The Named Person Scheme

[invergowrie arab]

Except they didn't need to legislate to get Highlands and Islands Council to try it. There's no reason why Councils can't adopt that scheme without primary legislation.

First it's not just councils it's health boards, police and voluntary sector as well. The health board will provide the named person service 0-5. That's more than pedantry it's a fundamental reason as to why information sharing and joint resourcing is so challenging.

If you want to say you don't need primary legislation to implement a policy then we can agree. The SNP have made effective use of fiscal levers to drive policy at locality level.

If you are suggesting CPPs should have an opt out we will agree to disagree.

Highland didn't decide to give this a bash off their own back. The national GIRFEC programme was designed to be tested via Pathfinder programmes that would develop the programme alongside the Lib Lab executive. It's a bit before my time but having been involved in similar pathfinders I imagine substantial additional resource from Edinburgh greased the wheels.

I'm sorry to say it because it's where i work but local authorities are the most risk averse and reactive environments imaginable. There is no long term strategic vision and everything is run with annual budgets and reporting cycles in mind.

5 years after Highland barely half a dozen CPPs have implemented a single child's planning process.

[Ad Lib]

There are however reasons why they may not adopt it. As it is supposed to be a national scheme, it makes sense to legislate for it.

This is tautologous. It isn't clear that it ought to be a "national scheme".

[Ad Lib]

First it's not just councils it's health boards, police and voluntary sector as well. The health board will provide the named person service 0-5. That's more than pedantry it's a fundamental reason as to why information sharing and joint resourcing is so challenging.

If you want to say you don't need primary legislation to implement a policy then we can agree. The SNP have made effective use of fiscal levers to drive policy at locality level.

If you are suggesting CPPs should have an opt out we will agree to disagree.

Highland didn't decide to give this a bash off their own back. The national GIRFEC programme was designed to be tested via Pathfinder programmes that would develop the programme alongside the Lib Lab executive. It's a bit before my time but having been involved in similar pathfinders I imagine substantial additional resource from Edinburgh greased the wheels.

I'm sorry to say it because it's where i work but local authorities are the most risk averse and reactive environments imaginable. There is no long term strategic vision and everything is run with annual budgets and reporting cycles in mind.

5 years after Highland barely half a dozen CPPs have implemented a single child's planning process.

Yes I'm perfectly aware that it's not just councils that participate in this. My point is that you don't need central government running it. There is nothing the Scottish Government needs primary legislation for to facilitate information sharing.

I think individual councils should be allowed not to have to implement this scheme or at a minimum to make significant variations to suit their own needs.

[strichener]

Yes I'm perfectly aware that it's not just councils that participate in this. My point is that you don't need central government running it. There is nothing the Scottish Government needs primary legislation for to facilitate information sharing.

I think individual councils should be allowed not to have to implement this scheme or at a minimum to make significant variations to suit their own needs.

This is how the councils have been running up until now. Information sharing between organisations within the same area is poor, across councils, nearly non-existant. Councils trying to identify needs is part of the problem and as previously mentioned inherently short term.

[invergowrie arab]

Yes I'm perfectly aware that it's not just councils that participate in this. My point is that you don't need central government running it. There is nothing the Scottish Government needs primary legislation for to facilitate information sharing.

I think individual councils should be allowed not to have to implement this scheme or at a minimum to make significant variations to suit their own needs.

Central government aren't "running it" they have legislated to say there needs to be a single child's planning process but it is up to community planning partnerships to decide how they want to implement the scheme.

The Government have worked alongside test sites over the past 2-3 years to test the scheme and produce guidance, for example who the NP should be, but it is up to individual areas to implement their own scheme. They will run it and it will evolve locally.

I have sympathy with the idea of devolving as much authority as possible down to local bodies.

However the reality on the ground is ridiculous situations like social work and education within a local authority procuring their own IT systems that can't speak to each other never mind with health and police. Maybe that's something that could be tackled without primary legislation but as someone working in the field I'm glad they have.

[Crossbill]

 

Fucking scum

[Thumper]

Very few people are going to forget that Nice Auntie Ruth specifically chose to pick a law proven to reduce child abuse as her hill to die on in this Parliament. Not that it'll lose her any votes from Tories, obviously.

[Ad Lib]

 

Fucking scum

You should probably put that Tweet in context. It was a direct response to Scotland 2016 speculating if the existence of a Named Persons Scheme could or would have contributed towards preventing Liam's death.

Since there already was a Named Persons Scheme and he died, the answer is obviously "no".

[invergowrie arab]

Mon now Libby, that is sloppy reading from you.

The question posed was not could NP have prevented this death but could it help to prevent a death in analogous cases in the future.

Of course we will never know down to an individual case level as how do you prove attribution to something that hasn't happened. I would imagine such cases are so statistically insignificant that, again, citing the lack of deaths from child abuse in any given year would be statistically unsound.

I can't really join in the twitter frenzy as she was replying to that particular tweet. I don't know to what extent Fife have been piloting the scheme but I think the assumption he had one is reasonable.

I'm more concerned that journalists and even some MSPs don't seem to have grasped what the system means and the role of an NP as distinct from that of a lead professional. Many also seem to be using our of date info about who is an NP.

ETA Fife council have now confirmed their roll out has been incremental so it doesn't necessarily follow that he definitely had an NP.

Also with noting his death predates the information sharing protocols central to NP came into force.

[Ad Lib]

None of what you have said suggests that there is any evidence that the existence of a Named Persons Scheme would prevent children in the same situation as Liam Fee from being killed.

That doesn't mean there isn't a good argument for having NPS. It just means Liam's death isn't such an argument.

The fact that Fife Council has said the rollout was incremental does not mean that Liam did not have a named person. I would be surprised if Ruth Davidson would say something so unequivocal if she did not know it to be true.

[ayrmad]

Mon now Libby, that is sloppy reading from you.

The question posed was not could NP have prevented this death but could it help to prevent a death in analogous cases in the future.

Of course we will never know down to an individual case level as how do you prove attribution to something that hasn't happened. I would imagine such cases are so statistically insignificant that, again, citing the lack of deaths from child abuse in any given year would be statistically unsound.

I can't really join in the twitter frenzy as she was replying to that particular tweet. I don't know to what extent Fife have been piloting the scheme but I think the assumption he had one is reasonable.

I'm more concerned that journalists and even some MSPs don't seem to have grasped what the system means and the role of an NP as distinct from that of a lead professional. Many also seem to be using our of date info about who is an NP.

ETA Fife council have now confirmed their roll out has been incremental so it doesn't necessarily follow that he definitely had an NP.

Also with noting his death predates the information sharing protocols central to NP came into force.

So Wee Ruthie's talking pish, very poor but not unexpected from an opposition MSP.

[Thumper]

I would be surprised if Ruth Davidson would say something so unequivocal if she did not know it to be true.

 

Ruth "gangs of heavies are literally dragging people out of voting lines in Galashiels high street" Davidson would never knowingly report an unsubstantiated allegation as fact.

[banana]

You should probably put that Tweet in context. It was a direct response to Scotland 2016 speculating if the existence of a Named Persons Scheme could or would have contributed towards preventing Liam's death.

Since there already was a Named Persons Scheme and he died, the answer is obviously "no".

namedpersons.png

 

Indeed, came to post that. Link to tweet: https://twitter.com/RuthDavidsonMSP/status/737734644465029121

 

When trying to make someone look like a disgusting political opportunist outs you as an even worse political propagandist.

[Thumper]

There's nothing like the hiding of child abuse to unite the Conservative Party, if her majesty's mentions (and the entire history of the United Kingdom) are anything to go by today.

[yoda]

None of what you have said suggests that there is any evidence that the existence of a Named Persons Scheme would prevent children in the same situation as Liam Fee from being killed.

That doesn't mean there isn't a good argument for having NPS. It just means Liam's death isn't such an argument.

The fact that Fife Council has said the rollout was incremental does not mean that Liam did not have a named person. I would be surprised if Ruth Davidson would say something so unequivocal if she did not know it to be true.

 

Nor is it a good argument against having a "Named Person".

 

I personally can't understand the faux-concern from people over this act. That said, it's been in existence for a decade up here and I've talked to people who work with it, as opposed to reading about it in an article by some journo hack hand-wringing over "erosion of parental rights! children snitching on maw and paw! gulags in Caithness! slippery slope!".

[Ad Lib]

Nor is it a good argument against having a "Named Person".

 

I personally can't understand the faux-concern from people over this act. That said, it's been in existence for a decade up here and I've talked to people who work with it, as opposed to reading about it in an article by some journo hack hand-wringing over "erosion of parental rights! children snitching on maw and paw! gulags in Caithness! slippery slope!".

Not even Ruth Davidson is saying that the fact Fife had a NPS and that Liam died despite its existence is an argument against having a NPS.

[invergowrie arab]

None of what you have said suggests that there is any evidence that the existence of a Named Persons Scheme would prevent children in the same situation as Liam Fee from being killed.

That doesn't mean there isn't a good argument for having NPS. It just means Liam's death isn't such an argument.

The fact that Fife Council has said the rollout was incremental does not mean that Liam did not have a named person. I would be surprised if Ruth Davidson would say something so unequivocal if she did not know it to be true.

I agree with all of that.

This is a tragic case that point to neither one thing or another with regards to the efficacy of the policy. Both sides need to back off.

You would think Davidson wouldn't make such a statement without being sure but we are all human and as I said before it is reasonable to assume he did, it was certainly the first thing that went through my head.

I haven't followed the detailed evidence of the case but if he did have one you have to assume they would be an important witness or source of background info.

[invergowrie arab]

Not even Ruth Davidson is saying that the fact Fife had a NPS and that Liam died despite its existence is an argument against having a NPS.

Do not think that is the inference or was it just a helpful addendum to the original tweet?

[Ad Lib]

Do not think that is the inference or was it just a helpful addendum to the original tweet?

I think her Tweet was tantamount to a John Rentoul "QTWTAIN". It was intended to criticise the premise of the Scotland 2016 Tweet's question, which inferred by omission that the absence of the NPS lets things like that happen.

[invergowrie arab]

Fair fucks