named person - ruled unlawful(183 Posts)
don't know if anyone else was watching the supreme court ruling this morning but they have ruled the named person scheme unlawful. I am glad the court had sense to rule this sham unlawful. I am disappointed that previous courts didn't do more to stop this nonsense.
Details of the ruling can be found www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0216.html
Another "but we're the good guys! The Data Protection Act is just a load of fuss!" from government meeting the common sense of the courts. The judgement is a model of clarity, the summary even better.
I wonder when JS will make a statement about the ruling?
But but but. The legislation just covered what professionals should be doing anyway. I can't get my head around the thinking that a streamlined approach to child welfare is unlawful.
I'm not in Scotland but kind of get what the main fuss is about, but having heard from some SN parents who live in rural areas they don't seem to be making any fuss about the other issues some in pilot areas were having - namely that in a very small community, the named person is very likely to be someone you know already and/or who has some kind of power over you and your family (e.g. someone at the GP surgery who has power over referrals or a senior teacher at school who also has power over distribution of SN funding).
It seems like if this were properly thought through it would still be a problem in small rural communities, of which there are a lot in Scotland.
The legislation just covered what professionals should be doing anyway.
I hope it isn't, as the ruling precisely dissects how the provisions of the named person scheme are incompatible with well-established data-protection legislation? As you saying "what professionals should be doing anyway" is things that are currently illegal, and would have remained illegal in the rest of the UK even had this legislation stood?
I am delighted.
I hope JS now ensure due legal care and diligence is given to the Child Abuse Enquiry and we can go on to protect the rights of our children in deeds and not words.
Delighted! In a quirk of rural Scotland, the NP for both my children would have been either my and DH's boss or a colleague. So glad.
Rose that's exactly what I've been hearing from the SN boards, it's just so open to abuse.
The legislation just covered what professionals should be doing anyway. I can't get my head around the thinking that a streamlined approach to child welfare is unlawful.
EH? seriously your deluded. this was way way overbearing in its nature from the outset. this law wasn't about child protection - its about collection and sharing of data. This act is all part of the govt. scheme to collect and share data on every person in Scotland on their national database without any consent to the data being given.
Very pleased. I watched the hearings at the time and was appalled at what came out during them.
Indeed Peggy, otherwise head teachers on a 6 week summer break would never actually have a 6 week summer break.
This was about removing our rights.
And it was piloted in Fife. I will say no more.
The basic problem with all these sorts of well-meaning schemes is that government health and welfare services are a data protection cesspit. Actually, that's not the right metaphor: perhaps more like an overflowing and rusting septic tank.
Data is shared without proper governance or precautions, by badly trained staff on elderly and badly specified computer systems, overlaid with an horrific amount of gossip and assumption. It's then consolidated into systems which leak huge amounts of data into places like whatever the HSCIC has been rebranded to this week (three names in five years? I wonder why they want to keep pretending they aren't their predecessors?) who sell your data to insurance companies, drug companies and Uncle Tom Cobley and all (an audit of the people the HSCIC had sold medical data to showed that in some cases they didn't even know to whom it had been given).
Simply assuming that telling something to a professional is equivalent to having it printed on a poster in the street isn't always practical, and it would be nice to think that somewhere in our health and welfare system you could talk, or your child could talk, to a qualified professional and not have that information shared with the whole town. This judgement goes some small way to pushing back (along with the end of care.data and the end of contactpoint) and accepting that sometimes, you'd like to talk to your GP, or enable your child to talk to their school nurse, in private.
CuboidalSlipshoddy this isn't the data being in the health and welfare schemes its about data ending up in the ID database the Scottish govt. have set up. although the govt. don't admit to the Db being set up her is a link to an article where it was voted for www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-government-wins-id-database-showdown-1-3708227
heres a post I put up earlier about the scheme...
Below is some information about what SNP want to store on the card... Its not just a simple case of using it to identify your address so you don't have to produce a copy of your bank statement -. I wonder how banks, insurance companies, medical companies etc. Would act if they got their hands on all this information about you and your family. How much is that data worth? No govt ever will have as much information about the population as the SNP will do about population of Scotland.
The Data Sharing and Linking Service (DSLS) is on track to begin operating by December – despite the vast majority of the public being unaware of the plans.
At the heart of the enterprise is the Linking Population Spine, which will hold “the name, date of birth, gender and postcode for everyone in Scotland”.
According to NHS Research Scotland, this will boast “cradle to grave” health records, including maternity, mental health, cancer, GP and dental notes.
The new education, childhood and parenting profiles highlighted will also be stored.
Following our original exposé, the Engage for Education quango stated categorically: “There is no national central database – this is a myth.”
However, the DSLS – which is clearly NOT a myth – will also include social care, housing and justice statistics, as well as information from the 2011 Scottish Census.
The Census had questions on areas such as financial and salary details, religious and sexual orientation, relationships and family life.
According to minutes of meetings of the “Data Linkages Operations Group”, the hoard will even include details of “vulnerable children” and “genomics” – or DNA records.
Sorry I also forgot to say they have already said they will sell the data for research purposes
For those that want to read it, this is the official press release from the Supreme Court.
My reading of it is that it failed on Data Protection grounds as some of the areas proposed for data sharing are reserved matters, but that on the ECHR and EU Law challenges it didn't succeed, provided it addresses the Data Protection issues.
"^Focusing on the proportionality of the legislation itself, Part 4 undoubtedly pursues legitimate policy aims and is clearly rationally connected to those aims [^^*91*^^-^^*92*^^]. Allowing the legislature the appropriate margin of discretion, Part 4 is also a reasonable measure for the legislature to impose in order to achieve those legitimate aims. It is for this reason that the appellants’ broad challenge cannot succeed^"
And on EU Law:
"^In relation to the EU Law Challenge, there is no incompatibility additional to that identified in relation to the ECHR Challenge [^*102*^^-^^*105*^^]"
I read elsewhere that the SG has 42 days to go back to the Supreme Court with the changes it is implementing on the Data Protection issues to confirm that they have been addressed.
The legislation is compatible with human rights law and is going ahead, subject to changes to the way in which data is collected, held and shared.
This isn't quite what's being reported in the press, but that's no surprise!
C&pd from other thread:
There's a good summary here:
In short, the basic premise of NP is fine, Scot gov just needs to tighten up the data sharing bit, which they will do, and then it can be rolled out slightly later than originally planned.
Scot gov just needs to tighten up the data sharing bit
its not just that, they also need to ensure that:-
First, there is a risk that parents will be given the impression that they must accept advice in relation to the services offered by a named person in the exercise of the named person functions, and that their failure to cooperate would be taken as evidence of risk of harm. Care should therefore be taken to emphasise the voluntary nature of the advice, information, support and help offered by the named person [94-95].
so parents can tell a NP to fuck off and not interfere and they need to pay no attention to the advice and it will not be held against a parent to do that - sorry whats the point in the law then?
sorry whats the point in the law then?
It means that every child/family has someone they can go to for support if they need it, someone who can pull in support from lots of sources to save a family being passed from pillar to post to access services.
I actually think its a sad thing it didn't get passed.
I think it's an excellent idea to have a named person who knows everything for a child who's in trouble.
Thank goodness this has been recognised for the very dangerous piece of legislation it is and stopped.
Aside from being technically unworkable given the lack of basic resources available (people, money, time, organisation, logic!), this whole approach is not what democratic society is about.
"Individual differences are the product of the interplay between the individual person and his upbringing and environment. Different upbringings produce different people. The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get at the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world. Within limits, families must be left to bring up their children in their own way. "
This is a direct quote from the judgement. Do not underestimate what was being attempted with this legislation, dress it up as 'named person' or 'Head Gardener' or whatever other language you like - it is fascism pure and simple.
btw BrandNew there should already be a person who knows everything for a child who's in trouble, their social worker. This doesn't always work well because social work is ill supported and underfunded leading to oversights which will not be improved by extending the net to cover every child in the nation!
I'd be happier about it if the data protection was tightened up (and it looks like this will happen) and if I was convinced it would be of value - we live in an area where it has apparently been trialled for several years, and we have a child with SN, but we have never been given any information about the scheme or told that it is operating. I only know about it because after seeing an article in the news I looked back at my son's Child Plans and there is an entry for named person - in the admin section at the top next to head teacher, which is not the part of the document I pay attention to.
In child planning meetings I have on several occasions raised concerns about the delay in his OT referral, and whether or not we can have a nutritionist referral - and at no point has the HT (who I now know is his named person) offered any assistance with co-ordinating access to services - which is surely a major point of the whole scheme?
Based on personal experience I genuinely worry this will end up as another tick box exercise. I'd like some reassurance on the effectiveness of it, none of which I'm seeing in any of the publicity about it.
The named person is still going ahead. It's a great idea and nothing to do with any of the trash being stated on here.
It's to ensure that children are safe, healthy, achieving, nurtured, active, respected, responsible & included.
It offers a base from which, us as parents can seek help and support from the state if our children aren't achieving the above indicators.
There really is nothing wrong with the govt creating legislation in order to ensure the state has to help if necessary.
Similar legislation was passed under the Blair Govt 'every child matters' and it's taken Scotland a long time to catch up
Join the discussion
Please login first.