Key Ideas for Shaping Your OOSS Safeguarding Consultation Response
Thoughts to spark your own thinking — shared to inform and inspire
Following the comprehensive submission already published on this Substack, a number of readers asked if a shorter, accessible guide could be produced to help individuals and organisations formulate their own responses to the Government’s OOSS safeguarding consultation.
What follows is not a template or script, but a collection of key ideas, arguments and principles that may be useful to consider when drafting your personal or organisational submission.
Everyone must, of course, decide how to respond in a way that reflects their own voice, circumstances and conscience — this guide is shared purely as a resource to help inform that process.
Update: the consultation deadline has been extended and will now close at 11:59 pm on 21 September 2025.
Q16. WHAT SAFEGUARDING MEASURES DO YOU THINK THERE SHOULD BE IN ALL OUT-OF-SCHOOL SETTINGS (OOSS)?
Safeguarding should focus on real harm. Health and police services already have the powers to act when there is clear evidence that a child is at risk, so creating more rules on top is unnecessary.
What does work is involving trusted community leaders who genuinely reflect the views and concerns of parents. That way, when intervention is needed, it is effective, respectful, and targeted where it truly matters.
Q22. WHICH, IF ANY, OF THE FOLLOWING DO YOU THINK COULD IMPROVE THE GUIDANCE AND RESOURCES FOR PROVIDERS/PARENTS AND CARERS?
Guidance should help parents — not blur or replace their role. Safeguarding works best when everyone recognises the proper order:
first parents,
then voluntary community support,
and only in serious cases — where there is clear evidence of harm — should the state intervene using compulsory powers.
When those lines get blurred, the term “safeguarding” risks being misused, leading to heavy-handed action in situations where support or advice would be more appropriate.
That can damage trust, especially in diverse communities where family and cultural life are central.
Rather than adding more one-size-fits-all rules, the government should strengthen voluntary, proportionate systems that already work — giving parents clear, practical tools while keeping compulsory action only for genuine, high-risk cases.
This keeps safeguarding focused, respects diversity, upholds parental responsibility, and maintains public confidence in the system.
Q23. WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DO YOU THINK PREVENTS PARENTS AND CARERS FROM EASILY ACCESSING SAFEGUARDING INFORMATION (SUCH AS A SAFEGUARDING POLICY OR PROCESS) FOR OOSS?
Parents already receive safeguarding information through trusted local channels and voluntary community networks.
These systems work well, offering targeted support with the help of recognised community leaders — so extra layers of government involvement are unnecessary.
Q31. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER CONCERNS OR HAVE IDENTIFIED ANY GAPS IN THE SUPPORT OR GUIDANCE, WITH REGARDS TO KEEPING THE PEOPLE AND SETTING SAFE AND SECURE?
Any action in this area must involve and be guided by trusted community leaders.
To keep safeguarding fair, effective, and respectful of diversity, it should be based on clear national standards — not vague local judgement.
Terms like “radicalisation” and “extremism” need precise legal definitions; without them, such words can be misused or misunderstood in ways that unfairly impact lawful cultural and religious practice.
Q32. IF THE GOVERNMENT WERE TO TAKE A REGISTRATION AND/OR REGULATION APPROACH, WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING WOULD YOU MOST LIKE TO SEE INTRODUCED?
Registration or regulation isn't necessary and would likely do more harm than good.
Q33. DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS WITH THE REGISTRATION AND/OR REGULATION POLICY APPROACH TO SAFEGUARDING REFORM IN OOSS?
Registration and regulation are paperwork exercises and don’t address real safeguarding needs on the ground. Children are protected by people — not by forms.
Any Government action should only be triggered where there is clear evidence that a child is genuinely at risk of harm.
Q34. IF THE GOVERNMENT WERE TO TAKE AN ENGAGEMENT-BASED APPROACH, WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING WOULD YOU MOST LIKE TO SEE INTRODUCED?
Close collaboration with trusted and well-informed community representatives who genuinely reflect the views of parents would be welcome — but only if it stays voluntary, respectful, and focused on supporting parents rather than regulating them.
Out-of-school settings already have long-established safeguarding systems and record extremely low levels of risk compared with mainstream environments.
Any engagement should offer parents simple, practical tools (like checklists and safety reminders).
Q35. DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS CONCERNING THE ENGAGEMENT-BASED APPROACH TO SAFEGUARDING REFORM IN OOSS?
Engagement is only effective when it is genuinely voluntary, culturally respectful, and based on real partnership — and should only be used when it is genuinely needed.
Q36. IF THE GOVERNMENT WERE TO TAKE AN INFORMATION-BASED APPROACH, WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING WOULD YOU MOST LIKE TO SEE INTRODUCED?
The most helpful resources would be clear, easy-to-read guides that help parents recognise genuine risks to a child’s physical or emotional wellbeing — along with optional warning signs and practical checklists designed to help families make well-informed decisions about out-of-school activities.
Q37. DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS CONCERNING THE INFORMATION-BASED APPROACH TO SAFEGUARDING REFORM IN OOSS?
Any information-based approach should stay light-touch, voluntary and supportive.
If anything is offered, it should be limited to optional, parent-friendly tools (such as simple checklists or prompts), leaving families free to decide what, if anything, they wish to use.
Q40.CONSIDERING THE WIDE RANGE OF OOSS, ALL WITH THEIR OWN UNIQUE CONSIDERATIONS, ARE THERE ANY TYPE OF SETTINGS THAT YOU THINK SHOULD BE FOCUSSED ON AS PART OF ANY FUTURE SAFEGUARDING REFORMS?
New safeguarding rules should only be used where serious harm has been clearly established.
They should not be imposed on places where children are already kept safe through systems that have worked well for years, especially as local authorities and the police already have strong legal powers to step in whenever there is credible evidence of harm or danger.
Q41. WHY? WHAT EVIDENCE HAS INFORMED YOUR ANSWER TO THE ABOVE QUESTION?
Safeguarding should focus on protecting children from real harm — not unnecessary interference — and intervention should only happen when there is clear evidence of danger and no lighter response would work. Any action must involve trusted community leadership.
This allows local authorities to put their time and resources into children who are genuinely at risk.