CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Named Person - is it really such a good/bad idea

(35 posts)

No tags yet.


12

  1. ih
    Member

    I don't have any kids in this fight, and I note that the idea seems to have broad support in the SG, apart from the Conservatives, but I'm not looking at this from a political pov, simply what it is meant to achieve and is this the way to do it.

    Ok, following egregious child abuse, it is intended to safeguard children; who can argue against that? But will a rather randomly allocated person who has little knowledge of the circumstances be in a better position to safeguard children than the existing provision by, the Health Service, Local Authorities, schools, the Police etc? I suppose you could say that the current multi-agency interest is part of the problem, with none of them taking responsibility, But, will the NP be able to do better? I can't see how this person could be trained, or have the time to perform the immensely difficult task of looking after several children's welfare, not least because they will also be doing other jobs. How will there be any consistency from the NPs? Will the existence of NPs simply be an excuse for other agencies to abdicate their responsibility? Will the NPs be sanctioned, or prosecuted, for the inevitable failures in child protection? How will the NP interact, or be aware of problems with children who are too young to even know that a NP exists? Darkly, could the NP be a vehicle for child abuse themselves (30 years ago who would have considered priests to be a potential threat )? And that's all before the issues of confidentiality that were adjudicated in the Supreme Court today.

    This forum is always a source of thoughtful comments so I'd be interested in them.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  2. gembo
    Member

    [i]The named person has been the head teacher of the school for years now. Edinburgh does this better than the rest of Scotland. Fife good too, highlands were good.

    The new thing that the Christian institute did not like was the tweak to make the named person a legal entity. I think this was being proposed because other parts of Scotland have not implemented Getting It Right For Every Child properly.

    Every investigation into child death has propose better info sharing. This is what GIRFEC does at the sharp end and at the less sharp end it engages parents in their child's education

    Edinburgh, and Fife merged education and social work and this is why GIRFEC has been a success.

    The Supreme Court judgement is that it is not proportionate to share info when the issue is maybe a milder learning one. The idea that such info is shared beyond what it needs to be is I think in my experience not the case. However I do feel that At times a parent may not fully grasp what they are signing up for (so we take steps to ensure they do understand). Further at times there is the suggestion of no option - your son will be excluded if you do not agree to attend the meeting and follow the targets etc.

    Scot Gov have 42 days to sort out the proportions and then I think the named person will become a legal entity. Though what do I know? Scot Gov did not see this coming I don't think as court of session twice backd the govt.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  3. SRD
    Moderator

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/02/named-person-scheme-more-snp-big-brother

    Posted 7 years ago #

  4. Morningsider
    Member

    ih - I'm no expert in child protection, so I judge this based on who is in favour and who is against it and the arguments they make. In favour - almost everyone involved in child protection, against - the Tories, some extreme "christian" groups (who seem to have some distinctly unchristian views on fellow coutrymen) and related home schoolers.

    The arguments boil down to either a belief that this will help in information sharing and less cases falling through the cracks in current provision, or a conspiracy by the Scottish Government to interject in the personal life of every family - possibly with the intention of brainwashing people to follow a state approved lifestyle.

    Personally, I'm happy to go with the non-nutcase view.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  5. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    ih - I've no knowledge of this subject other than being a former child. In trying to make my mind up I listened to the arguments and noted who was making them - just like Morningsider.

    I also reflected on my own perfectly middle-class childhood and whether or not there were any moments when a gentle word from a trusted third party might have been useful.

    I don't find the proposals to be at all unreasonable. Indeed I find them to be a conservative response to justifiable tabloid fury when children are hurt as a result of a lack of co-ordination in support services.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  6. mgj
    Member


    Posted 7 years ago #

  7. stiltskin
    Member

    Aren't we getting a bit ad hominem?

    Posted 7 years ago #

  8. gembo
    Member

    Ad hominem arguments not always fallacious and I did not take that line. Though I have taken it with relatively reasonable people who have been part of this campaign.

    If examining tactics (here and indeed on the cycle route through roseburn) the campaign to prevent the initiative sets up false propositions. Thus Named Person is an intrusion into family life. The amended legislation will have a clause saying any info sharing needs to be commensurate with the level of need (this is the case just now in almost all cases). Thus if a child has a mild learning issue requiring some adjustment in class and / or at home this info is with school, there is no suggestion (apart from in the heads of the campaigners) that this info would be shared with say social work or health. It could be I suppose but it isn't. The legislation will now say it should not be. Such over sharing of info very unlikely and in 42 days will be stated that this should not happen.

    Legislating for Worst Case Scenarios is not hugely helpful but Edinburgh, Fife, highlands and south Ayrshire will be able to carry on their good work. Not sure how the 28 other local authorities will manage this as they will be arguing they need resources, they need training etc.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  9. chdot
    Admin

    I'm very much in two minds about this.

    I'm happy to be 'reassured' by the informed opinions of morningsider and gembo and I'm not swayed much by the bluster of Kevin McKenna - "Named person scheme is yet more SNP big brother".

    I presume he didn't write the headline, but it's more of the 'SNP bad' reaction to anything someone doesn't like. On that, 'we' know that the SNP works in ways we might disagree with over transport - and has certainly centralised control over LAs.

    But this supposed to be about 'safeguarding' children. So if that is made better by a bit of legislation - plus some extra resources, training etc., then good.

    What I really don't understand is the named person - 'will often be a head teacher'. Well HTs move/retire and children change school (not just when they go to secondary). So, on the face of it, one of the reassuring selling points of the scheme is seriously flawed!

    In addition I would assume (no evidence of course) that a lot of potential issues are related to children before they go to school.

    Obviously murder is at the extreme end of the problem and it may well be that this legislation will make very little difference - in which case, sections of the press will rush to the view that the NP scheme has failed (gembo says that Edinburgh and Fife are already two of the better councils...)

    I'm extra-confused by gembo's example which concludes "Such over sharing of info very unlikely". I'm surprised that such a thing would be considered "over sharing".

    I'm sure there are 'real world' issues where (for instance) drug using/dealing might lead to children being in real danger but have no idea if such information is shared between (for instance) social services and schools/police - or whether this legislation will expect/require different actions or 'safeguard client confidentiality' - or even if the NP has anything to do with!

    So my simplistic conclusion is that the benefits of the plan have not been adequately explained.

    Better guidance and more money for LAs might have been a wiser approach. To bring it back to cycling - by contrast - legislation requiring LAs to do more for Active Travel might be worth considering!!

    Posted 7 years ago #

  10. Roibeard
    Member

    We've been passed school reports with the named person section blank, yet before the parental section and signature for return.

    It thus looks like that the named person intends to fill in the report after the parents, yet as if the parents know the content.

    Although perhaps this may be just an implementation issue?

    We've seen what happens when those in authority consider parental actions as child endangerment, and particularly when a school unilaterally rules that it is unsafe to cycle. What will happen when the named person considers there to be a protection issue here?

    I do not find it surprising that groups with views contrary to the general population are the ones concerned that this may be a mechanism to enforce those generally held views.

    Robert

    Posted 7 years ago #

  11. chdot
    Admin

    "I do not find it surprising that groups with views contrary to the general population are the ones concerned that this may be a mechanism to enforce those generally held views."

    No doubt that's 'not considering all the implications of legislation' - quite common!

    I presume the court case will lead SG to do some 'improvements' - which may or may not satisfy objectors.

    Degrees to which 'other views' should be resisted, ignored or accommodated is always a problem for Governments!

    'Pro cycling views' are (a bit) less ignored than they once were, though Govs still seem to care more about the rabid frothing minority demand their rights (to behave like their motor is the only thing that matters).

    Posted 7 years ago #

  12. steveo
    Member

    I must admit I find the whole thing a little disconcerting for no reason that I can put my finger on. I think, like Roibeard, I'm concerned what will happen if the "named person" decides they don't agree with my parenting choices.

    I'm not convinced it will realise the intended benefits especially at the extreme end that the tabloids like to attack on and will end up being yet another expensive white elephant quietly smothered by the next government or worse become more intrusive after the first high profile "failure".

    As some one who is vanishingly unlikely to ever be a "named person" I wonder how a head teacher at a large school or the like feel about being personally responsible for the welfare of over a 1000 kids some of whom will be from more colourful backgrounds.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  13. chdot
    Admin

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/alistair-gaw-exploding-myths-over-named-person-law-1-3922768

    Posted 7 years ago #

  14. chdot
    Admin

    Of course there's parenting and 'parenting' -

    "

    MORE than £1 million has been spent by police tracking down missing people this year – including one teenager on 77 separate occasions.

    "

    http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/our-region/edinburgh/teenager-reported-missing-77-times-in-one-year-1-4187322

    Posted 7 years ago #

  15. chdot
    Admin

    "

    What the court said yesterday means that the named person scheme can go ahead but the information sharing part has to be fixed.

    The court says it has to be a lot clearer and show how children, young people and families will be protected when private information is shared with and by the named person.

    After yesterday’s decision there are still difficult issues to tackle. The Law Society of Scotland will be watching closely as things develop.

    "

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/morag-driscoll-difficult-issues-to-tackle-after-named-person-ruling-1-4189085

    Posted 7 years ago #

  16. mgj
    Member

    Its a named person so the duty isn't just on 'the local authority', and more importantly so that everyone knows who to tell when they have an issue or a concern. Pre-school it will be the health visitor. High school, the guidance teacher.

    The idea that sharing of information doesn't already go on is laughable, but its informal, and mostly non-electronic. The guidance was set up to cover automatic data sharing, and that is a minefield.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  17. crowriver
    Member

    While this is all very interesting, I struggle to see the relevance to cycling (except in Roibeard's case). Any chance it can be labelled OT on the thread header?

    Posted 7 years ago #

  18. chdot
    Admin

    "While this is all very interesting,"

    Almost enough of a reason to be here.

    "I struggle to see the relevance to cycling (except in Roibeard's case)."

    Isn't any as such, but not against the rules - RULES No personal insults. No swearing.

    "Any chance it can be labelled OT on the thread header?"

    Yes, but no real need as title is self explanatory.

    CCEers are pretty restrained about launching 'nothing to do with cycling' threads. We have had several on elections/referendadums where there wasn't too much about ' if this happens the result for cycling would be...' (the result of CEC 2017 might be different), don't think any were labelled OT.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  19. chdot
    Admin

    "Pre-school it will be the health visitor. High school, the guidance teacher."

    Might be time to call the act Named PersonS.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  20. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    when a school unilaterally rules that it is unsafe to cycle

    Good lord. Did that really happen? When it is demonstrably the case that it is unsafe not to cycle.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  21. Roibeard
    Member

    when a school unilaterally rules that it is unsafe to cycle

    Tennessee 2011

    "Biking" and walking to school seem alien to the US traffic planners and school authorities - quite a bit of it around, but it's not just there...

    London 2010 (Daily Mail)

    Newport 2013 (Telegraph)

    Robert

    Posted 7 years ago #

  22. chdot
    Admin

    Meanwhile at the sharp end -

    http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/our-region/edinburgh/social-workers-feeding-lothian-children-over-summer-1-4189395

    Posted 7 years ago #

  23. Darkerside
    Member

    I'm pretty firmly against it. Key concerns:
    - It's a big data project tracking subjective opinion about a highly emotive issue.
    - It brings legislation in to enforce something that is already happening.
    - The Named People are likely to be too distant from the children to be useful.
    - In making the Named Person resposible, will others (perhaps closer to the children) feel less responsible?
    - It's a broad-brush approach to child welfare, when I suspect that a more targeted approach would return better value-on-investment.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  24. chdot
    Admin

    Then there's things like this

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-36922820

    So getting NP 'right' is either vital or not as important as some people would like to believe.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  25. deckard112
    Member

    The way that this is being peddled is that there are no current mechanisms in place for child protection. Quite the opposite is true. Any professional where there is contact with a child is obligated to report concerns be it a Doctor, Teacher or even a registered childminder. Having read reports directly from parents who were part of the pilot scheme it gives me serious concern that my civil liberties are being infringed and my ability as a parent called into question.

    If that makes me a 'nutcase' then so be it.

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/revealed-what-can-happen-when-a-named-person-reports-on-your-children-1-4089077

    Defenders of this scheme have continually failed to alleviate my concerns and those of others (including the Alistair Gaw piece). If they can then I'll happily change my view but simply saying "it won't infringe on your civil liberties" over and over again without explaining why then I'll remain against.

    Even the NSPCC who support the scheme have publicly said the way it is drafted is not clear.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  26. Morningsider
    Member

    deckard112 - Think about how the Scotsman/EEN reports on cycling and how likely it is that its reporting on Named Persons is any better.

    I stand by my use of the word nutcase to describe those who lodged the legal challenge to the named person scheme. Its backers include people who seem to see government conspiracies wherever they look, far right "libertarians" that would sell their granny if these was a few quid in it and "Christians" more concerned with their right to physically chastise their children and promote bigotry than love and understanding. As for the Tories - they just voluntarily plunged the UK into its biggest port-war peacetime crisis, and then all decided to leg it - opposition to Named Persons was pure political opportunism on their part. Yes, "nutcase" is robust language and I am sorry if I have caused offence to anyone - it wasn't aimed at anyone here.

    I shared some of the concerns people have raised here. I'm lucky enough to know people who understand the proposals inside out. They were able to reassure me that my concerns were unfounded.

    There's some useful information on how it is all planned to work here: http://www.gov.scot/Topics/People/Young-People/gettingitright/named-person

    Posted 7 years ago #

  27. gembo
    Member

    Quite interesting to get the feedback here from an articulate group of thoughtful folk.

    Just to reiterate the Named Person, Lead Professional and all of GIRFEC / SHANARRI - child planning meetings, well being indicators etc have been in place in Edinburgh for at least five years. Education and social work merged in 2005. Earlier similar approaches going back to 2001 (working together).

    THe change here now is the creating of a legal entity of Named Person (largely to try to have other local authorities coming fully onboard).

    We are not perfect in Edinburgh and need to ensure everyone is well informed (we do not need the legal back up but if cuts hit then we might). We promote the inclusion of the child and the family and push for meetings to be strength based and solution focussed. This is good practice.

    I do not think there has been over sharing of information but the legislation will now state this and presumably allow parents redress if they feel too much info has been shared.

    The rest is hyperbole, setting up of false propositions etc

    Posted 7 years ago #

  28. chdot
    Admin

    "

    There is, too, little to celebrate about the way the way the pro and anti-campaigns have been conducted. The SNP has been guilty of failing to communicate the advantages of the scheme and the NO2NP of exploiting that failure to create a climate of hysteria. Depending on your perspective, its overblown rhetoric of state snooperdom either drowned out more measured criticisms, or provided cover for the Scottish Government to ignore them. Either way, the depiction of Named Persons as state-sanctioned busybodies made life more difficult for those taking on the role.

    "

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/dani-garavelli-in-denial-over-named-person-court-ruling-1-4190354

    Posted 7 years ago #

  29. deckard112
    Member

    @morningsider - I don't base my views on The Scotsman/EEN, I'm a little more enlightened than that thank you. The link I posted was an interview with someone directly affected by the scheme which was relevant in the vein of the discussion. Your assertion that anyone who opposes the scheme is a nutcase frankly fails to recognise people do have real and justified concerns regardless of their political views and instead is an example of 'name calling' simply because they oppose your view.

    I currently oppose the legislation but as I said in my previous post I am open to change when I am presented with solid fact that my concerns are unfounded.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  30. gembo
    Member

    @deckard, what are your concerns? The legislation reflects current practice in Edinburgh and Fife. Largely as both have a service called Children and Families or Children's Services which are the result of merged education and social work services. Any child who needs a named person has one. Obviously, the legislation states every child shall have a named person. For most children that will be it. Same as saying they have a head teacher or had a health visitor.

    Despite how this has been reported the Scottish govt have 42 days to reword the legislation to ensure there is no sharing of info where this is not needed. I do not think there is over sharing but the Supreme Court has ruled there is no mechanism to prevent this.

    I am in favour of the legislation clearly but keen to hear what the concerns are. I have different concerns about why SNP are pushing the legislation beyond the desire to have local authorities who have not fully implemented GIRFEC doing so. But that is another story for later on.

    Posted 7 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin