intrusion.

Those working in sexual health settings already have relevant child protection competencies, or ready access to other health professionals who have such competencies. The duty to safeguard children and young people’s health and wellbeing, including being alert to potential abuse, is regarded by all professionals as a matter of the utmost seriousness, and it would be highly regrettable if measures designed to protect children from possible abuse were of themselves damaging to children. The assessment of a young person’s needs is a skilled process that relies on experienced professional judgment and sensitivity; over-prescriptive guidance fetters the ability of practitioners to respond appropriately to the complexity of each child.

The lowering of the threshold at which police involvement is sought causes us serious concern. During the passage of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 through Parliament, amendments to reflect the realities of young peoples’ lives were resisted amid repeated assurances that there was no intention to criminalise consensual sexual activity between young people.

We are therefore alarmed that the Metropolitan Police, for example, intend to hold details of all enquiries about young people that they receive. It is not clear whether such information could subsequently be revealed by enhanced criminal records bureau disclosure, which is undertaken on those seeking to work with children. It is a distinct possibility that an accumulation of data on young people about whom there are in fact no concerns could lead to a situation where they are regarded with a degree of unjustified suspicion.

Although we are wholly sympathetic to the concerns of ACPCs to ensure the adequate protection of young people from abuse, we cannot support protocols that reduce young peoples’ rights to confidentiality and privacy, and expose them to unnecessary police scrutiny. Child protection is multi-faceted and encompasses every aspect of a child and young person’s development, including physical and emotional health. We believe that it is only in an environment where young people have the confidence to talk freely to professionals that the full range of their needs can be properly understood and addressed.

full list of signatories of this statement