The Named Person Scheme

[ayrmad]

My god, Brewer was tedious in the extreme this morning interviewing Tam Baillie about NPS with regard to Liam Fee, it was like grilling an EgyptAir official on whether the pilot used a taxi to get to his work or not.

[invergowrie arab]

One of the worst interviews I have ever seen. Though Tam Baillie did well not to just get up and go.

[Ad Lib]

I watched the interview and I thought it was completely fair. The whole point about NPS not being able to stop cases like Liam Fee is that the government have failed to give precision and clarity as to what NPS is actually for. When Tam Baillie says that NPS is concerned with a much earlier stage and not, as he literally said, about child protection cases for those already in the social care system, it suggests that the problems are not in fact with early warning but failures in different bodies actually deciding what, if anything, to do after identifying a child may be at risk.

It is not clear how NPS does any better a job at that than the systems councils previously had in place, or indeed how the proposed national scheme will be any better at that than the pilots.

That is connected to the broader criticisms of the bill that if its not simply concerned with early warning and vulnerable kids, then just how broad will responsibility for the "wellbeing" of children extend. Clearly the No2NP lot have been guilty of a lot of hyperbole, but if the scheme isn't specifically intrusive enough to catch the severe cases yet isn't broad enough to catch the others, just what is it for?

[invergowrie arab]

If nothing else it was bordering on tedium to ask the same question for 10 minutes.

It's important to remember NPS is only one part of GIRFEC but NPS now seems to be used as a synonym for the whole scheme. IMO the most important part of GIRFEC is not NP but the single child's planning process.

The NP is the first point of contact and an early warming system. However the single child's planning process is right the way up to statutory child protection measures.

The pertinent question to ask is not did he have a NP but did he have a lead profession and single plan and what was contained in that single plan.

[invergowrie arab]

If you go here https://www.dundeecity.gov.uk/chserv/team-around-childand go to TATC process map it explains it better.

[ScotSquid]

Tam Baillie was an utter shambles. He forgot mid interview what his go to schtick was going to be, which is why Brewer scented blood.

First Baillie went for the tried and tested 'can't comment on individual cases'. Perfectly reasonable.

Then he chose to claim to not know the specifics of the Fee case with regards NPS.

Either that's a lie (and it will be) or he should be sacked for incompetence. The Children's Commissioner hasn't actually bothered to find out about the background to the Liam Fee case. Really??

No chance he doesn't know exactly what happened in the Fee case. Why he chose to lie about that is anyone's guess.

Complete disaster of an interview. Looked like he'd never been out of the office before.

Bit easier making Maude Flanders comments in the Sunday papers Tam.

[mikedafc]

Expensive to administer at time when SNP council tax freeze hitting councils hard

[invergowrie arab]

Expensive to administer at time when SNP council tax freeze hitting councils hard

Aye? How much is it costing?

[invergowrie arab]

Either that's a lie (and it will be) or he should be sacked for incompetence. The Children's Commissioner hasn't actually bothered to find out about the background to the Liam Fee case. Really??

No chance he doesn't know exactly what happened in the Fee case. Why he chose to lie about that is anyone's guess.

Why do you think he would know?

The statutory powers of investigation of the Children's Commissioner only apply to groups of children or young people, not to individual cases. In those circumstances I think waiting for the details of the SCR would be prudent to then see what lessons have been learned for all children.

It is certainly conceivable he unofficially knows but as it stands at the moment he has no official reason to know or to make that information pubLic

[Ad Lib]

Why do you think he would know?

The statutory powers of investigation of the Children's Commissioner only apply to groups of children or young people, not to individual cases. In those circumstances I think waiting for the details of the SCR would be prudent to then see what lessons have been learned for all children.

It is certainly conceivable he unofficially knows but as it stands at the moment he has no official reason to know or to make that information public

In which case he shouldn't be condemning politicians for making observations about the Liam Fee case in the context of Named Persons.

[strichener]

In which case he shouldn't be condemning politicians for making observations about the Liam Fee case in the context of Named Persons.

The politician involved should not be discussing cases such as these without the facts.  And when I say facts, I mean the actual facts and not how they would like the facts to be.

[Crossbill]

In which case he shouldn't be condemning politicians for making observations about the Liam Fee case in the context of Named Persons.

 

As he stated, over and over again, the fact that Liam Fee was known to social services already meant that the case had already progressed past the point at which a named person would be raising the red flag.  Therefore, it is irrelevant whether he had a named person or not, just as it is also irrelevant whether Baillie knew whether he had a named person or not.  He was quite right to say it was shameful for certain people to try and use this case to discredit NP.

 

Oh, and for repeatedly asking the same question, despite claiming time and time again that he understood the point being made, Gordon Brewer can consider himself added to the list of scumbags trying to score political points off the murder of a wee kid.

[invergowrie arab]

In which case he shouldn't be condemning politicians for making observations about the Liam Fee case in the context of Named Persons.

I don't follow your train of thought there.

And even after you have given your reasonable erudite explanation I'm just going to come back and say I don't think he does know I just thought it was conceivable.

[ScotSquid]

As he stated, over and over again, the fact that Liam Fee was known to social services already meant that the case had already progressed past the point at which a named person would be raising the red flag. Therefore, it is irrelevant whether he had a named person or not, just as it is also irrelevant whether Baillie knew whether he had a named person or not. He was quite right to say it was shameful for certain people to try and use this case to discredit NP.

Oh, and for repeatedly asking the same question, despite claiming time and time again that he understood the point being made, Gordon Brewer can consider himself added to the list of scumbags trying to score political points off the murder of a wee kid.

This is a pretty stupid point, and one designed to deflect.

Whether or not the Fee case is an example against the NPS ( doesnt see so on the face of it) its perfectly reasonable to use high profile cases to bring governments to task.

For example, should anyone use the Clutha tragedy in a debate on helicopter safety?

In questioning driver fitness checks for large vehicles and whether they are robust or often enough, should the bin lorry crash be off topic?

[Ad Lib]

As he stated, over and over again, the fact that Liam Fee was known to social services already meant that the case had already progressed past the point at which a named person would be raising the red flag. Therefore, it is irrelevant whether he had a named person or not, just as it is also irrelevant whether Baillie knew whether he had a named person or not. He was quite right to say it was shameful for certain people to try and use this case to discredit NP.

Oh, and for repeatedly asking the same question, despite claiming time and time again that he understood the point being made, Gordon Brewer can consider himself added to the list of scumbags trying to score political points off the murder of a wee kid.

The politicians he was accusing of trying to make political capital out of Liam Fee's death were directly responding to a question posed by a national politics news programme, which speculated that NP might prevent future instances of Liam's kind.

If anything Ruth Davidson was, uh, agreeing with Tam Baillie, that NP wouldn't stop and therefore wasn't relevant to, cases like that, because it concerns a completely different stage in the child protection process.

Yet apparently this is playing politics with his death. Bizarre.

[strichener]

If anything Ruth Davidson was, uh, agreeing with Tam Baillie, that NP wouldn't stop and therefore wasn't relevant to, cases like that, because it concerns a completely different stage in the child protection process.

What planet are you on?  Are you serious with that interpretation?  You even provided the context of the answer in a previous post.

 

She was trying to score political points for her long asserted position that the Named Person Scheme is "unworkable".   If she wanted to do what you are suggesting the she would surely have just stated that the NPS was not relevant.

[Ad Lib]

What planet are you on?  Are you serious with that interpretation?  You even provided the context of the answer in a previous post.

 

She was trying to score political points for her long asserted position that the Named Person Scheme is "unworkable".   If she wanted to do what you are suggesting the she would surely have just stated that the NPS was not relevant.

I am completely serious. When she said in response to:

"Could the government's new Named Person Scheme help prevent cases like the murder of Liam Fee in the future?"

That:

"Liam Fee had a named person under the pilot of the Fife scheme"

The most obvious and reasonable interpretation of that is:

"No, it wouldn't. Having a named person is immaterial to the prevention of cases like Liam Fee's."

You cannot extrapolate from those thirteen words:

"The Named Persons scheme is unworkable"

Because she neither says nor implies in that Tweet itself that:

1. It is unworkable

2. Saving kids like Liam Fee is one of the scheme's objectives

It is a perfectly honourable and respectable position to say that NP is irrelevant to situations like Liam Fee, irrespective of whether you support or oppose the scheme.

[strichener]

I am completely serious. When she said in response to:

"Could the government's new Named Person Scheme help prevent cases like the murder of Liam Fee in the future?"

That:

"Liam Fee had a named person under the pilot of the Fife scheme"

The most obvious and reasonable interpretation of that is:

"No, it wouldn't. Having a named person is immaterial to the prevention of cases like Liam Fee's."

You cannot extrapolate from those thirteen words:

"The Named Persons scheme is unworkable"

Because she neither says nor implies in that Tweet itself that:

1. It is unworkable

2. Saving kids like Liam Fee is one of the scheme's objectives

It is a perfectly honourable and respectable position to say that NP is irrelevant to situations like Liam Fee, irrespective of whether you support or oppose the scheme.

Given the public's misconceptions about the NPS, your obvious explanation is completely disingenuous.

If I were in Ruth Davidson's position and with the same declared position on the NPS (unworkable) then I would use the exact wording that she used to convey that the NPS was in place and failed to prevent this death. If I wanted people to know that the NPS is irrelevant to this case then that is exactly what I would say.

[H Wragg]

Declared unlawful.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36903513

[renton]

3 minutes ago, H Wragg said:

Declared unlawful.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36903513