"CONTROVERSIAL plans to appoint a named person for every child in Scotland are facing a delay because a critical legal ruling has not yet been received."
"After months of resisting calls to rethink the policy, Deputy First Minister conceded that it would not be prudent or responsible to introduce the scheme while its legality is still in question."
"A ruling is expected in the Supreme Court after challenges by the Christian Institute and other groups, who appealed after their case was dismissed by the Court of Session."
"But with the judgement still to be determined, the Supreme Court will break up in two weeks` time for a summer recess for the month of August."
"It puts into jeopardy the expected introduction of the Scottish Government`s flagship scheme which was due to go live on August 31."
"Mr Swinney has now written to Holyrood`s Education Committee confirming that in the absence of a determination by the UK Supreme Court, he may have to delay the implementation."
"In a letter to MSPs on the committee, Mr Swinney said there were now only two weeks prior to its summer recess in which the Supreme Court could hand down its judgement..."
"Simon Calvert, spokesman for the No to Named Persons campaign, said: `Our lawyers contacted the Scottish Government earlier this week requesting an undertaking along these lines, so we are pleased they have done the right thing`."
"`The fact that the Scottish Government has been forced into a concession over this unpopular scheme is an acceptance of the reality that it could actually be struck down by the Supreme Court`..."
"Amid the prospect of a delay in the court ruling, Mr Swinney has told MPs he is advising parliament that the relevant parts four and five of the 2014 Children and Young People Act will not be implemented until a definitive judgement is received..."
"But Mr Calvert added: `Of course, as well as the legal problems, the scheme is plagued by practical problems`. "
"`More than a million kids are meant to be assigned a named person but there aren’t enough health visitors or teachers to implement the scheme. That may be partly behind this concession`."
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/14608676.MSPs_warned_controversial_named_person_scheme_could_be_delayed/
bowling
Showing posts with label Children and Young People Bill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Children and Young People Bill. Show all posts
Saturday, 9 July 2016
Wednesday, 4 May 2016
Wellbeing and welfare are still being confused
"I’m a former `looked-after` child. I’ve suffered the abuse and neglect that this scheme is intended to help protect children from. Having scrutinised the details for myself, I fully support it."
"Scottish Labour and the Lib Dems voted in favour of the Scottish Government’s proposals for the NP Scheme in 2014, while the Conservatives abstained. Yet just a few weeks before the election Kezia Dugdale performed a U-turn, calling the policy a `mess` and demanding it should be paused."
"But child protection isn’t a political game, and those who choose to wilfully misinform and indulge in scaremongering tactics with such an important subject for the sake of petty party advantage are as far as I’m concerned engaging in nothing more than blatant opportunism of the most despicable kind."
"Many children find themselves in the care of their local authority as I was – the vast majority of looked-after kids have become so for care and protection reasons. They’ll probably have experienced neglect or mental, physical, sexual or emotional abuse. To them the thought of a `state guardian` is not a derogatory sneer, as used by campaigners like No2NP, but a symbol of hope."
"The NP scheme is not taking away the rights of parents to raise their children, but merely formalising measures already in place to try to help ensure children are protected from harm. And the uncomfortable truth is that most of that harm happens within the family home, from family members."
However, most children will never be `looked-after` and privacy is an issue for them as well as for their families. It is their right to have a private and family life, free of state interference. But by using the SHANARRI wellbeing indicators, Named Persons are encouraged to collect, collate and spread private data around the various agencies, actually putting these children at unnecessary risk. Those risks may come from data thieves who might sell that information, or from malicious individuals wanting to do mischief, or from paedophiles looking for accessible children. This is why similar legislation and ContactPoint were discarded in England.
There is evidence from the Scottish Children`s Parliament that young people want their privacy to be respected:
"Of particular importance to young people was the issue of confidentiality, with regard to the Named Person role and other professionals working with them. Markedly fewer Young Scot/SYP respondents selected the Named Person responsibility relating to the sharing of confidential information. 75% of the approximately 20 young people who discussed the Bill at an NHS Forth Valley even stated that they would feel upset if their Named person shared private information with another professional ‘without discussing it with them first’."
http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0041/00413847.pdfUnfortunately sharing private information is what the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 allows and why it was discussed at the NHS Forth Valley.
Again, in the comments after the post, there is confusion between welfare and wellbeing, even from children`s panel members and those who have worked in social services. Let us be clear; Donna was let down by the child protection system which is still in place and covered by the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 - it has never been repealed - and yes it does need to be improved. I have never heard of anybody arguing against protecting children from risk of significant harm (welfare), only that it should be better resourced instead of throwing money away on the frivolous wellbeing concerns of all children. Over sixty million to date on that I think. In one respect, what a waste. But for child protection services, what a missed opportunity to have done something to improve the system.
Monday, 4 April 2016
Will Nicola Sturgeon clear up the confusion ?
"CAMPAIGNERS fighting the SNP’s state guardians plan have demanded a meeting with Nicola Sturgeon to clear up confusion over the controversial scheme."
"The First Minister has claimed the Named Person scheme is "not compulsory" and said parents can "opt out", despite clear evidence to the contrary."
"Amid the growing concern over the plans, Simon Calvert, of the No 2 Named Persons campaign group, has written to Ms Sturgeon to ask for an urgent meeting."
"He writes: `You have made various statements in recent days concerning the implementation of the Named Person scheme that seem to be confusing`."
" `The content of these statements are at some significant variance with the legislation as passed by the Scottish Parliament.` "
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/657909/New-state-guardian-meeting
Are the Named Person provisions compulsory or not ?
See Part 4 of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 below and in particular the section on information sharing:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2014/8/part/4/enacted
"The First Minister has claimed the Named Person scheme is "not compulsory" and said parents can "opt out", despite clear evidence to the contrary."
"Amid the growing concern over the plans, Simon Calvert, of the No 2 Named Persons campaign group, has written to Ms Sturgeon to ask for an urgent meeting."
"He writes: `You have made various statements in recent days concerning the implementation of the Named Person scheme that seem to be confusing`."
" `The content of these statements are at some significant variance with the legislation as passed by the Scottish Parliament.` "
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/657909/New-state-guardian-meeting
Are the Named Person provisions compulsory or not ?
See Part 4 of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 below and in particular the section on information sharing:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2014/8/part/4/enacted
Friday, 1 April 2016
Caseworking the entire population: the authoritarian approach
"SCOTLAND, like the rest of the UK and much of Europe, is an increasingly unequal society."
"Poverty and inequality are what stunt children’s lives and these things cannot be tackled by caseworking the entire population of children. Instead, housing, jobs, income, education, health services and the environment are the basis for the overall wellbeing of children. It is these that are, or should be, the business of government, rather than the micro-management of family life."
"However micro-managing is just what the 'Named Person' law, and the Getting It Right For Every Child policy it comes from, set out to do. These measures are part of the popular un-progressive dogma that it is predominantly parents’ behaviour and choices that shape children’s lives...."
"This and the relentless focus on 'risk' have created an authoritarian rather than a supportive approach, certainly in social work, my own profession. This has made child and family social work increasingly disliked and distrusted among the very families who should be being helped, and made the job increasingly stressful for social workers."
"I believe that this authoritarian approach to families is being extended with the introduction of the Named Person legislation. Not only will there be more families under investigation, but stress and risk aversion will permeate further into education and health services."
"They, too, will be judged on factors that they can’t control – poverty, despair, stress caused by structural inequality. What we have with the Children and Young People Act and its Named Person provision is a conflation of need and of risk. It is in essence an attempt to 'casework' the whole population of children and families, and will bear particularly on the poor, the different, the most disadvantaged..."
"I have heard the justification that 'families are where children are abused' often, but families are more usually the place that keeps children safe and happy, and parents are more usually children’s defenders and champions against the often casual carelessness or cruelty of services. Children separated from their families in care and in schools are more vulnerable to abuse than children who remain within their families..."
"The Named Person role and responsibilities do not come with any power to allocate homes, food, clothes, holidays, home helps, or even just therapeutic or health services. There are fewer services on the ground providing practical help and those that do are facing the biggest cuts."
"But the Named Person juggernaut is set to roll on. I think that last paragraph says everything that needs to be said about wrong priorities for legislation and for services."
Thursday, 31 March 2016
Nicola Sturgeon urged to `press the pause button` on the Named Person legislation
"The Scottish Conservative leader called on Nicola Sturgeon to `press the pause button` on the `named person` legislation which comes into force this August."
"On the election trail in Abernethy, Perthshire, Ms Davidson met parents concerned by the proposals, which have been criticised for encouraging state intrusion into family life."
"Under the plans, all children under the age of 18 will be assigned a single point of contact, such as a teacher or health visitor, to look out for their welfare."
"The Scottish Government says the service, which is the subject of a legal challenge, will act as a safety net to help vulnerable families and children. "
"Ms Davidson said: `This is going to start in August and we don’t really know what it looks like. We haven’t really been told how the machinations work. My strong urge to the Scottish Government, to Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP is that we have fought this at every way and they have voted us down and shouted us down at every turn.` "
" `Only now are parents waking up to how big an intrusion this is. Let’s press the pause button on this. Let’s not introduce it in August. Let’s get back round the table and find a way to best allocate resources to the young people who are in vulnerable and at risk situations who need it the most.` "
"Ms Davidson, whose party abstained when the legislation was considered at Holyrood, attacked Ms Sturgeon for suggesting that parents could ignore the named person regulation, yet it remained mandatory for children..."
Read more: http://www.scotsman.com/news/ruth-davidson-calls-for-rethink-on-named-person-legislation-1-4086389#ixzz44Td9NQ86
Sunday, 20 March 2016
Nicola`s on the hook
 |
"The First Minister gave an online interview to BBC Scotland's political editor Brian Taylor to mark last weekend's SNP conference in Glasgow."
"In it, she claimed that Named Persons were `not mandatory` and agreed with Mr Taylor when he suggested that "parents can say no".
"In fact, parents cannot opt out and it is the mandatory nature of the scheme which has prompted such furious opposition from a growing number of voters."
"Simon Calvert, from the No To Named Person campaign which is spearheading a court battle against the legislation, said: "If the First Minister thinks this scheme is not mandatory then she has been very badly misled by her advisers."
"When she realises how inaccurate the advice from officials has been I imagine heads will roll. They've made her look very silly because she may be the only person in Scotland who doesn't know that the Named Person scheme contains no opt outs, and no provision for parental consent. It is, on any ordinary understanding of the word, mandatory."
" `Given how unpopular the scheme is, it is highly convenient for the First Minister to say it's not compulsory. Sadly it just doesn't happen to be true.` "
"The Government's own QC told the Court of Session there is no opt out in the legislation and explained that to include one would defeat the purpose of the whole scheme."
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/654012/Nicola-Sturgeon-accused-misleading-public-Scotland
Monday, 14 March 2016
Data protection and Human Rights legislation continue to be ignored
This was a sly piece in the Record:
Having said that, the writer agrees that the term `wellbeing` is rather vague and parents are unsure how it`s supposed to work.
There`s no mention that those two legal battles were fought in front of Scottish judges who are intent on hiding their own issues and `conflicts of interests`. [ See A diary of Injustice ] If there is confidence by the campaign group - and I am sure there is, and should be - it`s because the legislation breaches Data protection and ECHR legislation which the writer slides over.
The article then goes on to confuse those vague `wellbeing` concerns with welfare concerns and protecting kids from harm - significant, of course - which is the remit of social workers, not Named Persons.
Nope. It has got nothing to do with the packaging That has been done disgracefully with kids doing GIRFEC posters, chanting slogans and singing SHANARRI songs in school. It`s about data protection and human rights, the issues that this article and so many others do not address.
A low point is reached here:
The implication is that if there had been a Named Person in place with their data sharing capacity, the incident might never have occurred.
WRONG.
As the first commenter points out.
It`s also a spectacular own goal by Lesley Roberts, the writer of this article. When are the writers of these articles ever going to get the point that breaching data protection and human rights legislation protects nobody while putting everybody at risk?
Read more at http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/lesley-roberts-need-right-kids-7544597#r8vu1OdAOV7MiXes.99
Poll at 21.40 hours on 13 March 2016.
"The thought that someone might mistakenly think you harmed your own child deliberately or that you failed in your duty of care is so terrible that you find yourself layering all sorts of unnecessary detail to prove the truth of your story...I suspect that`s why so many have reacted badly to the Scottish Government`s controversial `named person` scheme ...and why it is being challenged at the Supreme Court - at least partly"Deliberately harming a child is being conflated with failure in a duty of care. They are not quite the same thing and people do not react in the same way, thankfully, whether it is piling explanations on, or clamming up, otherwise we would all react the way public services often do when they are on the defensive: collaborate, accept no responsibility and make excuses. But it is interesting that Lesley Roberts brings this matter to the fore.
Having said that, the writer agrees that the term `wellbeing` is rather vague and parents are unsure how it`s supposed to work.
No wonder the campaign group No To Named Persons have had the confidence to take their fight to have the plans scrapped to the highest court in the land, despite losing two previous legal battles.
There`s no mention that those two legal battles were fought in front of Scottish judges who are intent on hiding their own issues and `conflicts of interests`. [ See A diary of Injustice ] If there is confidence by the campaign group - and I am sure there is, and should be - it`s because the legislation breaches Data protection and ECHR legislation which the writer slides over.
The article then goes on to confuse those vague `wellbeing` concerns with welfare concerns and protecting kids from harm - significant, of course - which is the remit of social workers, not Named Persons.
There`s no doubt we have to find better ways to protect kids from harm... What a shame it would be if the `named person` scheme is the right way but packaged wrongly.
 |
| Bailey Gwynne |
A low point is reached here:
When schoolboy Bailey Gwynne is stabbed to death by a pupil whose violence had been a huge concern before and who was known to carry knives, there`s a suggestion information should have been better shared....
The implication is that if there had been a Named Person in place with their data sharing capacity, the incident might never have occurred.
WRONG.
As the first commenter points out.
It should be noted that Aberdeen have been running the `Named Person` scheme since 2012. So the disturbed 16 year old who stabbed Bailey to death had a named person for 4 years who apparently failed to spot the serious issues with his `wellbeing`. By any measurement this is a quite spectacular failure of the scheme.
It`s also a spectacular own goal by Lesley Roberts, the writer of this article. When are the writers of these articles ever going to get the point that breaching data protection and human rights legislation protects nobody while putting everybody at risk?
Read more at http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/lesley-roberts-need-right-kids-7544597#r8vu1OdAOV7MiXes.99
Poll at 21.40 hours on 13 March 2016.
Saturday, 12 March 2016
Sturgeon questioned about Named Person scheme
Speaking to Brian Taylor about the Named Person scheme at the SNP conference, Nicola Sturgeon said "It`s not compulsory. It`s an entitlement, not at obligation. If a parent doesn`t want to have anything to do with the Named Person scheme, they don`t have to." [24.35 minutes]That`s just not true.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-35763213
Maggie Mellon, independent consultant on social work practice and public policy. has written an excellent account of the Named Person scheme in the Scottish Journal of Residential Child Care. [December 2015]
One of her points is that the legislation does not say what its defenders claim.
There is no mention of the Named Person having a duty to act on the request of, or to consult with, parents, families, children or young people, or even to take their views and wishes into account. There is no mention of confidentiality, partnership, or of rights and entitlements. There is not one single mention of families and very few of parents in the whole Act.
https://www.celcis.org/files/8314/4922/7369/2015_Vol_14_3_Mellon_Against_named_person.pdfThe Named Person has responsibility for the wellbeing of the child and can instigate actions as he or she thinks appropriate, with or without, the knowledge or consent of the child or parent. A parent cannot opt the child out of assessments, data sharing or interventions. In fact, non-engagement by a parent is seen as a risk factor and could escalate the situation into a child protection investigation.
All there is, is a complaints process that takes a year to complete. Children could be removed from their families and long gone in that time. With that threat hanging over families, who could risk non-engagement ?
It`s a strange kind of entitlement.
Tuesday, 8 March 2016
First day at Supreme Court
"A legal challenge against Scottish Government proposals to appoint named public workers to safeguard the wellbeing of every child in Scotland will be heard at the Supreme Court this week."
"Four charities and three individuals have lodged an appeal against the "named person" provisions in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014."
"The court has been asked to decide whether the provision is compatible with fundamental common law rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, and laws on the sharing and disclosure of information from Westminster and the European Union."
"Under the scheme, the named person is required to exercise statutory functions, including providing advice, information or support where appropriate to promote, support or safeguard the wellbeing of the child or young person."
"In July 2014, The Christian Institute, Family Education Trust, The Young ME Sufferers ("Tymes") Trust and CARE (Christian Action Research & Education) lodged a petition with three individuals for a judicial review challenging the lawfulness of the provisions."
"The appellants claim the Act `authorises unjustified and unjustifiable state interference with family rights`."
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/scotland/named-person-challenge-reaches-supreme-court-1.927801
NO2NP report on the first day at the Supreme Court, below:
http://no2np.org/gps-must-tell-named-person-teenage-girls-prescribed-pill-says-qc/
"Four charities and three individuals have lodged an appeal against the "named person" provisions in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014."
"The court has been asked to decide whether the provision is compatible with fundamental common law rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, and laws on the sharing and disclosure of information from Westminster and the European Union."
"Under the scheme, the named person is required to exercise statutory functions, including providing advice, information or support where appropriate to promote, support or safeguard the wellbeing of the child or young person."
"In July 2014, The Christian Institute, Family Education Trust, The Young ME Sufferers ("Tymes") Trust and CARE (Christian Action Research & Education) lodged a petition with three individuals for a judicial review challenging the lawfulness of the provisions."
"The appellants claim the Act `authorises unjustified and unjustifiable state interference with family rights`."
http://no2np.org/gps-must-tell-named-person-teenage-girls-prescribed-pill-says-qc/
Monday, 7 March 2016
Named Person scheme costs millions
"Campaigners have renewed attacks on the controversial plan to have a state-appointed guardian for every child in Scotland as the Supreme Court in London prepares to start a two-day hearing over a bid to have the legislation overturned."
"Under the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act a single point of contact, such as a teacher or health visitor, would be assigned to look out for the welfare of children under 18."
"Scotland’s courts have already rejected claims in a Judicial Review that Holyrood exceeded its powers in passing the named person law."
"However, the arguments will go before a five-strong bench at the Supreme Court tomorrow in a legal challenge mounted by the No To Named Persons (NO2NP) campaign."
"The campaign said that more than £61 million of taxpayers’ money has been allocated to cover the cost of introducing the policy, figures it cited from documents released under freedom of information laws."
"Opponents of the scheme have said that the policy undermines the role of parents and families and is intrusive because it gives monitoring power to the state."
"A spokesman for NO2NP, said: `This is a breathtaking amount of money on what has become one of this government’s most controversial and accident-prone policies.`"
"It’s totally unnecessary for the vast majority of families who neither need nor want a state official for their children."
Read more: http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/campaigners-renew-attack-on-controversial-state-guardians-1-4048247#ixzz42E3VXMvZ
"Under the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act a single point of contact, such as a teacher or health visitor, would be assigned to look out for the welfare of children under 18."
"Scotland’s courts have already rejected claims in a Judicial Review that Holyrood exceeded its powers in passing the named person law."
"However, the arguments will go before a five-strong bench at the Supreme Court tomorrow in a legal challenge mounted by the No To Named Persons (NO2NP) campaign."
"The campaign said that more than £61 million of taxpayers’ money has been allocated to cover the cost of introducing the policy, figures it cited from documents released under freedom of information laws."
"Opponents of the scheme have said that the policy undermines the role of parents and families and is intrusive because it gives monitoring power to the state."
"A spokesman for NO2NP, said: `This is a breathtaking amount of money on what has become one of this government’s most controversial and accident-prone policies.`"
"It’s totally unnecessary for the vast majority of families who neither need nor want a state official for their children."
Read more: http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/campaigners-renew-attack-on-controversial-state-guardians-1-4048247#ixzz42E3VXMvZ
Friday, 4 March 2016
Named Person scheme could breach young people`s human rights
"The controversial law guaranteeing a 'named person' for every child in Scotland could breach young people's human rights, a legal charity has warned."
"Clan Childlaw is to tell the UK Supreme Court next week that agencies such as health, education and social work will be justified in sharing information about a child merely on the basis of concerns about their wellbeing, rather than the previous much tougher test of being 'at risk of significant harm'. "
"This means children can have virtually no expectation of privacy or confidentiality, the charity says, breaching article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights. "
"Clan Childlaw gives legal help to children and young people in Scotland, and is intervening in the judicial review of the Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, which has been brought by the Christian Institute and other groups. "
"These groups are primarily concerned that the appointment of named persons - usually headteachers of school age children and health visitors where a child is pre-school - is an unwarranted intrusion on family life. The court has agreed to hear an intervention in the case by Clan Childlaw, meaning judges recognise it could provide helpful new information. The case is to be heard on Tuesday and Wednesday next week..."
"Clan Childlaw's advocate will try to persuade the judges - including Baroness Hale, of Richmond, who is known for an interest in children and human rights - that sections of the act relating to sharing and disclosing of information could be changed, to render it compatible with article eight of the EHCR."
"However the groups which originally brought the case are looking for the law to be thrown out altogether..."
"The Scottish Government continues to defend the appeal."
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14320248.Charity_warns__named_persons__law_may_breach_children_s_rights_to_privacy/
"Clan Childlaw is to tell the UK Supreme Court next week that agencies such as health, education and social work will be justified in sharing information about a child merely on the basis of concerns about their wellbeing, rather than the previous much tougher test of being 'at risk of significant harm'. "
"This means children can have virtually no expectation of privacy or confidentiality, the charity says, breaching article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights. "
"Clan Childlaw gives legal help to children and young people in Scotland, and is intervening in the judicial review of the Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, which has been brought by the Christian Institute and other groups. "
"These groups are primarily concerned that the appointment of named persons - usually headteachers of school age children and health visitors where a child is pre-school - is an unwarranted intrusion on family life. The court has agreed to hear an intervention in the case by Clan Childlaw, meaning judges recognise it could provide helpful new information. The case is to be heard on Tuesday and Wednesday next week..."
"Clan Childlaw's advocate will try to persuade the judges - including Baroness Hale, of Richmond, who is known for an interest in children and human rights - that sections of the act relating to sharing and disclosing of information could be changed, to render it compatible with article eight of the EHCR."
"However the groups which originally brought the case are looking for the law to be thrown out altogether..."
"The Scottish Government continues to defend the appeal."
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14320248.Charity_warns__named_persons__law_may_breach_children_s_rights_to_privacy/
Monday, 7 December 2015
Is protest against the Named Person merely a political gesture?
We know about the wellbeing triangle but do look out for other triangles. It is fascinating how ubiquitous they are in the literature of governments and think tanks and does give an indication of the mindset behind the messages.
Below is the Scottish Procurement Triangle where sustainability is embedded in everything they do; delivering savings and benefits; maximising efficiency and collaboration and improving supplier access to public contracts. Round and round the triangle they go - maximising, collaborating, improving...
"Protest comes from thinking that when you are looking for a needle in a haystack why make the haystack bigger? The Scottish Government seems intent on investigating the whole haystack. "
Below is the Scottish Procurement Triangle where sustainability is embedded in everything they do; delivering savings and benefits; maximising efficiency and collaboration and improving supplier access to public contracts. Round and round the triangle they go - maximising, collaborating, improving...
Only it is rubbish. A flat two dimensional triangle does not represent the real world, no matter how much it is dressed in pretty primary colours.
Not only that, it is becoming more obvious as each day passes that the Scottish Government, despite years of preparation, is ill equipped to implement the Named Person provision of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014.
As the Scottish Mail on Sunday has learned "Some health boards are suffering from an acute shortage of properly trained staff, raising fears they will struggle to meet the Government`s demands."
NHS Lothian, one of the country`s biggest health boards, has admitted it has so few health visitors that they will each have to act as Named Person for up to 350 children...
During their house calls, health visitors will monitor every child`s well-being, while checking the family`s parenting skills, finances and mental health. Those judged to be falling short can be referred to professionals such as doctors and social workers. A report by Sall Egan, NHS Lothian associate director of strategic planning, states: "There is a national shortage of qualified health visitors and an extensive training programme is underway across all NHS boards.
http://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-scottish-mail-on-sunday/20151206/281960311683308/TextViewMany have protested and there are predictable consequences of this folly expressed in the Herald recently by Ruth Davidson:
When a child somewhere in Scotland who desperately needs help and intervention is overlooked as their 'named person' has dozens of other perfectly healthy and happy children on the books and can't take the time for the child who needs it?
And this is my real concern. What happens when something goes wrong? When a child somewhere in Scotland who desperately needs help and intervention is overlooked as their `named person` has dozens of other perfectly healthy and happy children on the books and can`t take the time for the child who needs it?"
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14111244.Ruth_Davidson___Named_person__for_every_child_could_lead_to_another_Baby_P_tragedy/
"Protest comes from thinking that when you are looking for a needle in a haystack why make the haystack bigger? The Scottish Government seems intent on investigating the whole haystack. "
Is it likely that the Scottish Government will U-turn, or bend, to the pressure of Ruth Davidson and others?
Not likely. This is performance.
Just think about triangles and the integrated databases that have been put in place and who those databases will serve.
Just think about triangles and the integrated databases that have been put in place and who those databases will serve.
Just ask, who is there at the top of the triangle? Why has opposition to the Named Person policy been so delayed?
Friday, 27 November 2015
Transparently shifting to the implementation phase ?
Liam McArthur: "At the weekend, the Scottish Government made it clear to the press that "a decision was made at ministerial level to wind up the GIRFEC Programme Board after May 2014." Does the minister think that it was acceptable for ministers to take such a decision without having any recourse to the Scottish Parliament, which had responsibility for scrutinising and approving the GIRFEC legislation?"
Aileen Campbell: "As I said, the programme board was established to take us through the legislative phase of getting it right for every child. After the 2014 act was passed, I took the decision to look at options for maintaining strategic engagement and driving forward the implementation of GIRFEC. The programme board’s job was done. We had got through the legislative phase, and I took the strategic decision to focus on implementation."
"The national implementation support group is there to provide that strategic engagement and to drive forward the implementation of GIRFEC. There was consensus on that decision at the last meeting of the programme board in September 2014, and it was recognised that we needed to have the right people on the group to drive forward the implementation of GIRFEC. "
"While the board wound down, there was continued emphasis on implementation, and that was done through the national implementation support group."
Liam McArthur: "I am grateful to the minister for that further clarification, but I want to press her on the point about when and how the Parliament was informed about a decision on a programme board that the Parliament was responsible for setting up. Despite the fact that the minister has said that consultation took place with the programme board members, the Parliament does not appear to have been informed of a decision in which it had a very legitimate interest."
Aileen Campbell: "I reiterate that we had gone through the legislative phase and, to maintain the strategic engagement with the sector, agencies and other people, I decided to focus on implementation. That is why the national implementation support group continued. It had sat under the programme board, but it continued so that we could drive forward the GIRFEC agenda."
"I can make sure that the member is furnished with all the details of the meetings, if he so wishes, so that he has the clarity that he seeks. I am determined to get the implementation of the legislation, which is important, right, which is why the focus of our attention changed from the legislative phase that the programme board was charged with to implementation. We decided that we did not need both organisations, and we decided to maintain our focus on implementation, which is the role of the NISG."
Liam McArthur: "On implementation, I am looking at the minutes from the programme board meeting in May 2014. Assistant Chief Constable Malcolm Graham of Police Scotland "raised issues surrounding ensuring high-risk children remained a focus." The minister will recall that, even among those of us who were prepared to accept the case for named persons, one of the key concerns was that attention and resources should not be diverted away from those who have genuine welfare issues in order to address wider concerns in relation to wellbeing issues. What reassurances have been given to Police Scotland and other members of the programme and implementation boards that there has not been a redirection of focus away from those high-risk children?"
Aileen Campbell: "The whole thrust of getting it right for every child, as we have learned from the Highland model, is that it allows us to focus and to be more strategic with our resources, and to make sure that we are getting it right for children who show that level of need and require additional support. There is no retracting from our focus on trying to do things better for a group of vulnerable children. That is part of the whole GIRFEC approach. It is about getting it right for every child every time..."
[Applying GIRFEC to every child is how to focus on a group of vulnerable children, according to Ms Campbell. She never addresses Constable Malcolm Graham`s concern that this has resulted in a redirection of focus away from children at risk of significant harm.]
"I will make the minutes of the meetings available on the Government’s website. I will also ensure that we give members any reassurances that they want if they want to get in touch with me or write to me..."
Liz Smith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con): "Is there not a case for getting it right for the public? The minutes that were published were very clear in telling us exactly what was going on. Now that that board is no longer in existence, we are not in a position to know what is going on. Is it not time that the Scottish Government published all the information and advice that it is being given about the implementation of GIRFEC and named persons? "
Aileen Campbell: "I understand that the member does not share my views on the GIRFEC approach, but I am absolutely committed to that policy. I know that it is the right thing to do for our children, to make sure that we have much more co-ordinated and coherent approaches to helping them. If there is any information that the member requires, we will look into those queries...."
Thursday, 19 November 2015
Human rights are for minorities, not for the children of Scotland
Justice Secretary Alex Neil has launched a new campaign on 18 November 2015 that raises awareness of the benefits of human rights for everyone. [ I hope that includes children]...
"This new campaign is designed to help people better understand how human rights are relevant, used on a day to day basis and how they help build a fairer and more progressive society." [I hope that includes children]...
Here is a sloppy representation of the Human Rights Act by Citizens Advice - but it does give the flavour - they do point out rights under Article 8:
Article 8 - the right to respect for your family and private life, your home and your correspondence is one [I think they mean one of] the rights protected by the Human Rights Act...
Private life has a broad meaning. It means you have the right to live your life with privacy and without interference by the state. It covers things like:
personal identity and how you look and dress
forming and maintaining relationships with other people
how you [I think they mean your] personal information is held and protected.
Was the Social Justice Minister talking about the children of Scotland? I would hope so, because there are groups going around schools telling children they have rights and their voices will be heard without informing them of their rights under Article 8 ...
Maybe not:
Today’s launch was supported by equal marriage campaigners and Scotland’s first female same sex married couple Susan and Gerrie Douglas Scott who are flying the flag for human rights...
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-rights/civil-rights/human-rights/what-rights-are-protected-under-the-human-rights-act/your-right-to-respect-for-private-and-family-life/Good on them, but it does raise the question: Why would the minister propagate the rights of a minority and have no word to say about children and the Named Person scheme which strips children of these same Human rights?
After all, our children are the future of Scotland.
http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Fly-the-flag-for-human-rights-1f5a.aspx
Wednesday, 21 October 2015
A little bit of extra help, or mass surveillance ?
 |
| http://www.socialworkscotland.org/ |
Alistair Gaw, president of Social Work Scotland, attempts to set us all straight about the named person policy in the Scotsman today.
"It’s not about creating a nanny state, it’s about helping and supporting children and families."
He was bemused by media misrepresentations that the legislation would mean there would be a social worker for every child. Actually, for school aged children the named person is most likely to be a teacher he informs us.
He has missed the point of the criticism against the named person policy completely. It is not about which hat the named person is wearing that is the issue, it is the fact that the named person has been legislated into existence and is to be imposed on every child.
He goes on:
"The main reason Social Work Scotland, the leadership body for social work, supports the policy is that it is designed to make sure social work is involved only when it is needed. "
Only when it is needed ? - he is trying to pull the wool over our eyes - that has always been standard practice. If this is the main reason Social Work Scotland supports the policy it is a very poor one. He has thought about the consequences for Social Work but has given no thought at all to the effects of the policy on every child and his/her family.
"The name person role will reduce not increase the involvement of social work in the lives of families, protecting resources for our most vulnerable children," Gaw says.
Time will tell. But if the involvement in the lives of families reduces for social work, it increases exponentially by named persons and the pilot scheme provides the evidence:
Almost 8,000 youngsters in the Highlands have been given a 'Child's Plan' - meaning they have been singled out for "targeted intervention" by an army of public sector busybodies.
Incredibly, before the trial began four years ago there were only 64 children on the Child Protection At Risk register in the entire Highland Council Area.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/460054/State-spies-already-snoop-on-thousands-of-familiesGaw then goes on to use the `falling through the net` myth to justify the named person scheme. Children must be spotted early, before a crisis, and personal data must be inspected and joined up to get the bigger picture. By necessity that means for all children.
Yet if we look at Audit and Analysis of Significant Case Reviews (October 2012), it states:
"A very high proportion of families (93%) whose circumstances formed the subject of SCRs were known to social work services, with just 7% of families known only to universal services. This suggests that concerns had been identified in these families and had been correctly passed on to statutory services as specified in national child protection guidance."
http://www.gov.scot/resource/0040/00404517.pdf
In other words it is not universal services who are failing children but statutory social services. Then there is the more recent case of Mikaeel Kular.
At the time of MK’s death the family were receiving support from Fife Social Work Services on a voluntary basis...
(T)aking specialist legal advice, all partners in this Review have concluded that it would not be appropriate to release the full report.
I think we can guess why.
Gaw then quotes Lord Carloway, the Lord Justice Clerk`s, ruling about the named person scheme: "It has no effect whatsoever on the legal, moral or social relationships within the family," which we are probably going to hear ad nauseum.
That is, despite information to practitioners indicating that legal, moral and social relationships are going to be drastically altered. For instance, Dumfries and Galloway Practitioner`s Guide to Information Sharing has this to say:
"It is important that you:
... understand that you are empowered to share personal and/or sensitive personal information, if you are worried and/or concerned about a child or young person’s wellbeing. In these circumstances nothing whatsoever prevents you from sharing the information."
So, whereas it was the role of parents to worry and be concerned about their child`s wellbeing, it is now the business of the named person who can share personal and sensitive information about the child and family across government departments and decide whether or not to instigate early interventions. (whatever they are !)
That changes everything.
Is it not about time the Scottish government and their sock puppets stopped trying to hoodwink the Scottish public about the named person scheme?
http://www.scotsman.com/news/alistair-gaw-exploding-myths-over-named-person-law-1-3922768#axzz3pBXkDnDA
Wednesday, 7 October 2015
Why is there no opt out to the Named Person scheme ?
The BBC had taken itself to the central primary school in Inverness in the Highland Council where the Named Person pilot has been in place since 2008.
Kaye Adams asked Bill Alexander, Highland Council`s director of care and learning, to describe how the Named Person scheme works.
It was something families had asked for he explained as a first point of contact. Most families do not have a social worker but they do have contact with midwives, health visitors and head teachers and so they were brought into the Named Person scheme. As a consequence, we have less people climbing up the system with higher levels of need, less children being looked after and less children saying they are using drugs or alcohol.
The system which builds on what is already in place has been formalised through the legislation and there is more clarity about the professional`s role. Also the Named Person has some clout and can go to other professionals, for example, social workers, and say this family needs help and other professionals will respond because they know the family and Named Person have worked that through. [He later says social work caseloads are down. So who are the other professionals, if they are not social workers, who are assisting the Named Person with early interventions that ensure problems do not escalate? They seem to be working magic. ]
"That is how we work things in the Highland Council. Health and social services work around the school. It is always up to the family."
Can the Named Person who has been appointed ... look at a family?" asks Kaye Adams.
"You are not appointed as Named Person. You are the head teacher for that child."
"So every head teacher in Scotland is going to become a Named Person?"
"That`s correct, " says Bill Alexander, "And every health visitor...It has always been the case if the head teacher is worried about a child they will discuss that with the family."
At this point Christine, a head teacher joins the discussion. "Yes you can come to me. We can talk about it... and what the next steps are... It is an entitlement. I am there to support their child."
"Could you be proactive," asks Kaye Adams.
"I can be proactive and go to the family but ninety percent of the time they come to me."
"Supposing they say get lost... Supposing they don`t want Christine as their Named Person.?"
"It has always been my job to raise concerns with the family and so I will try to persuade them....The family can choose someone else in the school but as head teacher I have to have an overview."
On the other hand, the head teacher of Clifton Hall school in Edinburgh has misgivings about the Named Person role. Accepting that he has always had responsibility for the health and wellbeing of children, it is the statutory role of the Named Person that concerns him because it makes him legally accountable for outcomes and the resources are not there.
"I want to know that I am going to get the help I need to fulfil that responsibility."
He briefly mentions a family he is involved with where the child attempted to take his own life, the family were in crisis... he had three or four meetings with social work and health. but there were no crisis facilities or mental health services available. Another teacher he has been talking with has 53 children on the child protection register.
Bill Alexander points out that the Named Person is not about child protection; it is about partnership and wellbeing. "I welcome accountability. It makes the health visitor service a statutory service and other services work around the universal health visitor. He admits they are strapped for resources but the Named Person is about getting the right resource to the right child at the right time. "I believe with a child`s plan we can have a coordinated response. That is why social work caseloads are down..." [So the Named Person and their coordinated responses go up, and the social work caseloads go down. Mmmm That does not address the concerns of the head teacher from Clifton Hall does it ?]
Simon Calvert from NO2NP who is against the Named Person legislation reminds Bill Alexander that the Act does not come into force until August 2016 and the single point of contact operating with consent - which is not about child protection - that may be operating in the Highlands, is not what the Act is about. A Named Person will be appointed for every child and the Scottish government made it very clear in the court case that opt out would defeat the scheme.
"We are now joined by Aileen Campbell at an appropriate moment as Simon was speaking."
"First point, why is this compulsory? Why not an opt out?" asks Kaye Adams
"This is in universal services where we have this in place. It allows us to have early interventions....All families will have a Named Person to provide help if they need it."
"So if you say go away; you don`t have to accept their advice. You can say I am going to do my own thing?"
"It will be a test of the relationship," says Aileen Campbell.. "It is about good communication;...it is what they do already across large sections of the population.... they do not want to repeat their story...it allows help to prevent them going into crisis." [It is a bit of a ramble and this is only the gist.]
Simon Calvert talks about a family who was told the health visitor was going to be their Named Person but they said they had all the services they wanted. They were berated by their GP and others who said "You must have a Named Person.. So that is the approach. This Named Person is going to come and see you whether you like it or not." [So persuasion turns out to be more like coercion ?]
"I have a health visitor," says Aileen Campbell.
"What happens if they don`t want that?"
Aileen Campbell sees that as a problem requiring better communication and partnership but does not seem to grasp that some families object to having that communication and partnership forced on them.
Kaye Adams sums up the conversation so far. "Potentially, for a lot of families, it could be a marvellous thing. Kate in Grangemouth said having a Named Person would have made my family better. Equally we have people who have not had a good experience; yet as parents they have not been able to say no."
Aileen Campbell says, "I would be very happy to pick up those conversations with those families."
"Why not have an opt out scheme?"
"Because this is a universal scheme... Most will have a head teacher... we know that it works. and we want to make sure there is that universal access."
"How about universal access with the Named Person, with opt out?"
Aileen Campbell, Children`s Minister, never did answer the question.
Listen here http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06dq9zm#play
............More to follow.
 |
Kaye Adams had another discussion about the Named Person on BBC radio Scotland yesterday morning.
The BBC had taken itself to the central primary school in Inverness in the Highland Council where the Named Person pilot has been in place since 2008.
Kaye Adams asked Bill Alexander, Highland Council`s director of care and learning, to describe how the Named Person scheme works.
It was something families had asked for he explained as a first point of contact. Most families do not have a social worker but they do have contact with midwives, health visitors and head teachers and so they were brought into the Named Person scheme. As a consequence, we have less people climbing up the system with higher levels of need, less children being looked after and less children saying they are using drugs or alcohol.
The system which builds on what is already in place has been formalised through the legislation and there is more clarity about the professional`s role. Also the Named Person has some clout and can go to other professionals, for example, social workers, and say this family needs help and other professionals will respond because they know the family and Named Person have worked that through. [He later says social work caseloads are down. So who are the other professionals, if they are not social workers, who are assisting the Named Person with early interventions that ensure problems do not escalate? They seem to be working magic. ]
"That is how we work things in the Highland Council. Health and social services work around the school. It is always up to the family."
Can the Named Person who has been appointed ... look at a family?" asks Kaye Adams.
"You are not appointed as Named Person. You are the head teacher for that child."
"So every head teacher in Scotland is going to become a Named Person?"
"That`s correct, " says Bill Alexander, "And every health visitor...It has always been the case if the head teacher is worried about a child they will discuss that with the family."
At this point Christine, a head teacher joins the discussion. "Yes you can come to me. We can talk about it... and what the next steps are... It is an entitlement. I am there to support their child."
"Could you be proactive," asks Kaye Adams.
"I can be proactive and go to the family but ninety percent of the time they come to me."
"Supposing they say get lost... Supposing they don`t want Christine as their Named Person.?"
"It has always been my job to raise concerns with the family and so I will try to persuade them....The family can choose someone else in the school but as head teacher I have to have an overview."
On the other hand, the head teacher of Clifton Hall school in Edinburgh has misgivings about the Named Person role. Accepting that he has always had responsibility for the health and wellbeing of children, it is the statutory role of the Named Person that concerns him because it makes him legally accountable for outcomes and the resources are not there.
"I want to know that I am going to get the help I need to fulfil that responsibility."
He briefly mentions a family he is involved with where the child attempted to take his own life, the family were in crisis... he had three or four meetings with social work and health. but there were no crisis facilities or mental health services available. Another teacher he has been talking with has 53 children on the child protection register.
Bill Alexander points out that the Named Person is not about child protection; it is about partnership and wellbeing. "I welcome accountability. It makes the health visitor service a statutory service and other services work around the universal health visitor. He admits they are strapped for resources but the Named Person is about getting the right resource to the right child at the right time. "I believe with a child`s plan we can have a coordinated response. That is why social work caseloads are down..." [So the Named Person and their coordinated responses go up, and the social work caseloads go down. Mmmm That does not address the concerns of the head teacher from Clifton Hall does it ?]
Simon Calvert from NO2NP who is against the Named Person legislation reminds Bill Alexander that the Act does not come into force until August 2016 and the single point of contact operating with consent - which is not about child protection - that may be operating in the Highlands, is not what the Act is about. A Named Person will be appointed for every child and the Scottish government made it very clear in the court case that opt out would defeat the scheme.
"We are now joined by Aileen Campbell at an appropriate moment as Simon was speaking."
"First point, why is this compulsory? Why not an opt out?" asks Kaye Adams
"This is in universal services where we have this in place. It allows us to have early interventions....All families will have a Named Person to provide help if they need it."
"So if you say go away; you don`t have to accept their advice. You can say I am going to do my own thing?"
"It will be a test of the relationship," says Aileen Campbell.. "It is about good communication;...it is what they do already across large sections of the population.... they do not want to repeat their story...it allows help to prevent them going into crisis." [It is a bit of a ramble and this is only the gist.]
Simon Calvert talks about a family who was told the health visitor was going to be their Named Person but they said they had all the services they wanted. They were berated by their GP and others who said "You must have a Named Person.. So that is the approach. This Named Person is going to come and see you whether you like it or not." [So persuasion turns out to be more like coercion ?]
"I have a health visitor," says Aileen Campbell.
"What happens if they don`t want that?"
Aileen Campbell sees that as a problem requiring better communication and partnership but does not seem to grasp that some families object to having that communication and partnership forced on them.
Kaye Adams sums up the conversation so far. "Potentially, for a lot of families, it could be a marvellous thing. Kate in Grangemouth said having a Named Person would have made my family better. Equally we have people who have not had a good experience; yet as parents they have not been able to say no."
Aileen Campbell says, "I would be very happy to pick up those conversations with those families."
"Why not have an opt out scheme?"
"Because this is a universal scheme... Most will have a head teacher... we know that it works. and we want to make sure there is that universal access."
"How about universal access with the Named Person, with opt out?"
Aileen Campbell, Children`s Minister, never did answer the question.
Listen here http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06dq9zm#play
............More to follow.
Tuesday, 22 September 2015
Scott on Scotland 15.9.2015 - the Named Person scheme
The programme on 15 September 2015 dealt with GIRFEC and the Named Person scheme, the controversial aspects of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014.
Why has GIRFEC and the Named Person caused so much controversy over the last few years?
To address this, Carolyn Scott interviewed Maggie Mellon who has had 35 years experience as a registered social worker but now works in a consultative capacity and is a spokesperson for NO2NP.
 |
| Liz Smith MSP |
The Named Person began as a first point of contact for parents with a disabled child or child with special needs - something they asked for - so that they would not have to keep re-telling their story to different agencies who would invariably protect their own budgets and pass parents on to other agencies.
According to Maggie Mellon, although government officials keep `swapping their horses` the dominant concern has changed from children in need to child protection and in this highly risk averse culture it corrupts everything it touches. She mentioned in passing the report: A Marriage Made in Hell: Early Intervention Meets Child Protection (Brid Featherstone, Kate Morris and Sue White.)
As well as deciding child protection issues on the basis of `significant harm,` families must pass a `wellbeing test` but that is very subjective territory - "We all disagree with how others do it - people have all these criticisms about parenting." Now the system will allow Named Persons to impose their own values on families.
Mikaeel Kular was known to social services - he had a Named Person; he had been in care. We do not need to throw out a net around all children; there is plenty of legislation and powers to help protect children. "The bigger the pool you create the harder it is to find... Child protection is complicated; it needs more sophisticated, detailed work."
Data sharing
Maggie Mellon pointed to some of the drawbacks:
Young people will be less likely to take advantage of confidential services when they become aware that their personal information can be shared. Women suffering domestic abuse will be less likely to call the police when it is considered to be a child protection issue and there is a risk that they will be investigated for child abuse.
Already parents are being called to meetings where their partners` medical history is exposed - even about a historical matter the partner might have wished to keep private. "But it could be anything that might impact on a child`s wellbeing; say they were adopted or their mother had suffered from post-natal depression; it will all be added to this pot." In a small town the situation is much worse. "Where is confidentiality?" asked Maggie Mellon, " when private information is shared around the system ?"
NO2NP campaign
The campaign came after the Children and Young People Bill was enacted. Many people could not believe it would happen. As an individual Maggie Mellon put in her response to the consultation outlining her concerns about it. Actually a whole lot of well informed organisations did as well, such as the Scottish Law Centre, the Scottish Child Law Centre and the Parent/Teachers Association. The majority of local authorities were against it because it would divert resources from children in need.
The problem was that the government treated each response with equal weight. Charities like Aberlour, Children 1st and Barnardos who rely on government funding pushed the button on protecting children. They did not represent the informed weight of evidence against the Named Person.
Listen: http://daedaldoodles.co.uk/scott/feed.xml
Saturday, 12 September 2015
Named Person watchdog is powerless
"The watchdog overseeing state guardians will be powerless to force councils to respond to parents` concerns."
"New Scottish Government guidance has revealed the many hoops families will be forced to jump through to complain about state intrusion."
"They must go to the local council, health board or `named person service` first, and if they are unsatisfied with the response, appeal to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO)."
"But even if the SPSO agrees with them, it can only make recommendations to organisations overseeing the state guardians, which they are free to ignore."
"If the SPSO is not satisfied, it can refer its recommendations to Holyrood."
"It is a further blow to opponents of the scheme, who failed to overturn the legislation at the Court of Session and are planning an appeal to the Supreme Court. A spokesman for the No To Named Person (NO2NP) campaign said: `There will be gross breaches of privacy under the named person scheme.`"
"`But the complaints procedure for parents is to be made as easy as crawling over broken glass.`"
"`And even if at the final stage the ombudsman does uphold a parental complaint, the state guardians will be free to ignore it. This is an outrage.`"
http://www.pressreader.com/uk/scottish-daily-mail/20150908/281590944337989/TextView
FLOW CHART FOR COMPLAINTS
Then it`s on to the Ombudsman
"New Scottish Government guidance has revealed the many hoops families will be forced to jump through to complain about state intrusion."
"They must go to the local council, health board or `named person service` first, and if they are unsatisfied with the response, appeal to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO)."
"But even if the SPSO agrees with them, it can only make recommendations to organisations overseeing the state guardians, which they are free to ignore."
"If the SPSO is not satisfied, it can refer its recommendations to Holyrood."
"It is a further blow to opponents of the scheme, who failed to overturn the legislation at the Court of Session and are planning an appeal to the Supreme Court. A spokesman for the No To Named Person (NO2NP) campaign said: `There will be gross breaches of privacy under the named person scheme.`"
"`But the complaints procedure for parents is to be made as easy as crawling over broken glass.`"
"`And even if at the final stage the ombudsman does uphold a parental complaint, the state guardians will be free to ignore it. This is an outrage.`"
http://www.pressreader.com/uk/scottish-daily-mail/20150908/281590944337989/TextView
FLOW CHART FOR COMPLAINTS
Then it`s on to the Ombudsman
Saturday, 5 September 2015
Complaining about the Named Person
It was a very disappointing result for those opposed to the named person scheme:
"Lord Pentland refused an initial petition for the judicial review of the legislation at the Court of Session in January but campaigners, who say the plan gives monitoring power to the state, appealed against the decision."
"However, a panel of three judges who reconsidered the case in June have refused the appeal, stating the legislation does not breach human rights or European Union law."
"A judgment issued yesterday said: "The mere creation of a named person, available to assist a child or parent, no more confuses or diminishes the legal role, duties and responsibilities of parents in relation to their children than the provision of social services or education generally."
"However, NO2NP’s Simon Calvert, said it would now take the case to the Supreme Court – the final court of appeal in the UK for civil cases – and would ultimately be prepared to pursue it at European level."
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/campaigners-to-continue-snp-state-guardian-fight-1-3877068
Looking at the judgment it can be seen that the judges confused the notions of welfare and wellbeing throughout the document.
For instance they say:
"The 2014 Act creates a regime involving child welfare which directs what should happen regarding the sharing of relevant information, but it assumes that the actions of those operating the system will comply with data protection principles."
No it doesn`t. The 2014 Act creates a regime involving child wellbeing and that lowers the threshold of concern and it is that which directs what should happen regarding the sharing of information.
Some commenters understand it.
"I wonder if the judges have bothered to read the legislation, which does not merely create a "named person" to assist parents if they actively seek help, but obliges the named person to take responsibility for a child's "wellbeing" (the so-called GIRFEC/SHANNARI criteria), the definition of which is so broad and nebulous it can be interpreted almost entirely subjectively, and gives a licence to the state to interfere in family life in a way unbefitting in a free and democratic society."
Then we have this from the Scottish Government:
"We intend to introduce a duty on public bodies to notify the child’s named person if there are concerns that a parent or carer’s situation might get in the way of the child’s wellbeing." [That is data sharing about wellbeing.]
"We also intend to extend Corporate Parenting duties to most public sector bodies so that our most vulnerable young people get the support they need when they need it." [This means Corporate Parenting duties will be extended across the public sector ready to share wellbeing concerns with the named person.]
http://www.gov.scot/resource/0040/00403769.pdf
But the three judges just did not want to get it.
Another matter they failed to understand was the definition of a child in need. A child in need is a child who requires additional services and who often has a parent running around the various agencies trying to get a care package in place for their needy child. Mentioning the Highland Council pilot and how successful that was, they failed to acknowledge that any success was due to this particular group who would no doubt be grateful for having a single point of contact - a named person - rather than all the running around they ordinarily do.
But most children are not children in need and do not require additional services, or a named person.
Not only that, while the pilot has been in place, no complaints system was established, and it would have been impossible to find out the number of complaints there may have been using Freedom Of Information, for instance.
So it is not before time that the Scottish Government has said that it is its intention to produce information and guidance in a variety of formats ahead of implementation of the 2014 Act.
"We want to ensure that parents and children know how to make a complaint, what their rights are and what will happen (the process) when they make a complaint. At the same time we want to ensure that every organisation and body involved in a complaint relating to Parts 4 and/or 5 are clear about their role and responsibilities regarding complaints. We want to develop a system where organisations and bodies can learn from complaints."
https://consult.scotland.gov.uk/girfec/complaints/user_uploads/392471_cs-copy.pdf-2
There is a consultation about the complaints process in regard to the functions of the named person (part 4) and child`s plan (part 5)
The consultation will run for 8 weeks and the Scottish Government is inviting written responses to the consultation by 30 October 2015.
https://consult.scotland.gov.uk/girfec/complaints
"Lord Pentland refused an initial petition for the judicial review of the legislation at the Court of Session in January but campaigners, who say the plan gives monitoring power to the state, appealed against the decision."
"However, a panel of three judges who reconsidered the case in June have refused the appeal, stating the legislation does not breach human rights or European Union law."
"A judgment issued yesterday said: "The mere creation of a named person, available to assist a child or parent, no more confuses or diminishes the legal role, duties and responsibilities of parents in relation to their children than the provision of social services or education generally."
"However, NO2NP’s Simon Calvert, said it would now take the case to the Supreme Court – the final court of appeal in the UK for civil cases – and would ultimately be prepared to pursue it at European level."
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/campaigners-to-continue-snp-state-guardian-fight-1-3877068
Looking at the judgment it can be seen that the judges confused the notions of welfare and wellbeing throughout the document.
For instance they say:
"The 2014 Act creates a regime involving child welfare which directs what should happen regarding the sharing of relevant information, but it assumes that the actions of those operating the system will comply with data protection principles."
No it doesn`t. The 2014 Act creates a regime involving child wellbeing and that lowers the threshold of concern and it is that which directs what should happen regarding the sharing of information.
Some commenters understand it.
"I wonder if the judges have bothered to read the legislation, which does not merely create a "named person" to assist parents if they actively seek help, but obliges the named person to take responsibility for a child's "wellbeing" (the so-called GIRFEC/SHANNARI criteria), the definition of which is so broad and nebulous it can be interpreted almost entirely subjectively, and gives a licence to the state to interfere in family life in a way unbefitting in a free and democratic society."
Then we have this from the Scottish Government:
"We intend to introduce a duty on public bodies to notify the child’s named person if there are concerns that a parent or carer’s situation might get in the way of the child’s wellbeing." [That is data sharing about wellbeing.]
"We also intend to extend Corporate Parenting duties to most public sector bodies so that our most vulnerable young people get the support they need when they need it." [This means Corporate Parenting duties will be extended across the public sector ready to share wellbeing concerns with the named person.]
http://www.gov.scot/resource/0040/00403769.pdf
But the three judges just did not want to get it.
Another matter they failed to understand was the definition of a child in need. A child in need is a child who requires additional services and who often has a parent running around the various agencies trying to get a care package in place for their needy child. Mentioning the Highland Council pilot and how successful that was, they failed to acknowledge that any success was due to this particular group who would no doubt be grateful for having a single point of contact - a named person - rather than all the running around they ordinarily do.
But most children are not children in need and do not require additional services, or a named person.
Not only that, while the pilot has been in place, no complaints system was established, and it would have been impossible to find out the number of complaints there may have been using Freedom Of Information, for instance.
So it is not before time that the Scottish Government has said that it is its intention to produce information and guidance in a variety of formats ahead of implementation of the 2014 Act.
"We want to ensure that parents and children know how to make a complaint, what their rights are and what will happen (the process) when they make a complaint. At the same time we want to ensure that every organisation and body involved in a complaint relating to Parts 4 and/or 5 are clear about their role and responsibilities regarding complaints. We want to develop a system where organisations and bodies can learn from complaints."
https://consult.scotland.gov.uk/girfec/complaints/user_uploads/392471_cs-copy.pdf-2
There is a consultation about the complaints process in regard to the functions of the named person (part 4) and child`s plan (part 5)
The consultation will run for 8 weeks and the Scottish Government is inviting written responses to the consultation by 30 October 2015.
https://consult.scotland.gov.uk/girfec/complaints
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)