Copy of letter to my Member of the Scottish Parliament on some concerning proposals.
Dear XXX MSP
Children and Young
People (Scotland) Bill – State Guardian Proposal
I am writing to you as a concerned parent and citizen regarding the above - the proposal by
which the Scottish Government would appoint a named State Guardian for every
child in Scotland, the Guardian being a third party employee of the State. You
will doubtless be aware of the many voices already expressing deep concern about
this representing a wide spectrum of society including local authorities, legal experts (The Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates), sociologists,
faith groups, and Holyrood’s own Finance
Committee. Indeed it seems that such proposals may well run contrary to the European
Convention on Human Rights which specifically enshrines the right to a private
family life.
This
would seem to be a classic example of ‘a sledge-hammer being used to crack a
nut’. Is it really proportionate and indeed realistic to subject
every family in Scotland to this kind of monitoring. If there are genuine and
demonstrable reasons to believe a child is at risk then, as already happens, appropriate guardians and monitors (such as Social Workers) should be appointed.
In the same way that the Police need reasons to scrutinize the private affairs
of citizens so should Child Protection agencies – a carte blanche right for the
State to monitor the private life of families would be a massive (and I think
rather sinister) move away from the liberties we rightly prize in a democratic
and free society.
The
problems with the detail of how such Guardians would operate are many: What are
the restrictions and limitations on Guardians in monitoring children? What are
the safeguards on this role being abused? Will parents get the right to object
to the appointment of a particular person as their child’s guardian? What will
qualify as an area of concern for a Guardian – e.g. a family’s approach to
study, discipline, politics, religion, morality, diet, fashion…? Will a
Guardian be open to prosecution or other court action if they are negligent and
a child is not protected? What would negligence consist of?
We
are constantly told by political parties of their desire to empower parents and
yet this proposed legislation will almost inevitably leave parents feeling
vulnerable and disempowered. How else are parents to feel when told by their
government that, regardless of any actual concerns, an employee of the State will be
checking their parenting is up 'to scratch’?
Please
let me encourage you to stand against this particular proposal and to vote for
its amendment or removal. There are surely far better ways to protect
vulnerable children rather than subjecting every family in the country (at
doubtless huge bureaucratic expense) to this kind of inspection and potential
intrusion.
Yours
sincerely,
11 comments:
Well said, Andy.
Firstly, can I point out that there is no such thing as a 'state guardian' proposed in the Bill. This terminology has it's basis in journalisitic lore. What is proposed is a 'named person'. If you have ever asked your midwife a question, if you have ever discussed a concern with your child's health visitor, if you have ever contacted the school to ask about an issue then you have already dealt with your named person. It's a stated first point of contact, a co-ordinator of support who also crucially ensures that the voice of the child and family is explicit in any support planning.
What is so depressing is Christians jumping on an ill informed band wagon without adequate research. Read the Bill, ask around for differing opinions, find out the remit for a named person - it has been published ???p.s. next time you don't undertsand your treatment at hospital, don't whatever you do look at the whiteboard for the 'named nurse' - big sister will be watching you,
Dear 'Anonymous' thanks for your comments - though I had to smile though at the irony of someone defending 'named persons' while not wishing to disclose their own name. If 'state guardian' terminology is just 'jounalistic lore' then you're comments on that are probably best sent to the Media - but I take the point.
I have actually looked at the legislation... (http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_Bills/Children%20and%20Young%20People%20(Scotland)%20Bill/b27s4-introd.pdf) - and it leaves all the questions I raise unanswered. For example, if you look at the extract below - it doesn't specify what type of concerns or advise a 'named guardian' might involve themselves in. Can they advise a child against their parent's beliefs for example?
'The functions referred to in subsection (1) are—
(a) doing such of the following where the named person considers it to be appropriate
in order to promote, support or safeguard the wellbeing of the child or young
person—
(i) advising, informing or supporting the child or young person, or a parent of
25 the child or young person,
(ii) helping the child or young person, or a parent of the child or young person,
to access a service or support, or
(iii) discussing, or raising, a matter about the child or young person with a
service provider or relevant authority, and
30 (b) such other functions as are specified by this Act or any other enactment as being
functions of a named person in relation to a child or young person.'
Finally, and most troubling, is you comment about 'Christians jumping on the bandwagon' - my letter had no reference to Christianity or being a Christian. Would you have written on blog written by a Jewish person objecting, for example) to Glasgow City Council proposed Park use restrictions, 'typical Jews jumping on the bandwagon' - or Muslims or Gays? Further this proposal has been objected to by the Law Society and COSLA among others - hardly Christian organisations! It's that very type of hostile stereotyping of Christians that make them, among others, so wary of intrusion to their lives.
A named person in the universal servcies for children and young people and my choice to post an anonymous comment are linked purely by the word 'name'- I cannot think (other than possible pique that someone has questioned your position) that it was even a worthy point to make.
Having read the legislation why would you then then use the inflammatory phrase 'state guardian' which is not contained therein?
The legislation is based on UNCRC.
It provdies practical legislation on such articles as:-
Article 2
You have the right to protection against discrimination.
Article 5
You have the right to be given guidance by your parents and family
Article 12
You have the right to an opinion and for it to be listened to and taken seriously
Article 14
You have the right to think what you like and be whatever religion you want to be with your parents guidance
Article 30
If you come from a minority group you have the right to enjoy your own culture, practice your own religion and use your own language
In your quote from the Act (a) - this happens day and daily in the health and education services. This will not change. There is someone doing that job already. If they are 'named' then people know who to go to. (b) covers the fact that the Bill is not yet an Act and amendements ma be made during enactment.
On your last point, you have juxtaposed my wording of 'disappointing when Christians jump on the bandwagon' to 'typical Jews jumping on the bandwagon' which is misleading to say the least. I did not write'typical' anything. That would be stereotypical and discriminatory. This is another example of defaulting to unecessary defensiveness without factual basis. Indeed, you have misread me entirely. What I was meaning is that I would expect better of Christians i.e. balanced, fully researched, other opinions considered before barricading the trenches.
I know the objections and concerns on the Bill, having read the consultation. I also know that more comments were positive than negative from a wide range of sources. There may have been articles in the Bill which you endorse yourself, why would you not mention them to give a balanced view, especially in a position with a bit of influence.
What I have found depressing is the snowball effect of Christian objection which is little more than a re-tweet without adequate information. I think your use of 'state guardian' evidences this.
Not only Christians care about the family or about protecting freedom, including religious freedom. Not everything which comes form the state is inherently dangerous. Not everything which comes from the church is inherently good.
Nothing in my comment was hostile. Nothing in my comment would lead you to the assumption that I do not share your faith, which infact I do.
You are jumping to unreflective conclusions not only about the legislation but about my comment, reading so much which is not there.
Worrying.
Please don't be offended by the 'cut & thrust' of the rather clumsy manner of conversation by 'comment box' or my attempts at humour - I don't doubt that if were we chatting face to face there would be much more we could add and indeed agree on. Your comments are appreciated and apologies if I've misrepresented you - at least your subsequent comment allows that to be clarified. I guess we probably just have varying levels of confidence in the State and its seemingly relentless 'management' of the lives of its citizens. But I do hope that the assurances given will be honoured. Regards, Andy
It is helpful to look at what information the named persons are routinely gathering about every child, their family and associated adults - it couldn't get more intrusive...
Lanarkshire:
http://www.girfecinlanarkshire.co.uk/forms/
Highland:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/getting_it_right_for_every_child_2
The data is crucial as Eric Stoddart explains here:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0040/00406357.pdf
"Collecting sufficient data across the SHANARRI understanding of wellbeing and the protected
characteristics would be integral to the effectively audited programme that the Government envisages.
However, little attention seems to have been paid to the surveillance implications."
There is a petition which is helping to get the word out and may interest your readers. Thank you for highlighting this issue.
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/members-of-the-scottish-parliament-reject-girfec-surveillance-and-named-person-for-every-child-in-scotland
Sheila
Sheila, this information is not and will not be collected routinely for every child. Who would do this? and to what end? Named persons are midwives for 0 to 14 days, health visitors till school age then a relevant educator (Glasgow model). They are already doing this job. If you have not found your midwife, health visitor or pupil support teacher to be intrusive then you will continue to find this the case. You must have people doing these jobs in your congregation - ask them about it. The vast majority of chidren will have their wellbeing needs firstly by their family (clearly stated in girfec) and in the universal services by routine health screenings as status quo (other than a new 30 month assessment to assess whether children are developmentally ready to learn)and within education via the Health and Wellbeing curriculum as per Curriculum for Excellence. IF there is a wellbeing concern then fuller assessment takes place - this too is the status quo but services will use common assessment tools for more effective interagency working.
The trench warfare mentality in some of these posts around church and state are seriously worrying.
The 'state' in this country may be far from perfect but both you and your family have greatly benefitted from the universal services no doubt. Common sense has and will prevail.
Should your child have an injury at exam time, a bereavement which is affecting school attendance,seem to be straining to see at a distance, struggle to make certain sounds, experience bullying, need a UCAS reference, etc etc etc then I hope
you will rely on your named person to do their job and plan WITH you and your child what they need to help.
The small majority of particularly vulnerable children will be better served by this approach. I read only yesterday about the massive percentage rise in trafficked children from the Uk for sexual explotation, we are second only to Thailand.Poor interagency communication is generally found to be at the foundation of tragic cases , hence legislation around accountable interagency working, including a agreed definition of wellbeing based on UNCRC and common assessment tools for agencies.
Second only to vietnam....is what i should have written
Anonymous, the SHANARRI data is to be gathered on every child, their family and associated adults - even the 70-80% whose needs are met by their family and universal services.
http://www.girfecinlanarkshire.co.uk/2011/06/item-15-the-childyoung-person%E2%80%99s-pathway/
"This resource is designed for practitioners (it is not seen as helpful for children and families) and should be displayed in a place where practitioners can use it to remind themselves how and when the core components are used in Lanarkshire. "
The information "routinely" gathered by health and education has changed. Of course not all of these forms will be filled in for every child but IMO the data on the "routine" ones are worrying enough.
The wellbeing indicators are agreed headings. They map onto the UNCRC. Practitioners in the universal services have always
assessed and supported the wellbeing of children and they have approriately shared this information with other professionals, especially at times of transition. The only difference is that they will have a common framework, so that they might work together better.I would have more concern if they didn't.
I want a midwife who assesses my child's health, a health visitor who can knows if a child has a safe environment, a teacher who can assess and maximise achievement, support with inclusion if my child experiences a chronic health issue .....you get the picture.
It should be noted that the Information Commissioner's Office has noted their satisfaction that the proposals do not contravene the data protection act.
Each council must develop their practice guidance and I am more familiar with Glasgow's. I am aware of the Lanarkshire Universal pathway which you link to. Much of the assessment and sharing of information already takes place although there is a greater stress on effective transitions to best support children.
Your quote about 'not helpful for children and families' could be poorly understood in the way it has been lifted out of context. It does not say that the processes are unhelpul but that practice guidelines are for staff and that the language and format are for that purpose.
I suppose what it comes down to is your level of belief in children's rights.
The only 2 countries which have not ratified the UNCRC are USA and Somalia, although USA is in process. The children and young peoples Bill is a practical outworking of the articles of UNCRC. These uphold parental rights and family freedoms, including religious.
Scot Gov on Named Person
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/People/Young-People/gettingitright/named-person
Glasgow Guidance
ttps://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=10488
On a related note, churches should not be complacent in their ability to sufficiently promote the wellbeing of children- it is not too long ago that a church split in Glasgow was caused by the temerity of a Pastor in reporting a child protection matter (which led to a conviction) as 'forgiveness' should have been practised. Churches may sometimes think they are somehow above the law or assume the constant moral high ground when actually society can practise higher principles.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26208628
watch the debate
Post a Comment