19/02/2014 Newsnight Scotland


19/02/2014

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 19/02/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

caused by that on and off election issue. But that is history. Thank

:00:00.:00:00.

you very much. Thank you. Tonight on Newsnight Scotland, who

:00:00.:00:14.

is in charge of your child's well-being? MSPs voted to appoint

:00:15.:00:21.

so- called named persons from the NHS and councils to monitor every

:00:22.:00:24.

young person's well-being from birth to 18. Is this practical support for

:00:25.:00:29.

children and parents or an imposition of the state into family

:00:30.:00:34.

life? Good evening. The Children and Young

:00:35.:00:38.

People's Bill was passed by the Scottish Parliament a few hours ago.

:00:39.:00:43.

It's a wide ranging bill which, among other things, entitles all

:00:44.:00:46.

three and four-year olds to 600 hours of free nursery care. And

:00:47.:00:50.

allows young people to remain in care until they are 21. So far, so

:00:51.:00:55.

uncontroversial. However, the proposal for the state to assign a

:00:56.:00:59.

named person to monitor every single child in Scotland from birth to

:01:00.:01:02.

adulthood has proved more contentious.

:01:03.:01:10.

11-week-old Caleb Ness, shaken to death by his father. Daniel Greaves

:01:11.:01:15.

was five years old when her mother's partner killed her. And

:01:16.:01:21.

other killed by her mother's boyfriend. And Brandon, dead at the

:01:22.:01:25.

age of two, mother cleared, but partner Jill are culpable homicide.

:01:26.:01:31.

Every time there is a part -- every time there is a case like this, the

:01:32.:01:35.

response seems the case, the agencies involved have shared

:01:36.:01:38.

information, should have acted sooner, this should never happen

:01:39.:01:44.

again, but it does. The bill tries to tackle cases like those by

:01:45.:01:49.

nominating a council or health service worker to look after the

:01:50.:01:53.

interests of every child. But it also extends free childcare and

:01:54.:01:57.

school meals. It strengthens the law on school

:01:58.:02:07.

closures. And it allows children in care to be looked after up until the

:02:08.:02:10.

age of 21, if they want it. The government says this is a

:02:11.:02:19.

landmark law, 600 hours free macro key saving families an average of an

:02:20.:02:23.

hundred pounds per year per child. Ingham ageing with beer and --

:02:24.:02:29.

engaging with parents are wanting to make sure that those 600 hours can

:02:30.:02:34.

be delivered in a more flexible way, which is why this is important,

:02:35.:02:39.

and at the other end of the age spectrum, making sure we give

:02:40.:02:43.

greater rights and support to young looked after care leavers, which is

:02:44.:02:46.

why from next year, young people leaving care will be able to stay on

:02:47.:02:54.

in that setting until 21. Singing macro -- SINGING.

:02:55.:03:00.

Kinship carers looking after children were protesting outside

:03:01.:03:04.

Holyrood today, saying they did not get the same recognition or money

:03:05.:03:10.

that foster parents get. I did not get any support, so this bill coming

:03:11.:03:14.

here seeing extra support, I do not get any, so we are is the extra?

:03:15.:03:20.

This is the future of Scotland. Not a bit of rubbish in the street. Our

:03:21.:03:27.

kids. And this afternoon, MSPs began a detailed examination of the law

:03:28.:03:31.

and amendments put forward to the idea of an interior called the State

:03:32.:03:36.

Guardian by opponents. The named person policy feels the criteria of

:03:37.:03:40.

what makes good law, tips the balance away from parental and

:03:41.:03:44.

family responsibilities towards the state, not properly costed and it

:03:45.:03:49.

will be open to legal challenge. Some believe this measure is

:03:50.:03:53.

absolutely necessary to identifying and protecting vulnerable children

:03:54.:03:55.

and that those who believe this is not required and can interfere in

:03:56.:04:01.

family life. I have no objection to a named person provision, but

:04:02.:04:07.

equally, I would hope that I do not believe it is the role of the state

:04:08.:04:11.

to bring up old children. And the plan has been opposed by a number of

:04:12.:04:16.

churches and religious groups. Why? What happens if the named person,

:04:17.:04:21.

the headteacher, then disagrees with a stance that parents have taken?

:04:22.:04:26.

The parents may not be doing anything illegal or unlawful, but

:04:27.:04:30.

perhaps if there is a conflict in some way that the parents are

:04:31.:04:35.

bringing up their particular child, does the named person have a right

:04:36.:04:38.

to interfere with how the parents bring up their children? What other

:04:39.:04:43.

kinds of issues where you think there might be conflict between a

:04:44.:04:48.

parent or guardian? I guess particularly, perhaps in areas of

:04:49.:04:52.

health provision, perhaps if there was examples of vaccinations, or

:04:53.:04:59.

health advice, or perhaps areas where the parents, particularly

:05:00.:05:05.

objecting to something that the school wants to do. And again, they

:05:06.:05:09.

might be within their rights to object, but the problem is with the

:05:10.:05:14.

named person was to take issue with that. The government insists there

:05:15.:05:18.

is no intention to undermine families. We have been clear that

:05:19.:05:23.

for the vast majority of families across Scotland, that parents of the

:05:24.:05:28.

most important influence in their child's life, providing plenty of

:05:29.:05:31.

love and support or their children and that most children go on to

:05:32.:05:35.

succeed in life, but we know that parents and families may have

:05:36.:05:38.

different challenges they face and may need that extra support, so this

:05:39.:05:42.

is about providing a mechanism for them to access that support and for

:05:43.:05:47.

the most vulnerable families providing much better and

:05:48.:05:51.

coordinated support. The trouble is, in all these cases, vulnerable

:05:52.:05:57.

families were already in contact with the police, social services and

:05:58.:06:01.

health boards. Will having one named person really make any difference?

:06:02.:06:07.

I'm joined from Aberdeen by the Chief Executive of Children First,

:06:08.:06:10.

Anne Houston. From Edinburgh by the Director of the Royal College of

:06:11.:06:13.

Nursing in Scotland Theresa Fyfe. And by the Minister of St Peter's

:06:14.:06:17.

Free Church of Scotland in Dundee, David Robertson.

:06:18.:06:20.

Anne Houston, first of all, can we ask you to explain how this works?

:06:21.:06:26.

Under what circumstances would either a child or parent go to this

:06:27.:06:33.

named person? The important thing is a named person is a single point of

:06:34.:06:37.

contact, someone the child and parents or carers will already know.

:06:38.:06:43.

That they can go to if, for example, a parent is looking for

:06:44.:06:48.

support for their child, perhaps a service, perhaps a few agencies

:06:49.:06:52.

involved and not speaking to each other, or they just need signposted.

:06:53.:06:57.

That is the kind of thing that they can talk to the named person, who

:06:58.:07:03.

can help them access services. A child also can talk to a named

:07:04.:07:06.

person, for example, at Children First, our service sometimes has

:07:07.:07:12.

parents calling us who are a bit concerned, looking for support, but

:07:13.:07:16.

perhaps do not feel it is serious enough to go to, for example, a

:07:17.:07:22.

social worker, or police, but basically need an opportunity to

:07:23.:07:28.

talk it food, to feel confident and get the help needed. -- talk it

:07:29.:07:32.

through. It is about keeping the child at the centre, about their

:07:33.:07:37.

well-being, and working whenever poor -- whenever possible in

:07:38.:07:42.

partnership with the parent. If the named person is a teacher, how

:07:43.:07:46.

different is it on the waiters at the moment? You would expect that,

:07:47.:07:49.

if the child is having problems, he would speak to their favourite

:07:50.:07:55.

teacher? they certainly can, the differences this being on the face

:07:56.:07:59.

of the bill, is a level of authority that that named person has to make

:08:00.:08:02.

things happen, to ensure that whatever is needed moves forward.

:08:03.:08:08.

And it is also a form of early intervention that actually reduces

:08:09.:08:15.

some things getting more serious, because there has been a lot of talk

:08:16.:08:20.

about it being important to target vulnerable children. Of course, it

:08:21.:08:23.

is important vulnerable children, their well-being is supported, but

:08:24.:08:27.

important those people are available to provide that targeted service and

:08:28.:08:34.

any child can become vulnerable at some stage. Any parents can need

:08:35.:08:37.

support. The other side of this, will this named person, so-called,

:08:38.:08:45.

have any powers that, for example, a teacher now does not have? They will

:08:46.:08:52.

have a level of authority to ensure other agencies respond, that

:08:53.:08:57.

information appropriate and necessary information is shared and

:08:58.:09:01.

that the well-being of the child is kept central and the parents, in

:09:02.:09:05.

fact, will have a right to expect that of that named person. David

:09:06.:09:11.

Robertson, what is wrong with that? Not a lot wrong with it. A lot of,

:09:12.:09:18.

first of all, the whole bill I would support, and the idea of a named

:09:19.:09:21.

person for some children, I think, is a good idea. I problem is some of

:09:22.:09:26.

the language used in the bill and also, but particularly, in the idea

:09:27.:09:33.

of a named person for every child. If it is going to be more than

:09:34.:09:36.

nominal, I do not how the state could afford it. I suspect it will

:09:37.:09:42.

not be properly resourced. The other thing I would want to know, as a

:09:43.:09:47.

parent of a 16-year-old, why does my 16-year-old need a state Guardian,

:09:48.:09:57.

need a named person? Anne Houston, what is the idea? A lot of parents

:09:58.:10:02.

will feel like that. No matter how you rationalise this, sorry, I am a

:10:03.:10:06.

parent, personally good, why should the state be appointing, if not a

:10:07.:10:12.

state Guardian, then this named person? I do not need that, and

:10:13.:10:18.

neither do my children. And that is fine, and many parents and children,

:10:19.:10:23.

thankfully, will not need a named person. But will get it anyway X

:10:24.:10:28.

macro am ready there they know they can turn to -- but they will get it

:10:29.:10:35.

anyway! They will be there if they needed. It is that they may be

:10:36.:10:42.

proactively looking into their life, which is what is assumed, adjust

:10:43.:10:47.

their death needed. A lot of parents will see, that they understand

:10:48.:10:56.

workers have responsibility for the children, but the idea a state is

:10:57.:11:00.

appointing a particular individual who, at any time, I sell for my

:11:01.:11:06.

child can go to, just feels like they are trying to take over family

:11:07.:11:13.

life. It seems such a pity, because it is additional support, an

:11:14.:11:17.

additional resource that is there, if and when it is needed, rather

:11:18.:11:22.

than being foisted on anyone, it is extra support. We are all keen to

:11:23.:11:27.

make sure the children are looked after, get the services needed, are

:11:28.:11:33.

supported if things are difficult. This is just about ensuring that

:11:34.:11:42.

takes place. Theresa Fyfe, what are your problems? Nothing with the bill

:11:43.:11:48.

at the moment. We welcome the Scottish governor implementing the

:11:49.:11:53.

named person for zero to five, which health visitors, what is sorry is

:11:54.:11:59.

the language seems to think this is something done to children and

:12:00.:12:02.

families, rather than enabling and empowering relationships, which

:12:03.:12:06.

health visitors have with families already. The point she was making,

:12:07.:12:12.

that I want to reiterate, is it is we have the model developed in the

:12:13.:12:16.

Highlands, implemented already, developed when listening to parents,

:12:17.:12:24.

which is someone that can be that single point of contact, can have

:12:25.:12:30.

that oversight of services, and enable us to actually navigate weird

:12:31.:12:34.

we need to be. That is what was asked for and with a model came for.

:12:35.:12:40.

For me, health visitors are about working with families and parents to

:12:41.:12:43.

ensure that the health and well-being of the child is at the

:12:44.:12:47.

heart of everything that is done, and we do the best for children.

:12:48.:12:53.

What about David Robertson's point that this might be appropriate for

:12:54.:13:01.

some but not all children? Targeting takes us away from this being a

:13:02.:13:04.

universal service. The lessons we have learned from the cases that

:13:05.:13:08.

were referred to earlier is that when we have not had that clarity of

:13:09.:13:14.

who is that named person, that single point of contact, they has

:13:15.:13:17.

not been good communication between all those service providers, there

:13:18.:13:22.

has not been clear messaging and they has not been a person who has

:13:23.:13:31.

had a child right in the centre. But working with parents and families,

:13:32.:13:35.

not working against them. It is about making sure no child or family

:13:36.:13:44.

falls through the net. David Robertson, what do you make of that?

:13:45.:13:49.

I question whether you are ever going to be able to make sure

:13:50.:13:52.

everyone does not fall through the net. The Highland experiment has

:13:53.:13:58.

largely been a good one and I think that the notion of better

:13:59.:14:01.

communication between health care professionals is fine but I still

:14:02.:14:06.

come back to what was said earlier, saying it was fine your daughter

:14:07.:14:09.

does not need one but she is going to get one whether I like it or not.

:14:10.:14:15.

My fear is this starts off very well intentioned but further down the

:14:16.:14:18.

road, the state takes more authority and uses the named person for that

:14:19.:14:25.

purpose. Like what? Explain what you mean. There was a similar experiment

:14:26.:14:32.

in the Isle of Man which basically collapsed. Why did it collapse?

:14:33.:14:41.

Because social services could not cope and it became a human rights

:14:42.:14:47.

issue as well. What the Evangelical Alliance was saying is true. What

:14:48.:14:51.

happens when the parents wishes clash with that of the state. What

:14:52.:14:55.

is happening here is the state's authority is being given precedence

:14:56.:15:05.

over the parents' . If their child goes to the named person, and this

:15:06.:15:09.

is not a matter of abuse or anything like that, they have had a falling

:15:10.:15:15.

out, and the parents take one view, who wins? Is that what you are

:15:16.:15:21.

suggesting? No, that is probably a trivialisation of it. Let's say, for

:15:22.:15:26.

example, the named person decides it would be in the best interest of the

:15:27.:15:30.

child to take extra nursery care and the parent does not want that. Who

:15:31.:15:36.

has the authority? My concern is with the whole language. This bill

:15:37.:15:40.

treats children in isolation rather than as part of a family unit. I

:15:41.:15:44.

know there are many children who need this kind of support and for me

:15:45.:15:50.

it is ludicrous to say, you have a universal benefit or a universal

:15:51.:15:54.

service for all. You don't need that. Not everyone needs to see a

:15:55.:15:59.

cancer specialist, not everyone needs to seek particular types of

:16:00.:16:03.

health care professionals. I think this is a mistake with the resources

:16:04.:16:08.

could be better used placed on many children. There are children who

:16:09.:16:15.

can't be in care because there is not enough provision. I don't

:16:16.:16:18.

believe the government has the amount of money to make this work.

:16:19.:16:23.

Are people going to be trained up? Are enough people going to be

:16:24.:16:30.

trained up for this to be practical? The point about resources is

:16:31.:16:33.

important because if we don't have the resources, it will be something

:16:34.:16:39.

that is not going to work. Going by government's estimated out with two

:16:40.:16:44.

implement this, we know we will need approximately 450 health visitors on

:16:45.:16:47.

top of the current workload at the moment. We have no commitment at the

:16:48.:16:53.

moment that the government is going to find that number of health

:16:54.:16:56.

visitors and we are hoping they will do so because not to fund the

:16:57.:17:01.

training of health visitors will put at risk the very heart of what this

:17:02.:17:05.

bill is about to include the health and well-being of children. You are

:17:06.:17:09.

saying they don't have the resources to implement this right now? No, the

:17:10.:17:15.

moment they don't, we are saying when the bill is to be taken into

:17:16.:17:21.

implementation, we are asking the government to commit to fund a

:17:22.:17:24.

number of health visitors that will be required to provide this service.

:17:25.:17:31.

Can I just coming? This is the first stage of the bill going through. We

:17:32.:17:37.

then go into a period of looking at guidance and the practicalities to

:17:38.:17:40.

make it work. But some of the evidence coming out of Highland is a

:17:41.:17:45.

production with a bit of time of putting this in place, there is a

:17:46.:17:49.

reduction on the need for the kind of crisis resources so that it

:17:50.:17:55.

spreads the resources more widely. But the guidance is the next stage

:17:56.:18:00.

when the detail will be worked out to make it possible to implement.

:18:01.:18:06.

What is your response to the point that David Robertson was making that

:18:07.:18:10.

further down the line, it is quite easy to imagine quite serious

:18:11.:18:16.

disputes arising which are not legal disputes between the view of a named

:18:17.:18:24.

person and a parent? I think it is important to remember that these

:18:25.:18:28.

named people are people that parents and children already know. They are

:18:29.:18:35.

not going to become some people doing something very different, but

:18:36.:18:38.

they will have an increased authority if they need to move

:18:39.:18:46.

things forward to support a working partnership with them. They are not

:18:47.:18:48.

someone who is not already working with the children. But they are not

:18:49.:18:56.

necessarily known to the parents and if there was a difference of opinion

:18:57.:19:01.

between the named person, the point David Robertson is trying to make,

:19:02.:19:05.

if there is a difference of opinion between the named person and the

:19:06.:19:09.

parent. And the parents would not necessarily know the named person

:19:10.:19:15.

very well. But there is no intention in removing any of the rights of

:19:16.:19:21.

parents. As I think I said earlier, it is giving parents more rights to

:19:22.:19:25.

expect... David Robertson, very briefly. That phrase, there is no

:19:26.:19:32.

intention of, when making laws is a disastrous phrase to be using

:19:33.:19:35.

because they may well be no intention but that question has not

:19:36.:19:39.

been answered. The whole discussion has been based on the idea that if

:19:40.:19:42.

you know the teacher, the nursery worker and the health David,

:19:43.:19:48.

everything is fine. But what if you know a teacher that you don't get on

:19:49.:19:52.

with, you don't agree, there is a fundamental difference in the ethos

:19:53.:19:56.

of the way that child will grow up. Now a quick look at tomorrow's front

:19:57.:20:07.

pages. The Scottish Daily Mail. David Bao we want Scotland to say in

:20:08.:20:12.

the UK. That's all from me. More news is

:20:13.:20:17.

always on BBC Scotland's website and Good Morning Scotland is on Radio

:20:18.:20:19.

Scotland tomorrow morning at 6.00am. Good night.

:20:20.:20:29.

A very good evening. Some wind and rain but that is going to happen

:20:30.:20:36.

overnight so tomorrow, especially in the afternoon, the weather should

:20:37.:20:40.

not be all that bad when the wind and rain clears into the North Sea.

:20:41.:20:45.

Is three o'clock. Take your umbrella because there will be plenty showers

:20:46.:20:49.

across Northern Ireland and western Scotland. This is one area through

:20:50.:20:54.

the lowlands where we could see shower after shower and it will not

:20:55.:20:58.

be such a great day. Into England and fewer showers around. But if you

:20:59.:21:03.

catch one of these, it will be quite heavy. The further east you are, the

:21:04.:21:08.

more likely you are to hang onto the dry weather. In London, we should

:21:09.:21:13.

have bright conditions for most of the day. For the south-west, pretty

:21:14.:21:22.

breezy around the coast. Gusts of 40 mph or 50 mph. But the windy

:21:23.:21:26.

conditions are going to stay with us

:21:27.:21:27.

Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS