Children and Young People (Named Persons)
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-07783, in the name of Liz Smith, on named persons. The debate is oversubscribed and we are extremely tight for time. Liz Smith, you have a maximum of 10 minutes.
15:55
I do not think that anyone who followed the Daniel Pelka case this summer could be anything other than repulsed by the depths of the depravity that confronted that little boy as he struggled against the daily litany of abuse, starvation and isolation. His case was perhaps one of the most brutal examples of how society can fail our most vulnerable children. Some will argue that the case was at the most extreme end of the scale, but it is by no means the only one in which our youngest and most vulnerable children have been exposed to appalling neglect. Quite properly, there should be a national debate about how to protect our most vulnerable children.
For some time, the Scottish Conservatives have thought long and hard about what our reaction should be to that challenge. More recently, we have been reflecting on those issues in the context of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill.
As we made clear in an earlier debate, we agree with some of the stated intentions of the bill and some of its proposals. In particular, we agree that we should do more to increase a collaborative approach towards the care of children to ensure that children’s services are delivered more effectively and with much better qualitative outcomes. We whole-heartedly agree with plans to extend childcare, making it easier for parents to get back into work and easing the financial pressures on hard-pressed families. We also whole-heartedly agree with providing greater backing for young carers and kinship carers, many of whom do tremendous work with very little support.
Very specifically, however, we have examined the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill against the criteria that define good law. Is this piece of legislation necessary, is it clear, coherent and effective, and is it accessible and therefore clearly understood? We contend that, in its current form, the bill fails on several counts. As well as that, though, the minister knows that we have fundamental concerns about the unmistakably statist philosophy that underpins the named person policy—a view that we believe is shared by some important stakeholders, including the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, which says in its latest newsletter:
“Our worry is that giving every child a named person is at best a waste of time and money and at worst could lead to unwelcome interference in family life.”
That view is shared by CARE and several key figures in the legal community. It is on that basis that we have chosen to debate the named person policy this afternoon, after which we hope that the Scottish Government will undertake an urgent review of its proposal.
I shall deal first with our substantive objections to a named person for every child aged zero to 18. The rights of children do not stand in isolation. They should be seen in the context of the rights of parents and families and the responsibilities of those families, which must articulate with the needs of all the individuals within those families.
In our view, those are basic principles; indeed they are the principles that are meant to underpin so much of the thinking that is behind policies for children and young people, and they are the principles that underpin European legislation in this sphere. In the interpretation of the bill, though, there is a danger that the balance could swing heavily behind the state rather than behind the parent.
The Faculty of Advocates says that section 19(5)
“dilutes the legal role of parents, whether or not there is any difficulty in the way that parents are fulfilling their statutory responsibilities.”
We share that concern.
Also in a legal context, Professor Norrie has made clear that the bill in its current state allows ministers to have more powers which, he says, are open-ended and, in his view, not well defined. While he acknowledged that some of those concerns might be a matter of semantics for the bill team, other aspects were not and they opened up the prospect of more state intervention. Again, that is something that the Conservative Party is not comfortable with.
For example, the bill defines a child as a young person up to the age of 18, which is not only contrary to other pieces of Scottish and United Kingdom legislation but involves complications. If young people can marry at 16 or fight for their country from 16, that surely raises questions about the appropriateness of a named person in that context. Indeed, we heard yesterday at the Education and Culture Committee from Bill Alexander of Highland Council, who, incidentally, is a strong supporter of the principle of the named person, that it is totally impractical in some of the older age groups and is not wanted.
In our view, implicit in the proposal for a named person for every child is the insistence that it is the state rather than parents and families that has the primary obligation to look after the child. That is entirely the wrong way round. If there are thousands of parents across Scotland doing a thoroughly good job—and there are—what right does the Scottish Government have to put in place an intervention measure that tells them that the state knows better than parents and families?
Liz Smith is hugely misrepresenting the intention behind the bill, and I will certainly be making some remarks about our intentions in my opening speech. However, I want to point out that, through our early years and parents strategies, we have always engaged with and listened to parents. This is not about telling people what they should do or about the other things that Liz Smith is describing; it is about creating a structure to help parents and provide a place where they can access support if needed.
If the minister cares to read much of the evidence on this, she will see that, among the legal community in particular, there are deep-seated concerns, some of which I have read out this afternoon, about interpretation and that the balance is tipping towards the state rather than towards parents and families.
However, there is another concern. All political parties in the chamber rightly worry about how we reach the most vulnerable children and provide additional resources where they are most needed. If, through the named person policy, we are insisting on state intervention for all children, even those in families who do not require any help, we are by definition going to end up spreading resources for our most vulnerable children far too thinly. On 3 September, Mr John Stevenson of Unison told the Education and Culture Committee that the bill
“will bring into the net a whole lot of people who in the past had no connection with agencies at all.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 3 September 2013; c 2698.]
He is right and his view is supported by the wealth of evidence that has been submitted to the Education and Culture Committee and the Finance Committee.
Some tell us that there is nothing to worry about, that the policy is merely a formalisation of what is already happening and that it is just a means of expanding the successful getting it right for every child project in the Highlands. I do not accept that. Indeed, it could be argued that Highland Council’s success—and it is fair to say that its approach has been successful—has come about without legislation and because the authority’s culture of care has allowed the various departments to collaborate so well. If this is just a formalisation of existing practice, why are so many stakeholders, even those who approve of the named person principle, so anxious about its costs and the additional workload?
The member is, like me, a member of the Education and Culture Committee and will know that a consistent theme that has emerged over the past two years in our consideration of legislation and our inquiry into looked-after children is the inconsistency of approach across the country. Will her proposition that we do not use legislation on this matter not leave us with a good situation in the Highlands, a poor situation elsewhere and inconsistency across the country?
I do not accept that. The fact is that the approach taken to GIRFEC in the Highlands has been hugely successful and, as many witnesses who have given evidence have told us—and Mr Maxwell will know this because he was at the same evidence sessions—it is all about changing a culture rather than introducing top-heavy legislation.
My colleague Gavin Brown will explain our concerns about the proposal’s costs, which is an issue that has been discussed in great depth by the Finance Committee and the Education and Culture Committee, but I must point out a number of other problems. We have frequently been asked about how the named person will be chosen, and specifically whether the parents or child or both would have any input into that; what happens when relations break down between the named person and the family; what will be the relationship between the named person and a lead professional; and whether there really will be a single point of contact. There are also concerns about data sharing, particularly what is meant by the stipulation that information should be shared if it “might be relevant” to a child’s wellbeing and if it “ought to be provided”. What do those phrases mean? The law officers have made it very clear that such wording is open-ended, and it is simply not acceptable.
The Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill contains some excellent policy commitments, including those that seek to address pressing issues with regard to childcare, care leavers and kinship carers but, taken in its entirety, it is designed to take an unacceptable degree of responsibility away from many parents and families.
We fundamentally disagree with that, as, indeed, do some powerful voices to which I have referred in my opening remarks. We therefore want the Scottish Government to review its approach to the bill, specifically to ensure that the limited resources are targeted at the most vulnerable and that responsibility is placed in the right hands. In particular, we want the Scottish Government to review the policy on named persons, which is the issue that has already aroused the greatest controversy and concern. Expecting all children to have a named person in the terms stated in the bill is an assault on the responsibility of families and parents for whose children there are no real problems. It is unnecessary and an undesirable intrusion of the state and, just as important, it threatens to take away resources from the most vulnerable.
I move,
That the Parliament notes with concern the Scottish Government’s proposals to introduce a named person for all children and young people up to age 18; agrees with those groups that believe that, for many families, the named person would undermine the role of parents, and agrees with the many stakeholders who have expressed concerns about the extensive costs and bureaucracy of the policy and the likely implications of diverting limited resources away from the most vulnerable children.
16:05
The Scottish Government believes that action must be taken to put in place a proportionate system of protection, nurture and support to give all our children the best chance of flourishing, and that is what we have done with the proposals in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill.
I believe that a universal approach that looks to identify issues and concerns at an early stage, and which steps in appropriately to help children and their families to tackle problems, is essential. That is the getting it right for every child—GIRFEC—approach, which was started by the predecessor Administrations and has been supported over the years by all parties. A named person is central to that approach; a named person is as vital to GIRFEC as general practitioners and nurses are to the health service.
In developing the proposals for the bill, we did not start from scratch. The previous Administration started GIRFEC with the Highland Council pathfinder in 2006. As Bill Alexander said in his evidence to the Education and Culture Committee yesterday, he did not come before the committee with “an untested product”. He also said that practitioners already “passionately” believe that the approach works.
When the pathfinder project began, parents in Highland said that they wanted a person with whom they could identify. They wanted to avoid repeating their stories over and over again, and they wanted help and support when they needed them. That is when the named person concept became an essential element of the getting it right for every child approach, which was developed with parents, and not as the bottom-up approach that Liz Smith described.
Is not it the case that those parents were parents of children who required additional support rather than parents whose families did not have problems?
I will go on to talk about some more parental input to the process as I make progress in my opening remarks.
As the evidence from Highland Council eloquently put it,
“Critically, the Named Person is a point of contact for families, where they can seek advice or support about issues relating to their child’s wellbeing. She will usually be someone that the family already knows, and who they feel able to approach.”
As Liz Smith said in 2009 of the experience of Highland,
“I ... welcome the report on the results of the Highland pathfinder GIRFEC project, especially the progress that has been made on ... making improvements in professional practice with better multi-agency working, and developing a more holistic approach to the needs of the child—something that we all agree is one of the most important issues.”—[Official Report, 3 December 2009; c 21897.]
The named person role was the foundation for that more holistic approach in Highland and was central to providing a more helpful response and better co-ordination of support, which we all recognise is absolutely vital to the wellbeing of our children.
A lot was said about the policy this summer, and about the practice and facts as the named person relates to family life. The Scottish Government knows that the most important influence on a child’s life is its parents. Our early years work and parenting strategy are evidence that we place the absolute highest value on the role of parents as the principal carers for their children, and on listening to and engaging with them. That engagement with parents will continue as we take the bill forward.
As every parent—myself included—and carer knows, there are often challenges or concerns in bringing up children. That is quite normal, and helping children and families to cope with the challenges that life presents is part and parcel of everyday good practice by midwives, health visitors and school staff.
Will the minister say that she needs to do more to convince parents that the idea is good? If she accepts that, how does she plan to do that over the months ahead?
Absolutely. As the bill progresses through Parliament, we will be able to ensure that our narrative deals with some of the issues that parents raise. As I said earlier, we want to engage with parents as much as we can throughout the bill’s progress.
Will the minister give way?
No.
That is why I believe that the named person service should be based in the universal services of health and education. We are not changing what they do; we are changing how their roles are seen.
An authority on the matter said that she remembered that a GP
“eloquently described how a health visitor could both gain the confidence of and enter a household into which that GP might not be invited. The GP was clear about the twin benefits of the health visitor, first, in being seen as a help to the household ... and, secondly, in being able to identify at an early stage any possible cause for concern in the household ... health visiting ... is a vital preventative service in the early years.”—[Official Report, 14 March 2013; c 17841.]
I could not agree more. I am grateful for that succinct summary by Annabel Goldie, who is in the chamber, of the named person role for very young children.
The context in which I made that observation was in relation to health visitors and the option for authorities to be able to look at families about which concerns had been expressed. That is entirely different from universal conferral of named persons on families, whether they want that person or not.
Perhaps there is a bit of inconsistency from the Conservatives. Last session, they seemed to agree with all that we are trying to achieve with GIRFEC, but in this instance they do not seem to be reflecting that previous position.
The concerns that parents or children raise sometimes need the attention of one or more professionals from different organisations or disciplines, and they need help in navigating their way through the various services that are available. As one Edinburgh parent put it:
“For me, the concept of the Named Person works because I will have a named and known professional with whom I can communicate any concerns or share information. Parents are often frustrated and confused by not knowing who to contact, or by frequently-changing professional teams. At times of pressure or concern, clarity will be a real benefit.”
We cannot forget the rare occasions when parents and families do not provide the right support and loving environment for their children. The recent tragic case of Daniel Pelka, which Liz Smith mentioned, highlighted the importance of professionals putting the child’s interest at the heart of what they do, and of their communicating their concerns. Anne Houston of Children 1st said:
“Deaths like Daniel’s remind us why the principle behind the named person ... is a sound one as it aims to prevent children slipping through the net.”
I am not claiming that the existence of a named person would necessarily prevent such tragedies, but as Ruth Wishart said in her excellent article in The Herald:
“It’s unrealistic to suppose we can stop every incident of child abuse, identify every perpetrator, always intervene in time to prevent tragedy. But we can make a big difference.”
Issues have been raised around information sharing, and such cases highlight the importance of sharing information where it is required in order to protect a child’s wellbeing. Any sharing of information under the bill must take place fully within the framework that is set by the Data Protection Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights. A preventative approach means that action should be taken before things get serious, and the named person provides a structure for doing that.
Issues have been raised around the cost of GIRFEC, but of course it is not always just about costs; we know that the GIRFEC approach is making savings. We know from the Highland pilot the kind of savings that have been made: reductions in social work case loads of 50 per cent, reductions in referrals to the children’s reporter of 70 per cent and reductions in the number of children who have been accommodated. We know that the areas that are the furthest advanced in implementing GIRFEC have had similar findings.
Over the years, Parliament has repeatedly endorsed the GIRFEC approach and I hope that at the end of today’s business we will be able to do so again.
I move amendment S4M-07783.2, to leave out from “notes” to end and insert:
“reaffirms its ambition that Scotland should be the best place in the world for children and young people to grow up; considers that the protection of children from harm and the promotion of their wellbeing is of paramount importance; recognises the critical role in achieving that of the Getting It Right for Every Child approach, which has been successfully developed in Scotland ever since its inception during the first administration after devolution; understands that the named person has been developed and implemented as an essential element of that approach, as a means of making appropriate and proportionate support available to children and families in a coordinated and collaborative way, reducing bureaucracy and making the best use of public resources, and welcomes the opportunity provided by the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill to secure the protection, nurture and support that children and their families need to flourish”.
16:13
I welcome the opportunity to open this debate for the Scottish Labour Party. We support the principles of getting it right for every child and welcome the move to incorporate elements of GIRFEC into statute. However, there is a host of views on the issue of the named person, ranging from those of the wide range of children’s organisations that support the approach, to the concerns of parents and others about the rights and responsibilities of parents, the rights of children, the need to protect confidentiality and the capacity of universal services—namely health and education—to take on the role.
I believe that everyone in the chamber would want to see the bill focus absolutely on how we can best support families and children, and in particular how we can improve the life chances of Scotland’s poorest and most disadvantaged children. With that in mind, the Labour amendment highlights that we are still in the committee scrutiny stages of the bill; indeed, we are barely midway through stage 1. Members of the Education and Culture Committee have heard, and will continue to hear, evidence about the philosophy and principles of the bill and the practicalities of the named person approach. I fully expect a number of amendments to be lodged at later stages.
While it is so fresh in our minds, I propose to refer to some of the evidence that has been provided to the Education and Culture Committee up to now. At yesterday’s meeting, we heard from Highland Council, which was the pathfinder authority for GIRFEC in 2006. At that time, there was no mention of a named person, but the value of the role emerged as the model was developed, and was fully implemented by the council in 2010.
Both the written and oral evidence from Highland Council to the committee highlighted the reduced bureaucracy, improvements in outcomes for children and families and empowerment of staff that have arisen from the named person approach, which have allowed the council to reinvest resources in, for example, additional health visitors.
It remains to be seen how transferable that experience would be to other parts of Scotland, especially given the resource concerns that are being expressed widely. This week, colleagues on the Finance Committee scrutinised the bill’s resource implications and the assumptions that are made in the financial memorandum. For example, funding for training of the education staff who will be expected to carry out GIRFEC functions seems to have been budgeted for as a one-off cost in the financial memorandum. I presume that it is expected that the cost will in later years be absorbed into budgets. If the training is not seen as additional and funded appropriately, something will have to give to make way for it in future years—but what? Training is clearly essential to enable the named person to adapt to the new role, but also to enable them to make judgments on cases as they arise.
Thus we see that the named person proposal clearly has implications for the staff who will be expected to take on the role. The Educational Institute of Scotland and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children have both raised concerns about resources, and the Royal College of Nursing has estimated that an additional 450 health visitors will be required to fulfil the requirements of the named person role as outlined in the bill. Unison has stated:
“As they stand, the responsibilities will require additional front-line time and administrative support and it is unlikely that agencies will be able to easily allocate those resources.”
In its written evidence, Unison highlighted the need for clarification of the role of the named person and, crucially, of where and how the role relates to the lead professional. Our amendment calls for that clarity.
It is clear from the number of questions that are being asked that the role of the named person must be further explained and clearly defined. There is a strong commitment from all sides to improving life chances for children and families in Scotland; I see the strong engagement around the issue as a measure of the commitment that is shown by organisations in the public and third sectors in advocating on behalf of the children of Scotland.
Final minute.
I hope that the Scottish Government will listen to the many constructive suggestions that have been made. What we have in the named person for every child is the nugget of a really good idea, but there are serious concerns that need to be addressed before members on the Labour benches can offer the Government support on it.
I move amendment S4M-07783.1, to leave out from “notes” to end and insert:
“supports the principle of Getting It Right For Every Child and widespread implementation of this approach since devolution and believes that every child in Scotland should grow up safe, happy, healthy and supported; recognises the widespread support for the named person role from a range of organisations; however also understands concerns expressed by parents regarding what information is held and shared by the named person; further believes that the named person role must therefore be clearly defined, explained and understood as well as differentiated from the lead professional role; expresses concern that the current funding provision as outlined in the financial memorandum to the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill is inadequate and that significant challenges exist to the effective implementation by public bodies of the proposals in the bill as it is currently resourced, and further notes that these proposals are still being considered by committee and that the role of the Parliament in considering evidence and scrutinising the detail is crucial to the process of producing quality legislation.”
In turning to the open debate, I am afraid that I have to advise members that the debate is oversubscribed, so we may have to lose a member from it. Speeches should be of a maximum of four minutes.
16:17
Unfortunately, I have to begin by expressing my disappointment that we are having this debate at this time, and that the Conservative group has brought to the chamber a motion that opposes a policy that is currently being examined by the Education and Culture Committee as part of its examination of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill. The committee is in the middle of taking evidence at stage 1 and we have not yet heard all the evidence on the bill, or even on the named person and information sharing parts of it. Today’s debate, in my opinion, is premature as it clearly pre-empts the committee’s scrutiny of the bill.
As was said earlier this afternoon, is it not helpful to have a parliamentary debate to flesh out some of the concerns that have already been raised? We have already had 127 representations. I do not see any problem with having a debate about that.
I am sorry, but Liz Smith spent part of her speech criticising specific points in the evidence about particular words and their definitions. It is exactly the role of the committee to examine that at stage 1 and to publish a report. We can then debate that and perhaps move amendments at stage 2. That is the parliamentary process, and I think that it is slightly disrespectful of the Conservative group to bring this debate to the chamber at this time.
Oh, come on! [Interruption.]
Order, please.
However, we are where we are, and on the balance of the evidence that the committee has received thus far, it is clear that there is widespread support for the introduction of the named person. Only yesterday, we heard strong evidence from Mr Bill Alexander from Highland Council—which was the national pathfinder for the implementation of GIRFEC—about the positive impact of GIRFEC, including information sharing and the named person.
I ask the Conservative group to really look at the evidence and the organisations that are supporting the named person—organisations including Barnardo’s, the NSPCC, Children 1st, the RCN, Aberlour Child Care Trust, YouthLink Scotland and many others. Of course there are legitimate questions to be asked, but that is what the committee is doing. That is its role. The NSPCC has stated:
“NSPCC Scotland support the aspiration embodied in the role of the Named Person and considers that, a single, significant individual could deliver a positive, consistent and nurturing relationship throughout the child’s journey.”
What is the named person? Children in Scotland said in its briefing for the debate that
“the Named Person is a key element of GIRFEC ensuring that there is a point of contact for every child and their parents/carers to enable wellbeing concerns to be considered in the round and appropriate early support and early intervention to be delivered if required”.
The named person approach does not mean a social worker in every home. It is not attacking the rights of parents or diminishing the central role of the family. It is about protecting children and putting the child at the centre of everything that we do—and really meaning it.
The Education and Culture Committee has just spent two years considering looked-after children; we published our report only two days ago. If members have read the report, they will understand why we need to make progress in child protection, why we need to implement GIRFEC throughout the country, and why information sharing and the central role of the named person are crucial to GIRFEC’s success.
I accept that there are people who remain to be convinced. Perhaps we need to take the view that prevention is better than cure. In other words, we put in place measures to protect children from harm, although we know and hope that the vast majority of children will never need that protection. If even one child’s life is saved, is not that worth it?
We give vaccines to babies, even though many of them will never be exposed to the diseases that the vaccines prevent. We understand that the measure does no harm but will, if needed, do a great deal of good. Why is the same not true for the named person? Who in their right mind would argue against any effort by the Government or other authority to protect our children?
If we are serious about putting child protection at the heart of everything that we do, it is only right that we put in place the best system that we can put in place. The evidence to date is that GIRFEC is that system and that the named person and information sharing are indispensable elements of it.
I call Ken Macintosh, to be followed by Clare Adamson.
16:21
I find myself in unfamiliar territory. I have always supported the GIRFEC approach to child protection and I continue to back the principles behind getting it right for every child. I normally find myself on the side of the children’s organisations who lobbied members before the debate, and I certainly would not say that I have a knee-jerk opposition to state intervention.
However, I not only recognise but share the concerns that are expressed in the Tory motion. My instinct as a parent is to question the need for all children and their families to be allocated a named person, when it is the few who are at risk. My main worry is that despite the best intentions, the exercise could end up diverting scarce resources from the children who are most in need.
I am sure that few people in Scotland, let alone in Parliament, fail to recognise the need to protect and help our most vulnerable children. The national news is too often taken up by stories of neglect and abuse and the all-too-horrific consequence that is a child dying at the hands of his or her own parents.
However, I find it difficult to see how appointing a named person to look after, for example, each of my six children, the children of Gavin Brown and—dare I say it?—those of the minister will do anything to improve child protection or prevent such deaths. I fail to follow the argument that by giving a health visitor or teacher responsibility for 30 well brought up children—or even not very well brought up children—we will help them to recognise the one child who needs support and intervention.
What is worse, time that is spent filling in forms for children who will never need intervention is time that would be better spent on children who are in desperate need of help. Resources that are diverted to children who are loved, nurtured and thriving are resources that are not spent on the neglected and the vulnerable.
Ken Macintosh grossly misrepresents what the named person is. There are many times and instances in which the child—like his children and my children—will not need the named person, but the named person can be proactively sought to give comfort if someone ever has a concern or a point to make. It is not that everyone has to use the named person.
I have no difficulty accessing my children’s teacher, health visitor or anyone else, and I do not see why they have to be a named person. The approach does not seem to offer any additional benefit.
As far as I am aware, teachers already have a professional duty—an ethical and a legal obligation—to pick up on kids who are turning up late for school or who are badly fed, poorly dressed or showing other signs of lack of care. The same duty applies even more clearly to health visitors. How does seeking assurance from teachers that the vast majority of children in their care do not need help in any way assist those teachers in identifying the children who are in danger of slipping through the net?
Is not there an obvious risk that we will create an administratively cumbersome and bureaucratically complex system, which has no additional practical benefit? Will there be a file for every child? Who will keep the file? What happens when staff move on, as they often do?
At the very least we need to clarify what this additional duty as a named person will mean. I would put my concerns to one side if I thought that the named person approach would save one life or pick up on one example of child cruelty or neglect that would otherwise go undetected or unrecognised. If we look at all the recent cases of child abuse, as far as I can recall, every subsequent inquiry concluded that where the state had failed to intervene early enough it was not because no-one knew about the risk, but because of failure to share information.
One of the main recommendations as a result has been to identify a lead professional in every case. If every child is to have a named person, is there not a distinct possibility that we will create masses of information that tells us nothing more than that most children are fine, while we potentially confuse lines of responsibility between the named person and the lead professional?
The children’s charities have argued that the measures are in line with GIRFEC, but as I recall GIRFEC was originally based on a report called “It’s everyone’s job to make sure I’m alright”, not “It’s one named person’s job to make sure I’m alright”.
I repeat to members that I have no extra time available in this debate; there are no seconds at all.
I call Gavin Brown, to be followed by George Adam.
16:26
I will focus the bulk of my remarks on the financial memorandum that sits alongside the bill and, in particular, on the named person. The minister, towards the end of her contribution, suggested that there would be quite significant savings, quite quickly. That is the evidence put forward in the financial memorandum. That is all well and good, except that almost everybody who has contributed to the process, whether to the Education and Culture Committee or to the Finance Committee, disagrees with the proposition in the financial memorandum.
We read in that memorandum that giving 700,000 or so children aged between five and 18 a named person, via the local authority, will cost approximately £7.8 million in year 1 because it creates 247,613 additional hours over the course of that year. That is more than 200,000 hours at a cost of approximately £8 million. According to the Scottish Government, however, the cost of these extra 200,000 hours in year 2 will be zero pounds and zero pence.
The minister may shake her head at that figure, but I am quoting directly from her financial memorandum. If she does not like it, or if she disagrees with it, she is quite welcome to stand up and intervene to say so. The Government’s financial memorandum and position is that there will be no cost at all to local authorities in year 2 of its proposition because at the end of year 1 the system change will, quite simply, bed in.
The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, on which the Government relied to quite a heavy degree to do the preparatory work for this bill, does not agree with the proposition. COSLA is extremely clear in the proposition that it submitted to the Finance Committee that the £7.8 million of costs identified for staff time should be funded on a recurring basis.
The Scottish Government’s propositions are speculative. COSLA makes the point that it is not the experience of some local authorities that implementing GIRFEC reduces the number of meetings or administration. COSLA, which represents the 32 local authorities, says quite clearly that this cost recurs, yet the Scottish Government’s position is that there will not be a single penny spent in year 2 on the named person because the system change will be bedded in.
I will be brief. Perhaps the member missed the evidence from Bill Alexander of Highland Council about the national pathfinder project through which GIRFEC has been embedded in the system. He was very clear about the cost, time and bureaucracy savings, the cuts in meetings and numbers of hours. He explained very clearly that there are savings right across the board.
I am grateful for the intervention. I will say two things. First, in a written submission, Highland Council states that there is a separate case to be made about how many health visitors and teachers are required to fulfil the full range of responsibilities for these tasks. Secondly, Highland Council put forward that the system was a success. It did not say that at the end of year 1 there was zero cost. There were two years of preparatory work and 18 months of implementation after that. Even Highland Council, on which the Government’s entire case appears to rely, has not said at any point that the introduction of the named person will have zero cost by year 2. It is for the minister to explain, in her closing speech, how on earth the Government reaches that conclusion and why no one agrees with it on that.
I apologise to the chamber. I indicated that I would call Clare Adamson, so I will now do so: Clare Adamson, to be followed by Gavin Brown—sorry, George Adam.
16:30
Presiding Officer,
“I am not a number, I am a free man.”
That quotation will be instantly recognisable to fans of the 1960s science fiction series “The Prisoner”—and perhaps to the odd Iron Maiden fan in the chamber.
Of course, the use that is made of numbers to identify individuals in that series serves to heighten the surreal dehumanising nature of the seemingly idyllic village in which the protagonist finds himself. There are many such examples in literature. In Victor Hugo’s “Les Misérables”, Inspector Javert refers to the hero, Jean Valjean, by a prison number only, and in Alex Haley’s semi-autobiographical “Roots”, the name Kunta Kinte is replaced by a slave name. In Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale”, women’s names are eliminated and diminished to “Offred” or “Ofglen”—of the man who controls them.
In mentioning Daniel Pelka, Liz Smith reminded us that the human race can be extremely cruel. To our shame, it has understood the dehumanising effect of the taking of a name, as happened when slaves were branded and victims in Belsen, Auschwitz and other concentration camps were tattooed.
Our artists, in seeking to challenge our understanding of humanity, as well as those with the most evil intent in our history, have understood the power of a name and how deep in our psyche as human and social beings a name—or its removal or denial—can be. If we can recognise the power of the denial of a name, we must also recognise how powerful the giving of a name can be.
I believe that the proposals for a named person that are included in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill have the power to transform how society, professionals, families, children and young people interact as we move towards the full implementation of GIRFEC.
When the Education and Culture Committee took evidence yesterday, Kate Higgins of Children 1st talked about the reluctance of some kinship carers to engage with the system. That is a position of alienation and disengagement. However, Bill Alexander from Highland Council, which has implemented GIRFEC extremely successfully, used the phrase,
“That was the power of the named person.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 24 September 2013; c 2862.]
I believe that the named person is a powerful development as we move towards the implementation of GIRFEC, which Labour introduced and Scottish National Party Governments have carried forward.
Bill Alexander explained that, by and large, the policy represents the formalisation of what professionals have been doing for the majority of families. The change will be seamless, as most families’ engagement and interaction with professionals will be no different. However, it will make a difference when a family needs help or advice. Instead of being referred to a school building, a helpline or a job title, they will have a named person to contact—someone who knows them and who has had that most fundamental exchange of an introduction and an exchange of names. The named person will be someone who is known to them, someone who is in their community and someone whom they know will have their wellbeing, under the SHANARRI principles, at the heart of everything they do in their engagement with them.
I look forward to the move towards a named person, which is a powerful development.
16:34
I sometimes worry about this place. We are talking about proactively helping children across our communities and our nation, yet some members have brought the issue down to cost—sheer pounds, shillings and pence. Cost is an important issue, but, as Stewart Maxwell and Jayne Baxter quite rightly explained, the committee process that the bill is going through is the place for such discussion—that is where we must ensure that we get everything right.
We should not forget that the named person is an extremely important part of the GIRFEC principles, as many of the people who have given evidence to the committee have stated. Many myths have been put about with regard to the named person. It is too easy to hit certain ideas—especially certain radical ideas—that can make a difference. One of those myths is that the named person is like a state-appointed parent. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is an opportunity for communication between a family, professionals and others.
Will George Adam give way?
I do not have much time, so I would like to continue.
The role of the named person is to engage with everyone and ensure that we do not have cases like some of the tragic ones that have happened over the years. That does not mean that we can legislate such cases out of existence—that will just not happen—but we must ensure that we find a way to make things better and support many of our children and young people.
Much has been said about Bill Alexander, the director of health and social care at Highland Council. He came to the committee yesterday and was excited about the named person. He said that it was an important part of the GIRFEC approach. He said that the council does not get complaints about the named person role being implemented; it gets complaints from parents who believe that it has not been. Those are individuals, parents and families that have seen the approach working and that it can make a difference.
The approach was implemented by Highland Council in 2010 and has been a great success. It means that there is now a clear process to ensure that information about the child is passed to the right person. Some of the other members said that they felt as if information would go back and forward and no one would know about it, but the named person would be the conduit for all the concerns. Previously, concerns were often referred to the wrong agencies, resulting in the children’s hearings system being swamped with inappropriate referrals, but that is now less of an issue. That has come up quite a lot in the committee’s work over the past year.
If we are going to do anything, we have to make sure that we get a system that is robust and can make a difference, because we are literally talking about people’s lives, children’s lives and how families do things.
The submission from Highland Council stated:
“The consequence of this”—
being the named person—
“has been earlier support and more effective intervention for more children. Getting that support to a child early, usually means it is more likely to lead to a successful outcome.”
Surely we are here for that and to ensure that we get the right policy. We can have debates about how we make the policy robust and ensure that the bill can work in our communities, but we must get it right and ensure that we do it through the committee process, not by showboating in the chamber and trying to get one up on another political party. The issue is too important for any form of showboating.
We must proactively embrace the GIRFEC principles. The named person approach is part of that ambition for our nation’s children. Let us all work together and ensure that we can do the best for Scotland’s children.
Thank you. Your timing was perfect. I call Anne McTaggart. I can give you only two minutes. Sorry.
16:38
Every member in the chamber is passionate about the rights and wellbeing of children and young people. I hope that the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill will prove to be a positive step in making Scotland the best possible place for children to grow up in. However, I am cautious about the named person proposal. I have spoken with a wide range of professionals from across the board on the subject and many of them share my concerns.
First, becoming a named person is a huge responsibility for someone to take on. Those people need impeccable expertise and knowledge of their duties and responsibilities. We must ensure that adequate training is in place to enable them to do the job properly.
The cost of the additional resources is also of great concern. Like several other agencies, COSLA only last week expressed its reservations about the accuracy of the projected cost of the bill. The unpredictability of the cost stems from the fact that it is dependent on the number of hours that individuals are expected to spend carrying out the role.
We must also be aware that ensuring solid communication links between the professionals involved will also present significant challenges. There will need to be and should be a high level of co-operation between the relevant local authorities. That is possible, but it is difficult, and we must ensure that the proper systems are in place to make it possible.
We must resolve serious issues with the practicality of the proposal before the bill is passed. Placing an unmanageable load on workers who are already under pressure could prove to be disastrous for children, families and their workers.
That was perfect timing. Kevin Stewart has two minutes.
16:40
We have heard about the Daniel Pelka case. The deputy leader of the Conservative group on Coventry City Council said:
“Now is the time to have a radical look at the legal framework surrounding Child Protection”.
I agree. Over the years, we have had cross-party support for GIRFEC, which I hope will continue.
In relation to the Conservative motion, I say that I certainly would not support anything that
“would undermine the role of parents”.
The named person system can help parents in many regards. Mr Macintosh might well have the ability to approach health visitors, teachers and all the rest of it, but he is a particularly articulate man who knows the ropes. Not everybody knows the ropes, so what is the difficulty in providing each family with a named person who they may or may not use to get the information and help that they need?
The Conservatives have used some pejorative language, which does not surprise me. They always talk about the nanny state and proposals being too expensive. Martin Crewe of Barnardo’s Scotland said that those points would come up and that
“Neither of these criticisms is justified. Depending on the age of the child, a health visitor or teacher will usually take on the role, and in most cases will do no more than they do now.”
Rather than have the pejorative language and some of the silly things that have come up, we should unite again around the GIRFEC principles. We should let the Education and Culture Committee do its job and hear the evidence. We should come back here at a later date and forget the pejorative nonsense that has gone on today.
The timing is getting better. Kezia Dugdale has four minutes.
16:42
I welcome Jayne Baxter to her front-bench role. She is a mum and a gran, and she comes to the Parliament with 20 years of experience in local government and with a wealth of knowledge to add not just to the Parliament but to the bill in particular. I would like that to be recognised in the Official Report.
I am not a member of the Education and Culture Committee and I have not been involved in the education brief for long, but I have followed the bill’s progress from the beginning of my election as the convener of the cross-party group on children and young people. I have seen the proposals go from two bills to one, and many of the ambitions have been diluted. I want the bill to work. I want it to be a good bill and to deliver for young people across the country. I said to the minister before and I repeat that we are listening, and working with her. We would like the bill’s ambition to be realised, but she must listen to us and the sector, which comes to the table with legitimate concerns.
Labour’s amendment addresses many of those legitimate concerns. There is no doubt that the named person element has widespread support from the children’s sector. I say to all the groups that have provided evidence to the committee and lobbied MSPs that their evidence is really welcome. It is great that the children’s sector has come together and spoken with one voice by uniting behind one briefing. That makes the sector’s voice more powerful and I encourage organisations to do that again.
Labour’s amendment recognises concerns about parents’ feelings about the named person element. Ken Macintosh articulated those concerns well. They are partly about intrusion and about whether a named person is truly necessary for children who come from stable and loving homes. I have some sympathy with that, but there is a sense that a degree of ignorance is behind some people’s opposition to the named person element. I know that Aileen Campbell would share that view, but it is up to her to sell the policy to the public and to children’s charities. I would like her to do a bigger job of that. She has failed so far to articulate what a named person is and means and to rebut some of the criticisms in the press.
Aileen Campbell rose—
I am sorry; I have only four minutes.
I have a bit of advice for Aileen Campbell. Will she think about recording a video, as Mike Russell did? She could record a video about the named person element and perhaps have it played at assemblies and in schools across the country.
The definition of the role of named person is very important and our amendment recognises the degree to which we need to see a clear definition, not just in terms of what a named person would do but to distinguish the role from the role of a lead professional. At the moment, I am afraid that that message is not coming out loudly or clearly enough from the Scottish Government to alleviate some of those concerns.
There are also significant concerns about the degree to which the named person is financed and resourced—a point that was well made by Gavin Brown. I ask the minister to listen very carefully to what my colleague Anne McTaggart had to say today. Anne comes to the chamber with years of experience as a social worker. When she says that people at the front line need to understand what their roles and responsibilities are, the minister should be listening very carefully to that and ensuring that that message is understood by all the professionals who are involved in this.
It will be clear, come 5 o’clock, that the Labour Party’s decision is to abstain on the motion—quite frankly, because we are still listening; our minds are not made up. We would like to be persuaded of the Government’s case, but I am afraid that the Government needs to do a better job of articulating it. The Government does not have to sell the bill just to us. It can pass the bill without the votes of the Labour Party or the votes of the Conservatives. However, in order for the bill to work, the Government has to get the support of parents across the country and of professionals on the front line and so far, I am afraid that the minister is not winning that argument.
16:46
I welcome Jayne Baxter to her new role and wish her all the best in that role.
The tone of some of what Kezia Dugdale just said was a bit unfortunate, because the whole process of a bill going through Parliament is about listening to views and ensuring that we take those views on board. When people such as Anne McTaggart and Jayne Baxter have a real interest and a real expertise, we will absolutely ensure that we engage with them. I am due to meet Jayne Baxter in the next week or so to talk to her about her views on the bill.
Recently, it became clear that there were widespread misconceptions about what the named person service really meant, some of which were stoked up by the unfortunate tone of the reporting by certain parts of the press. The evidence that the Education and Culture Committee has heard so far has helped greatly to dispel some of those misconceptions about what the named person role is and it has been good to be able to receive some of the fantastic briefings from many of the children’s charities, which have looked to ensure that everyone is aware just how much behind the proposal they are.
I look forward to being able to discuss the bill, including the named person provisions, in the light of all the evidence that has been presented and the committee’s assessment of the bill’s merit. We can also then place the issue of the named person more properly in the context of all the improvements that the bill seeks to make.
I think that we are all agreed that we should do absolutely everything that we can to improve the life chances of our children and young people. The benefits to be gained from investing in the early years and in providing all our children with the protection, nurture and support that they need are immense. We did our own bespoke economic modelling and every pound that we invest in the early years saves us £9 in cure. Perhaps Gavin Brown would be interested in that, given the points that he raised regarding the financial memorandum.
I am well aware of what early intervention is, but how quickly is that return made, from the evidence that the minister has seen?
With the early years collaborative we are already seeing good examples of where that return is being made. In response to Gavin Brown’s assertions that no one agrees with the savings for GIRFEC, that is not the case. City of Edinburgh Council, Fife Council and South Ayrshire Council have very real experience of GIRFEC and it is through consultation with them and others that we developed the financial memorandum. It is therefore unfortunate that Gavin Brown has raised such assertions.
Did any of those councils say that there would be zero cost in year 2?
We are talking about GIRFEC being an approach that saves the public purse an awful lot of money. We have heard from the Highland Council and we have done an awful lot of work to ensure that our financial memorandum is as robust as it can be. I know that Gavin Brown took evidence on that in his role as deputy convener of the Finance Committee.
As I said earlier, early intervention is by far the most effective way to secure sustainable improvements in the life chances of our children, so I am genuinely confused by some of the statements that have been made by certain members. They say that they welcome the renewed focus on GIRFEC and that the philosophy underpinning it is admirable. They cite the benefits of early intervention and they agree that there should be more joined-up working between all agencies that are involved in supporting children, yet at the same time they do not want to put in place the tried and tested mechanisms for achieving those benefits. If we want to get it right for every child, there must surely be a role for the universal services of health and education in providing the safety net that is needed. If services for a child must be co-ordinated, someone needs to take responsibility for ensuring that the co-ordination takes place.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I ask the member to wait one moment.
If success depends on people spotting issues early and taking appropriate and proportionate action, we must put in place clear responsibilities and processes for doing that. If we are to get better at helping parents and carers to navigate their way through the different services that are available, we need to ensure that there is a readily identifiable professional there to help them to do that. If, in the most troubling cases, someone has a real concern that a child’s wellbeing is under threat, they need to know with whom to raise that concern.
The named person approach grew out of the experience of parents and carers, who sought the certainty of contact, the helping hand and the professional friend that the named person is able to provide. As the evaluation of the Highland pathfinder shows, families have greatly valued that role.
I am grateful to the minister for taking an intervention. I do not have a principled objection to the named person approach, and I thought that Bill Alexander’s testimony before the committee was very helpful. However, we have not identified an answer to the question about taking our eye off the ball with regard to those who are most vulnerable and whose welfare is an issue. We need to ensure that, in terms of their wellbeing, the trigger is not set so low that we end up with wholly inappropriate information flows and information being shared with people who really do not need to have it.
Minister, you are in your last minute.
I thank Liam McArthur for his intervention, but we have already heard from the Information Commissioner’s Office that a letter has gone out to ensure that information should be shared only when it is proportionate. We must ensure that people can spot signs that may arise to enable them to act early, because the worst thing to happen would be for someone to respond far too late. The named person approach means that people can deal with a problem before it escalates into a crisis.
Many members have made good contributions today. Stewart Maxwell quoted Children in Scotland, and reiterated that the named person is part and parcel of GIRFEC. Clare Adamson and George Adam spoke passionately about the critical importance of GIRFEC and of the named person approach as part of that, and about putting in place robust structures to support the strategy.
Anne McTaggart talked about ensuring that we engage with parents as well.
Minister, your six minutes are up.
We are working with the national parent forum to help to provide that advice. We want to work and engage with everyone to ensure that the bill is a success, as that is in the best interests of the children. We have done so through the consultation process, and we will continue to engage and listen, and make the case for the named person approach as part of making Scotland the best place in the world in which to grow up.
16:52
The debate has generally been helpful, although I am disappointed—and rather surprised—by the comments from some members that we should not be debating the named person approach. What is a Parliament for if it is not for debating the issues of the day?
The many good contributions that we have heard from members on various sides of the chamber have proved that the debate was worth while, as it has helped to flesh out many of the points that have been raised in evidence—indeed, many members have referred to those points in their contributions. I am entirely comfortable—just as I was in this afternoon’s debate on corroboration—that debating the issue is the right thing to do, because it is our duty to scrutinise what is going on.
I am grateful to the other parties for spelling out their position on this important topic, which has clearly sparked a great deal of controversy—not surprisingly, in our view.
In debating issues that affect children and young people, many members have said that what is really required is a change in the culture of thinking rather than the introduction of a piece of heavy and costly legislation. As was mentioned earlier—[Interruption.]
Will the member give way? [Interruption.]
I think that I will have to give way to something else at the minute.
I ask whoever has a phone on to put it off now. I call Ms Campbell.
I will not mention Alex Johnstone, who is scurrying about trying to sort out his phone.
As Liz Smith will know, the GIRFEC approach has been around since the previous Administration, but its application is inconsistent throughout the country. We have heard about the fantastic things that are going on in Highland Council, but we need consistency for children across the 32 local authorities. Does Liz Smith agree that, by underpinning that in legislation, we will help to up the pace of change and improve the consistency?
No, I do not accept that. As I said in my earlier speech, GIRFEC has been a huge success in Highland, but that happened without the legislation.
I do not often find myself agreeing with Ken Macintosh but on this occasion I do, because he eloquently echoed the concerns that people have about the bill. No SNP member has answered those questions this afternoon. The Faculty of Advocates is very clear that section 19(5) of the bill
“dilutes the legal role of parents, whether or not there is any difficulty in the way that parents are fulfilling their statutory responsibilities.”
That is a clear comment from the legal experts. We share that concern.
On the substantive points, we believe that a fundamental issue at stake is the idea that the state should have primary importance over the parent. The rights of children do not stand in isolation but must be seen in the context of the rights of parents and families and in the context of the responsibilities that each family has to articulate the needs of all the individuals within that family. Those absolutely basic principles underpin so much of the law.
Gavin Brown explained very clearly how the concerns about the costs came through loud and clear at the Finance Committee last week. Without exception, when the committee members questioned the bill team about the financial memorandum, the bill team provided virtually no evidence to substantiate the financial memorandum’s claims about the costs. John Mason, Michael McMahon, Gavin Brown and Malcolm Chisholm all asked about the financial memorandum, but it was quite clear that the Scottish Government has not thought through exactly what the costs will be.
Regarding the health visitor strategy, for some time now the Scottish Conservatives have advocated a universal GP-led health visitor system for all zero to five-year-olds. We are very persuaded indeed by the arguments that have been made by both the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Midwives that a national system of health visitors would do more—
Ms Smith, may I just stop you for a moment? There is far too much noise in the chamber. Please could those who are coming into the chamber have the courtesy to listen.
According to the evidence that the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Midwives have submitted, a national system of health visitors would do more than anything else to tackle some of Scotland’s worst health problems and to look out for our most vulnerable children at the earliest stage.
The Ipsos MORI poll of 2010 made it very clear that such a policy would be enormously popular because of the high level of trust that parents put in those key professionals, who are able to provide parents with the essential advice and information that parents require. According to that survey, nine out of 10 parents said that they were very assured by the health visitor and the services that he or she provides. If further proof were needed of the value of such a policy, it was surely provided by the results of the 2012 Scottish health survey that were published yesterday, which show clearly that the key messages about health in Scotland are still not being acted on under this Government.
Will the member give way?
If I may, I will just finish.
Trying to deal with these severe problems in later ages is simply not working. That is why we are clear that there needs to be a national universal health visitor policy attached to GP services. Indeed, Alex Neil himself has said that failure to intervene effectively to address the complex needs in the early years can result in a ninefold increase in direct public costs over the long term. Those are stark statistics, on which we need to act.
The system that we have proposed would be far superior to the named person policy.