Calum Munro explains why information sharing is at the heart of the Named Person law and must be retained
The Supreme Court has ruled that the information sharing provisions in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 do not full comply with provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The judges ruling rested on the way in which information could be shared by named persons and others and the current guidance to this was ruled non-compliant.
However in paragraph 91 of its judgement The Supreme Court stated: “The public interest in the flourishing of children is obvious. The aim of the Act, which is unquestionably legitimate and benign, is the promotion and safeguarding of the wellbeing of children and young persons.”
If we lose sight of why the concept was needed we will condemn families with concerns about additional support needs to a continuance of the organisational behaviours that caused such distress to parents in the past
Calum Munro
Following this ruling the Scottish Government stated that it will carry out the necessary changes to the legislation so that the benefits of the Act and the concept of the Named Person can still be available to children, young people and families in Scotland. They must do this quickly and opposition politicians must not use the decision to once again turn the issue into a piece of political opportunism.
It is vital for the effectiveness of services that the information sharing processes are legally compliant and that the staff operating the system have confidence in them. It is also vital for children and families that they have the benefits of the Act, including the single point of contact with services when they have concerns.
We have to return to why the Named Person concept was developed. If we lose sight of why the concept was needed we will condemn families with concerns about additional support needs to a continuance of the organisational behaviours that caused such distress to parents in the past.
The desire for a single point of contact for families with children and young people with additional needs came from parents who had experienced pass the parcel style access to services that saw them sent from professional to professional as each suggested that the family’s request didn’t quite fit their service’s criteria – or budget.
The need to codify the ability of the single point of contact to seek and share information from and with other agencies came directly from the experience of families who had to explain their story time and time again. These families were sick of having to complete multiple forms that requested the same information in formats that simply suited the official body but took no account of the needs of the families or the additional burdens superfluous form filling added to their lives.
The Named Person system is one that families can approach to seek help and advice. Because the request has come from the family the information sharing will almost invariably therefore be with their agreement. Appropriate information sharing is there to ease the family’s work in seeking help.
The professionals given the role as Named Persons need to be the right people with the correct attributes and training for the role and supported so that they have the time and resources to do justice to the role as well as the remainder of their workload. Without meeting these tests the aims of the concept will never be achieved.
Although the Named Person is not primarily a child protection measure we must be aware of the aw of unintended consequences once we raise additional concerns about information sharing in the minds of professionals or the public. The failure of organisations to appropriately share information has appeared as a tragically common thread in numerous reviews into child protection system failures. Maintaining a viable child protection system is a primary duty for society and nothing must be done to weaken the resolve of ordinary citizens or workers in statutory services about raising concerns or sharing information that could prevent harm to children and young people. We cannot permit unwarranted concerns over information sharing to recreate the silo mentality that can afflict organisations and lead to organisational protectionism instead of child protection.
Getting the policy into place is only the first step – no benefits can come to children, young people and parents/carers unless properly resourced services are in place that can be accessed through the Named Person system. All partners to the debate need to focus on ensuring that the true purpose of the concept is protected and that politicians are held to their promises to create the best possible services for children and young people by allocating adequate resources to them.
