Reality TV at its most grotesque, or a bold solution to the problem of protecting the growing number of children at risk of abuse or neglect from living with drug- or drink-addicted parents? In an article for The Herald today, Professor Neil McKeganey, an expert on drug misuse based at Glasgow University, considers if the time has come to examine whether CCTV cameras should be installed in the homes of chaotic drug-abusing and alcoholic parents to establish the reality of life for children in such environments. In addition, he wonders if knowledge that footage existed would act as a deterrent to potentially abusive parents. If shown to be the case, this could further the cause of child protection.

It is a cause that needs every bit of help and support going. According to recent figures, perhaps 160,000 children in Scotland live with an alcoholic or drug-addicted parent. They are the children most at risk from harm. In an ideal world, a robust, well-funded child protection regime would look out for them and intervene before it was too late. The reality is different. Children in such households occasionally die as a result of violence or negligence. More suffer abuse and neglect. They are more likely to descend into criminality.

Social work budgets are inadequate to provide effective child protection across the board. Children who are known to be in the worst circumstances and are most at risk are the priority. What about the others? The consequences can be grave if they slip through the net. How do we even find out about them? Professor McKeganey questions whether interviewing children potentially at risk provides the answers, given the parental pressure they might be under to stay silent.

It is true that a record of what went on in the family home, garnered from surveillance CCTV, would provide an accurate picture of life lived by children on the edge. But would it be a price worth paying, taking account of the practical and ethical considerations? The answer must be no. Installing cameras in every home would be expensive. The cash required could be better spent on other less Draconian and more palatable child protection measures. Also, there would be significant staffing implications in examining reams of recorded footage. When there is a shortage of social workers, that would not be the best use of their time. If the footage formed part of a case review, it would be a record of past events. This could provide evidence of abuse or, worse, murder but that would be of no benefit to the victims.

There is also the matter of privacy. If consent from parent and child were required to install CCTV in the home, how many willingly would give it? The alternative, putting in surveillance by diktat, would smack of the police state and would clearly be unacceptable. These objections aside, Professor McKeganey should not be pilloried for airing a controversial proposal. Sometimes an extreme position has to be publicly considered to draw attention to a problem that merits a higher profile. There are few more pressing problems for Scotland to address than the care of its youngest and most vulnerable citizens. If nothing else, Professor McKeganey's contribution will help make this a debate none of us can afford to ignore.