Named person scheme falls apart under BBC interrogation

[squidge]

Yes CPT you are right. Choice can be taken away. Caithness is a prime example of that as far as secondary schools are concerned. However for me - that is a reason took at making sure the legislation is implemented in the best way possible not a reason to refuse to legislate.

[BetterTogether]

A typical response tie people up in the detail discussing the legislations but always fails totally to explain why this legislation needs to be implemented In the first place.


What is happening in this country that is so dire that every child is required by law to have a state appointed guardian. No ifs, no buts, no maybes.

[squidge]

You want the background? The Named Persons Legislation has grown out of The system used in Scotland "Getting it Right for Every Child" - GIRFEC. This grew out of work that was done by the Labour Government in Scotland who produced this document - For Scotland's Children.

http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/1141/0105219.pdf

This document highlighted clearly why there needed to be better services for children. There are approximately 1 million children under the age of 16 living in Scotland and a further 326,000 16 to 21-year-olds.
• The birth rate in Scotland is falling with around 55,000 live births in any one year. The number of births to unmarried parents continues to rise, with around 40% of all births in such families.
• Scotland has some of the highest rates of relative child poverty in the developed world. One third of Scotland’s households are in or on the margins of poverty. One in five children is entitled to free school meals, a benefit only available to those children whose carers receive Income Support or Income Based Job Seekers Allowance. 1 in every 10 babies born to families living in poverty has low birth weight; these babies are up to 12 times more likely to die in their first year of life. 52 of the 90 most deprived postcode areas in Scotland are in Glasgow.
• In Scotland 80 children under the age of 16 become homeless every day. In any one year approximately 11,500 young people aged 16 to 24 years old apply to their local authority for housing support as homeless – 1 in 4 of all homeless applications. There are currently 4,000 households in Scotland living in temporary accommodation and around 360,000 children in Scotland living in accommodation affected by dampness or condensation.
• In any one year approximately 8,000 children under the age of 16 live in families where parents are divorcing. Figures for relationship breakdown amongst the 1 in 5 adults who cohabit, but remain unmarried, are not available and so it is likely that many more children also live through family dislocation every year. 1 in 4 marriages in Scotland is now a re-marriage and 1 in 8 children will grow up in a stepfamily. There are 162,000 one- parent families in Scotland which together contain more than 280,000 children. 1 in 5 households are headed by a lone parent and 93% of the lone parents are women.
• Almost 40,000 exclusions are made in Scotland’s schools every year. More boys than girls are excluded.
• Fatal child pedestrian accident rates for 10 to 14 year olds in Scotland are amongst the highest in Europe. The poorest children are four times more likely to be killed in a road accident than the wealthiest. At home the poorest children are 9 times more likely to die in a fire. Little is known about children’s experiences as victims of crime although in 1 year ChildLine reports 2,600 calls from children reporting experiences of violence including being hit, punched, bitten and hit with implements such as belts and electric cables. 1 in 4 primary school pupils and 1 in 10 secondary pupils report having been victimised by bullies. Research conducted by ChildLine reports that Black/minority ethnic children “...endure unrelentingly openly racist harassment and bullying on a daily basis.”
• Around 100,000 children in Scotland live with domestic violence.
• The numbers of children reporting abuse is increasing. Approximately 6000 children are referred annually to social work departments in relation to child protection issues. In cases where a category of abuse is recorded around 70% of suspected perpetrators are either birth parents or parent substitutes. At March 1999 2,361 Scottish children were on the Child Protection Register.
• In Scotland around 9000 children run away every year, within this figure 1,600 children under the age of 11 years run away for the first time. 1 in 7 children who run away will be physically or sexually assaulted while away from home.
• There is a widely shared view that children with disabilities are not receiving the care, education or training opportunities they require. For many, education outwith the mainstream and their community can lead to isolation and exclusion.
• There is a high incidence of mental health problems amongst children and young people and access to appropriate services is variable, with particular concerns for the mental health needs of looked after children.
• The rate of teenage conception in Scotland is the highest in Europe.
• Around half of all 13 to 16 year olds undertake some kind of paid work. It is estimatedthat around 1 in 5 of these children will have an accident at work.
• Accurate figures for the numbers of children and young people who are refugees or asylum seekers in the UK are not known. Families are registered only in terms of the ‘principal applicant’ or head of family. At present there are about 5,000 asylum seekers in Glasgow of up to 40 nationalities including Afghan, Iraqi, Turkish and Albanian. In August this year, there were 1103 asylum seeker children in Glasgow schools. The experience of violence and harassment experienced by families has received much attention recently. -In terms of 16 and 17 year olds almost 1 in 4 is unemployed, with no automatic entitlement to benefits. In recent years two thirds of applications for Severe Hardship Payments have been repeat and continuous claims, indicating a core of extremely poor and vulnerable young people.
• In 1999/2000 63,857 referrals were made to the Children’s Hearing System. The majority of referrals are in connection with crimes or offences committed by children. Referrals in relation to care and protection issues are on the rise. While the Children’s Hearing system has the authority to retain 16 to 18 year olds who commit crimes within the system many of these young people become involved with the adult criminal justice system.
• Just over 11,000 children are looked after. Almost half are currently living at home. The greatest number of looked after children are aged 12 to 16 years. Recent reports have explored the continuing failure of many local authorities as ‘corporate parents’ to provide these young people with the care and education they are entitled to by law. Up to 75% of looked after children leave school with no formal qualifications. Less than 1% go to university. It is estimated that between 20% and 50% of young homeless people have been in the care of a local authority.

These are the reasons that GIRFEC was introduced and whilst these figures are from 2001 the situation in some instances may have improved and in others it may have deteriorated. This list however does reflect the reality of many children growing up in Scotland.
As the services progressed and following a number of high profile child abuse and murder cases like Danielle Reid and Daniel Pelka the legislation was examined again and the need for early intervention and a more robust system of linking professionals was highlighted. Highland Council piloted the Named Person Role in response to requests from families and young people for one professional to act as a central point of contact which will allow parents, children and professionals to access services when and where they are required. After reviewing outcomes from this pilot, the SG decided on Rolling out the Named Person Role as Part of the Children and young persons act.

The Named Person role has received cross party support. It has been supported by a number of very credible organisations working with Children in Scotland including Aberlour, Children 1st, NSPCC, action for Children, Together, SYP, Barnardos, Royal College of Nursing, parenting across Scotland, and others. This is not some bam pot idea but another step in what is a long process of work to ensure that children get the best chance possible of growing up healthy, happy and safe.
I hope this gives you a better understanding of why we need these types of legislation BT and where this has come from

[Fulmar]

Thank you for this, Squidge.

[BetterTogether]

Thanks for your long and very precise answer Squidge it certainly does show why certain at risks groups may need someone to help them but it still doesn't address the question I asked.

So I will repeat it.

Why does every child require a named person.


The statistics are great but saying 10,000 from a group of 100,000 here and 12,000 from a group of 10,000 here is just a bureaucratic way of saying there is a core target group a lot of the people you mention are from one central group.

The children living in abusive homes where domestic violence is are those that are likely to have mental health issue and run away so it's not as though we are dealing with the whole population just one group, admittedly some will fall outwith that core group but non the less it doesn't explain why in simple or complicated terms every single child in the country requires a named person.


Deal with that one main issue don't try and drown it with statistics as that's when you start to look authoritarian in your approach.


It's all very well naming charities who support it but I notice you haven't mentioned that every single agency tasked with implementing it is complaining the scheme is unworkable.

[squidge]

Thanks for your long and very precise answer Squidge it certainly does show why certain at risks groups may need someone to help them but it still doesn't address the question I asked.

This is what you asked

To explain why this legislation needs to be implemented In the first place.

i think my answer gives you a full and frank response to this question.

What is happening in this country that is so dire that every child is required by law to have a state appointed guardian. No ifs, no buts, no maybes.

Again - the reality of what some children live with is contained in my response. I cant answer the second part of your question becaus the named persons legislation does not implement a state appointed guardian.

So I will repeat it.

Why does every child require a named person.


The statistics are great but saying 10,000 from a group of 100,000 here and 12,000 from a group of 10,000 here is just a bureaucratic way of saying there is a core target group a lot of the people you mention are from one central group.

The children living in abusive homes where domestic violence is are those that are likely to have mental health issue and run away so it's not as though we are dealing with the whole population just one group, admittedly some will fall outwith that core group but non the less it doesn't explain why in simple or complicated terms every single child in the country requires a named person.

Deal with that one main issue don't try and drown it with statistics as that's when you start to look authoritarian in your approach.

Ok lets spell it out.

Every child doesn't need a named persons intervention but every child should have access to a named person. it seems that you cant understand this BT. A Named person will not be required to do anything in the vast majority of cases. Bit like your dentist. You go to your dentist he checks your mouth and he does nothing unless you need him to do something. If you have a toothache then you go to see him and he fixes it. In the case of the named person the headteacher or guidance teacher will simply do their normal work with most children, their usual "pastoral care" but where there is a concern then they will be required to act and where a child or a family needs help the child will know that they can go to their named person to access that help. What is it about that which bothers you.

Your suggestion that somehow this only happens to a core group might be right in some cases but misses the point. All these children are in a variety of ways "at risk" but how do we assess that BT? How do we spot when a child is at risk? How to we share that information? How do we ensure that agencies work together to do the best possible for the child? How do we know that a child moving areas has started at school and not simply disappeared? How does the whole picture from police activity, health activity,school, social work involvement get put together? Who is the central point of contact to ensure that incidents are joined up to allow a whole picture to be understood?

This is why we have a named person for every child.


You say that not every child should have access to a named person. Lets think about that. That viewpoint suggests that somehow by some mysterious process the "good" and "well parented" children should be excluded from this act? But how do you do that? What then happens when a child from what you might term a "nice" family is having problems? No one sees. no one notices because they assume that these "nice" families" don't have any of the problems mentioned above. That child is left, ignored, forgotten and gets no support until maybe it is too late. Any family at all can have problems, any child from any background,, living in any situation can face mental health issues, be a carer, suffer abuse, be bullied, get into trouble with the police, be facing domestic violence, have an alcoholic parent, fall into taking drugs, Any child at all and often NO ONE knows.

Giving every child access to a named person, ensuring that concerns about any child are noted and explored where necessary, whoever they are, rich poor, disabled, healthy, is trying to ensure that EVERY child gets the help and support that they need when they need it - that may very well be in most cases none at all and that is explained in the legislation but if it IS required, whoever that child is whatever their background is they are more likely to be picked up under this system than the previous one. Surely thats a good thing.

It's all very well naming charities who support it but I notice you haven't mentioned that every single agency tasked with implementing it is complaining the scheme is unworkable.

Hang on - its been working in Highland for at least 5 years so I dont think that is actually true is it. We are back to implementation issues. This legislation is currently being rolled out across Scotland and being implemented in places where it is new. There will be problems and there will be issues to resolve but it is clearly not unworkable if we have been working with it for such a long time.

[BetterTogether]

Well nicely phrased and turned around but whilst I accept that some children require some intervention I disagree wholeheartedly with unnecessary state intervention and to that point you have failed to convince me that the scheme is anything more than the state intruding where it is not required.

[cptdodger]

Too me, I'm afraid it is much like the Scottish Government is presuming every single child at some point in their lives are going to face difficulties (whatever that entails) and it is just not the case. The cost must be astronomical to put this in place. From what I can understand the "Named People" are not getting any extra training, that is not over and above the training they receive for the jobs they are doing presently.

What happens when it is the state doing the abusing like this - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-34405947, the cover ups and denials were frankly shocking. It is estimated the enquiry will take over four years to gather all the evidence. You can't tell me the children never saw a Health Visitor, GP or teacher in all that time, so what happened? Why should the named people that are in those professions be trusted with this now?

[squidge]

Well nicely phrased and turned around but whilst I accept that some children require some intervention I disagree wholeheartedly with unnecessary state intervention and to that point you have failed to convince me that the scheme is anything more than the state intruding where it is not required.

Really? Are you sure lol? That is absolutely fine BT. I never set out to do so. I simply set out to put an alternative opinion. You were never going to agree with me anyway.

CPT this is the inquiry into historic sex abuse and these cases are part of the reason why we have over the last 10 years been working to a stronger more integrated framework. Many professionals believe that precisely because agencies worked in isolation, because sharing of information was poor, because children had nowhere to turn there were opportunities to take advantage. The legislation has developed to make that more difficult and the names person builds on that,

[cptdodger]

CPT this is the inquiry into historic sex abuse and these cases are part of the reason why we have over the last 10 years been working to a stronger more integrated framework. Many professionals believe that precisely because agencies worked in isolation, because sharing of information was poor, because children had nowhere to turn there were opportunities to take advantage. The legislation has developed to make that more difficult and the names person builds on that,

The point being, they should have only had to tell one person - an adult that should have done something, it really didn't matter that agencies worked in isolation because the adult (s) they told should have gone straight to the Police.

[squidge]

Agreed, but I'm not sure how that undermines the case for named persons legislation

[cptdodger]

Because it is a terrible state of affairs if we need legislation to make people behave like decent human beings.

[BetterTogether]

So the named person scheme isn't even properly off the ground yet but here we have the first conviction of a named person. The woman in question was in charge of 200 children and is now on the child sex offenders register. Doesn't inspire much confidence despite all the rhetoric and constant oh it couldn't possibly happen posts.

http://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-sc...30648/TextView

[cptdodger]

So the named person scheme isn't even properly off the ground yet but here we have the first conviction of a named person. The woman in question was in charge of 200 children and is now on the child sex offenders register. Doesn't inspire much confidence despite all the rhetoric and constant oh it couldn't possibly happen posts.

http://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-sc...30648/TextView

And this is exactly what I was trying to get across.

It says in the article she is to undergo treatment, but for what exactly? Is that just not the way she is inclined?

[weezer 316]

So the named person scheme isn't even properly off the ground yet but here we have the first conviction of a named person. The woman in question was in charge of 200 children and is now on the child sex offenders register. Doesn't inspire much confidence despite all the rhetoric and constant oh it couldn't possibly happen posts.

http://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-sc...30648/TextView

Your view on this is myopic to say the least.

First off, the roll out of a national scheme like this will undoubtedly have issues such as this arise. No human is perfect so wanting any system designed by them to be so is just stupidity on your part.

Secondly, I can honestly say something like this when I was younger would have saved me no end of grief. I was never classed as at risk child nor ever referred to social workers despite at times going days with electricity and having handfuls of dried cornflakes for eating several times a month because my mum drank all our money, Who should I have talked to? I had no idea. Alcoholism seemed to be a socially acceptable way to live in poverty and the system didn't seem to catch me despite the fact I clearly was at risk.

The state should, and in fact must, provide a point of contact to raise issues with. The reality is that if there is something a child cant raise with a parent, or does and is ignored, that is obviously wrong. Your insistence that some peoples dignity cant be afronted to help children that find themselves in the situation I did is absurd. It's not only absurd but is in fact incredibly backwards and places children already at risk at further risk simply so you can mouth off on a forum on a high horse.

You likely recognise this but I doubt you will change your public position.

[BetterTogether]

You've made a point about your own personal circumstance which undoubtedly should have required some intervention, but have failed totally to make any worthy point why every child regardless of circumstances requires a named person.

There is very little progressive about unecessary and unwarranted state intervention in family lives which in no way require it all it does show is a totalitarian mindset.

No one has made any attempt to say that those who require intervention should not have it but a poorly drafted hastily conceived piece of legislation that has already placed children at risk surely isn't the way to go.

[weezer 316]

That is the point. You simply do not know who needs the help and the system at present sint going to catch everyone. If this is totalitarian in your eyes then your view that many many children should be left in a situation like I found myself in is simply based in a fundamentlaist view of what the govt should and shouldnt do.

Frankly, their rights override yours in this instance and I am glad the SNP see it that way also.

[cptdodger]

That is the point. You simply do not know who needs the help and the system at present sint going to catch everyone. If this is totalitarian in your eyes then your view that many many children should be left in a situation like I found myself in is simply based in a fundamentlaist view of what the govt should and shouldnt do.

Frankly, their rights override yours in this instance and I am glad the SNP see it that way also.

Well, let's just hope the children that find themselves in the same predicament you were in, do not end up with somebody like this (http://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-sc...30648/TextView) because "people" like her pray on vulnerable children. It is not a case anymore of it might happen - it has happened.

[BetterTogether]

That is the point. You simply do not know who needs the help and the system at present sint going to catch everyone. If this is totalitarian in your eyes then your view that many many children should be left in a situation like I found myself in is simply based in a fundamentlaist view of what the govt should and shouldnt do.

Frankly, their rights override yours in this instance and I am glad the SNP see it that way also.

I shall refer to you article 8 as the SNP are such a pro EU party. That is the same article that the court case currently going through the courts is based on. Everyone's rights to privacy and safety from unecessary state intervention are enshrined in that article. So your assertions that a normal well balanced family with no issues require state intervention is a fallacy. Mind it's very easy for people of a totalitarian nature to justify the gradual erosion of others rights then we end up with the kind of states so widely condemned worldwide.

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

[weezer 316]

I shall refer to you article 8 as the SNP are such a pro EU party. That is the same article that the court case currently going through the courts is based on. Everyone's rights to privacy and safety from unecessary state intervention are enshrined in that article. So your assertions that a normal well balanced family with no issues require state intervention is a fallacy. Mind it's very easy for people of a totalitarian nature to justify the gradual erosion of others rights then we end up with the kind of states so widely condemned worldwide.

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

You just made that up. Literally. "So your assertions that a normal well balanced family with no issues require state intervention"....where did I say that?? Stop making rubbish up becuase your argument is awful! Sure you didnt vote yes last year?

You provide a point fo contact for child x. That child raises concerns they cant/wont with family. If they raise nothing, nothign happens. If they do, thing can happen. In what scenario is that interfering with a normal well balanced family? And if a concern was raised, why was it raised? That seems to escape you.