Ad Lib Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 The data sharing isn't the issue here. It was the lack of clarity over the policy and how it would effect people. The Scottish Government won't actually amend anything, they will just provide greater clarity to the courts in regards to the policy. No this is very definitely wrong.The Supreme Court judgment specifically said that new legislation was needed in order to narrow and clarify with a greater degree of specificity in law, rather than just guidance notes, what the rules are about what information can/cannot/must be disclosed, to whom, and in what circumstances. Unless they do that an order will be made suspending the legislation completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 Amended legislation to the named person policy. They aren't "changing the law" in order to accommodate it. Amending legislation is literally changing the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cream Cheese Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 Just now, Ad Lib said: Amending legislation is literally changing the law. No, implementing it is. You amend legislation in order to be able to implement it within the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 No, implementing it is. You amend legislation in order to be able to implement it within the law. Nonsense. The statute was granted Royal Assent. The Act changed the law, not least in the parts that did not relate to Named Persons. Introducing amending legislation unquestionably involves changing the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 It will be a bit of both. Yes it is an exercise in redrafting the guidance but that guidance would be put into the legislation as opposed to sitting alongside. However I don't agree that these changes will narrow the scope of the scheme in relation to sharing of data in a way that significantly impacts the normal operation of the scheme as envisaged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 It will be a bit of both. Yes it is an exercise in redrafting the guidance but that guidance would be put into the legislation as opposed to sitting alongside. However I don't agree that these changes will narrow the scope of the scheme in relation to sharing of data in a way that significantly impacts the normal operation of the scheme as envisaged. The danger is that if they make the powers any more explicit than they are now but which are not narrowed, the Supreme Court would then hold those systemic excesses to be disproportionate so still illegal. This isn't a merely hypothetical point otherwise they *would* have said that clearer guidance notes would have been sufficient and they wouldn't have flagged up the fact that the wellbeing threshold makes precision much more complex to achieve. There will also have to be specific provisions around the rules for disclosure of disclosures so that children and/or parents can effectively hold Named Persons to account for non-consensual disclosures.These aren't trivial aspects of the scheme. As you yourself have said on here this is the critical difference between the Highland and Islands and Fife pilots and what the Scottish Government proposes should be rolled-out nationally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 Looks like it was David Coburn who stopped the bill. He's done well there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 1 hour ago, Ad Lib said: The danger is that if they make the powers any more explicit than they are now but which are not narrowed, the Supreme Court would then hold those systemic excesses to be disproportionate so still illegal. This isn't a merely hypothetical point otherwise they *would* have said that clearer guidance notes would have been sufficient and they wouldn't have flagged up the fact that the wellbeing threshold makes precision much more complex to achieve. There will also have to be specific provisions around the rules for disclosure of disclosures so that children and/or parents can effectively hold Named Persons to account for non-consensual disclosures. These aren't trivial aspects of the scheme. As you yourself have said on here this is the critical difference between the Highland and Islands and Fife pilots and what the Scottish Government proposes should be rolled-out nationally. They certainly aren't trivial but I'm not concerned that in the cases where the single child's planning process is absolutely required that any new guidance would limit the ability of agencies to share information where that is required. What it might require is for multi agency interventions the threshold for non - informed or non- consensual data sharing may have to be above well-being and use the current thresholds we have in relation to child concerns. However there would be nothing to prevent consensual and informed data sharing at lower levels. TBH I can't think of many instances where it would be desirable to share data between agencies without the knowledge of families that sat below a specific medium to high level welfare or protection concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beermonkey Posted September 2, 2016 Share Posted September 2, 2016 On 28/07/2016 at 20:16, mjw said: Looks like it was David Coburn who stopped the bill. He's done well there. Draconian piece of legislation?.......Nah......Evil piece of legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hehawhehaw Posted September 2, 2016 Share Posted September 2, 2016 22 minutes ago, beermonkey said: Draconian piece of legislation?.......Nah......Evil piece of legislation. Well done beermonkey. You nailed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 Delayed by a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.