Compulsion is chief reason to oppose Named Person scheme
I NOTE with interest your report on the introduction of new legislation to give every child in Scotland a “state guardian” (“Health visitors voice fears over ‘state guardian’ for every child”, The Herald, April 7). Your report states the information sharing required through the Named Person legislation “must take place with the knowledge of the children and families, unless there is a child protection concern, and there is no requirement for children and families to accept any help offered”. This may be what supporters of the state guardian scheme would like to think, but this is not what the legislation says.
The Act is quite clear that a service provider or “relevant authority” (13 organisations including the Scottish Sports Council, all post-16 educational bodies and The National Waiting Times Centre Board) “must share information” with the Named Person service provider. The only conditions on sharing information are that (a) it is “likely to be relevant” to the named person carrying out their functions to promote, support or safeguard the wellbeing of the child, (b) whether the information “ought to be provided” for that purpose and (c) that to share it would not prejudice a criminal investigation.
If those three requirements are met, then the information MUST be shared. “Wellbeing” as the guidance clarifies, is different from welfare and nothing to do with child protection concerns. Rather, this is about a vaporous concept of wellbeing for which neither the legislation nor guidance can offer a definition.
The Universal Health Visiting Pathway Pre-Birth to Pre-School, which details the core home visiting programme for all families in Scotland, is even clearer. It states that “sharing of information to promote, support or safeguard a child’s wellbeing with or by a child’s Named Person service will be a duty, even where there is a duty of confidentiality hence consent to share relevant and proportionate information in this context will not be required and if sought and refused could potentially damage the HV/parental relationship”.
Parents’ and children’s views on how, or even if, their information is shared are to be taken in to account. But this does not mean having to comply with families’ wishes. “It is for the information holder to decide if information ought to be shared.”
The legislation and guidance are also very clear on the use of compulsion to ensure compliance with interventions. Compulsion is enforced through orders from the children’s hearing system. But the Named Person statutory guidance allows referrals to be based on low-level indicators around subjective assessments of “wellbeing need”.
It also advocates the use of compulsion at an early stage to ensure “compliance with interventions”. State guardians are proactive, they neither need to seek nor obtain consent or even inform individuals of what information is being collected on them or with whom it is being shared. That is why so many more are now saying NO2NP. Lesley Scott, Scottish Officer, Tymes Trust, PO Box 4347, Stock, Ingatestone,