This website uses cookies for anonymised analytics and for account authentication. See our privacy and cookies policies for more information.





The voice of Scotland’s vibrant voluntary sector

Published by Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations

TFN is published by the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, Mansfield Traquair Centre, 15 Mansfield Place, Edinburgh, EH3 6BB. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO) is a Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisation. Registration number SC003558.

Named Person: we can’t lose sight of the benefits of information sharing

This opinion piece is over 7 years old
 

Calum Munro explains why information sharing is at the heart of the Named Person law and must be retained

The Supreme Court has ruled that the information sharing provisions in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 do not full comply with provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The judges ruling rested on the way in which information could be shared by named persons and others and the current guidance to this was ruled non-compliant.

However in paragraph 91 of its judgement The Supreme Court stated: “The public interest in the flourishing of children is obvious. The aim of the Act, which is unquestionably legitimate and benign, is the promotion and safeguarding of the wellbeing of children and young persons.”

Calum Munro

If we lose sight of why the concept was needed we will condemn families with concerns about additional support needs to a continuance of the organisational behaviours that caused such distress to parents in the past

Calum Munro

Following this ruling the Scottish Government stated that it will carry out the necessary changes to the legislation so that the benefits of the Act and the concept of the Named Person can still be available to children, young people and families in Scotland. They must do this quickly and opposition politicians must not use the decision to once again turn the issue into a piece of political opportunism.

It is vital for the effectiveness of services that the information sharing processes are legally compliant and that the staff operating the system have confidence in them. It is also vital for children and families that they have the benefits of the Act, including the single point of contact with services when they have concerns.

We have to return to why the Named Person concept was developed. If we lose sight of why the concept was needed we will condemn families with concerns about additional support needs to a continuance of the organisational behaviours that caused such distress to parents in the past.

The desire for a single point of contact for families with children and young people with additional needs came from parents who had experienced pass the parcel style access to services that saw them sent from professional to professional as each suggested that the family’s request didn’t quite fit their service’s criteria – or budget.

The need to codify the ability of the single point of contact to seek and share information from and with other agencies came directly from the experience of families who had to explain their story time and time again. These families were sick of having to complete multiple forms that requested the same information in formats that simply suited the official body but took no account of the needs of the families or the additional burdens superfluous form filling added to their lives.

The Named Person system is one that families can approach to seek help and advice. Because the request has come from the family the information sharing will almost invariably therefore be with their agreement. Appropriate information sharing is there to ease the family’s work in seeking help.

The professionals given the role as Named Persons need to be the right people with the correct attributes and training for the role and supported so that they have the time and resources to do justice to the role as well as the remainder of their workload. Without meeting these tests the aims of the concept will never be achieved.

Although the Named Person is not primarily a child protection measure we must be aware of the aw of unintended consequences once we raise additional concerns about information sharing in the minds of professionals or the public. The failure of organisations to appropriately share information has appeared as a tragically common thread in numerous reviews into child protection system failures. Maintaining a viable child protection system is a primary duty for society and nothing must be done to weaken the resolve of ordinary citizens or workers in statutory services about raising concerns or sharing information that could prevent harm to children and young people. We cannot permit unwarranted concerns over information sharing to recreate the silo mentality that can afflict organisations and lead to organisational protectionism instead of child protection.

Getting the policy into place is only the first step – no benefits can come to children, young people and parents/carers unless properly resourced services are in place that can be accessed through the Named Person system. All partners to the debate need to focus on ensuring that the true purpose of the concept is protected and that politicians are held to their promises to create the best possible services for children and young people by allocating adequate resources to them.

 

Comments

0 0
Eileen Prior
over 7 years ago
If a child has additional support needs, then by definition (part of the CYP Act) they should have a lead professional whose role it is to co-ordinate the various services and inputs they need. (Of course the reality is that families up and down the country are seeing a reduction in the support they are able to access due to local authority cuts - but that is another topic altogether.)This blog conflates two issues - one one hand, that of providing a service for families who are asking for support and, on the other, the sharing of information between organisations and professionals without informed consent from the family or child.The Supreme Court ruling made it very clear that the latter is simply wrong and breaches the European Convention on Human Rights. In my view such sharing breaches trust and flies in the face of all the messages around partnership with families which are writ large across all other areas of policy.Of course information must be shared where there is risk of harm but that imperative exists within existing legislation - so the benefits of information sharing are still available where needed.
0 0
A fairly irate Parent who has been GIRFEC'd
over 7 years ago
Thank you Eileen Prior for brining some common sense. The CYP Act has some reasonable content but also has some rather crazy ideas. Mr Munro needs to ask for feedback about what is actually happening, and how cutting funding and increasing bureaucracy helps anyone. A lead professional is a useful role if there is a requirement for coordination. The named person is superfluous and confusing. Health visitors and guidance teachers already do their bit, they don't need extra 'powers'. What is Mr Munro's actual experience of the scheme? I have been in many GIRFEC meetings...as a parent. Not an easy experience. I gave up on the lead professional and the NP because I was better coordinating it myself. Says it all!!
0 0
Derek Young
over 7 years ago
In a spirit of generosity, I congratulate Calum Munro on his recent MBE and his work and foresight on the Highland Cross initiative.However, I have to part company with him on the substance of his article. If opponents of the Named Person scheme, like me, have to accept that a single point of contact would be a step forward and sometimes a necessity because of the difficulties of wading through bureaucracy, then proponents should also accept that there is no public support and no justification for the elements of the scheme which cause many parents concern about imposition, monitoring and secrecy (and which have now been ruled as a breach of human rights by the Supreme Court).The Scottish Government's initial reaction has been to insist that "the scheme" will continue, and to refuse to acknowledge that this is the first time since the Scottish Parliament was created that a piece of Scottish legislation, in whole or in part, has been found to be illegal because it transgresses Convention rights. In truth "the scheme" as it was cannot proceed, and will have to be changed. But it would help all concerned if the Government stopped portraying all opponents to the scheme were motivated by political opportunism, ill-informed, daft, being led a merry dance by extremists, or unconcerned with children's safety: all these claims are both false and unhelpful. The charities supporting the Act have been regrettably guilty of overreach, and the stubbornness about that has poisoned the well of public debate, with the country being split fairly evenly or even marginally against the scheme and some anger and frustration boiling over into extreme language (which I confess I've also resorted to).Rather than approaching this by thinking, "what is the minimum amount of change we need to make to comply with human rights law?", the Government should instead approach this with the view, "what sort of scheme would be both effective in detecting and resolving problems earlier but also respect the primary role and responsibility of families to govern themselves?".If that were done, and seen to be done, even now I think both sides would be willing to sue for peace. I'm not sure exactly what that would result in, but this is the type of conversation we should now have.
Commenting is now closed on this post