Children`s conversations are to be reported to Named Persons

"TAXI drivers have been ordered to spy on child passengers and report conversations to their `state guardian`."

"The chilling move, part of the SNP`s controversial `named person` plan, was last night branded a `Stasi-like` interference into family life."

"The Scottish Daily Mail can reveal the instruction has gone out to more than 600 cabbies in the Scottish Borders, who have a contract to drive youngsters to school. The local authority will introduce state guardians in 2016, with other councils set to follow suit."

"Last night, a Scottish Government spokesman claimed that `proportionate, sensitive sharing of information is necessary, but critics reacted with horror and said it will terrify parents."

The National has covered this topic too:

Effectively taxi drivers with contracts for transporting children will be expected to alert the authorities if they hear children talk about abuse or anything else worrying.

The Scottish Daily Mail is more specific: information obtained from conversations with children should be passed to `state guardians`. But these are the recipients of wellbeing concerns, otherwise child protection is the relevant agency to contact about welfare.

How are taxi drivers meant to make these fine distinctions? Should they be expected to be able to determine proportionate, sensitive sharing of information about wellbeing? And what about a child`s right to have a private conversation, or does that not exist any more in this Brave New World?

Recall the decision of the judges in the Court of Session:

Refusing the appeal based upon the Article 8 right to respect for a private and family life, the judges observed that all that the legislation does, and is intended to do, is "…to provide for every child and his or her family a suitably qualified professional who can, if necessary, act as a single point of contact between the child and any public service from which the child could benefit".

http://www.scottishlegal.com/2015/09/03/human-rights-challenge-against-named-person-legislation-refused-by-appeal-judges/

Potentially, the Named Person - that single point of contact - has informants everywhere and this is encouraged by the legislation. It does not say much for the learned judges that they missed that. But they were very confused about the distinction between welfare and wellbeing.

Within the context of the GIRFEC approach, everyone who has contact with children, or adults who care for children, should have regard to their wellbeing and may need to raise a wellbeing concern with the Named Person.

http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0046/00465710.pdf