Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 25 September 2013

25 Sep 2013 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament

Item of business

Children and Young People (Named Persons)

Maxwell, Stewart SNP West Scotland Watch on SPTV

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.

Search Hansard contributions

Meeting of the Parliament 25 September 2013

In the same item of business