Hansard

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?