They often say that
the road to hell is paved with good intentions in this country. Many
schemes and grand plans with the best interests of people in heart
that end up being corrupted into something either ineffectual or in
some ways downright harmful. I could point out numerous examples,
many economic policies that have been pursued, joining the European
Economic Community (which has morphed into the behemoth European
Union), getting involved in dodgy wars etc etc. However one area
always stands out to me, mainly because we keep seeing the
consequences of failure. That's the area of child protection. My
motivation for this article is the controversial “named person”
system that the Scottish government wishes to implement under Section
19 of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014.
Now, not being a
David Icke style conspiracy theorist, I don't want to sit here and
assume everyone in the SNP is a nasty totalitarian who wants to place
every child in Scotland under control of the state and I would like
to believe that the motivation for this part of the legislation is to
do with stopping the horrific abuse of children that we've sadly
become far too accustomed to seeing on the news. However I cannot
help but feel that this sort of legislation is ripe for the emergence
of all manner of unforeseen consequences.
For those who don't
know what the legislation in question entails, the idea is that
children in Scotland will have a “named person” assigned to them
until the age of 18. The purpose of this according to the act is:
“The functions
referred to in subsection (1) are—
(a)subject to
subsection (6), 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 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
(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
per”
All sounds very
hunky dory doesn't it?
The problem for me
is that in addition to adding yet ANOTHER layer of state bureaucracy
to the already over iced cake we have, but also the massive
implications for privacy. Keep in mind, this isn't just aimed at
vulnerable children whose situation justifies some kind of
intervention. This is every child in Scotland. From poor to rich,
small to big, 0 years to 18 years. Now why do all children need it? I
realise Scotland's population is quite small, (tiny compared to that
of England) but surely it's going to be a nightmare have one person
assigned to X number of children of various ages etc?
But perhaps more
worryingly is the fact that potentially, all parents in Scotland
could now been seen as being under suspicion. How far is it really
from this system being something benign to something twisted into the
system where children become spies and informers? We've already seen
in England, one case where it appeared that the authorities used the
political views of the parents of children as grounds to remove them
into care. The case in question revolved around a foster couple who
were raising a pair of non-white migrant children and who also
happened to be member of UKIP. Rotherham borough council (yes, the
same area where all those children were abused by a gang of Asian
males and no one did anything about it) took the decision to remove
the children and place them into care.
If it's happened in
England, what's to stop it happening north of the border? What's stop
the “named person” from informing the authorities that the
parents of a child are members of a particular political party or any
other group that isn't seen in a favourable light by the government
of the day and thus lead to the same situation? It's one thing to
take children away from people involved in crime or who members of
terrorist organisations for example, but just for being members of a
particular political party? Surely that would be right out of the
Stasi playbook (not that East Germany allowed any form of political
pluralism anyway).
Another fear I have
is that this will be used to get at “soft targets”. By this I
mean parents who do something the social worker (or whoever the
“named person” is) disagrees with but is not something generally
accepted as being harmful but is then still used as a justification
to penalise the child’s parents. Meanwhile, children in abusive
environment are ignored because the authorities are too frightened to
deal with the people in question. We only need to mention a few names
of the victims. Baby Peter, Victoria Climbie (both in the same area),
Daniel Pelka, Maria Colwell and others. It's a depressing litany of
human sorrow and every time it happens we're promised action,
promised more “safeguards”.
Yet it still
happens! Because the authorities would rather penalise parents for
political beliefs rather than deal with those who present a clear and
present danger to the children in their care!
So we have to ask,
will having “named persons” in Scotland do anything to prevent
this? Somehow, I fear not. In the case of Baby Peter he was seen at
the hospital with a BROKEN BACK AND RIBS! YET NO ONE DID ANYTHING
UNTIL HE WAS FOUND DEAD! Why should we have any faith in this new
system when the system has let us down so many, many, many times
before even when they put changes in place and reassure us that
things will be better?
Who knows folks,
maybe this new system will work out fine and we'll have a terrible
child abuse death again (or at least not in Scotland). However,
events have taught me that history likes to repeat itself over and
over again, each time with tragic consequences. I fear we aren't too
far from more stories like the above, with abusers getting away with
it until it's too late and with the law abiding punished for the most
minor infractions or slights against the politically correct agenda
in this country.
No comments:
Post a Comment