Meeting of the Parliament 02 December 2015
Three years ago, when Parliament first debated in earnest the SNP’s plans to introduce named persons, concerns were raised across the chamber not just about the principles of the policy but about how workable it would be. Ken Macintosh, Hugh Henry, Tavish Scott and John Mason all expressed their concerns—specifically about the strains that would be placed on local authorities if the policy was to be made mandatory for all young people from birth to 18.
Mike Russell, the then Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, acknowledged in the Scottish Government’s debate on its programme for government on 4 September 2013 that he understood some of those concerns, and the concern that had been expressed by critics that the policy perhaps represented state intervention. However, he went on to say that he had eventually been persuaded of the need for the policy on account of the track record of what it could do to help our most vulnerable children, and gave examples of children in Forfar who had, in his opinion, benefited greatly from a named person type of service.
Maggie Mellon, the highly respected former social worker, former leader of School Leaders Scotland Carole Ford, Trisha Hall of the Scottish Association of Social Workers, and Jenny Cunningham, who is an experienced paediatrician all raised their concerns, but we were told that named persons are essential if we are to avoid a repeat of the Daniel Pelka case, the Baby P case or any other horrific child-abuse case. Everyone in Parliament agrees that the serious issues in such cases need to be tackled urgently.
If we examine all the supportive evidence on named persons that was submitted to the Education and Culture Committee at the time of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill, we see that it came almost exclusively from groups that are tasked with looking after our most vulnerable children. I do not think that any members doubts the sincerity with which that case was made, but that is precisely the reason why the universal aspect of the policy is so wrong-headed.