EssenceالعربيةالعربيةRequest information
Insights

One set of sharing terms, many councils

Government

Councils on the same service write similar data-sharing agreements again and again. On Essence, the terms such an agreement sets are configuration, so one set written once can be applied by many organisations.

Two councils working on the same service decide to share data about the people they support. Before anything moves, someone drafts a data-sharing agreement: the purpose, the lawful basis, how long each side keeps the data, what the recipient may do with it and which suppliers will handle it. A year later, two more councils start the same work, and much the same agreement is drafted again from a blank page.

A problem government has named

In September 2026, GDS and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government began "100 days of Digital Devolution". One of its four themes is "unblocking data foundations". GDS's update on the programme says that "Work is under way to reduce longstanding barriers to data access and sharing. This includes exploring reusable content for data-sharing agreements".

The same update describes the aim of that strand of work as "reducing the need for individual authorities to solve the same underlying problems independently".

Reusable wording is half of the answer. The other half is what happens to the agreed terms once the wording is settled: whether they stay in a document filed beside the data, or travel with the data itself.

Where the terms live on Essence

On Essence, nothing leaves a person's vault unless a consent record, which the platform calls a grant, says it may. The terms an agreement sets are settings on that grant, not code and not a separate document:

  • Purpose. Each grant carries a purpose chosen from a fixed list, which can be described in words beside it.
  • Lawful basis and retention. Since our August release, a grant can record the Article 6 basis the processing rests on, why it applies, and how long the recipient may keep the data once the grant ends. These are fixed when the grant is made.
  • Limits on use. An expiry date, an optional maximum number of accesses, and whether the recipient may download, print or forward.
  • Cadence. Since our October release, a grant can declare whether the recipient may look once or return over time.
  • Who else handles the data. Also since October, a grant can record the sub-processor list the person was shown and the rule for what happens if it changes.

How these fit together is set out in How consent works at Essence (essence.digital/knowledge/how-consent-works).

Terms an organisation publishes once

An organisation does not have to set these terms afresh for every share. In its consent console it can publish consent-policy templates. A template carries recommended terms: a suggested duration, an advised maximum, which kinds of access to allow, and whether onward sharing is permitted. When people in the organisation come to share, the template appears as a set their organisation recommends, which fills in the terms in one step. The person sharing can still change any of them.

Since our October release, a template can also carry the organisation's own declaration of lawful basis, reason and retention. That declaration is the organisation's statement, not a choice for the person to make. It is fixed when the template is created, so a different basis means a new template, and nobody can quietly rewrite a basis that people have already relied on. Consent and the lawful basis (essence.digital/knowledge/consent-and-the-lawful-basis) explains how a public body's basis sits beside the person's own control over their vault.

One set of terms, many organisations

Put those pieces together and an agreed set of terms becomes configuration rather than a document. Councils that settle one set of terms for a service, using reusable agreement content or their own, could each publish the same template: the same purpose, the same basis and reason, the same retention, the same advised duration and the same position on onward sharing. Each council publishes it under its own name, and each declaration remains that council's own statement.

The person at the other end sees the result. Both parties to a grant can read a consent receipt showing the purpose, when the grant was made and when it expires, the lawful basis and its reason, the retention period, what withdrawing would do, how often the recipient may return and which sub-processor list was shown. The receipt carries no personal data. Where grants record the same terms, a person reads them in the same form whichever council they deal with.

Whether a set of terms is right for a service stays with each council and its data protection officer. What Essence changes is what happens to those terms once they are agreed: they are written once, published as settings, and recorded on each grant, where both sides can read them.

If your council is working through shared terms for a service with its neighbours, we would be glad to show you how they would look as templates and receipts on Essence.

Want to see it working? Request information

Published 10 October 2026

Related

Over State Pension age, not a date of birth: proportionate sharing in practiceA service that needs to know someone is over State Pension age rarely needs their date of birth. Essence passes the answer, not the record: only the fields asked for, or only a signed answer.
Telling services once: a family-held record for the early yearsFamilies tell health visitors, nurseries, GPs and councils the same things because each service keeps its own copy. A record the family holds, shared field by field under consent, lets them tell it once.