Meeting of the Parliament 02 December 2015
Some may argue that, as the named persons policy is enshrined in statute, the train has left the station and is now clattering down the rails. However, it is a controversial measure, and it is the duty of this Parliament to monitor the progress of the train and, indeed, consider whether it should slow down, take a different route or pause in a siding.
That assessment requires constant questioning of the Government about progress. For example, it has come to light that the Scottish Government had abolished the expert programme board that had been advising it on GIRFEC. I appreciate that the national implementation support group remains, but there is a lack of transparency about what advice the Government has been receiving, because none of it has been published—although late yesterday afternoon, we had a flurry of Scottish Government activity, with the publication of final draft guidance. It is quite amazing what an Opposition debate can trigger.
We know that at the penultimate meeting of the programme board in May 2014 an assistant chief constable raised the issue of ensuring that high-risk children remained a focus when the legislation took effect. That is why an absence of transparency with regard to where we are is very troubling. The debate is therefore timely and has presented a useful opportunity both to remind Parliament of and allow Parliament to discuss the strong criticism that the policy faces from professionals. That criticism might be unwelcome to the Scottish Government, but nevertheless it needs to listen to it, because these are the people who are likely to be on the front line of delivery as the date of implementation edges closer.
The principle of GIRFEC has, of course, found support across the chamber, but the universality of the named person legislation has raised both philosophical and practical challenges. In that respect, I want to highlight concerns that have been articulated neither by me nor by my party, but independently by other groups.
The executive director of the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, Eileen Prior, said in an interview with Holyrood magazine only last month:
“Named person, in my view, is a red herring which will undermine trust and cause issues between families, schools or other professionals, divert resources from those families most in need, add to professionals’ workload and lead to more families being drawn into the system unnecessarily.”
If that is so, there is a risk that children will be hesitant to access confidential services. That point has also been argued by the children’s legal charity Clan Childlaw, which in May said that the policy
“creates a serious risk that children and young people will not access confidential services when they are in need of help.”
Indeed, that undermining of trust in professionals might also affect families, who could become fearful that being open about the problems that they face or the support that they need will lead to that information being shared in a way that is prejudicial to them.
The next problem relates to the extensive costs, the practical consequences and the bureaucracy that is necessary in implementing the policy. Although I did not agree with everything that he said, Iain Gray made some hard-hitting points. The Scottish Government presumes that, for the majority of school-age children, the named person will be a teacher. However, teachers already face substantial workload pressures. The Association of Headteachers and Deputes Scotland warned in February that it was
“very concerned about the workload that this might generate”
and said the matter had to be addressed before commencement. That was echoed in the summer by the EIS, which argued:
“the default position should not be assumed that a school should always be expected to provide the named person irrespective of its capacity and resources.”
Those are real concerns, given that we have information for the costs of GIRFEC for 2016-17 that shows that more than a third of those costs—or almost £10 million—will fall on local authorities that are already under budget pressures. In the same year, GIRFEC will cost the national health service more than £16 million, which leads me to quote the director of the Royal College of Nursing, who said earlier this year:
“many of our health visitor members have deep concerns that even with the planned boost in numbers there just won’t be enough hours in the day”
to carry out named person duties.