CAMPAIGNERS opposed to plans to appoint a Named Person for every child have renewed calls for it to be scrapped after lawyers criticised ministers’ attempts to fix the law.
The Faculty of Advocates said there was a “serious lack of clarity” in the new legislation drafted by the Scottish Government to take account of concerns raised by the UK Supreme Court.
The legal body claimed there were flaws in a new law designed to address the court’s criticisms, and in a binding code of practice that is being written to underpin the policy.
After judges ruled elements of the plans set out in the Children And Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 were unlawful, the Government published a new bill on information sharing designed to clarify the threshold governing when authorities can exchange information about a child.
However the Faculty said the new law and guidance placed a heavy burden on professionals such as social workers in deciding whether and when information can be shared.
A spokesman for the Faculty said busy professionals, focused on other aspects of a child’s life, would be required to take part in a tricky assessment of whether sharing information was proportionate, in terms of a child’s risk or level of need.
“We remain concerned this is an exceptionally difficult requirement to impose on professionals in respect of every child in Scotland,” he said.
“Its imposition risks making their job considerably more difficult and undermining the trust of families and the willingness to share information with the professional concerned.”
The spokesman also claimed the code of practice outlined by the Scottish Government should be made easier for professionals to understand as they are trying to interpret and implement the law. Meanwhile, staff should have access to an advice service or headline o help them form judgements.
As well as the concerns about pressure on staff, the faculty also warned flaws included a lack of safeguards for those affected.
The spokesman said:“Neither of these issues is easy to resolve and some of the criticisms of the Supreme Court will continue to apply if the bill as drafted is passed and the accompanying Code of Practice is approved.
“The information sharing provisions will require to be operated by teachers, health visitors, social workers and other non-lawyers and therefore the rules must be clear and accessible.”
The controversial proposals will see every child in Scotland appointed a Named Person – usually a health visitor for pre-school children or the headteacher of an older child – to look out for their interests and wellbeing.
Ministers say it will cut confusion and help families access help more readily. But an alliance of Christian charities and some parents organisations have characterised the plans as a “snoopers’ charter”.
A spokesman for the No To Named Persons campaign said the Faculty had made it clear the changes proposed by ministers do not go far enough to address the concerns raised by the Supreme Court.
He said: “Ministers’ efforts to try to salvage this detested Big Brother scheme are now meeting criticism from Scotland’s foremost legal brains. As the Faculty points out, its criticisms of the original legislation were ignored by the Scottish Government but vindicated by the Supreme Court.
“Rather than trying to save face by making the bare minimum of changes it thinks it can get away with, the Scottish Government needs to accept how badly it got this wrong. It would be better off scrapping the scheme altogether.”
A Government spokeswoman said: “We are confident the Children And Young People (Information Sharing) (Scotland) Bill fully addresses the issues raised by the UK Supreme Court.
“It will bring consistency, clarity and coherence to the sharing of information about children’s and young people’s wellbeing across Scotland. The bill will be subject to scrutiny and approval by the Scottish Parliament and we will continue to listen to views of stakeholders and the Parliament through this process.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel