 parwysgol golygu'n mynd i ddiweddogo gwaith i ddoch chi'n amgylchedd. Thank you very much. That concludes questions this afternoon. Before we start the debate, I need to remind members that legal proceedings are ongoing in relation to the legislative competence of the named person's provision. That matter is therefore subjudice for the purposes of standing orders. I will allow general debate on the issues set out in the motion. However, no specific reference should be made to the merits of the precise legal arguments being considered other than in factual terms. That then brings us to the debate as the business as a debate on motion number 1 4 9 9, in the name of Liz Smith on named persons. Members wishing to speak, should press the buttons now please, under calling Liz Smith to speak to and move the motion. Ms Smith no more than 14 minutes, we are incredibly tight for time. Thank you Presiding Officer and I move the motion in my name. Three years ago, when this Parliament first debated in earnest the SNP's plans to introduce a name person, concerns were raised across the chamber not just about the principles of the policy, but about how workable it actually would be. Ken Macintosh, Hugh Henry, Tavish Scott and John Mason all expressed their concerns specifically about the fact that the policy was to be mandatory for all young people from birth to 18, what strains that would place on the authorities. Mike Russell, the then education secretary, acknowledged in the Scottish Government's programme for government debate on 4 September 2013 that he could understand some of his concerns and he also raised those ones that had been issued by critics that perhaps it represented state intervention. However, he went on to say that he had been eventually persuaded of the need for the policy on the account of the track record of what it could do to help our most vulnerable children. I think he gave examples of children in forfer who, in his opinion, had benefited greatly from a name person type service. Maggie Mellon, the highly respected former social worker, Carol Ford, former leader of school leaders Scotland, Tricia Hall, the Scottish Association of Social Workers, Jenny Cunningham, experienced pediatrician, all raised their concerns, but we were told that the name persons were essential if we were to avoid a repeat of the Daniel Pelka case, baby pee case or any other horrific child abuse case, which everyone in this Parliament agrees are very serious issues that need to be urgently tackled. Indeed, if you examine all the supportive evidence on name persons that was submitted to the Education Committee at the time of the Children and Young People's Bill, it came almost exclusively from groups who are tasked with looking after our most vulnerable children. I do not think that anyone in this Parliament doubts the sincerity with which that case was made, yet that, Deputy Presiding Officer, is precisely the reason why the universal aspect of this policy is so wrong-headed. Of course, those children need help. If I can just make a little bit of progress, Mr Chisholm, just now, of course those children need help. Of course, every effort must be made to assist local authorities, teachers, social workers, police, etc. to address the issue of our most vulnerable sectors of society. However, as the assistant chief constable Malcolm Graham said in the summer, this is exactly why the resources should be directed to our most vulnerable children. Some of his police colleagues feared that, by making it compulsory for every child, it will be much less possible to direct sufficient attention to those children who need it most, and they worry that there it would be. Yes, I would. The member will, of course, be aware of the Pathfinder project in Highland and the outcome of the Pathfinder project showed that 75 per cent time saved for professionals, 50 per cent reduction in caseload of social workers, 70 per cent fall in unnecessary referrals to the reporter and 50 per cent reduction in the number of children regarded as at risk of significant harm. That surely demonstrates that the policy works. The member will be also aware of the fact that the conclusion to the Pathfinder study was that there was no proof that that was due to namepersons or GERFEC—no conclusive evidence. That is exactly what the committee said. Of course, people are concerned. The police are not alone in raising these concerns about workload. Greg Dempster, the Association of Heads and Deputies in Scotland, said at the Education Committee only two weeks ago that this policy was probably the single biggest paperwork burden currently placed on headteachers in our schools. Here is why. No fewer than 306 different criteria in the scenario indices that have to be dealt with by teachers when it comes to assessing children. That is one of the essential problems about this policy. Of course, the financial burdens were something that was scrutinised by the finance committee, which, despite Aileen Campbell's assurances in the parliamentary answer on 27 June 2014, said that the financial memorandum set out the full cost of the policy. It made it clear in the finance committee that that policy had not been properly costed, something that is clearly set out also in the spice briefing. My colleague Gavin Brown will say more about this, but the finance committee was not persuaded by the Scottish Government's assertions that the 26 million cost to schools, local authorities and health boards for 2016-17 would actually diminish much year on year, given that there has to be on-going training and paperwork for every child in the system, which is exactly what yesterday's guidance from the Scottish Government actually said, and it is what is being confirmed by the Royal College of Nursing today. In recent months, the Scottish Government has gone on a major charm offensive to persuade parents that all is well and that the named persons are really in the best interests of everyone. First, there was the Hamden initiative when parents could turn up on a family day out a £25 gift voucher thrown in to persuade them of the merit so that they could find out all they wanted to know. Then we had the Shinari wheel of wellbeing diagrams, which I have to say in vain is an example of just exactly what is wrong with this policy, and now we've got a hopscotch play, which is starring Mr Shinari and Ms Gurfeck, which is being taken round primary schools. Every time when someone criticises those initiatives, the Scottish Government goes on the defensive and argues that there is no compulsion on parents to accept any advice from a named person. That, I may say, is despite the fact that the Scottish Government persistently refused all the amendments to the children and young people's bill, which would have permitted an opt-out. Yet they know full well that the professionals are not permitted to opt-out. Common sense, of course, tells you that if the professionals cannot opt-out, neither can the parents, because they are inextricably linked when it comes to the adoption of a named person policy. That is something that was admitted by an Inverness primary school headteacher when she was asked on the BBC K Adams programme, what would she do if parents indicated that they did not want a named person? She replied that it would be her job to persuade them otherwise. The requirement for full co-operation and positive engagement with a professional's viewpoint is further illustrated with the inclusion in the risk indicators the following, whether a parent is resisting or limiting engagement, or whether the parent has a completely different perception of the problem. Quite clearly, parents can choose not to engage and not to accept the advice, but the consequences of doing that are to be, well, let's be honest, they are endangering the wellbeing of their child because they are going to be picked upon, they are being picked upon as parents who are not worthy. At the end of the day, no, it's not disgraceful, this is exactly what is happening in our schools. At the end of the day, and despite all the protestations that we're seeing just now on the SNP benches, families are being judged over subjective assessments of the wellbeing of their child. Not at all, says the Scottish Government, it's only scaremongering, we heard that in the question time. No intervention, they tell us, could ever take place without consultation with the parents, but they are wrong. No, they are wrong. Of course. I thank the member for giving way and we've already heard the example of Highland raised, which of course used a very similar system prior to the introduction of this one. Has she any evidence that either parents or children were picked upon in Highland as a result of that system being in existence? She uses that phrase. I've got every evidence and you will, you've seen it in the newspapers about many of the parents who are fed up by being told what it is that they have to agree to. This is something that the Scottish Government seems to think is not an issue. It's a huge issue, because it's not there by consent. It's being imposed. The Scottish Government keeps telling us that this is a right, but the fact of the matter is that parents cannot opt out of this system. That's the issue. I listened carefully to the instructions yesterday about what we can and cannot say. I know that the Scottish Government has obviously got to answer some other questions when it comes to that legal proceeding. We can't talk about that. However, I ask the Scottish Government to consider the fact that the Information Commissioner's office has admitted, as a result of the Children and Young People's Act, that practitioners can share information, including confidential information, without parental consent. They have also acknowledged that the bar of intervention has altered from one being of significant harm merely to wellbeing. I can't comment any further on that at the time, because it's part of a legal proceeding. However, what is really at issue here is the problem about the definition of wellbeing. It's a problem that runs through the Children and Young People's Act, and it's also an increasing problem within the education bill currently at stage 2 in committee. Yes, of course. In what element of the scenario does Liz Smith disagree with? I have to say how on earth can you accept that this is an acceptable way of assessing a child? It's this kind of paper. Minister, please stop shouting from a secondary position. Liz Smith. I think that the minister is perhaps getting a little uptight, and perhaps that shares exactly what many parents feel about that. So, Deputy Presiding Officer, if the practice of this policy is so flawed, it is nothing when it comes to making an assessment about the fundamental principles, and I choose my words carefully again in the right light of the ruling just made. What is implicit in this proposal to have a named person for every child is the insistence that the state, rather than the parents and families, has the primary obligation to look after children. That is entirely the wrong way round, because there are thousands of parents across Scotland doing a thoroughly good job. So what right does the Scottish Government to tell them that the state knows better? What on earth is the point of insisting that those families have a named person on exactly the same basis as those families who face genuine problems? The logic on that is completely lost. Essential trust, which is the crucial ingredient on which to build a successful relationship between parents and child and between family and teacher, health visitor, social worker, is by definition under threat if there is a third party who is deemed to have more authority over that party. How do you assess the needs of a child? Do you assess all children in a fair professional manner, or do you make some lazy assumptions about which children are deserving, which children are undeserving, and do you base that on facts and professionalism, or do you base that as you do on ideology, on the assumption that some children will of course need intervention while others will never need intervention? Cabinet Secretary, I think that some teachers in our schools, some professionals might take great acceptance to what you have just said. They are the professionals, they are trained to do their job. The SNP is very quick, in fact, to tell us that it wholeheartedly espouses a liberal democratic tradition, and it wants to do more to increase our personal freedoms by promoting greater inequality and social justice. Yet its policy towards young people has become increasingly paternalistic and orientated towards the role of the state. Name persons are the prime example of pushing the boundaries of the state too far. The rights of children do not stand in isolation—that was a point made by Alistair Allen at the committee yesterday. They should be seen in the context of the rights of parents and families, and the responsibilities of those families must articulate with the needs of all individuals within those families. Expecting all children to have a named person is an assault on the responsibility of families and parents for whom there are no problems. That is exactly why 74 per cent of parents surveyed by the Scottish Parent Teacher Council argued that there was no need for a named person. Last year, the Scottish Government made a huge play of the fact that 16 and 17-year-olds should have the right to vote, a point that we entirely agree with. If they are old enough and mature enough to vote, old enough to marry, old enough to fight for their country, why must they also have a named person? Why must a young 17 or 18-year-old couple with a child have three named persons in that family? I rest my case on the fact that the policy has two fundamental problems. It takes resources away from our most vulnerable children, which is inexcusable. Secondly, it is completely against the trust and responsibility that parents and families deserve. I am proud that this Parliament took the groundbreaking Children and Young People Scotland Act through Parliament last year. That act was a huge milestone for this Parliament. For the first time, we gave comprehensive legislative substance to our ambition of giving Scotland's children the best start in life. I am proud because I know that, at the heart of the act, it is a commitment to improve wellbeing for all our nation's children and young people. Every child has only one shot at childhood, so it is incumbent upon us all—parents, practitioners and policymakers—to do our very best to realise that commitment. It is the Parliament's right and duty to scrutinise our legislation to influence change and to improve policy and laws. I uphold that completely and have always sought to engage constructively with others, regardless of their party political beliefs. The wellbeing of our children and young people transcends party politics. Indeed, that philosophy shared across this chamber led Parliament to unite behind the GERFEC principles under the previous administration and over the years that followed up to the passage of the act. We should now reflect on how we got to where we are. The named person was developed on the ground through the GERFEC Highland Pathfinder, which has interested and inspired this Parliament for many years now. Parliamentarians were impressed. Six years ago, almost to the day, one MSP said, that a key success of the Highland Pathfinder project has been the reduction in bureaucracy, which has freed up more time for direct work with children. Another outcome is better information sharing that has also reduced the burden on staff. He went on to conclude, I very much welcome the minister's commitment to implement the GERFEC programme throughout Scotland on the back of the successful pilot in the Highlands. I find Murdo Fraser's words entirely reassuring. Mary Scanlon is another Conservative MSP who has acknowledged this policy's benefits. During the very same debate, she said, for too long, children and others have suffered as agencies work in their silos, refusing to share information that would lead to a holistic approach to addressing a child's needs. I commend the work done in Highland to address that issue. That contact with families in the home enables those health professionals to identify at an early stage, likely problem areas and potentially vulnerable groups. I draw attention to the views previously expressed by the member. Will the minister specify simply what it is at the moment precludes authorities from intervening where they believe a child to be at risk? We have child protection laws in place, but this, as a system, has been proven to demonstrate good positive outcomes for children, as outlined by Mark McDonald in his intervention to Liz Smith. I go back to why I drew up on those previous contributions and previous debates by members of the Conservative benches. I did that for no other reason than to show the party's direction of travel on Gyrfiq from urging us to roll out it nationally to a mail-on Sunday article by Ruth Davidson that was distasteful as it was hyperbolic. In it, she used the tragic deaths of Victoria Klimby and baby Pete in an effort—one can only assume—to scare people for her own cynical political ends. No-one can ever guarantee that no child can slip through the net, but Ruth Davidson well knows that the consensus across Scotland's children's organisations and charities—the people who know and understand these issues best—is that the name person will help to make those holes in the net smaller. For the avoidance of doubt, the heartbreaking case is—of course, if she wants to talk about her article. Ruth Davidson, do you acknowledge that, in that article, the testimony that was given by senior members of Scotland's police force said that this would change the focus away from the children that needed it most and, in fact, may leave them more at risk? I also know that the Police Scotland has been a very full and constructive member of the programme board and is supportive of the name person and has said so many times in the progression of the act through the Parliament. For the avoidance of doubt, those heartbreaking cases that Ruth Davidson cited in her article and she cites from London had absolutely nothing to do with the name person or any similar provision for protecting children. I hope that Ruth Davidson reflects on those parallels that she sought to draw, and I hope that she hangs her head in shame for doing so. Here are the facts. The getting it right for every child approach puts the best interests of the child at the heart of decision making to ensure their wellbeing. It works with, not around or against, children, young people and their families. It embeds early intervention and prevention, and it stipulates that professionals must work together across professional boundaries in the best interests of the child. Gyrffic has been developed in response to families' needs. Parents do not want to have to tell or even shout their stories over and over again to a crowd of services. They just want appropriate support if and when they need it, and any one of us just might need support with parenting, however much or little at one time or another. Early intervention means tackling the small persistent issues in a child's life, the ones that are not easy to resolve by a family alone before they escalate into a crisis. We hear a lot, particularly from Liz Smith, about vulnerable children and families, as though they walk around with signs on their heads. We cannot predict which child or which young person will become the ones that our services need to support. I have taken two already. We must make progress. We cannot predict which mum might suffer post-natal depression or which family might suffer a bereavement, and that is where the real issue of workloads comes from. If we want to ensure that resources are concentrated on those who really need it, we need to do what we can to help children and families at the earliest possible stage. That is not diverting resources, that is directing them. GERFEC and the name person are supported by professionals as well. We know that they have a more positive impact on children and families' lives when they work together. We hear it regularly, loudly in those tragic cases where children have come to harm and quietly, but no less powerfully when it comes to helping children and family with ordinary stresses and strains of everyday life. Do not take my word for it. Parenting across Scotland, Aberlour, Barnardo Scotland, Children First and one parent family Scotland, action for children are just some of the professional organisations that backed the legislation. They back it because they know the name person does not replace parents or professionals. Of course they do not, but it helps to make the links between them if and when they need it to be made. The name person is not someone new or unknown, it is a trusted person who is already working with the child in the family. The legislation simply builds on that trust and strong relationship. The inner house of the court of session recently threw out the legal challenge made to the name person, a challenge that was now being defeated twice. It found that the legislation does not involve the state taking over any functions currently carried out by parents, and that the mere creation of a name person available to assist a child or parent no more confuses or diminishes the legal role, duties and responsibilities of parents in relation to their children than the provision of social services or education generally, and that it has no effect whatsoever on the legal, moral or social relationships within the family. Lord Carlaway also said that the campaign narrative against the name person had the appearance of hyperbole. I would offer that the same description be applied to Ruth Davidson's article and her party's new approach on this issue, and I stress new because the Children and Young People Act has a long time in the making. It is not a bolt from the blue, but it is being introduced at a time when we are seeing an assault from the blue, an assault by the UK Tory Government that will remove a staggering £960 million from the incomes of families with children in Scotland. If the Conservative Party wants to know what threatens family life in Scotland, then it needs to look no further than itself. If the Conservative motion talks about diverting the resources away from the most vulnerable children, let me remind them that there are the Scottish Conservatives that are seeing 36,000 children in Scotland now relying on food banks thanks to Tory austerity. Let me remind them that that is the UK welfare reforms that will push 100,000 additional children into poverty by 2020. If we wanted to divert resources away from the most vulnerable children, we would not have to look very far for ideas. However, I am proud that this Government seeks to invest in our children rather than to deprive them. The GERFEC policy has been shaped over many years in partnerships with professionals and with parents. It has been supported and praised by parties across the chamber and children's organisations, and it has been tested twice in the courts. I have every confidence that the legislation is making a difference and that a life better for children right across this country. Challenges remain and Parliament has a duty to scrutinise, but there is constructive scrutiny and there is politic in. Children should not be treated as political footballs. I am afraid to say that that is what the Scottish Conservatives have turned the issue into. I hope that they reflect and, in return, take a constructive approach to GERFEC, as they previously did in the chamber. We often begin these debates by welcoming the chance to congratulate the relevant party for bringing the debate forward. However, I cannot do that today because this is a calculatedly unhelpful debate brought by the Tories in their efforts to whip up concern, even fear, amongst parents and others, about the name person policy passed some time ago by this Parliament. The Tory motion might not do that explicitly, but Ruth Davidson's disgraceful remarks at the weekend suggest that this policy will lead to deaths like those of baby pee in Victoria Climbay give the game away. The minister was right to take her to task for it. They are shamelessly allying themselves for perceived party advantage with completely untrue and hyperbolic headlines that have variously described the named person as state guardian, shadow parent, replacements for parents, spies on parents and the politicisation of parents. Those stories have suggested that named persons will invade the family home to check what TV programmes children are watching while indoctrinating the same children with a named person sing-along, which Ms Smith referred to, in fact, in her speech today. I thank Mr Gray for giving way. Does he approve of the hopscotch play that has been taken round our primary schools? I confess that I have not seen it, but since it is a play around rights-respecting schools and initiative for schools in my constituency support with great success, I think that it probably would. I also note from the coverage that when asked hopscotch said, not only was this not about the named person policy, they did not even know what that policy was. All of that is complete nonsense. It is the equivalent of the old stories from Europe that they will straighten bananas and rename the British banger and ban the fireman's pole. None of that will happen, and we know that none of it will happen, because the named person system already operates, albeit on a non-statuary basis, in Highland, in Edinburgh, in Fife and in other local authority areas. Parents remain unusurped by named persons—big brothers snooping on family life. Of course they do, because the named person is not a new official imposed on the family, but rather an existing professional who already works with that family, usually a teacher or a health visitor. Experience from Highland shows that most parents will have no reason to contact their named person and that capacity at all. The idea of the named person, after all, did come from parents who wanted a single point of contact if needed, but it also came from the fact that, when tragedies do happen, subsequent reviews always point to services not being good enough at sharing information. We only have to think of the tragedy of Declan Haney to remember what happens when no single service takes responsibility for a child's welfare. That is for diluting attention to vulnerable children. Surely those who are most at risk are not yet identified as vulnerable. As Martin Crewe of Barnardo says, children are not born with an at-risk label plastered to their forehead. We need to get better at recognising the warning signs because even one failure is unforgivable. I am very grateful to member for giving way. On that very point, surely we better to use the resources going into the named person scheme to fund a proper universal system of health visitors. Would that not be better identifying children most in need? Let me get to resources. We cannot support the Tory motion, which is indeed code for opposition in principle to the policy. The Government cannot pat themselves in the back either. When we supported the named person policy, we raised serious concerns. We opposed its extension to 18. We asked about guidance and how it would allay fears. We demanded assurances on resourcing and complained about the fact that a proper financial memorandum was not available at the time. We were right to do so, but the Government simply banked our support for the principle and squandered the goodwill behind it. It has utterly failed to defend the policy against the wildest of the scare stories. It has allowed the stories to gain credence and create real and sincere concerns among some parents. It has done nothing to respect those concerns or to respond to them. The draft guidance is heavy-handed and 90 per cent of respondents thought sections were not clear. If the Government thinks cunningly getting a redraft out late yesterday, it gets them off the hook, they are kidding themselves. Meanwhile, those on whom the actual work of the new system will fall have seen resources squeezed not provided. I agree with Mr Fraser that the NHS budget has not been protected. Councils have seen cuts doubled and passed on to them. Police Scotland has shed 2,500 staff and faces a multimillion pounds short for fall. Teachers are balloting for industrial action because the Government has increased their workload to a point that they cannot accept. We cannot support a Government amendment, which simply fails yet again to give any guarantee whatsoever on resources to support this policy. That is just another case, such as the national improvement framework or HE governance, for the Government may be doing the right thing in principle, but the implementation is utterly incompetent. It says that it cannot pay in poetry and govern in prose. The Government spends so much time reciting the self-loved poetry of its own pole numbers that it repeatedly lets the prose of Government go to hell in a handcar. Mr Greer, you must close. Support the policy, yes, because it is right, but support the means to make it happen too. I move the amendment in my name. Many thanks. We now turn to the open debate. At this point of the debate, speeches will be up to six minutes. That may have to be reviewed later on in the debate. George Adam, to be followed by John Pentland. Thank you, Presiding Officer. At one point, Jordanian Gray's speech, I was going to say what John Gray had said and agree with him, but then the second half of his speech, I did not agree with any of it. Obviously, I rise here again in the chamber to take part and it is an honour to be part of this debate. The second half of my speech simply asked that the Government commit to provide adequate resources for this policy to happen. Surely, even Mr Adam can agree with that. George Adam. That is not what the second half of your speech actually did, Mr Gray, but many of us, regardless of our political parties, actually became involved in politics to change our communities and to change lives. I do not doubt anyone's reasons for getting involved in politics, regardless of their political party, but I believe in this occasion that the Tories have got the tone of this debate completely, utterly wrong. For the Tory leader, Ruth Davidson, to write what I find inexcusable is the column that she wrote with regards to this issue, because that is not what this issue is about. I am even more further disappointed with Liz Smith, who is someone that I have worked with over the past number of years, who has always been someone whom you can disagree with, but who can come to a compromise at the end. To come away with some of the things that she said today was, for me personally, very disappointing. On changing communities, if you look at Liz Smith, she has already said that I am particularly pleased to welcome the results of the Highland Pathfinder Gyrffek project, especially on the progress that has been made in measuring outcomes much more effectively, making improvements in professional practice and with better multi-agency working and developing a more holistic approach that needs the child something that we all agree is one of the most important issues. That was what Liz Smith said before. Has Liz Smith changed her mind on that? Liz Smith is very definitely not changed her mind. Could I ask the member to explain where is the evidence that it was the named person in the Highland Pathfinder because that is not what the conclusion is? Liz Smith, by welcoming the actual Pathfinder project, you welcomed that as well because that is part of the project itself. Can we get to the place where we say that I believe that Gyrffek is the way forward for all our children to make sure that it is a basic human need to make sure that everything is okay for our children, and in no way does the named person replace the role of a parent or carer, nor does it undermine our families. In fact, a named person may provide much-needed support during very difficult times. No family or individual can deal with challenging circumstances on their own. Of course, children and parents have no obligation to use the service, unlike what was said earlier on today, or to take up advice or help offered. That alone dismisses one of the many myths that have been created regarding the issue. I believe that that is the right policy, and I believe that it is the right way forward. Every child should have a safe and stable environment to grow up. I was lucky to be brought up by a loving and caring family, and I am sure that most people in this room benefited from a stable family life. However, not every child has a safe and secure home. Not every child in the real world has a situation in which they have that love and support. When that difficult time comes, it is down to having a named person to help during that situation. Much has been said, I think, Mr Graeber, about the Declan Hainey case. That happened within Paisley, and I do not believe that any legislation, regardless of what you do, will stop bad people doing bad things. It is inevitable that there will be, but you have to do everything to make sure that those things do not happen. When I read the reports when I was a councillor and later on the Declan Hainey case, the situation was that no one took up the responsibility of that child. No one was legislated, both health and social care, to blame at various points in that whole case. I read the reports from one cover to the other. No one was to actually blame. The problem was that there was no individual whose responsibility was to make sure that was okay. That shows the need for the named child to me. The name person's role to provide the response to requests to help children and young people or parents is to provide that type of support. I do not believe that it is going to be the situation of deciding what television shows that are going to watch and some of the scare stories that have come out here. Recently, I was contacted by our local newspaper, the Paisley Daily Express, and they were talking about—I know that this debate is not about foster parents, but they were starting a campaign with Renfrewshire Council to get more foster parents, because I believe that it is important that we give every single child. That is why I believe totally in the GERFEC policies. That is why I was quite happy to give them a quote, supporting Renfrewshire Council and their 712 children that they support to try and say that they had this opportunity to promote that further. For me, I think that we have to get away from the scare stories. I think that we have to move away from the so-called myths that a named person does not replace—I think that I have said that—and change the role of a parent. The named person approach is not new. It is not something that has just come out of the blue. It is something that has been part of a concentrated project, which Liz Smith previously supported, but it does not appear to do so now. For me, that is a very important issue. It is part of GERFEC, and it is also the reason why we need to make sure that we never have those situations again where young children end up in a position where they are left or the tragic circumstances that have sometimes just happened. I have been disgusted with the tone that the Tory party has brought to this debate, but I am not surprised because they are appealing to the basic common denominator here, and that is very disappointing in this debate. However, what I will say to Finish is that this is a way forward to make sure that we do get the opportunity to make Scotland the best place for all children to grow up in. I have to be clear that members cannot go over six minutes, and even at that later on, some members may be reduced to five. The idea of having a named person is a good one. In principle, it is hard to see a good argument against having someone who is a link between children, their parents and professionals, bringing together those involved in a child's life and, crucially, someone who can look out for vulnerable children and ensure that they do not fall through society's safety net. Of course, my support for the principle that is subject to it being properly put into practice needs to be adequately resourced, and those who are undertaking that role need to be well trained, and it also needs trust. Scottish Labour argued at every stage of the bill that the system must work in practice and be properly resourced, without placing an additional burden on staff or taking away support from children who need it most. He is wearing just the Scottish Labour's concerns but were backed by the RCN, the EIS and others. Done badly, the scheme could add a burden of bureaucracy while providing little help to those who should benefit. Done very badly, it would be counterproductive. The pilot scheme showed that it could be done well, and that has led to it being broadly welcomed by local authorities, health boards and children's organisations and rolled out across the country. Children organisations such as Bernados, Children First and the NSPCC and the children in Scotland were and remain very supportive of the bill and recognised the importance of the named person to GERFEC. Scottish Labour also argued that the provision should only apply to young people up to 16. I still do not understand why a named person is needed for someone who is old enough to decide the future of their country but then consistency is not a strong point of nationalism. It is suffice to say that the Scottish Government ignored those calls and failed to address the concerns of parents. On the question of trust, the Scottish Government is doing extremely badly and perhaps that is because it has already given people other reasons to mistrust it between its centralising tendencies, its avoidance of scrutiny and its riding roughshod over civil liberties such as finding journalists, stopping search and the super ID database being introduced by the back door. This big brother reputation has fed the intense dislike felt by some towards the named person proposals and in reality the public just do not trust the named person in the hands of the SNP. To be fair, this dislike is also compounded by misunderstanding about the purpose of the named person. In most cases this will be a health visitor or a teacher who already fulfills, at least in part, the role of the named person and the legislation formalises that role. It does not seek to provide a social worker for every child, it is not a state guardian and it does not replace the role of parents in any way. Indeed, we are assured that in most cases communication will primarily be between parents and the named person and that parents will control the relationship with that named person. However, the named person does allow problems to be identified and support provided earlier. The effect of that should be less costly, interventions at a later stage, making better use of resources for those who need them most. I thank the member for giving way and I have been listening carefully to what he has been saying. My reading of it is that he agrees with the Scottish Government on the issue, can he not just bring himself to say it? I have already said that I agree with the named person that there is a lot of faults behind that and you really need to listen to those faults and those concerns. However, the named person does allow problems to be identified and support provided earlier. The effect of that should be less costly, interventions at a later stage, making better use of resources for those who need them most. However, today, rather than addressing people's misconceptions and peers, the Conservatives are sternically playing on them. Part of their scaremongering is to suggest that information will be withheld from parents and that they will be excluded from important decisions in a child's life. As a rule, that will not be the case if it is, there should be a good reason. Final minute. In contrary to what some believe, those do exist. For starters, children have the rights to privacy and if they choose to tell a professor of something in confidence, they have the right to expect that that will be respected. Such confidence may be necessary to enable them to disclose abuse and we would fail in our duty to the most vulnerable children if that is not the case. We have had too many such failures and the named person scheme done right is part of the safety net that can help to prevent such cases. The named person scheme is there for an admirable and valuable purpose. We should not try to undermine it and we should ensure that it is fit for purpose. Thank you very much. I now call Stuart Maxwell to be followed by Liam McArthur. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. A couple of weeks ago, my colleague Rod Campbell led a member's debate to Martin Universal Children's Day, the day chosen by the United Nations to promote the welfare of children across the world. Although I personally was not able to participate in that debate, I was interested to hear the contributions from MSPs across the chamber on our obligation to ensure that every child is given the opportunity to enjoy their childhood with freedom and dignity. In the opening remarks of his member's debate, Rod Campbell quoted UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, and I think that it is worth doing so again. The one thing that all children have in common is their rights. Every child has the right to survive and thrive, to be educated, to be free from violence and abuse, to participate and to be heard. Those are fundamental rights, Presiding Officer, but sadly we know that for some children, those rights are not always protected. I was fortunate enough to be invited by Barnardos to visit one of their local services in East Renfrewshire to highlight Universal Children's Day. I met volunteers who worked tirelessly to support the excellent work that Barnardos does for Scotland's most vulnerable children and young people. As we have heard, Barnardos is just one of a broad coalition of children's charities who are advocates of the named person provisions contained in the Children and Young People Act. Aberlour, who last night held a reception marking 140 years of supporting Scotland's young people, and action for children who recently celebrated its 60th year of supporting Scotland's young people, are two other well-established children's charities that also back those measures. Other supporters, as we have already heard, include Quarriers, Children in Scotland, NSPCC, Who Cares Scotland, Mentor, One Parent Families Scotland and Children First. Those are all charities that are dedicated to improving the lives of Scotland's children and young people. The fact that they are all advocates of the named person policy is, in my view, strong evidence that implementing that policy is the right thing to do. Nonetheless, like many in the chamber, I have been contacted by constituents who have raised concerns about the named person, so I am prepared to listen to the arguments on why the Scottish Government needs to look again at the policy. However, it seems to me that many of the criticisms raised about the named person are based on misinformation and misunderstanding of what the policy is actually about. For example, one constituent who contacted me was worried about what impact the named person policy would have on parents who choose not to have their child vaccinated. Of course, there are no provisions in the act that would permit a named person to forcibly vaccinate a child. Indeed, the named person has no powers to compel parents or children to do anything without their consent. We have also heard concerns raised by parents that the named person will meddle with how their child's bedroom is decorated and what television programmes they watch. Those concerns are not based in fact—this is not about introducing a snooper's charter that undermines the roles of parents that I will give away. I was just going to ask if you could tell me what you understand by the word well-being. Well, frankly, that is a ridiculous intervention. If you do understand what it is that we are trying to achieve about the well-being of children in this country, I think that you should go on with a serious look at yourself. That is incredible intervention. I apologise, but the member should have a serious look at themselves if that is the level of intervention that they want to make in a serious debate like we are having today. The cabinet secretary and the minister have made it clear that the role of the named person is to advise and support, and those who do not wish to engage with a named person are under no obligation to do so. The Conservatives have described this policy as a monstrous invasion into family life, yet Lord Pentland, in his judgment following the court challenge, was clear in refuting this assertion. I was extremely disappointed to read Ruth Davidson's comments in The Sunday Press, which appeared to be an attempt to scare people into believing that the named person policy is not fit for purpose. To cite the murders of baby pee and Victoria Klimby, two harrowing and tragic cases of child abuse and suggest that the named person policy could lead to tragedies such as those being more likely in Scotland is seriously misguided and not borne out by the evidence, and I think that she should seriously consider what she has said and withdraw those remarks. Marron Crue, director of Barnadowscot Scotland, has said that many of the criticism directed towards the named person provisions are not justified. In the briefing paper provided ahead of today's debate, Barnadows offered a strong rebuttal to the concerns raised by the Conservatives in pointing out the importance of having in place an early warning system to identify children who are most at risk. Children are not conveniently divided into groups that identify themselves as either vulnerable or not at risk. The point made by Barnadows that the child most at risk is the one who has not yet been identified as being at risk is an important one and one that Ruth Davidson and her colleagues would do well to reflect on. The Highland Pathfinder found that the named person does not waste resources or put at risk the safety of children. In fact, it demonstrated a reduction in the workload of the professionals involved because support was given before problems developed into crisis. In conclusion, the named person provisions in the Children and Young People Act has been endorsed by Parliament and the subsequent legal challenge to the legislation has been rejected in its entirety by the Court of Session. However, that is not to say that there still is not work to be done. There is clearly a degree of misunderstanding about the named person, which is leading to anxiety among some parents. More must be done to address that, and I certainly welcome the cabinet secretary's assurances and minister's assurances that the Scottish Government will continue to work with parent groups and others to address any legitimate concerns ahead of the implementation of the measures next year. I am very proud of the work that the Parliament undertook in bringing forward the Children and Young People Act. It is unfortunate that many of the excellent provisions in the legislation are being overshadowed to an extent by the misinformation about the named person. When I spoke during the stage 3 debate of the legislation, I said that the implementation of GERFECT across Scotland would go a long way to ensuring that no child is left without support. I have heard no compelling evidence to make my change that view. I am disgusted by the fact that the Conservatives are just carrying on with misinformation and leading to more misunderstandings about the legislation. I give fair warning that members may have to be cut off at six minutes. I appreciate the role of the named person to which both Liz Smith and her colleagues are implacably opposed. I very much respect that position, although I disagree with it. Some of the language used to convey that position has been neither accurate nor helpful and only likely to spread undue alarm among parents and the wider public. In that sense, I agree absolutely with the criticism level by Ian Gray, if not with everything in his amendment. It is not to say that there are not genuine concerns. Last week at Topical Questions, I highlighted the Government's decision to abolish the board of experts task with overseeing introduction of the named person. Ministers did not see fit to inform Parliament of their intention, nor even to tell us that they had done it. That was, I think, both high-handed and disrespectful. Practically, of course, the way in which the named person is introduced and resourced matters greatly. During the passage of the bill, like others, I highlighted the need to ensure that focus is not diverted away from those cases where there are genuine welfare concerns at stake. It is something that the Deputy Chief Constable raised in the now abolished programme board, and it is probably the area where most work is needed to reassure the public, as well as those more directly involved in the process. The key to avoiding that happening is for the Government to make sure that it is properly resourced. In that respect, I think that the criticism contained in the Labour's amendment does have merit in reflecting concerns of the RCN, teaching unions and local authorities that were reassurated yesterday in the education committee. Moreover, the Government was wrong, I think, not to limit the scope of the named person provision to those 16 and under, or to introduce a presumption in favour of explicit consent for information-sharing. Both have made implementing that measure, as well as reassuring the public, more problematic. Notwithstanding those concerns, I simply do not buy the argument about so-called state-sponsored guardians. Initially, I too, like the former Cabinet Secretary, viewed those proposals with a little scepticism. However, based on the evidence that we heard in committee and discussions that I have had with those involved in working with children, I have been persuaded that the named person can be made to work effectively and deliver benefits. We will need to keep a close eye on resourcing and ensure that a ruthless focus is maintained on those in greatest need. However, that is entirely possible and certainly not justification for the more dire predictions that are made by some. Personally, like others, I found the experience of those in Highland particularly helpful in coming to a view on that. The GERFIC pilot, which was taken forward by Highland Council and its partners in the health police and other services, saw the idea of a named person first emerged at the behest that it would appear of parents keen to have a single point of contact. We would all subscribe to the need for joined-up working between agencies when supporting our children and young people, whatever that support may be. If everyone is responsible, however, there is always the risk that no one actually takes responsibility, and that measure I think helps to address that particular risk. In terms of the practicalities, the arguments that were made by Aberlour and others in their briefing are interesting, as well as illustrating how senior teachers will simply not have the time to meddle where there is no need. They point out that most parents would expect senior staff to look out for their children. In effect, those proposals will codify best practice, albeit as I acknowledged earlier, with a need for adequate resources. It is also expected that the communication will be dramatically more in the direction of parent to named person rather than the other way round. That might offer reassurances to those worried about the effect on the role of parents, reinforced by statutory guidance that makes it clear that parents will retain control of the relationship. Parents will be able to complain about their named person in some circumstances having a new named person assigned, whether the relationship breaks down or there is a conflict of interest, a reasonable safeguard and one sought by Liz Smith during the passage of the bill in committee. It is also helpful that the guidance sets out strict rules on what information, if any, is collected and shared by the named person. As I said earlier, ministers were wrong to reject my amendments on introducing a presumption in favour of explicit consent for information sharing. Obviously, there will be instances where that is not practical, but those are rare. The principle of explicit consent, meantime, seemed to me to be one worth enshrining. However, as the briefing from the Coalition of Charities makes clear, named persons will rarely proactively collect information about a child except when there are serious, existing concerns. They will receive information from other professionals only where there is a particular concern about a child and will then decide if action needs to be taken. Again, there are other mirrors of what we would expect to be happening already. There are legitimate anxieties about how the named person will work in practice. We in this Parliament and those most directly affected by the act's implementation will need to be alive to those. However, some of the intemporate language being used and characterisations made about what the named person approach is and what it will mean for children, young people and parents in Scotland are wider than the mark and irresponsible. For the vast majority, the truth is that they may notice very little difference at all. Where it should deliver most benefit, however, is in directing vulnerable families to the help and support that they need and, more particularly, as Ian Gray wrote about today, in allowing early identification of potential problems for those who may be at risk ensuring that help is provided that may well prevent more long-lasting problems emerging over time. The roll-out of the named person must be proportionate and sensitive, but I believe that it can be an effective means of underpinning children's rights in Scotland, and that is something that I very much support. Thank you very much. Very tight for time today. Speeches up to six minutes please, Mr Brody, to be followed by Modder Fraser. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I suppose in this debate I have some experience as a parent of—a step-parent of five children and ten grandchildren, and because of my soft nature they receive the fiercest of protection and the best of guidance. However, when I spoke in the child sexual exploitation abuse debate two years ago, I said that nothing can be more important than the welfare and protection of every child, but certainly those who are the most vulnerable in our society—children who need the greatest of care and support—something with which we can agree, and I can assure you that the inquiry of the petitions committee in that debate burns a hole in me to this day. It is, of course, not unusual, Presiding Officer, that when a new legislation is introduced, there is the inevitability of differing opinions across parties, across the political spectrum, across ideals, and in this case that is so. Just as in the debate before I mentioned at the beginning, there are the overriding issues of children and the attendant emotions, all of which I thought I knew were embraced by Liz Smith—I am sure that they are—in how she feels, but unusually in this motion and speech was wrapped in unnecessary scaremongering. Because of those compelling emotions, some may have had concerns, but the basis of the policy of any new proposal, any service, change can only be validated by persuasion, by implementation and above all by evidence. Perhaps it is on that paradigm that those who are vehemently opposed to the policy in this chamber and beyond and recognise the basis for a motion involved might have worked out how they might work more constructively and accept eventually the intent and the evidence. Let us put down a markup and progress from there, Presiding Officer. Let us make it clear from the start that the named person role does not replace or change the role of a parent or carer, nor does it undermine families. Fundamentally, children and parents have no obligation to use the service, but we are applicable to children and parents who wish to take up the advice that they have offered. In a question raised by Liz Smith on 16 February this year, she asked if parents will have a legal right to withdraw their children from the provisions of the Children and Young People Act in relation to named persons. The answer is that there will be no legal obligations for families to engage with the named person if they choose not to, but that is because the named person will be someone from the family who knows and trusts that they may seek advice and support if they need it. Sorry, I can't. I personally would do more, should it be otherwise. When the motion calls for the growing opposition to the named person policy and that there is strong criticism that has been levelled at the policy by professionals, where is the significant growing opposition, apart from in pages 8 or 10 of the right-wing press? Are we honestly saying that organisations that have been mentioned before, from Aberlour to Barnardo to Who Cares, are not professional when it comes to the care of those children that need it? Are we honestly saying that when the judicial review appeal was upheld in regard to the legality of the policy, Lord Calaway said that the legislation was informed by views of experts—that is the same as professionals—experts in child welfare, health and education. Its policy is to put the best interests of every child at the heart of decision making. Going on said that the mere creation of a named person available if needed to assist a child or parent no more confuses or diminishes the legal role, duties and responsibilities of those parents. I believe that the motion that was presented by Liz Smith was driven by the best of modus until she spoke. Given what I have said, we need to let the professionals work together to secure early interventions on child welfare and to prevent tragedies. It is relevant that non-statutory versions of the named person role are already evident in areas such as Edinburgh, Angus, Falkirk, Fife and Asia. The Highland Council's implementation of the named person provision in 2010—a provision that was welcomed at the time by Liz Smith and Mary Scanlon in a previous GERFEC debate—was that she said that she was particularly pleased to welcome the report on the results of the GERFEC debate, developing a more holistic approach to the needs of the child. Inevitable, I suppose, is that the motion states that extensive costs and bureaucracy will be involved in the implementation of the policy. It would not be a Tory motion otherwise. As the Highland experience points out, it needs not be so. Martin Crue of Bernardo was a verb that neither of those criticisms is justified. Protection of the most vulnerable, particularly vulnerable children, is the responsibility of this chamber. We should secure that based on evidence and respect of the child. I start this debate mindful of the instruction that we had at the start, not to make direct reference to the current court proceedings. Although I noticed that the Scottish Government's own amendment says this, it notes that the legal challenge of these provisions has now been rejected by the Scottish courts twice. I would say very gently to the Scottish Government just because a policy is not illegal does not make it sensible. I do not think that there is anyone in this debate who has a problem with the principle that children who are in a vulnerable situation need additional support. That is a principle that underlines GERFFECTS, a principle that is supported by every party represented in this chamber. The issue that divides us is whether that approach should be extended to all children or simply those in a vulnerable situation. It is the universality of the name person policy that makes it controversial and precisely why we are bringing this debate to Parliament this afternoon. Are you defining a vulnerable child? Is this somebody who is going to be a deserving poor or undeserving poor, the scroungers or skyvers, the net rhetoric, the language that you are often talking about? I really think that that intervention by the minister is beneath her. I think that when she reflects on that after this debate she realised that that sort of language is entirely unhelpful to the debate that we are having this afternoon. I am going to talk a little about resources and I will develop this argument because it is actually an important one. Liz Smith talked about the additional burden put on public authorities through making this policy universal. This is a view expressed by the EIS. It has expressed concern about the impact on education, saying in July that teachers are becoming increasingly concerned about the demands that are likely to be made of them, which will have implications for workload and potentially for conditions of service. Carol Ford, the former president of School Leaders Scotland, told the Scotland Government in October that this policy will have, and I quote, simply diminished the time and attention paid to those children who need it most. By spreading the name person resource across all children, most of whom have absolutely no need of it, rather than just those identified as vulnerable, the impact will be so thin as to be negligible, a named person to be identified only for those children who need it. Just today, in a pressurise from the Royal College of Nursing in Scotland, they continue to express their concerns about the resources in some areas to support the introduction of the named person. That is where the crux of the issue comes, because for years we on this side of the chamber have been calling for proper resources for a universal health visiting service. If you want to identify the people who are in need of support, you fund health visitors. Instead of putting the money into a named person policy, there is always criticism of, in relation to a diversion of resources, putting the money into health visitors. If the minister will be slightly more careful on her choice of language, I will give way to her. I still do not think that he ever gave us an answer as to how he was going to determine what a vulnerable person is. I just wonder whether the member would welcome the announcement of 500 additional health visitors. The minister knows that we are on record as welcoming that, but that is precisely how we identify the vulnerable children by having the health visitors, which is why we want to see the resources going into the named person policy rolled out into that much more useful way of addressing this particular issue. The more concerning the implication of resources is the fear that this legislation will undermine parental rights. We have heard lots of assertion today in the debate from SNP members that that will not happen. I sought to quote to them a number of people who take a contrary view, including the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, who has said, We believe that the concept of a named person for every child is ill thought through and offers no benefit to the majority of children whose named person is already in place, their parent or carer. For most children in receipt of universal services, their parent or carer is the person who has the most interest in their wellbeing, knows them best, is committed, has staying power and is most committed to ensure the health education and other services that they come into contact deliver for them. This proposal completely fails to recognise that significant relationship, and the fact is that it seeks to usurp the role of the parent. Not the words of Conservative members in this Parliament, the role of the Scottish Parent Teacher Council. Similar concerns have been raised by Maggie Mellon, who the minister will well know, a social worker for over 35 years and vice-chair of the British Association of Social Workers. She said, The exclusion of parents and families seems to be based on a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of what is meant by child-centred practice, which assumes that the Government can and should have a direct relationship with children by passing or ignoring their parents and families. But children live in families, not idealise families and not demonise families, just families, with all their complexities and their occasional failings and crises, but for most children, the best for them is to be the people who care about the most in the world. Who could disagree with that? Not the words of Conservatives, by any stretch of the imagination, but the role of experts in the field. And as the parent of two young children at primary school, I can identify with those remarks. If somebody has to have primary responsibility for my children's welfare, it should be me, or at least their mother. It should be us as parents who have their responsibilities, not someone nominated by the state. It is an intrusion into family life and the primary responsibility of parents for the state to seek to usurp the parental role. On the Scottish Government's website, there is a page named Top 10 Named Persian Facts aiming to dispel what it claims are myths around the policy, and it states that children and parents have no obligation to use the service or take up the advice or help offered. As Liz Smith pointed out, this is not the case. We know that professionals believe that it is their position to take an interventionist approach, and it will be flagged up as a risk indicator if there is parental resistance or even limited engagement for the role of a named person. Presiding Officer, this is a misguided policy at best. It is dangerous, it will have a negative impact on resources that are better spent elsewhere. The Government should think again. It must close, thank you. I now call on Mark MacDonald to be followed by Mark Griffin, please. I guess, Presiding Officer, it is an occasional occupational hazard of politics that occasionally relapses into hyperbolic statements and over-the-top narrative. First and foremost, as somebody who has known Ruth Davidson for close on 17 years, I was extremely disappointed in the remarks that she made in the press at the weekend. The reason why I found it very disappointing is, first and foremost, because it is always disappointing when somebody who you get on quite well with says something quite so outrageous. Secondly, if we look, for example, at the case of Daniel Pelka and the review into the death of Daniel Pelka, which said, some of the failings in this case related to systems not working effectively rather than simply to individual errors, because opportunities were sometimes missed by practitioners to intervene more effectively or to apply a greater child focus to interventions. That led to Ann Huston, the former chief executive of children first, who I think most people in this chamber would accept as somebody who speaks with a great deal of authority on those matters to state. That, like Daniel's, reminds us why the principle behind the name person in the Children and Young People Bill is a sound one, as it aims to prevent children slipping through the net. Nobody in this chamber, in any way, shape or form, would suggest that there is never going to be something happen in the future that you could absolutely categorically legislate to completely prevent a tragedy from occurring. However, what you can do is legislate to make it less likely, and you can legislate to remove some of the gaps that exist where services do not always communicate effectively, for there is not always that round-table approach to ensuring the welfare of children. I looked at the briefing that was sent to us, and I looked at the organisations who have chosen to write to us and put their organisations' names to a briefing in support of name persons. Liz Smith cited some of them, Aberlour Action for Children, Barnardo's, Celsus, Children First, Children in Scotland, One Parent Family Scotland, all coming forward and speaking in favour of the name person approach. Liz Smith said in her opening remark that because those organisations are organisations who work with the most vulnerable children in Scotland, that has somehow rendered the universal application of the name person policy as wrong-headed. I say to Liz Smith that it is her analysis of this that is wrong-headed, because if you look at the fact that those organisations are writing in support of it, if they thought for just one second that the introduction of this policy would result in resources being diverted from the most vulnerable children in society or lead to those children becoming more at risk than less at risk, they would oppose it in a heartbeat. You can be guaranteed of that. It clearly demonstrates by those organisations taking the time to write to us and express their support for the policies that they recognise the benefits that it will bring, and they understand that the name person policy is about supporting children who, as Barnardo's, identify in their briefings to us. In many ways, the child most at risk is the one who has not yet been identified as being at risk. I thank the member for giving way. If it is the case that the Scottish Government is saying that, in the vast majority of cases, the named person will no longer be necessary, it will never be necessary, why do we need them in the first place? If she would listen to the first two and a half minutes of my speech, where I outlined the point in relation to the Daniel Pelka case and which could be equally applied to many other cases of tragic circumstances where there was not the required communication between the relevant organisations and the supportive remarks from Anne Houston of Children First, she would have known better than to offer me such a specious intervention at this stage of the debate. However, to go beyond that to the nub of this, the reality—I think that it was highlighted in Murdo Fraser's speech where he spoke of the idea of parents being usurped. I am a parent of a child with a disability. I am a parent of a child without a disability. I see no threat to my role as a parent from the named person policy. Maybe I just have a different view of that from Murdo Fraser. The most interesting thing was where Murdo Fraser said that the way that you deal with that is through investment in health visiting and health visiting alone. I welcome the announcement for the minister around the additional health visitors that are going to be funded. I also accept that there is a role for health visitors within the named person provision, up to a point. The idea that Murdo Fraser is propagating when he speaks about health visitors being the sole solution in all of this is that a child can be identified at risk at the point of birth and at no point during that child's transition through childhood into adolescence can that child go from not being a child at risk to being a child at risk? There are no circumstances that could lead to that. That, to me, is fundamentally misguided in taking that approach because there are a range of external factors that can influence what happens in that child's life. If the only eggs that you put in the basket are at the very beginning of that child's existence, you run the risk of missing later on. It is not so simple as to be able to point to an individual child and say that that child is at risk. A child from a comfortable background in terms of finance is just as likely to potentially be in a household where the mother has postnatal depression as happened in my own household where my wife went through a period of postnatal depression. You would have perhaps looked at our household and not necessarily identified us as being in a position where that might have arisen, but that did arise nonetheless. We can never categorically say that no child will ever require a named person simply on the basis of an arbitrary factor. It cannot be determined so easily. That is why the policy is correct. It is why the Conservatives are so wide of the mark. Thank you very much. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Government has our considered support in this debate, but there are real perils ahead as the policy process turns from sweeping objectives to tangible delivery. I thank the Scottish Government for publishing the revised draft statutory guidance yesterday, which has helped to clear up some, if not all, of the confusion surrounding those proposals. I think that we can all agree that children and families having an easily identified advocate on their behalf is a positive step. Indeed, as has been widely stated by the broad coalition in Civic Scotland, who support those aims, a large number of the functions of the named persons are already being carried out. Teachers, guidance councillors and health visitors are working tirelessly to support families as we debate today, and we will continue to do so under the new legislation. The rhetoric from the Government is difficult to disagree with, getting it right for every child is a venerable ideal. We all want Scotland to be the best place in the world to grow up, and every child and young person in Scotland is right to play, to be healthy and happy to learn new things and to be looked after and nurtured. The challenge for the Government, though, is in realising those laudable aims and bridging the gap between broad sweeping statements of intent and delivering on the infrastructure, resources and support that are necessary. One of the last major policy initiatives that began with a similar level of support was curriculum for excellence. It was broad support for the aims and objectives of the policy that commanded support across the board in public life in Scotland. Unfortunately, that support faded and problems grew as the date of implementation approached and difficulties of delivery became apparent. However, the optimist, although I am sure that the Scottish Government has listened to the concerns that have been raised regarding the draft guidance and will address them thoroughly. It is a genuine point that the member will welcome about us providing support for parents. He may welcome the fact that we have launched guidance that was in BSL. That is a personal campaign. I thank the minister for taking the needs of BSL parents into account. That guidance is crucial because it will directly impact local implementation, which could be a defining factor in whether the policy aids families. It would be helpful if the minister could reassure us over some of the weaknesses that still persist in the Government's approach and how she intends to tackle them. It is not just Members in this Parliament that she must reassure us. It is the thousands of education and health workers who will be required to implement the new scheme. I have three main areas of concern, which remain firstly the Royal College of Nursing. I have already highlighted that there is a shortage of health visitors. Teachers and health visitors are going to be expected to carry out their named person role on top of their usual duties with no extra resources. Had teachers could easily end up being the named person to several hundreds of pupils in particular areas, any suggestion that those changes do not add to existing workloads is simply untenable. The practical challenges of availability due to teaching commitments, time pressures, recruitment challenges and the resources to provide training will all fall on local authorities and health boards with no extra financial support. Secondly, the heart of the changes and the definition of wellbeing is vague and undefined, and that is open to a wide range of interpretation. That remains the case despite yesterday's attempt to add clarity and despite being a key tenet of the new approaches, it is still without clear and ambiguous guidance that the Government has tried to flesh that out with the Scenari, acronym for safe, healthy, achieving, nurtured, active, respected, responsible and included, but the EIS has pointed out that it may lead to a skewed and overly simplistic impression that the wellbeing of children from more affluent backgrounds is secure, while children who are from less affluent backgrounds are likely to present with wellbeing concerns. It is hard to disagree and unfortunately we have to view that test in the wider context of pockets of poverty. Should the named person be a head teacher of a school in an area with higher levels of deprivation, we might not be able to help it to find a blanket failure to meet that test. Finally, there remains an issue around children's services plans, which will be provided by local authorities and health boards. It is my understanding that those will be signed off by ministers, but is that the end of the role that the Scottish Government will play if the children's services plans state that there is a lack of resourcing? Will there be support available? How do they interact with the individual child's plan? How are local authorities meant to meet the conflicting demands of the individual and the collective availability of support? I think that there is a lot of work to be done between now and the end of next year to convince families, health and educational professionals and all those who support the policy that the Government is capable of steering and crucially resourcing that policy to a successful outcome. I haven't spoken on an education and childcare debate in this chamber for over a year. In fact, I checked it since the 20th November last year when I answered a question on the training of educational psychologists from my friend David Stewart. That's not evidence of a lack of interest. I remain passionately interested in all aspects of education and childcare, and I remain fascinated by almost all the subjects that I dealt with in Government. It's always best to let one's successors act and be heard without noises off from the past, but I'm speaking here today with the agreement of my successor and the Minister for Children with whom I had the pleasure of working on this issue. I'm speaking because I want to publicly and clearly raise my voice against the Tory motion and what the highly regrettable and utterly misplaced Tory campaign against the name person policy. I have some admiration for Liz Smith. She knows a great deal about education, though my saying so will not probably help her street cred in Tory's streets at least, but I believe that she's profoundly wrong about this issue. I have to regret the way in which she is raising it. It will encourage the worst of responses from some people and has already done so from her leader, whose publicity at the weekend on the matter was misleading, misinformed and, most alarmingly, at all, will be maliciously misused by others. I want to speak about principle and practice this afternoon. I want to pay tribute to the three ministers who have made this positive policy possible. The current Minister, Aileen Campbell and maternity leave cover Fiona McLeod and her predecessor, Adam Ingram, all three are highly thought of in the sector. All three have passionately believed in and implemented this important innovation. They have done so hand in hand with all the main children's charities, with local authorities, with health, social work and justice professionals, with the police and with countless others, including Labour. I commend at least three quarters of the speech by Ian Gray this afternoon. All that proves, and it is a central point, that the name person initiative as part of GERFEC is not an extreme or experimental policy. It is a mainstream, respected and effective approach to supporting and helping children, parents and families. By doing so, it supports and helps our society. It has also been supported to date by a judgment and an appeal judgment in the courts. The principle is clear and positive. The named person is intended to act as a point of contact. That is what it is. It absolutely does not supplant or replace parental concern, love, affection, support, responsibility or guidance. It does not, I give way. I thank the member for giving way, and it is good to hear him speak again on this subject. Could I ask him what it was that made him change his mind, given that he himself said in the chamber that he was rather nervous about the name person policy? If she will wait, that will come in a moment, because I want to address that point, because I did become a strong convert for this policy. This is not a policy that produces a state guardian in any recognisable use or meaning of the term. Liam McArthur confirmed this afternoon that understanding, and he sat through all the evidence. There isn't and there will be no state guardian, no usurping of parental role, no demonisation of parents. All that language is, as the facts demonstrate, untrue spin, designed to undermine the delivery of necessary and appropriate support to children. I believe that no MSP should be complicit in that spin. Jackie Brock had put it well when she defined the name person in much simpler language, as a primary point of contact available to all children. She went on to observe that it is often merely the formalisation of practice that already exists. She also noted that the policy and the legislation has grown from a sincere commitment to improve children's welfare and protecting families. It is light-touch assistance, it is appropriate assistance, it is assistance where and when needed, it is assistance that can be crucial sometimes because it is light-touch. Two examples from my very first week in office almost six years ago. I went to Fort William to see the graphic pilot in operation and it was working because it was coordinating the work of others, it was light-touch and it was meaning that young children and young people, often from very chaotic backgrounds, were able to be helped and guided in a supportive way through the name person programme. No wonder Mary Scanlon spoke warmly of the name person programme in the Highland region. The pilot programme worked and worked spectacularly. Then later on, I went to see in a school, in actual fact in Liz Smith's area, not forfer but somewhere else. I went to see in a school how it was working because I remained concerned because there were noises off. I met a young boy and it stayed with me ever since. This young boy, his mother had died and his father went to pieces. The child was in real difficulty but he had a named person and he was able to go to that named person and again, with the lightest of touches, get the support that he needed, to support his father, to support the family and to keep the family together without the intervention of social workers or others. It worked for him and that is the boy that we should think about today. That young man persuaded me finally that this was the right thing. It is the right thing and the wrong thing is to take this and attempt to play to a political gallery. I understand that the Tories want to be the second party in Scotland. That is their business but I want to make sure that the first party in Scotland is delivering for Scotland's children. By all means, divide this chamber on matters of genuine principle but do not divide us on our shared concern for children, our shared support for children and our shared desire to encourage good family life in Scotland. The name person helps does not hinder that. We are at this stage in the process. We ought to be concentrating on the implementation of the named person policy. Clearly, I welcome what Ian Gray said about that at the beginning. The sad reality is that we still have to address the myths and the scaremongering that have stirred up a great deal of anxiety and misunderstanding among certain people. I suppose that I should acknowledge the relatively measured tones of the motion and the relatively restrained tones of Liz Smith's opening but only relative to the disgraceful weekend hyperbole of her leader, which stood truth on its head. For me, the killer question in this debate is why on earth if the fundamental critique that Ruth Davidson was making and that Liz Smith repeated today that policy puts certain vulnerable children at risk. Why on earth would every single organisation in Scotland that works for vulnerable children support this policy? I have such a long list of them here that it would take the rest of my speech to read it. We have to address the anxieties and misunderstandings with simple clear messages about the policy. I will give five the idea for the named person. It originally came from parents, so there could be a clear point of contact for support services. It involves a stronger role for an existing member of staff, not a new person, far less a state guardian. There were no powers in the named person legislation to force a child or a family to do anything. It is based on existing practice, and I will mention briefly if I have time. Finally, social work as a targeted services service is only involved when needed. I have a long quote here, but I will only read the last sentence of it from Alistair Gow, who is the president of social work Scotland, whose conclusion is, that the named person role will reduce, not increase the involvement of social work in the lives of family, protecting resources for our most vulnerable children. I hope that Ruth Davidson reads that particular quote. Liz Smith was also concerned about the universal nature of services, but, as Bernardo said in the briefing that he sent us yesterday, I quote, it is essential to have a universal early warning system to identify the children who are most vulnerable in many ways the child most at risk is the one who has not yet been identified. That is about supporting and safeguarding. It is about enhancing the rights of children while respecting those of parents. In the vast majority of cases, as the more general briefing that we have today from a whole range of children's organisations pointed out, the traffic will flow from the named person to a parent, and, as they also pointed out, there are strict rules about what information is collected or shared. I think that some of the basic facts about the named person—we just have to repeat them. We know the way that politicians do and sometimes we are criticised, but there is a good reason for just repeating things over and over again, because those things have not been taken in by a lot of people because of the massive scale of the distortion and vilification of this policy. I have never read so many ridiculously absurd articles on any subject in recent times than I have on the named person that I printed off a whole collection for this debate. I despaired but decided that we would just have to challenge it. I suppose that one reason why I feel strongly about this is because we have had this policy in Edinburgh since 2009. Has any parent ever come to me complaining about it? November 2009, policy document City of Edinburgh Council, one aim of GERFECT is to move towards earlier intervention and quicker identification of needs. We will achieve that by introducing the role of the named person. That was happening in Edinburgh, as is even better known, it was happening in Highland as part of the Pathfinder. Liz Smith asked, where is the evidence that the named person had anything to do with the success of the Pathfinder? I refer Liz Smith to the post-Pathfinder submission, completed by Bill Alexander, Directive Health and Social Care, on 13 September 2013. I cannot read it all out in the minute and a half that is left to me. I will summarise and take a few sentences. Critically, the named person is a point of contact for families. We know that. If the family wishes, the named person can request help from other agencies. If other professionals have concerns about child's wellbeing rather than rushing to social worker police or a host of other agencies, the concern can be passed to the named person. That is interesting, skipping a bit because I have no time. Previous to the named person policy, the children's hearing system was becoming deluge and swamped by inappropriate referrals and unnecessary processes, preventing and delaying the system from responding to those children who may have been in need of compulsory measures. The development of the named person role was widely welcomed in Highland and has been fully implemented since 2010. Families prefer having contact with someone they already know and who knows the child, so it is all there in a lot more detail than that. It is standing truth on its head. That allows us to identify vulnerable children better and spend more time on them, contrary to what Ruth Davidson said. I cannot accept the intervention. The implementation issues are what we should be concentrating on, including issues such as getting the message across and providing the resources that are needed. However, we still have to do the fundamental task of supporting the policy and challenging the misrepresentation of that policy. I have a higher regard, like Mike Russell, but I regret the speech that he made today. Many thanks. We are now completely out of time. The last four speakers have to reduce to five and a half minutes each. I would like to take the opportunity to take the chamber back to the Children and Young People Scotland act as passed. First, section 19.5 of the act provides that a named person's functions are, and I am picking those out from several different lines. Quotes, advising, informing or supporting the child, young person or parent. Helping them access a service or support and discussing or raising a matter about them with a service provider or relevant authority. Close quotes. The health board is to appoint the named person for a preschool child when the local authority takes over once they go to school. That is section 20. Sections 21 to 23 helpfully speak about communication under different circumstances, the whole point being that information about vulnerable children should not get lost. I would ask the chamber to note the effect of section 23.4 that in considering whether information ought to be provided, the outgoing service provider who is providing to somebody else taking over, is so far as reasonably practicable to ascertain and have regard to the views of the child or the young person. That is mirrored in section 25.5. Again, please note that section 25.7 requires that information ought to be provided only if the likely benefit to the wellbeing of the child or young person arising in consequence of doing so outweighs any likely adverse effect on that wellbeing arising from doing so. A named person must also act according to the Scottish Minister's guidance, section 28 and directions, section 29. The practice briefing note of December 2010, which provided the guidance, is very clear about the purpose of the named person. It says that it is a named person's responsibility to take action to provide help or arrange for the right help to be provided to promote the child's development and wellbeing. All questions ought to be considered about wellbeing and what can be done to help respecting confidentiality and, I quote, children and families must always give permission for information to be shared. During pregnancy and immediately after birth, the named person should be a midwife, thereafter a health visitor and in time a member of school staff. I have drawn the chamber back to the original documents here, Presiding Officer, just to put it all back in that original guiding context. Can I make the point that whatever Scottish Ministers might put in guidance and direction, it cannot exceed what is in the original act? It certainly cannot push the boundaries of that. Furthermore, in the guidance it says that taking action in different circumstances, in every circumstance it is critical that children and family are involved in discussions, the gathering of information and in decision making. The essential point is that the legislation must be looked at overall and the legal point is that the powers conferred by the statute can only lawfully be used for the purposes for which they are conferred and within the constraints placed upon them. I'm grateful to Mark McDonald for picking up on some of the issues that Murdo Fraser raised, because whilst I can understand why Murdo, if it's at least not here, and many other members, as well as parents, find it difficult to understand why parents might be regarded as anything of any kind of problem. I think that this is probably the Scottish Parents' Teacher Council that is made up of parents who would not be a problem, understandably, forgive me, I know who Murdo is. Those are precisely the kind of parents who I suspect would not be a problem at all and do feel that they might be usurped. But could we just be absolutely clear that there are occasions when parents are a problem? Mark McDonald has also helpfully made the point that it's not just in the very early years that vulnerability arises or could conceivably be identified, and expecting health visitors to be the only source of that is, I would suggest, unreasonable. It is fundamentally, Presiding Officer, that there should be somebody who can see the wider picture at whatever age, somebody to whom everybody who has a concern can turn to, and somebody, therefore, who has a chance of making sure that some of the dreadful, albeit rare cases that we have seen have a chance of not being repeated. On that basis, Presiding Officer, I think it will turn out to be a very good thing, and I very little doubt that it will stand the test of time. Thanks so much. I appreciate your brevity. I now call on Neil Bibby to be followed by Animal Goldy up to five and a half minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The community of Ohio is a priority for all of us here in this chamber than to ensure our child protection systems work and protect vulnerable children from abuse or neglect. We all know that, sadly, there have been far too many high-profile cases of child neglect of the years that have not been identified or acted upon by the authorities until it was too serious case reviews, such as the tragic Declan-Henry case, have demonstrated major failings in blaming when no one person or agency has taken responsibility for a child's welfare. I have said before in this chamber that I do not believe that it is the state's job to bring up all children, but, as Ian Gray and others have said, I do not believe that this is the intention of the policy. Given this, I do support in principle the name person role to ensure children are protected from neglect or abuse. My own son is five months old, and since he was born, my wife and I have received important support and advice from our health visitor. We have found the health visitor to be helpful, not intrusive, and I do not fear that health visitor becoming a name person. However, we have to recognise that there are genuine concerns from parents about the name person role that has not been addressed. As Ian Gray said, I do believe that the Minister and the Government are trying to do the right thing. However, if those concerns have been acted upon and responded to properly when the children and young people bill was being debated, then I do not think that we would be in the situation that we are in now where there is an impression that this policy seeks to provide a social worker for every child or replace the role of parents. One area in particular of the legislation that is still deeply flawed is the name person provision for 16 to 18-year-olds. During the passage of the bill, Labour and others supported amendments on reducing the age limit for having a name person from 18 to 16. We did this because we listened to what experts like Bill Alexander, who has already been quoted this afternoon, said that the director of care at learning at Highland Count, so he said at the time, I remember when he gave evidence to the committee, many of us were concerned when he questioned why a name person would be needed for most children who had left school. He said, I do not understand how my daughter is 17 and doing performing arts in Manchester could have a name person, she will not need one or want one. There is no doubt that some young people will require additional support after leaving school, however the vast majority of young people will neither nor want a name person. As members have said, the Highland Council was the national pathfinder for implementing GERFIC, and Bill Alexander is highly respected in this parliament. In fact, during stage 1 of the Children and Young People Bill, I remember Mike Russell actually said, Bill Alexander knows more about the subject than anyone else, and I found what he said to be true. I take a brief intervention. I appreciate that. It is the Highlands and Islands MSP since 1999. I also say that you cannot simply look at the GERFIC, NHS Highland and Highland Council, where also the pioneers of the lead agency model for health and social care. Therefore, Highland Council is fully responsible for all aspects of all care and all education of children under 16. That has got nothing to do with the name person. I think that we need to revisit the issue of the name person for 16 to 18 Euros. Given that, I still find it astonishing that the Scottish Government proceeded without listening to what people such as Bill Alexander and opposition parties said about this particular issue. I have to say to the SNP Government's failure to listen and insisting that 16 to 18 Euros will have a name person is a ridiculous position to take. It is ludicrous that a young person can join the army and yet still have a name person. We cannot logically say that 16 to 18 Euros can have a vote but they still need a name person. Unfortunately, that detracts from the whole name person policy and even those who support it in principle. Even now, I would advise the minister to rethink this aspect of the legislation. Such a move, I am sure, would be welcomed and show that the Government and the Minister are listening. There are still major concerns from professionals about its implementation resources and the additional burdens of staff, which I and others raised when the bill was passed. Our position on resources is the same as the child protection charity for the NSPCC, who said that the NSPCC Scotland supports the intention behind the name person approach, which if properly resource could increase the likelihood of early intervention for children and young people, thus improving their outcomes. The key phrase here, of course, is properly resourced. It is clear to anyone and we have to recognise that the policy will not work properly unless it is properly resourced. We also need to listen to people like Theresa Fife, director of the RCN in Scotland, who gave a warning earlier this year. She said that we welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to recruiting more health visitors, but with the name person responsibility, can we on top of recent changes to the workload of health visitors? Many of our health visitor members have deep concerns that, even with the plan boosting numbers, there just won't be enough hours in the day to fulfil and vote no. We need to listen to what the RCN is saying, what the EIS is saying and what other professionals are saying. Nearly all the points that I have raised today are raised in a speech nearly two years ago during the Children and Young People Bill. I hope that the Government and the Minister will respond to the concerns that have been raised swiftly and positively to them. Thank you so much. I now call on Annabelle Goldie to be followed by Gordon MacDonald. Up to five and a half minutes, please. Deputy Presiding Officer, some may argue that, as the policy of name persons is now enshrined in statute, the train has left the station and is now clattering down the rails, but this is a controversial measure. It is the duty of this Parliament to monitor the progress of the train and to 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 came to light that the Scottish Government had abolished the expert programme board, which had been advising the Government on GERFIC. I appreciate 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 an assistant chief constable at the penultimate meeting of the programme board in May 2014 raised the issue of ensuring that high-risk children remain focused when the legislation takes effect. That is why an absence of transparency about where we are is troubling. The debate is timely and has presented a useful opportunity to remind Parliament of and for Parliament to discuss the strong criticism that the policy faces from professionals, a criticism that may be unwelcome to the Scottish Government, but we nonetheless need to listen to it, because those are the people who are likely to be at the front line of delivering as the date for implement edges closer. The principle of GERFIC finds support across the chamber, but the universality of the named person legislation has raised both philosophical and practical challenges. Let me articulate the concerns of others, not the concerns articulated by me or my party but independently by other groups. The executive director of the Scottish Paired Teacher Council, Ellen Pryor, said in an interview with Holyrood magazine only last month that, and I quote, named person, in her view, is a red herring that will undermine trust and cause issues between families, schools and 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, Deputy Presiding Officer, then I think that there is a risk that children will be hesitant to access confidential services. That point was argued with the Children's Legal Charity clan child law. In May, who said of this policy and I quote, it 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 may also affect families. If families are fearful that if they are open about the problems that they face or the support that they think they need, they may worry that that information could be shared in a way prejudicial to them. The next problem surrounds the extensive costs, practical consequences and the bureaucracy that are necessary for the implementation of the policy. Ian Gray, although I did not agree with everything that he said, made some hard-hitting points, because the Scottish Government presumes that, for the majority of children of school age, a named person will be a teacher. However, teachers already face substantial workload pressures. The Association of Head Teachers and Deputies warned in February that they were, and I quote, very concerned about the workload that this might generate and said that this had to be addressed before commencement. That was echoed in the summer by the EIS. The EIS argued, and I quote, that the default position should not be assumed that a school should always be expected to provide the named person irrespective of its capacity and resource. Those are real concerns, because we do have some information about GERFEC costs for 2016-17. It shows that over a third of those, almost £10 million, will fall to local authorities, already under budget pressures. In the same year, GERFEC will cost the NHS over £16 million, which leads me to quote from the director of the Royal College of Nursing, who said earlier this year that many of their health visitor numbers 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 persons duties. I am very tight for time, Mr Macdonald. I am sorry, I planned this in six minutes and I have been cut back. Can I lastly, Deputy Presiding Officer, turn to a very important point? The very nature of the named person legislation means that it does flood the system with many children who do not need to be there. Ministers can deny that until the cows come home, but it is an incontrovertible arathmetical fact. That does place vulnerable at risk children in a difficult position. It does. That is exactly the point that the assistant chief constable, Malcolm Graham, at the penultimate meeting of the GERFEC programme board in May 2014, when he said that there was an issue surrounding ensuring that high-risk children remained a focus. If he did not think that that was an issue, why did he say that? I have to say, Deputy Presiding Officer, there are concerns that we need more information. I think that, to address the growing opposition and deep concerns of many families and professionals, the Scottish Government must provide answers and transparency. It is unacceptable to leave people in doubt. In conclusion, as an immediate priority, will the Scottish Government at least publish all the advice that it has received from the national implementation support group? Thank you very much. I invite Gordon MacDonald to make the final speech for the day after which we will move to closing speeches. Five and a half minutes please, Mr MacDonald. The name person policy has been tested across Scotland in a number of local authority areas, including Edinburgh, Fife, Angus, South Lanarkshire and Highland. Highland Council published its GERFEC implementation plan in June 2006, and between 2006 and 2008 it was rolled out across the Highland area and fully implemented by early 2010. As children in Scotland pointed out last year, every child in the Highland area already has a name person. The education information sheet produced by Highland Council, NHS Highland, Northern Constabulary and others back in 2009 about name person, highlighted the key questions any person who works with children, who has concerns that they might need additional support, will ask themselves the five questions. What is getting away of this child's wellbeing? Do I have all the information that I need to help this child? What can I do now to help this child? What can my agency do to help this child? And what additional help, if any, may be needed from other agencies? Fife Council identified at each stage of a young person's life the name person as either the hospital or community midwife, the health visitor, the primary head teacher and at secondary the guidance teacher, all of them professionals who have had an interest in their children's wellbeing for decades. As Barnardo Scotland said in a written submission, the name person is not a new person in a child's life, but merely a stronger role for an existing member of staff. Fife Council also stated that the name person role formalises activities universal agencies are undertaking routinely in their day-to-day work and continues. Experience from the pathfinders and learning partners has shown that, in spite of anxieties, the role of the name person has not created additional work. Rather, the new processes have sharpened existing roles. A review by Highland Council in September 2013, three years after it was fully implemented in the local authority area, found that for those children who need it, there is now a team in place around the child that works and plans together to ensure that the needs of the child are addressed appropriately. Professionals, the child and the family work better together to achieve the best possible outcome for the child, resulting in children in the Highland area being better supported to achieve, attain and to realise their potential and achieve positive destinations post school. It is those positive findings by the Highland Council review that has led to many organisations working with children supporting the legislation. In a joint briefing from the 11 leading children's charities, they highlighted that the vast majority of children's charities and professional bodies working with children support the introduction of the name person. They also highlighted that the idea for the name person originally came from parents who expressed a desire to see access to support simplified and a single point of contact through which to access that support. The name person represents that single point of contact and effectively signed post-state support and offer advice in times of difficulty. They went on, the name person exists to direct vulnerable families to help and support. They will also have a coordinating role and will pull all of the threads of information together for a child about whom a worrying picture has begun to emerge. That is it. Girffec exists to ensure that there is always someone looking out for your child. That just standardises something that most parents would hope was happening already. Despite the support that the policies had with children's charities, councils and professionals, campaigners against the name person's legislation raised a legal challenge and lost. An appeal was lodged and a panel of three judges reconsidered the case and refused the appeal, stating that the legislation does not breach human rights or European Union law. As the ministers already said, in their judgment issued in September of this year, they stated that the mere creation of a name person available to assist a child or parent no more confuses or diminishes the legal role, duties and responsibilities of parents in relation to their children than the provision of social services or education generally. It has no effect whatsoever on the legal, moral or social relationships within the family. The assertion to the contrary, without any supporting basis, has the appearance of hyperbole. Highland Council, who tested the legislation that helped frame the national guidance on the name person, stated that, at the time of the judgment being released, the name person's service ensures that families with any concerns about their child's wellbeing know where to take that concern and that they get good advice and support. It is proven in practice, has been welcomed by parents and I am pleased that the value of the name person role is reaffirmed by today's decision. Many thanks. We now move to closing speeches and I call on Cara Hylton. There is no doubt that the Scottish Government's name person policy is a controversial one, and that is largely due to the type of remarks that we have heard today from the Tory members and the Tory tabloids who take great pleasure in whipping up concerns and fear among parents about a policy that, in reality, is about protecting the rights of Scotland's children and ensuring that we provide our most vulnerable families with the support that they need when they need it. Members across the chamber have highlighted examples of the fears that have been expressed and promoted, none of which are grounded in reality. The idea that there will somehow be a spy in every home checking on what we let our kids watch on TV or what we give them for their tea is not only far-fetched, it is, as Ian Gray said earlier, complete nonsense. Ian Gray's comparison with many of the scare stories we heard in the early days about Europe with the myths circulating about us being forced to grow straight bananas and rename British sausages is a great parallel for much of the debate that we have seen around the name person policy. The reality is that, as many members have highlighted today, the name person policy is not about undermining the role of parents or questioning their authority, and it is not about providing a social worker for every child that, as a daily male, would have us believe. It is about ensuring that information is properly shared so that, if and when issues appear in a child's life, teachers or health visitors who already have a duty of care towards our children and who already have a role in our children's lives are better able to support our children and better able to support families before problems become severe. As members across the chamber have said, in many respects, it is just about formalising an approach that is already tried, tested and working well in many local authorities such as Fife, Edinburgh and the Highlands, providing parents with a single point of contact, improving information sharing and multi-agency working, allowing problems to be identified and appropriate support to be provided at the right time to prevent families from reaching crisis. Barnado Scotland pointed out that it is essential to have a universal early warning system to identify the children who are most vulnerable. Indeed, as Malcolm Chisholm and other members have pointed out, the child at most risk is often the one who has not been identified as vulnerable. That is why the name person's provisions have the overwhelming support not only of Barnado's but of almost every child welfare organisation, including Youth Link Scotland, Save the Children, Children First, Who Cares Scotland, Parenting and Agenda Across Scotland, a fact that has been highlighted in the chamber today by many members. However, while Scottish Labour supports this policy and principle, we do have concerns about its implementation. While we reject the scaremongering that has been encapsulated in Ruth Davidson's newspaper article at the weekend and in the political games that the Tories are embarking on in their motion today, we also believe that the Scottish Government has a lot more to do to genuinely get it right for every child in particular to sell this policy to parents. As John Pentland has highlighted earlier, at each and every stage, we have said that the names person must work in practice and be properly resourced. A real concern here is the impact on Scotland's health visitors, who have already been stretched to the limit—a point that has been raised by my colleague Neil Bibby. Yesterday, the Royal College of Nursing warned of staff shortages, highlighting their concern that many of our health visitors are due to retire over the next five to ten years. I noted the minister's comments in response to Murdo Fraser raising the issue. That is welcome, but the reality is that in health boards across Scotland they are struggling to recruit and retain health visitors, and many have large numbers of vacancies that they simply cannot fill. With community nursing staff already working flat out, I think that there is a real danger that the extra demands of acting as named persons could increase stress, sickness and staff turnover levels unless it is properly resourced. I know that the Scottish Government's named person policy is well-intentioned, and it is one that the Scottish Labour does support with qualifications, but it will only work well if it is properly resourced. Right now, as Ian Gray has warned, we are seeing resources squeezed not provided, whether it is our NHS, our councils, our police service or our teachers, our front-line services and staff are under growing pressure, and Mark Griffin highlighted many of the challenges here and the challenges of delivering and resourcing children's services plans on the ground. It is also two about acting to ensure that resources that are available are allocated to support the policy and weighted according to needs targeted so that they reach the most vulnerable children and families. That is the approach that Labour puts at the heart of our policies and our plans to ensure that funding always follows the children that are most in needs. In conclusion, if the Scottish Government wants to make the name policy work, if it wants to gain support of parents across Scotland and the professionals on the ground who are expected to take on these additional roles, then there is an urgent need, I think, to explain much better to parents about what this policy is about and indeed what it is not about. I am pleased that this sentiment has been echoed by members across the chamber, Labour members and also SNP members such as Stuart Maxwell. Scottish Labour wants to see the very best possible protection and support for our children, but there is no denying that in all our communities parents have got real concerns about the names, person and provisions that we are discussing today. It is time for the Scottish Government to take these concerns on board to do more to communicate with parents, children and young people about what the name person means for them and to address the current shortfalls which stop us getting it right for every child. It is no good getting the principles right if you cannot deliver yet, time and time again, we pass laws in this place only to fail when it comes to ensuring that they are implemented properly. Let us not just pass laws to get it right for our children, let us make sure that those laws are backed up with the resources, the support, the practical guidance to ensure that they really do make Scotland better. This is especially important right now at a time when welfare reform means that more children and more families are reaching crisis point. We want every child in Scotland to have a fair start and we want to see our most vulnerable children protected, but fine aspirations are no good unless matched with the resources and the support to transform lives. The Government amendment today fails to give any guarantee whatsoever on resources for the name policy and unfortunately, therefore, Scottish Labour will not be voting for it at a decision time. Thank you very much. Now call on Minister Eileen Campbell up to eight minutes please. Presiding Officer, we are always pleased to debate Girfech in the Parliament, a chance for us to reaffirm the principles that this chamber has repeatedly endorsed while debunking the persistent and at times malicious myths that continue to be recycled about the name person. I think that I would share that same weariness that was expressed by I think both Malcolm Chisholm and Mike Rizzle that again we find ourselves having to time and time again counter those fears and smears peddled by the Tories in today's debate, but I am pleased to hear that aside from the Conservatives that so many members once again support the principle of what this Parliament passed into legislation 19 months ago and I wanted to pick up on some of those points that have been raised. Many members did point to what Lord Carlaway said when he mentioned that when he said in his ruling that legislation does not involve the state taking over any functions currently carried out by parents in relation to their children. That has always been a constant within the design and the development of this policy, tried and tested and proven to work through the Highland Pathfinder and tested through the courts twice. Before the minister completes her contribution, will she deal with the question that was raised earlier? That is, in relation to the issue of wellbeing and its definition, would a parent who chooses to refuse a vaccination be in a position to be overruled by a name person? I think that again this just shows this fear and smear that it continually becomes from the Conservative benches and a refusal to acknowledge the clear guidance that we have published yesterday, the clear evidence that proves that this approach exists. I am disappointed that he is continuing to go down that incredibly negative and scaremongrant route. Let us remember that this name person entitlement was designed in response to what parents told us they needed. As Malcolm Chisholm rightly pleaded for us to remember that that was where the origins came, a point of contact to avoid the painful telling and retelling of stories to a crowd of services. This is not, as Mordo Fraser said, parents being usurped or any of the hyperbolic language coming from the Tory Benchants. This policy is about building on the relationships already in existence and working with families. I would entirely agree with Liam McArthur when he described the use of language as intemporate and irresponsible and deliberately spreading undue alarm. The words of Michael Russell when he described the approach from the Conservative benches as simply being untrue spin. Ruth Davidson is also good that she is back in the chamber despite having seemingly been quite gallous in the weekend's press. I believe that her distasteful article cited wrongly and pretty irresponsibly the tragedy of Victoria Clymbale. We have also heard from other members who have chosen to speak about the learning that we can take from some of the tragedies that have existed, unfortunately, in our country. For example, when Ruth Sherriff-Henley said that Ruth Anderson quoted that the fatal accident inquiry into the death of Declan Harry said that there was no system in place whereby one of the agencies responsible for Declan's wellbeing was an overall charge and there was no system whereby one named individual was responsible for co-ordinating all available information. In the case of Victoria Clymbale, Lord Lamming said that over the years preventative work with families has been declining as a result. The absence of a timely supportive intervention has allowed more family problems to deteriorate to the point of crisis. This trend has to be reversed. This can only be achieved if a higher priority is given to services working jointly and supporting families and helping them to overcome their difficulties. It is clear that the overwhelming message from child protection case reviews in England, as well as in Scotland, is that the failure of services to share relevant information has resulted in the full picture of a particular child's vulnerability being put together in time to allow professionals to take essential action. To address, as well as listening and responding to some of the points that have been made today, I wanted to talk about some of the voices that we have heard from outside the chamber, the voices of those who work every day with children and families, those who are vulnerable and those who are not. Those voices should be raised in this debate. The Conservatives keep referring to the small number of voices that challenge the name person, but let's quote a handful of the others who are positive about this move. Alasdor Gaw, the head of social work Scotland, who recently wrote that there is a myth about the name person not being needed. He said, really, how often do we hear about children falling through the net, issues not picked up, early opportunities missed, families struggling on, children and families can get to a crisis point before it's noticed that they need a bit of help. If we can prevent crisis by making one person responsible for ensuring people share information, that will go a long way towards helping children and families early on, preventing sometimes devastating consequences. It's not just social work professionals either. John Butcher, the director of education and youth employment in North Asia, spoke on behalf of his colleagues yesterday when he said, the new law and guidance will improve the way services work to support children, young people and families, and we welcome the flexible approach to the name person role and function at that it offers. Moreover, we have parents groups who have been saying that same thing as well, despite what the Conservatives would have us believe. Implementation of something as important and as wide-ranging as GERFEC takes time and close cooperation with those who will experience the changes most. Speaking about the publication of the guidance on GERFEC that was published yesterday, Fiona Nicholson, the co-chair of National Painting Forum Scotland said, we are pleased that the guidance has received inputs from a range of stakeholders, including parents and the MPFS, and recognised that the Scottish Government has taken account of the feedback that was received during the consultation period. I could go on about the different people who have responded positively to the name person provision when they act, and about how that embeds early intervention and the approach that will help children to fulfil their aspirations, their hopes and lead, as Stuart Maxwell rightly noted, within the rights agenda, a good and positive childhood. We could go on to quote a huge number of people who have been wanting us to take this forward in a positive way. I quote all those individuals to correct the distorted view that keeps getting bandied about the name person, that preventionals do not want it, that parents do not welcome it, and that those who work with their most vulnerable do not champion it, because it is simply not true. Of course there are still challenges, and I will, as I said in my opening remarks, continue to work constructively and proactively with those who want to continue to work with us to take this implementation forward, because we have invested £51 million for additional teachers. We have announced 500 additional health visitors to meet the needs of the act. We have supported training and we have published guidance. There is, as always, a need to do more, and we will take on board some of the points that have been made today and made from outside this chamber. As Minister for the Responsibility of Doing My Best by Our Children and Young People, I will always strain every single thing to do this. We have proof and evidence that the GERFEC approach works. We have proof that improves co-ordination of services, and we have proof that it avoids costlier and more traumatic services by embedding early intervention and prevention. I will continue to be guided by our GERFEC approach and looking to improve the children's wellbeing. I most certainly will not be guided by a party that has shown its true colours today. The party has been politicising over the wellbeing of our children while it systematically punishes them with their harsh welfare reforms. It has done a vote fast on its support of GERFEC for the most cynical of politically opportune reasons. My focus will continue to do best by our children and ensure that we work towards creating the country that I think most of us at least want for our children to grow up in. Thank you very much. I think that this has been a very worthwhile debate, and I shall endeavour to be as measured and as objective as possible. I have to say that we have had some pretty valuable contributions from across the chamber today. Some of the contributions clearly I did not agree with, but that does not mean that the contribution was not valid and worthwhile and causes one to reflect on one or two points. We have not done a vote fast, as the minister suggested. The Scottish Conservative party has been very uncomfortable with the idea of a statutory mandatory universal named person service since day one of it being mentioned. We have opposed it from day one. We have opposed it relentlessly all the way through the bill process, and we oppose it today even after the bill has been passed. Of course, I will give way. I am still trying to work out why, in 2009, in a debate about the GERFEC, your members implored us to roll this out nationally. Gavin Brown? I think that Mary Scanlon dealt with that point very well in an intervention, because she said that she liked the idea of ending silos and combining services. She was impressed by the leadership of certain individuals in Highland Council, but she did not say at any point and has not said at any point that she is in favour of the named person legislation. Of course, in 2006, when the path finder was set up, there was not a named person named at the time. It developed years later, and so it is not something that the Conservatives have changed our view on at all. I have to say that it is not something that we are likely to do anytime soon. It is a universal approach, and the mandatory element, as Murdo Fraser talked about, is that we have the biggest difficulty with. We do not believe that the policy is as popular as the Scottish Government and others will have you believe. We have only heard reference to one actual survey of parents from the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, which suggested that 74 per cent of parents who were interviewed were against the policy. I have not heard a counter-survey or counter-poll from the Scottish Government at any point during the legislation or at any point today. It would be very interesting to hear whether they have plans to conduct a full poll survey of parents just to back up the strongest assertions that they have made over the course of the afternoon. It is fair to say that most children's charities, or certainly most ones that I have heard from, do favour the legislation. That is a perfectly fair point to make. Aside from the children's charities, the position is very mixed. We heard quotes this afternoon of concerns from the police. We heard quotes from the Government of support from the police, so we have a mixed response from the police. We heard strong quotes from both sides of the chamber today in relation to social work, but we heard from some social workers who were very concerned about it. We have heard from parents who are concerned about it. I have to say purely anecdotally that parents who will say that they are in favour of it but, of course, it does not apply to me take a very different view when they realise that it absolutely applies to them. It is mandatory, and whether they like it or want it or need it, their child too will have a named person. In one moment, I will. We have heard from the EIS and teachers again on both sides of the divide, but the position is this. There is clearly not universal support for this policy. There is clearly a very, very mixed response on some pretty damming quotes, I have to say, both on the finance committee and the education committee. That has to be a concern going forward with the universal policy for those who are expected to implement it and those to whom it applies are not in favour of it and have deep concerns. I certainly would give way to Mark McDonald. I am sure that the continued propagation of misleading hyperbole by the Tories has absolutely nothing to do with public perceptions around named persons. Can Gavin Brown just answer me one question? We have heard from his members about the fact that it is the universal element of this that they have difficulty with. On the other hand, we have also heard members who believe that the role of named person in some way usurps the role of parents. Are they opposed to the named person role in principle regardless, or is it simply the universal application? We seem to be getting arguments from both sides of that. Gavin Brown? I am not sure that we are. I have to say that to accuse me of hyperbole is a little unfair, given what I have said over the course of the last four minutes, but I will check the record to see if anything that I have said could be classed as hyperbole. We have great concerns with the universality. We have great concerns with the principle that I do not think it replaces. I think that there is a myth about the myth here that somehow we are saying that it completely replaces parental control. I do not think that that is true and I do not think that we have said that at all today, but I think that in some circumstances it has the potential to undermine the relationship between parent and child. Let me just give you one example, because the Scottish Government said in its press release yesterday that children and young people will have access to a named person service, a single point of contact for help, support and advice for families and those working with children if they need it, making it sound as if it is not mandatory in any way, making it sound as if it is only there for those who need and want it, which we know is not true. Although there has been a statement today from the Scottish Government that you do not have to listen to what the named person says, if the parent chooses not to engage, then they do not have to do so. However, what we do know from the guidance is that if a parent on a point of principle chooses not to engage with the named person, chooses not to engage with the process, a negative inference about that parent can be drawn. I do not think that that is acceptable. I think that if parents do not want to engage for perfectly valid reasons, the idea that a negative inference can be drawn about them by the named person and indeed the authorities more widely, I do not think that it is fair and I do not think that it is acceptable. Objections and principles, as I think Liz Smith outlined very strongly when we have over the course of the debate, but we have equally strong objections on pragmatism. We have heard from previous Labour and Lib Dem speakers that they share at some of those concerns too, although less so I have to say over the course of today. We know that it is going to be difficult, not just for the NHS, but for local authorities more widely over the course of the next few years. The reality is that we cannot spend the money twice, so any money that we spend on children or named persons for children who do not need them or do not want them is money that, by definition, we cannot spend on children who desperately need the support and help. Let's not pretend that creating a giant bureaucracy does not cost money, because if you look at the financial memorandum, let me just give you one example for it about the costs of it. In year 1, for local authority admin costs, the Scottish Government estimate is £2 million. That is £2 million on admin by local authorities that, by definition, we cannot spend on teachers or anybody else helping those who need it. That £2 million breaks down into 100,000 hours of administration. The bureaucracy is estimated to create 100,000 hours of administration in year 1 of it being set up. That is our point about the diversion of resources. I will not quote the Labour MSP from a previous debate, just in case I harm its political career, but I think that it is a very prescient quote from it in the last time we debated it. It said that 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. I am hardly going to give way in the middle of a quote, 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. I pointed out the £2 million prize, Presiding Officer, as just one item in that financial memorandum that shows that some money, be it millions or tens of millions, could be diverted away from those who need it most and being spent on those who neither need or want the provision. That is the point that I think came up in the debate a number of times, is just in the resourcing of the policy as a whole. This is where I have to say that the Scottish Government, through the course of their pushing the bill through, have been living in fantasy land, absolute fantasy land, because, Presiding Officer, they have suggested—I will give way to Mr Russell. I just wanted to take the member back to the 100,000 hours. That equates to, in my reckoning, 40 hours of school in Scotland, which is less than an hour a week in each school for the wellbeing and support of children. It does not seem a lot to me. If we are spending 100,000 hours and several million pounds on creating a bureaucracy, my simple view is that that would be better spent, far better spent on those who need or want it. Perhaps Mr Russell and I will just have to disagree on that point. However, the point that I was coming to was this, and I see that time is tight. The Scottish Government has said that it will cost teachers or local authorities £8 million in year 1, which, on the face of it, does not sound a huge amount of money for the actual help that would be required and brought in there. Fair enough. In year 2, the Scottish Government's view is that the cost would be nil. The Scottish Government thinks that by putting into place a policy for one year, suddenly there will be no costs and no extra resources required whatsoever thereafter. That is absurd. Anybody who knows anything about preventative spend knows that it takes time, knows that it can take five years, ten years or even a generation in order to implement change and to get outcomes and savings. The idea that it can be done on a shoestring budget in a single year is ridiculous. For that reason, along with our reasons of principle and pragmatism, we are very much against the name person policy and will continue to be against it. That concludes the debate on name persons. We now move to the next side of business, which is consideration of business motion number 15021. In the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme, any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press the request to speak button now. I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 15021. The next item of business is consideration of business motion number 15022. In the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a stage one timetable for the Scottish election and states bill, any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press the request to speak button now. I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 15022. There are three questions to be put as a result of today's business. Can I remind members that, in relation to today's debate on name persons, if the amendment in the name of Aileen Campbell is agreed, the amendment in the name of Ian Gray falls? The question then is amendment number 1499.2 in the name of Aileen Campbell, which seeks to amend motion number 14999. In the name of Liz Smith, on name persons be agreed to, are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote is amendment number 14999.2 in the name of Aileen Campbell, as it follows, yes, 66, no, 14. There are 28 abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to and the amendment in the name of Ian Gray falls. The next question is motion number 14999. In the name of Liz Smith is amended, on name persons be agreed to, are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. Order. The result of the vote is motion number 14999. In the name of Liz Smith, as amended, as it follows, yes, 65, no, 14. There are 28 abstentions. The motion as amended is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time. We are now moved to members' business. Members should leave the chamber, should do so quickly and quietly.