A Face Saving Rewrite of Named Person

Parts 4 and parts 5 of the children and young person Act (Scotland)2014, that are currently revoked from law and commonly known as named person and child plans, are making their way back to the Scottish Parliament for approval. This will cost another million pounds to retrain all relevant staff on named person and child plans.

After finding out today via the no2np campaign I popped to have look at new proposed legislation.

First thing I noted is the data sharing threshold is still at well being. I was actually surprised at this but as I read on I realised that this is nothing more than face saving exercise regardless how the Scottish government tries to spin it.

During Digital Economy Bill debate and taking into consideration when this Bill was presented to both Houses at Westminster, parts 4 and 5 of the children and young person act (Scotland)2014 had already been revoked from law. The whole threshold of data sharing once again had been present in the Digital Economy Bill with new lower level of well being present to the House of Lords from the House of commons. During the debate it had been noted that well being in itself was not a reason to share data with final data sharing provision within the Bill kept to the current level at Welfare, that can be found section 50 of the Bill.

It is important to mark this distinction between well being and welfare as they aren't the same thing in the meaning of law. Welfare is the point of significant harm to person regardless of age and is when all humans regardless of who they are or where they work should act to protect another human being.

Well being on there other hand is not welfare, as one man's trash is another man's treasure and what makes us happy and complete in full body, mind and soul is unique to the individual and as the UK Supreme Court ruling on named person and child plans proved that Scottish government's pitiful attempt to quantify happiness into law was huge part of the reason that the UK Supreme Court found it to be incompatible with Article 8 of ECHR on the grounds of privacy.

The new well being level of data sharing has to now comply with the Data Protection Act, Human Rights Act and any other law it might short foul of, like no shit Sherlock it has to be lawful. An example of laws it must comply with is the digital economy Bill which means any data shared at the well being level would have to be completely consensual, means this rewrite of named person and child plans is nothing more than face saving exercise for the petty SNP Scottish government so they can continue the lie that it is legitimate and benign.

Once again John Swinney only the concept was legitimate and benign, the laws you keep writing are authoritarian in nature, the last one was unlawful and even though this face saving exercise has cripple the data sharing capacity of the named person, it shows that the Scottish government just have to say they were right, and that is just control freak to the max, you don't get more authoritarian than never admitting you were wrong and apologise for breaching our Human rights.

For me personally the apology is important as my family was one of families whose rights were walk all over and my data protection breached when GIRFEC (Getting it right for every child (LOL)) was rolled out this time last year by the Local Authority on the original guidance of named person data sharing which is central core of GIRFEC, where compulsory measure to use services provide (placed directly in the School no avoiding) that saw parental consent ignored.

The worst thing is they knew the public don't and never have liked GIRFEC but they consciously decided to hid it and embed it first into the system before letting us pleds know our rights where removed and they made this choice back in 2012.

Blatant Disregard of Our Human Rights

Which raises the issue of the change in how parental consent is now saught. Before GIRFEC it was opt-in and it has changed to opt-out with the roll out of the GIRFEC. The Data Protection Act is something this must comply with, so informed consent is everything and it is the duty of the data controller to prove consent, this would have to be full informed consent before any data is shared. Think this means consent sought for our children has to be changed back to opt-in, to insure informed consent was sought and they can prove it was. It would also have to be the duty of data controller to let parents know that they can withdraw consent at any time on any level below welfare and all data gathered after withdrawal has to be destoryed at this point.

The Scottish Government can continue with their pretence that this was just a minor tweak but anyone that has followed named person from the beginning knows this is actually the most ungracious come down of the Scottish Government and to add insult to injury The SNP claims to be Stronger for Scotland

So until John Swinney apologises on behalf of the Scottish Government for Breaching our human right I will continue with sharing the petition no2np.org.

Every signature matters as only residents of Scotland age 16+ can sign the petition, Scotland this is our fight for Human Rights are you ready to join your name to the fight?