Anyone understand the proposed "named person" in Scotland for every child?

[Alreadyforgotten]

Just picked up the proposal in Scotland to have a "named person" for all children up to 18, who'll have certain powers and rights "to promote, support or protect the well-being" of a child. Wellbeing is defined as the extent to which a child is "Safe, Healthy, Achieving, Nurtured, Active, Respected, Responsible, and Included." Named persons will be appointed by the health board up to age 5, then the local authority. It's all in here www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/Bills/62233.aspx

Bit a of a stushie about this in the right wing press in recent days, after the Law Society Scotland highlighted a possible conflict with legal rights to private/family life www.holyrood.com/2013/07/named-person-plans-risk-disproportionate-state-influence/ - but also, with a bit of googling, finding concern from bodies as various as the Children and Young Person's Commissioner and Nat Soc for Deaf Children about how wide, and vague, this proposal is. There's also been a petition to the Scottish Parliament from a home school organisation.

Looks like something that started as a very good idea to improve how we deal with kids facing complicated problems, but now extended to everyone regardless, to leave the scope for early intervention as wide as possible. Fine, until someone or the wider system gets trigger happy. It seems on a first read to introduce much more scope for professionals over-riding parents' views on day to day decisions about all sorts of aspects of a child's life. Parents don't even seem to have a right to know who the named person is - just how to get in touch with them.

Does anyone know if there any general group monitoring/campaigning on this from the perspective of parents generally? Though I'm a bit of a political junkie, confess this one had passed me by and it's quite hard to understand exactly what the legal change could mean in practice. But it's going through the Scottish Parliament over the next few months, so any big questions would need to be raised now.

Help - anyone?

Hi it's called Getting it right for every child and is about making Scotland the best play to grow up for every child in Scotland. It is enshrined in law that the named person will be called upon if necessary to act as a link if the child was in need of child protection. Social work, schools, Nhs etc have the right to access child's record should they come under their juridisdiction. The named person grants then access on a need to know basis and has the power of veto. Should the child present at hospital then Nhs would have emergency access to collaborate with the authorities. It is for ease of sharing information that is pertinent and would not be implemented unless a child is deemed in need of child protection. If the child isn't on the register then it will not be invoked as it is primarily to safeguard those children who need it. The named person could be a midwife, health visitor, teacher, social worker etc who will be called upon if necessary. You as a parent will not know who that person is until the law is invoked and the process is started this your permission is not required and the law grants these professionals the right to act for children in circumstances such as above. Soon other professionals such as GPS may have access to the system should they wish to raise concerns. It is up to the named person to raise these concerns should anything come up about a child. HTH

Hi, thanks. Really helpful. You mention that this "would not be implemented unless a child is deemed in need of child protection. If the child isn't on the register then it will not be invoked". Had a quick look at the draft law and couldn't identify where that was written in. Can you help again - is there something in the Bill which provides that safeguard? All help in understanding this gratefully received!

Sounds like a badly written piece of legislation.

Hi as I understand it from the presentation we were given at work, intervention is only if a child is in need. It is a framework for sharing of information and only some local authorities have access t

Hi as I understand it from the presentation we were given at work, intervention is only if a child is in need. It is a framework for sharing of information and only some local authorities have access to the system so far.

Misunderstood I thi k you are maybe thinking of something different. The proposed named person legislation will extend to every child. Quite likely that for the majority of children the named person will never really have any involvement with a child. But where there are "concerns" raised about a child the named person will step in and decide what is best for the child. I think it is badly thought out and and potentially a terrible interference by the state. To be clear, I have no issues with children being removed from unfit or abusive parents but to have a named person in place for every child at birth is madness - just more state interference and something else for taxpayers to pay for.

Hi I have looked online for the information and as I understand it the policy is now legislation and is being implemented such as in this council here

Does the nmed person have to be a professional? I assumed at first read it would bea parent. So for the majority of children will it be tjeir hed teacher?

I understand it can be health visitor, nursery etc for under 5s. Then when child goes to school, head teacher. Ostensibly parents have no say and may not even know who named person is.

Wow.
I assumed it was to help vulnerable children have an advocate. Not sure what I think about this tbh...will sleep on it.

Misunderstood the policy is not yet legislation. The lesgisaltion has been very badly drafted. One of the very valid criticisms is that it seeks to enshrine into law, in a very vague way, the policy of the Scottish government in relation to children. Councils may well already be following some of the policies which the new Act proposes to enshrine into law.

A child's named person is their parent or carer.

Parents' group SPTC is concerned about this proposal: at the minute it is a proposal but some local authorities are already implementing it!

Most children thankfully have a named person and their parent or carer, and there are also serious implications for families in the 'information sharing' part of the Bill, which will allow people like GPs or others to share information without families knowing.

You can check out our comments and evidence to Parliament on our website www.sptc.info