 That ends questions on the ministerial statement. Apologies to those who wish to ask questions but weren't called. The next item of business is a debate on motion number 345 in the name of Liz Smith on education. I am speaking very slowly until Ms Smith manages to get herself organised. I invite members who wish to speak in this debate to press their request to speak buttons now, please. I now call on Liz Smith to speak to and move the motion. You have 14 minutes, Ms Smith. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the motion in my name and immediately draw members' attention to the first line in that motion, in which I make it clear that this debate today is not about whether members support the Scottish Government's policy on name persons or oppose it, as the Conservatives do. Instead, it is about whether it is deliverable in the proposed format and, most especially, whether that format is in the best interests of children and families, because it is surely the best interests that should be at the forefront of all our minds. I want to begin by going back to the time when this policy was first proposed and to the initial evidence to the education committee. As I understand it from that evidence and from Minister's statements at the time, it was seen as a policy that would enhance child protection by encouraging earlier intervention and by ensuring that there was greater co-operation and co-ordination between the different areas of children's services, as had been the case in the pilot in Highland. I want to stress my recognition of the fact that there can be no doubt that among the 138 submissions to the committee at the time, which made specific mention of the name person policy, the vast majority, around 70 per cent, which came from groups highly experienced, I may say, in dealing with our most vulnerable children, there was strong support for the policy. As indeed there was amongst the committee members, with the exception of myself. In recent weeks I have reread many of these very supportive submissions and I note again, just as I did three years ago, that this support was for the general principles of the policy, but it was often qualified about concerns over caseload and an underfunding of resources. Just two examples at the time were the Royal College of Nursing and the EIS. Of course it is also very fair to mention Bill Alexander, who has been a consistent advocate of the policy throughout and a man who can speak with considerable experience in Highland. It is these concerns about caseloads and resources, which, as we approach the full implementation of the policy, have come to dominate the debate. I think that we have to accept, whether we are for or against the policy in principle, that these concerns are serious. Indeed, I have no doubt at all that it was these concerns that prompted both Kezia Dugdale and Willie Rennie to make plain during the election campaign that their respective parties were worried about the deliverance of the policy. On the back of growing public's concern, which, to be fair, was recognised by Hugh Henry, Ken Macintosh and Tavish Scott in the last Parliament, and which we were all getting on the doorstep, Kezia Dugdale asked for a pause so that key issues could be rethought, and Willie Rennie also questioned the resources issue. So, too, did Ian Gray, who has been telling his constituents and the Cabinet Secretary that, despite his support for the general principles of the policy, he remains concerned about its delivery. Even some SNP candidates in the election hustings questioned that, too. Jamedi MSP said that he was very proud to vote for the original legislation, but he recognised the extent of public concern and that some modifications and changes might be necessary. So, the Conservatives firmly believe that there is a parliamentary consensus for a major rethink. This is reflected in the public moot, which, as polling has shown, tells us that there is widespread concern about the policy's implementations. But it is what has happened since that is so significant, and that is the reason for the debate today. Because it is the growing number of concerns that are being expressed by professionals on the front line, many of whom have no party political affiliation, or if they do, they represent the full political spectrum. So, let me take their professionals' concern. Firstly, there is the caseload burden, which has been brutally exposed by so many professionals in recent weeks and months, whether publicly in unison's report from its members who are health visitors, whether in the EIS, in the SSTA, whose members requested a delay following the motion submitted to their conference by teacher Neil Sinclair, whether in the Royal College of Nursing, or the social workers, or in the BBC's call K last week, or in so many cases, more anonymously, from front-line staff who are less prepared to put their name to anything because of fear of reprisals in their job. Yes, of course. Mark McDonald. I'm grateful to Liz Smith for giving way. She's mentioned the RCN now a number of times, and she will have seen the briefing issued last night by the RCN, which says that they are neither calling for this policy to be scrapped, nor for it to be paused. Will she at least acknowledge that on the record today? Yes, I will, and I have done so already. But the RCN is on record also of saying that they want to have greater resources, and that many people inside the RCN who have come to see me privately are also concerned about the extent of the workload, so I think that there is an issue there as well. The paperwork that is attached to the name-erson policy is by any reckoning. We all have to accept that very substantial. That which accompanies the wheel of wellbeing and the original measuring of the scenario indices, which divide into no fewer than 307 indicators of wellbeing, is quite frankly mind-blowing. The company is the 31 different categories of the My World Triangle, or the extraordinary guidance that describes the name-person as the head gardener. It does not take much imagination to recognise what some of our already burdened health visitors, teachers and social workers feel about that. The Scottish Government has said to take up the point that it will provide 500 additional health visitors, but there are some who are still arguing that the caseload of that is significant, and it would be very difficult for them to cope with all that. John Swinney said two weeks ago that he wanted to reduce teachers' workloads, and there is one way to start by doing something about the burden of being a name-person. As Greg Dempster said when he was at the education committee, he feels that some of that paperwork is such a growing responsibility that it is stopping some people from applying for primary headships. A comment that was made, if you just let me make a little bit of progress, was a comment that was made by Jenny Lane in Aberdeen City Council. Today we have Dr Simon Knight, who is a senior youth practitioner working in Glasgow. He says that his colleagues are increasingly concerned that any decision about a child is not now going to be up to professional training and judgment, but will be determined by an endless risk of protocols. The key point, of course, in all of this is that those professionals feel that the additional burden of paperwork means that the most vulnerable children will receive less attention than they should, and that is not a situation that they want to see. However, there is a second area of disquiet among professionals, and that is about where responsibilities lie when it comes to the data sharing and most especially when it comes to the transfer of confidential information about doctors and dentist patients. Medical ethics are, as we know, very strong and precise on that point. Experienced paediatrician Jenny Cunningham says that medics fully understand and recognise that they must, on occasion, share matters of child protection with social workers and police. However, now that that duty is extended to include the sharing of information between agencies where it is felt that a child's wellbeing is at risk, something that she says is an ineluctably subjective judgment, is something that is inevitably going to undermine the trust between doctors and families. Yes, I will. Stewart Stevenson. Is the member aware on the 24 March this year in the public bills committee at Westminster that my colleague Joanna Cherry, MP, elicited that under the investigatory powers bill the UK Tory government will gather information on everybody in the UK's medical records and on children's activities by the passage of that bill that her political colleagues at Westminster trooped through the lobbies to support last night? Liz Smith. I think that Mr Stevenson makes an interesting point, but can I say when it comes to the named person? Let me just develop this point. What is so difficult about the named person legislation is this definition of the term wellbeing. We warned about that at the time when the bill went through Parliament when we listened to the legal experts at the time that wellbeing is so difficult to define. In the last parliamentary debate on this subject, I well remember that my colleague Alex Johnston sought clarification from Stuart Maxwell, chairman of the committee at the time, what he understood to be the definition of wellbeing only to be told and I quote that this intervention was ridiculous and if that's the level of the debate from the Tories, then it's deeply regrettable. Presiding Officer, that was a very... I will in a minute... That, Presiding Officer, is a very serious question and it needs to be answered. Daniel Johnson. Presiding Officer, it's very good to hear that the Conservatives are concerned about resources and about definitions, but I thought and indeed Ruth Davidson in a recent article said that they were opposed to it in principle. This isn't a discussion that we're hearing from this in principle. What's changed? Are they against the principle? Are they not? Liz Smith. Nothing's changed. We remain completely opposed to this policy, but this debate... Well, you can say all you like when it comes to this. Every single party in this chamber has issued and it's in the amendments to our motion. Every single party is acknowledging that there are very serious concerns about this policy and therefore there is another issue and it's coming from the professionals who are being asked to deliver this policy on the ground. That is a separate issue, but we remain opposed and we will say so and we always have done. There is no problem about that whatsoever. But, of course, there is another problem and that is that there is now considerable confusion because parents remain completely unsure about where they stand in relation to their child's name person. The First Minister told them that a name person is only an entitlement for each family, that it's not compulsory to engage with a name person or accept his or her advice. Fine, but the legislation and the statutory guidance are both quite clear that all name persons are by law compelled to look after the wellbeing of the children who have been assigned to their care and that the duties and functions of the name person do not require parental permission to be fulfilled. There is no opt-out if you are a name person and, therefore, should any risk be identified, those parents have to accept that the chain of paperwork will start for their child. No, I won't if you don't mind. I want to make some progress. I've taken three interventions. The First Minister has confused the issue. On the one hand, she says that engagement with name persons is not compulsory, but our legislation is not designed accordingly. She tells us that name persons are not about child protection, but she defends the policy against our critics with that constantly in mind. So there is little wonder that parents and professionals are confused. Today, in John Swinney's amendment, we learn that the guidance is to be reviewed, which seems to be a recognition to our mind that the current guidance is not fit for purpose. We know, too, that the EIS does not want its members to be name persons during the holidays, for which I have to say that I have some sympathy, but what would happen in that instance? Who takes over as the name person for the holiday? It seems that it is the local authority that has to provide the name persons by using other staff. It is, quite frankly, a bureaucratic nightmare, and, again, it serves to illustrate one of the fundamental flaws about the workability of the policy. Colleges and employers, too, have similar concerns about where their responsibilities lie. That is something that exposes just how daft it is to have name persons for all 16 to 18-year-olds. The cohort that the Scottish Government says is mature enough to vote, which is obviously the same cohort that is able to get married or fight for the country. Presiding Officer, I return to my previous theme. This debate is surely all about the best interests of our children and families and about the ability of our professionals to deliver the care that those children deserve. It is about supporting the agencies to solve genuine problems, not about asking the state to determine that all children are always at risk. Everybody in this chamber knows, and in the wider public, that the Conservatives have consistently been and remain fundamentally opposed to the name person policy. We also believe that we have an obligation to address the practical concerns of professionals and parents about the workability of the policy. It is interesting to see in the amendments today that that is now recognised by the other parties as it was during the election campaign. If that is not dealt with, it could seriously undermine the welfare of children across Scotland. That outcome, would be unforgivable, and that is why we are asking parties in this chamber to support our motion today. I now call on John Swinney to speak true and move amendment 345.1. Deputy First Minister. Presiding Officer, when this Parliament passed the Children and Young People Act on 19 February 2014, we recognised that a policy that had been developed and tested over many years across several administrations with cross-party support reached a key milestone. We believed that it was right for the children and young people across Scotland to have the benefit of the named person service if and when they need it. It was a deliberate, well-debated step and not one taken lightly. It had been informed by expert opinion across Scotland. This is a policy that is long and passionately been supported by professionals and by our children's charities. This morning, the leaders of a broad range of organisations dedicated to supporting our children have made clear their firm and continued support for this policy. They wrote, We believe that named person provisions formalise the best practice of our education and health services ensuring that every child, young person and their family has a primary point of contact available if and when they need it. It is a policy that protects vulnerable children and young people taking a preventative early interventionist approach before any significant risk to their wellbeing escalate. To add to the endorsement, Theresa Fife of the Royal College of Nursing wrote on behalf of the health visiting profession, Our position is clear. We fully support the named person role and believe its intention to promote, support and safeguard the wellbeing of children and young people in Scotland is the right approach. It is a policy, that embodies the principles we share as fundamental to supporting the lives of children and young people. It is founded on an agenda that I thought we were all agreed upon within Parliament. It is an agenda that enshrines the principle of early intervention that was championed by the Christie commission and embraced by this Parliament and several of its parliamentary committees over many years of inquiry. I thought we all understood that a timely and early offer of advice or help can stop troubles becoming crises and, in some cases, crises becoming tragedies. In a moment, as a single point of contact for families as well as for professionals, the named person can make that principle not just best but common practice. I'll give way to Liz Smith. I thank the cabinet secretary. Could he outline why he thinks there is so much opposition to this and that within many of the professional groups, there is... Well, I'm not going to respond to that intervention. I think that there is a real concern among some professionals that because it is a universal delivery that they will not have time to deal with exactly the young children that the cabinet secretary refers to. John Swinney. I think that there are two issues in there. There is one about the issue about workload, to which I will come in more detail in the course of my remarks, and I have to take into account why my amendment is framed in the way that it is framed. When Liz Smith comes to Parliament and asks me today why I think there is opposition to this policy in the country, it is because the Conservative Party has gone round the country for months utterly misrepresenting the policy. This approach recognises that those who most need help, those who can become the most vulnerable are not always the easiest to identify. Named persons are not there to act for those who do not need them, but for those who do, whenever they do, and however long they do need them. Liz Smith has just asked me the point about universalism. Some have argued that we do not need a universal named person service because most children and young people are unlikely to require them. Apply the same argument to access to a general practitioner of a fire service and the importance of universalism is clear. I rarely go to my general practitioner, but I like to be able to go to one when I need to go to one. It is a pretty simple point. It is a service that we believe all of Scotland's children should have access to by right there to be used as and when they and their families require it. It reflects the agenda. Adam Tomkins. I am grateful to the Deputy First Minister for giving way. The difference surely between a general practitioner, Mr Swinney, and a named person is that a general practitioner is there to assist, whereas a named person is there not only to assist but also behind the backs of parents to discuss issues of wellbeing. It is in section 19 subsection 5A3 behind the backs of parents to discuss questions of wellbeing with any relevant authority. Is that not a material difference to the general practice and the unnecessary universalism of the named person? John Swinney. I think that intervention characterised why this debate has become what it has become because you, Mr Tomkins, have fuelled the absurdity of the attacks that have been made on this policy, and you should be ashamed of your intervention in this debate. This policy reflects an agenda in just about every significant case review, fatal accident inquiry and review into the tragic circumstances of the deaths of children who have been the victim of abuse and neglect over the last few decades. It is not appropriate to judge whether a particular policy would or would not have made a difference in a particular tragedy. But when we look at the common thread throughout so many of these deaths as are recorded in significant case reviews and fatal accident inquiries, time and time again reviews have pointed to professionals not sharing information that might have alerted people to something terrible happening. The named person can, and I believe will, help to ensure that the right information is shared at the right time in the right way. We also know that the policy of getting it right for every child works. It has been working in Highland since 2007. Through the named person role, professionals have responded promptly to requests for assistance and families have received more support more quickly. Between 2007 and 2013 the number of referrals to the children's reporter in Highland dropped from 2,335 to 744. Over the same period the number of children on the child protection register in Highland fell from 130 to 80 and social work caseloads have been significantly reduced. That is one of the benefits that we want to bring to the whole of Scotland. We have known this for years and in debate after debate across several parliaments we have consistently endorsed the principles of this policy most recently in December last year. What has changed now? What has brought us to Parliament today in this context? For one, political expediency has made its unwelcome presence felt in this debate. The Conservatives are not after reflection, they want repeal. That is what they screamed at us during the election and Parliament should not be fooled today by the temporary change in the Tory constitution. The Conservatives are not after reflection, they want repeal. That is what they screamed at us during the election and the temporary change in the Tory tone although not by all of the Tories on the benches today. Liz Smith, quiet please. Liz Smith, could I ask the cabinet secretary where the SNP will be supporting the Labour amendment? John Swinney. I will be supporting my own amendment. I drafted it so I will be voting for my amendment. I go through that. That is a great moment of parliamentary triumph. Perhaps it is the language that some have used in their opposition to this policy and we had another example of it today. We have all heard many comments about state snoopers who will be intruding in family life. But these so-called snoopers are the health visitors and teachers that families across Scotland work with trust and turn to already for advice right now. Such language insults the vital work that they do and make their work much more difficult. I accept that the Government now has what to do to build confidence in this policy to ensure that the guidance is appropriate, that is why I have given a commitment to refresh the guidance and to ensure that the public are fully and properly aware of the intentions behind this policy. We understand the challenges of communicating this change to the public, not least in a climate thick with misinformation and scaremongering. The public deserves a considered transparent presentation of the facts around the named person and I commit myself to deliver exactly that. Working with those who work with families and with parent groups we will ensure that the public information is clear and timely. I accept no more needs to be done by the Government which is why our amendment today signals the need to carry out this work and I commit to Parliament working with the Minister for Child Care and Early Years, with other parties, with stakeholders and with public servants around the country, the Government does exactly that. I do not underestimate the task but I am equally proud of the huge progress that has been made right across Scotland to ensure that the duties will commence this August. I believe that to pause this huge effort to transform our services would be a loss of faith in the principles we have commonly espoused for delivering better lives for this and future generations. For ultimately, this is not simply a debate about whether and how fast the named person duties in the act are going forward. It is a debate about how we can make our public services more responsive and more effective to our children and our young people and to the families raising them. It is about how we can best help families to get the help that they need when they need it. It is not about undermining family life but how we can give a guarantee of the assistance that can strengthen and improve it. I move the amendment to my name. I now call Tavish Scott to speak to and move amendment 345.1.1 to amendment 345.1, Mr Scott. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, for a lengthy introduction. This morning I read the papers on the named person policy and I am at a loss to understand why a simple and sensible principle that parents and carers should have a single point of contact for children's services can be so difficult. Dr Simon Knight, as Liz Smith has already mentioned, is a named person and a youth worker in Glasgow, yet he rails against the named person policy in today's herald. Yesterday's press and journal editorial does similar. I have friends as many of us do in education, social work and other places who, just like me, are a parent but some believe that this policy is an invasion into family life but it is not and it never can be and never should be. As a parent I can say no to the named person for my younger sons, both at school ones in primary and one is in secondary. The older one is actually in Inverness. He has had a named person for years due to Highland Council's policy but I haven't been called in by his named person and if I was and it was a matter that I and my son's mother judged to be something that was for us to resolve, that is what would have happened. If and this has not happened I should say our son is caught drinking after school then we would deal with it. Parents and carers can say thanks but no thanks. Yet the government I have to say have failed to get that broad point across and they need to, to Dr Knight and to many others. People worry that parental consent could disappear. Some say that low level intervention is professional health visitors or teaching staff doing a parent's job. Well we all learn as parents believe me I have four kids and I'm still learning but the state any government must accept and ensure that parents and carers can say no that is my responsibility. The obvious threshold is child protection threats to a child's welfare or indeed physical harm. It is where a child or a young person is in danger, is at risk. Following last week's High Court ruling there can be no MSP who could stop a named person pressing every emergency button and taking action. There are clear and very well understood circumstances where police, social workers and others do get involved and indeed must get involved. I have listened to more than one First Minister explain how a government will inquire and review when a child has been murdered in the most horrific of circumstances. But some of me also reflects the real challenge of child protection is helping at risk children in catastrophic family circumstances. Families who can be skilled and manipulative with agencies and can hide abuse. That is where the named person system must simply work. Last week I met the area police commander at home in Shetland. We talked about this and about child protection. At home there is a weekly case conference. All the agencies are present. Any child or young person who is at risk is discussed. Parents and carers will of course be involved. The aim is to stop an initial problem escalating. Child Care Services numerous agencies and the NHS can and are amazed for parents and carers. So an effective approach, a single point of contact that helps parents establish who to speak with about their son or daughter is right. That must be a simple process designed to help. But there are concerns about the name person's proposal and policy. People want to know that this will work properly and that there are safeguards and my amendment reflects that in Parliament this afternoon. Firstly there must be adequate resources. That policy asks the name person not to simply judge a child or young person on the basis of risk but on the assessment of wellbeing. We ask much of our teachers, health visitors and others these days. Our named persons receiving adequate training to cope with the 200 separate risk indicators that are the basis of wellbeing. Do teachers know that well, can I finish this point? Do teachers know that wellbeing is rather than just teaching geography or physics? Can schools provide the professional development that this policy needs to do in order to work? That is observations that I hope the cabinet secretary will be prepared to take forward. Brian Whittle. I thank the member for allowing this question and I say that I have an interest in that I am a board member of the west of Scotland MSPCC. Speaking to practicality which we are just now in a practical sense, if, for example, we have a 16, 17, 18-year-old couple who then have children, does that mean that there are three named people for the parents and son? I am not the type of person responsible for the policy but it would clearly be wrong if there were three named people for any individual in those circumstances and I am sure that the member can address that question to the minister's responsible. There is a significant burden on health visitors and schools. I believe that the Government needs to reflect on the sheer scale of what they are already asking overworked people to do. In a large secondary school, after all, deputy head or pupil support teachers will be the name person for hundreds of pupils. Most pupils, as a number of members have already said, will not need that or indeed any attention but some will, so does having those risk indicators in the scale they are help and I want the Government to reflect on that. Secondly, on money, my amendment reflects the fact that many public bodies do have concerns about the costs of the policy. That was reflected when the bill passed some time back and in the finance committee's observation on the bill and a number of organisations have highlighted the need for adequate resources. I trust that the Government now accepts that. It is why Parliament expects the Cabinet Secretary to set out what the implementation and the on-going costs are and how parents and carers should have the right to request a change of a named person. The Cabinet Secretary's amendment cites many charities and organisations in favour of the policy, but that, I recall, is qualified by a strong desire about parents and carers' rights too. One of those should be to ask a head teacher or the local NHS to change the name person of their child. That, of course, should be based on a reasonable reason, a reasonable request, but I do ask the Government to introduce that flexibility. We should be honest about this. Professionals can throw their weight around. I will not be the only constituency MSP who has had to weigh up conflicting advice from professional staff on one hand and a parent's perspective on another. The Government needs to introduce independent scrutiny to go hand in hand with the right of a mum or dad to change that name person. A check and balance is right in every system and particularly here. People get it wrong and sometimes rather than admit that they cover it up and all the agencies pull together rather than accept a mistake was made. We all have constituency cases where that has happened. That needs to work both ways. Parents can find that the response to their concern is inadequate or indeed ignored. They must want action and help. That appeal is not just about guarding against interference in a child's life that crosses a line into parental responsibility. It is about the cases where professionals do not have time to choose or to make the difference that needs to be made. Let me finish with this observation that those building blocks are important, I believe, for the Government in resetting this yes important policy, a single point of contact but with checks and balances that ensures and enshrines the responsibilities of parents and carers too. I now call Iain Gray to speak to and move amendment 345.2. Seven minutes, Mr Gray. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I rise to move the amendment in my name. Scottish Labour did support the principle of the named person scheme when it was legislated for. We continue to believe that implemented properly and proportionately it can improve support and services for children and parents in general and child welfare and protection in particular. Surely the best place to look for evidence of that is of course where the scheme was first developed, first implemented and has been longest in place, and that is in the Highlands and Islands. In recent days, with attention focused on named person once again alongside or sometimes because of the tragic case of Liam Fee, those in Highland who know and understand the scheme best have spoken out very clearly. I heard, for example, Bill Alexander, director of care and learning for that authority, explained very patiently and eloquently on the radio the benefits he had seen. The most important ones were twofold. Firstly, he was very clear that it is given his staff more confidence and clarity about their own responsibilities and accountability. That has reduced bureaucracy, speedied up access to services for children and families and reduced the escalation of problems in many cases. In particular, he makes the point that it has reduced ad hoc and unnecessary referrals to the children's shelter as a default option for staff involved. In other words, it has reduced unnecessary and inappropriately intrusive measures, not, in fact, the reverse. Secondly, and critically, that has reduced not swamped the case load of social workers, allowing them to focus more time on the most serious cases that require significant intervention. Let's not forget that when the system goes catastrophically wrong, it is the lack of intervention that we end up regretting, not the intrusion. In an article written by Danny Garavelli, Bill Alexander's views were supported by health visitors, teachers and social workers on the front line of children's services in the Highlands. They described exactly the hope for benefits that Liz Smith said in talking about when the policy was introduced. Liz Smith I'm sure that Mr Gray will acknowledge that there are other professionals, people in unison, in the EIS and the SSTA, who hold a very different view of that case load. Ian Gray That view is largely related to the resources going into their professions and the authorities for which they work generally, and I will certainly come to that point. We cannot deny that in Highland the evidence that correctly and proportionately implemented this policy can work. Unfortunately, the evidence has also been there for some time that the Government has made a mess of implementing this policy. Mr Swinney attacked the Tories for skirmongering throughout the election, and I'll come to the Tories. The SNP must take some responsibility too, because for months wild and willful distortions of what this policy would mean were allowed to run unchallenged and unchecked. Government officials produced guidance and training, which on occasion fuelled those stories rather than debunked them. Meanwhile, a budget which cut £500 million from local authorities and squeezed NHS budgets has left professionals involved questioning whether they have the resources to make this or indeed any service work even where they support the principle. That is why we suggested a pause, a review of the guidance and implementation and a commitment to adequate resourcing. Finally, today in the Government's amendment we do indeed get acknowledgement at last that they have lost the confidence of parents in the policy and they do need to do something to fix it. That is a big, big step in the right direction, as is the Lib Dem amendment, which makes clear the need for resourcing. However, we remain convinced that, to give families confidence, this is a real attempt to fix this, there should be a pause for implementation. We also believe that it is not enough to have the same officials who have got us into this mess to refresh their guidance. Some kind of external review is necessary. We have suggested to the Children's Commissioner that there may be other possibilities. Mark McDonald Iain Gray will be aware that the Children's Commissioner was explicitly asked about this during the election campaign and said that he did not agree that there needed to be a pause to review ahead of implementation. Does he not take that on board when he is making that suggestion? Iain Gray That is the suggestion that we made at the time and I want to be consistent with it but I say to you that we are not ready to that. I simply say that we think that it should be an external review not an internal Government official review. For completeness I should say that when the Children's Act was passed we did oppose the extension of the policy to young people from 2016 to 2018 and we still believe that that was a mistake. We will pursue our position and our amendment which elaborates those points but we do accept that the Government has taken the first step in trying to fix this. However, if the Government position does prevail, they must understand that Parliament is giving them the chance to fix this. If months from now there has been no progress we will return to this. What have the Tory motion thrown? Well, their position on named person was clear all through the election. They are against it, they will be a strong opposition to it, they will get it repealed, scrapped and binned. Miss Davidson climbed on a skidw on top of Cairn Gorm to tell us how strong her opposition was. She climbed into a little blue racing car and knocked hell to tell us how strong her opposition was. She even climbed on the back of a bemused and bewildered buffalo to tell us how strong her opposition would be. That was opposition to the whole principle not just the delivery and then she sends Liz Smith to this chamber with a dog's breakfast of emotion which does not oppose named person as a policy but tries and fails to paraphrase our position also. The problem that the Tories have is not the definition of wellbeing it is the definition of opposition and the definition of principle which they do not understand. This position which they have tried to copy is the position that Ruth Davidson described as humiliating hypocrisy. It was a screeching u-turn she said well, Presiding Officer humiliating hypocrisy is turning up with emotion which hides your real purpose behind a pause with no purpose except to allow more debates and presumably more Tory pressurly that say something different out there compared to what they say in here in the debate. That's not strong opposition it is the weakest of opportunism. We don't want a pause to debate this policy we want it fixed properly proportionately implemented the confidence regained and the benefits for children secured that is what our amendment calls for I move We now move to open speeches and speeches of absolutely no more than six minutes please we're quite tight for time I call on George Adam to be followed by Douglas Ross Again we're here to discuss the Tory obsession with the named person scheme and Liz Smith no matter how she tries to redress it or change anything in her policy the Tories are currently in a very bad place with this actual debate because I feel we've had this debate in numerous times with the Conservative debates in the last session and during the children and young people's bill that we went through in the last session as well and my own support for this is rooted as I said in the past and getting it right for every child as is the named person that all young people get the opportunities and chances in life the named person is one of a basket of measures that can help make Scotland the best place in the world to grow up and I see this role as one that families can use when they need that bit of extra support it's also a role that we can ensure the rights and thoughts of the child are adhered to as well the language used in all previous debates by the Conservatives has been less and helpful surely surely the principles of GERFEC are questioned by the Conservative Party because I cannot understand why we would not all want to work together to get it right for every child I do not doubt that many parents and families are concerned about many aspects of the named person provision I don't doubt that because of the tone and language set by the members in the Tory Benches during the election apart from their tone being all wrong it is also the exact opposite of those working in the children's sector yes I will do Liz Smith I wonder if he could cite any aspects of what I said in my opening speech that is inflammatory or in any way that is not looking at the common sense of this policy George Adam Ms Smith you make my point perfectly today you have not said that but you have incited almost rightously outside of this place to actually discuss that as well so a letter people in the sector including Aberlour Barnardo's NSPCC teachers, social workers and nurses urged the Supreme Court the campaign against the named person provision of the Children and Young People Scotland Act has sought to portray the policy as a state guardian for every child a material erosion of family privacy this is simply not the case the introduction of the named person was a direct policy response to requests from parents for a simplified approach to accessing support when they need it that is coming from the professionals people involved Ms Smith mentioned the people involved working in the children's sector those are people in the sector what they actually believe and it's important that we discuss what the named person provision actually does and how the named person would interact with their family as I've said many times before and the Deputy First Minister said when you need to consult with the GP you use them when you don't have to use the service and with that thought in mind how can some argue that this is taking valuable resource away from those that need it that is clearly not the case when support is needed the named person will engage with a family child or young person that outcomes from the engagement can take the form of advice that parents can choose to take or not in most cases I do not see this as a problem we should be discussing this matter this is how we should discuss the named person provision with the public parents need to know what exactly this scheme has to offer what parents, grandparents of which I am one and families don't need as a hype hyperbole of certain members of this chamber we need to be responsible and we must work together to make Scotland that country that is the best for children to grow up it's a role of child protection that I believe the named person provision is of most use there appears to be a common theme in many cases of abuse and death of young children there tends to be a point in the timeline that if someone had intervened or shared information at the correct time strategy could have been averted it would equally be wrong for me that this provision alone would be able to save every child's life because life is never that simple unfortunately bad people will continue to do bad things but what we have to do to ensure is that support mechanisms are there to protect all our children the named person provision can help with this the named person will ensure children and families can access help and advice if they need it at the right time wherever they live in Scotland in line with the current approach of a school head or guidance teacher the named person will offer advice or assistance Daniel Johnson I think that George Adam is quite right that it spoils down to the interactions in how they take place and what needs to be done so that parents can have confidence and trust in the way that those interactions will take place for the named person George Adam I think that the member makes a valid point and I think that part of the reason is that we have to go out there and ensure that the parents understand exactly what this is it's not helped by the Conservatives and the other end using the terms and tone that they do and that's part of the problem at the Education and Skills Committee last time Bill Alexander from Highland Council actually said that the named person scheme works for those children and families who wish to seek support that is why it's effective unfortunately there are some families who do not seek that support these are some families who do not co-operate with authorities and these are the families that other professionals will work with not the head teacher, not necessarily health visitor that is why we have social workers Mr Alexander's most memorable quotes when he said giving evidence to us the fact that we do not get complaints about the named person role being deployed we get complaints when parents believe it has not been deployed and that's where it's been working in Highland now Presiding Officer I would say that we have to get behind this role we have to make sure that we get the message out to the members of the public and we need to stay away from the show biz antics of the Conservatives Douglas Ross to be followed by Jenny Gilruth thank you I refer members to my register of members interests as a councillor on Murray council today's motion in Liz Smith's name calls for a pause ahead of the full implementation of the scheme in August and I want to dwell a moment on that date of August we are just a few short weeks away of this national rollout of a scheme across Scotland and for a measure that was included in the children and young people's bill in 2014 it seems incredible that only now at this very late stage are we getting any acceptance from the SNP Government that there are problems with their plans the amendment today from John Swinney states we acknowledge concerns about the implementation of this policy it goes on to say that the Government need to refresh the guidance provided to professionals and the communication of the policy to the public that has been at the core of SNP Government for years in a moment yet only today when the opposition use their debating time to raise many serious concerns of people across the country do we have acceptance that more information is needed by both professionals and the public John Swinney Can I just clarify for the benefit of Mr Ross that one of the reasons I have concluded that we need to improve communication to the public is because of the atrocious misrepresentation of the policy by Mr Ross and by his colleagues on these benches over here for some considerable time that's why it needs to be strengthened Douglas Ross Well that's interesting we're now being accused of rioting of theatre politics and Mr Swinney saying it's because of what this group of 31 elected conservatives said since during the election that has encouraged it yet I was under the impression that the Scottish Government were already looking forward to taking forward a communication process on this bill yet you come to here today to make that amendment and this is the first time we've had an amendment in those terms in this chamber so I won't take any more lectures from John Swinney but maybe while he's sat there considering that he should consider is that action this late action from the Scottish Government really the responsible actions of a government to only now accept the concerns of so many and is it the action of a responsible government to have to refresh and refresh the guidance and communicate the policy just weeks we are weeks away from the implementation surely this should have been done a long time ago now I want to have a look at the concerns I'm the first speaker today from the Highlands and Islands yet every other speaker has spoken about Highland Council and I want to look at some of the issues that have been raised with me as a regional MSP I'm sure many MSPs have been inundated with emails about this debate from their constituents but first the Highlands and Islands parents and professionals have raised significant concerns I'll quote just two a lady who used to be a residential social worker wrote whilst I am in agreement with the sentiments behind the scheme that implementation and evidence from parents' undergoing trial schemes fills me with horror another wrote I'm a former teacher a parent and a grandparent this will be unworkable for teachers and head teachers can I just make a wee bit of progress and if there's time at the end I'll come back to Ms McDonald now I want to look at the particular issue of teachers EIS say they don't want its members to be named persons during the holiday period and I think that's perfectly understandable and acceptable in Murray council we looked at how we would try to overcome this problem the authority has approximately 80 teachers who act as named persons so what do we do in the holidays out of that 80, 45 are primary head teachers and 35 are guidance staff across our secondary schools so we decided as an authority to look at the senior officers within the council to take on that role now these are heads of service who already have a significant workload themselves and are quite often tried to take their own school their own holidays during the school holiday period or catch up with their own work at that time but they did try on this one occasion during Easter break to be in the named person for the 80 staff who previously did it on one day the named person had 14 referrals from the police on another day they had 25 a head of service within Murray council dealing with all our other casework had to deal with 25 referrals from the police about named person issues we are speaking about workload and capability and capacity and I really have to question is this how the Scottish Government envisaged their policy being implemented when it's introduced this summer sorry I've only got a minute and a half to go is that what Murray council should be doing come the October holidays and if not this what to the Scottish Government want them to do I will quickly stay with Highland council because others have mentioned Bill Alexander's point now Liz Smith has explained the background to some of the success as we see it in the Highland area but there are also areas of concern too in 2014 Highland council reported a rise of 30% from 2013 in the registrations of children and young people based on the child protection register that also included a rise of 16% in the category of non engaging families Highland's own child protection committee biennial report for the period records the figure for non engaging families as particularly high that's what Highland council's own report is saying so it's hugely concerning because as we all know in here non engaging is listed as a risk factor within the wellbeing assessment that named persons have to carry out it's an indication that the relationship between parents and for example the teachers is breaking down and it was one of the most concerning developments in the Isle of Man when they also lowered the intervention threshold of wellbeing to conclude I am against the name person policy and I think we've heard from all the parties that they realise that, they know the Scottish Conservatives are against the name person policy but today is about taking action to prevent the practical problems over delivery of the scheme that have been highlighted by so many individuals and professionals Surely now is the time to take stock even at this late hour we don't need guidance, clarification or further communication we need a pause pause the implementation of this policy to ensure we have something that is workable for Scotland's young people, their families and carers Can I remind all members who have yet to speak that below six minutes means less than six minutes and can I please have Jenny Gilruth to be followed by John Mason Last week I listened intently to my fellow new MSPs delivering their first speeches In particular I listened to Jamie Greene, the newly elected member for the west of Scotland Mr Greene told the chamber that he and those in the Conservative benches would challenge with ideas and not with arguments Let's be clear about the content of today's motion then The Tories first act as the main opposition party has been to start an argument It has been to use the death of a child in my constituency to score political points It has been everything but creating the political consensus spoken of last week Presiding Officer, as the main party of opposition that simply isn't good enough The people of Scotland deserve an opposition who will challenge the Scottish Government They deserve a leader of the opposition who has the decency and the humanity not to take to social media to air her ill-informed views Particularly particularly when that view has now been entirely discredited by Fife Council The fact that learning and teaching the hallmark of good quality education feature absolutely nowhere in the wording of today's motion tells you all that you need to know about the Tories view of Scottish schools So let me be clear the SNP will not allow the opposition to kick Scottish education about like a political football Today's motion opens with that the Parliament, irrespective of whether or not individual MSPs support the principle of the named person policy Presiding Officer, with due respect that is not irrespective It is not irrespective to teachers to parents and to carers nor is it irrespective to pupils across Scotland Let's remember that it was in this Parliament that the Children and Young People Act passed in 2014 with 103 votes in favour and not a single vote against it Today's motion is not about repealing the named person legislation Today's motion is about headlines and political posturing Because if the Tories were so ardently against the named person legislation as they campaigned on during the recent election then why have they only proposed that the legislation is paused and not scrapped in its entirety where are the conservative ideas for a credible alternative to the named person scheme Presiding Officer, in my experience as a former teacher to spot a vulnerable child they do not come with stickers on their heads Indeed, there may not have been any prior warning which could have suggested they might ever become vulnerable but as a teacher you use your professional judgment you make a call and if there's something not quite right you make the necessary referrals whether that's a chat with the Deputy Head with the guidance teacher or with the pupil themselves you check they're okay Of course, the named policy legislation is underpinned by the getting it right for every child approach or GERFEC as it's known in Scottish schools and GERFEC is informed by the four capacities of curriculum for excellence along with eight areas of wellbeing that all children are safe, healthy, achieving, nurtured active, respected, responsible and included I enjoyed listening to Brian Whittle's first speech yesterday particularly because I went to a Scottish state school and I had a range of opportunities to participate in support for example, for example you could say that I became a confident individual because I had the chance to take part to play as part of a team and to develop wider social skills in so doing that's what GERFEC is about it's what curriculum for excellence is about too ensuring that every child has the opportunities to succeed in life and that there is not as Mr Whittle said yesterday an inequality of opportunity GERFEC pulls together schools social work, the police and the voluntary sector and fundamentally it puts the child at the centre of this partnership working and we know there needs to be a safety net in place because as I have previously stated there is no way to predict when a child is going to become vulnerable Presiding Officer most of my friends who aren't politicians are teachers, they are hard working individuals, they are committed professionals they work for the best of the pupils in their care I like modern studies colleagues the length of this country used to show my class clips on this chamber regularly the opposition have a duty of care to ensure that the language they use about our education system is not that of derision it is not that which talks our teachers down it is not that which deliberately creates doubt and mistrust in our schools tomorrow night the state school on which I taught for three years will be taking part in the Donald Dure memorial debating final in this very chamber they've been supported by my former colleague in her own time there is no financial reward for her so doing and does her professional commitment mean that people have better opportunities to achieve absolutely and in so doing is she playing a pivotal role in closing the attainment gap in that school I would strongly argue that yes she is Presiding Officer my point is this there has to be a level of goodwill in education to make the system work to get the best teachers who will work hard the name person legislation has been seized upon by the opposition as their first opportunity to challenge the SNP it has been used quite disgracefully in the wake of a wee boy's death to score political points but blatant political opportunism will do the Tories no good when it comes to Scottish education the Scottish government remains committed to working with parents, teachers and pupils to ensure that we deliver curriculum for excellence in its entirety and that every child regardless of their background will be able to succeed and to be protected by the system in so doing John Mason to be followed by Monica Lennon Thank you very much I was keen to speak today on the issue of the named person as there has clearly been a certain amount of confusion and in my opinion misinformation if not mischief making round about it If I am understanding the situation correctly there are two broad roles for a named person the first role is a more reactive one where a child or family is looking for help and the named person is required to provide that help or at least point them in the right direction to get it Of course it is not compulsory for any individual or family to seek such help Now it comes to seeking help I do think that some families are more likely to need an improved system than others Some parents are very confident about dealing with teachers, GPs and other professionals they will stand their ground and ensure that their children get the very best services they possibly can I saw that myself in a visit to Falkland House in Fife which specialises in helping teenage boys with autism but virtually all the boys' parents in that school are professional middle class because they have pushed for their kids to be there but there are other families especially in a constituency like mine where the parents are not so confident about dealing with teachers or medical professionals there is a danger of being passed from pillar to post and that has happened and as a result their kids lose out these are the ones who can very much benefit from this part of the system The second role is a more proactive one a child or a family is seen to be at risk by the public services and the named person is required to initiate a response that need for the wider community to intervene in a small number of families is already there all of us would agree it should be there there is a small number of families where the parents are struggling or not able to look after the child or even worse might be abusing the child so social workers and the courts have long had the right to intervene and in fact have a duty to intervene the powers of social workers and a few others to step in in a dangerous family situation is not changed by this legislation briefly John Mason is of course right that social workers already enjoy extraordinarily coercive and necessary powers to intervene in cases of suspected risk of harm or neglect but that's not what the name person's legislation is about the name person's legislation is expressly about wellbeing and that significantly lowers the threshold for intervention does Mr Mason not accept that? The answer to that is not to wait until we get the legislation absolutely perfect because I don't think there is any legislation if we wait it and wait it the answer to that is let's put it into practice let's see how it works out and there will be things along the way that need to be reviewed and improved and let's do it at that stage but the change now is really just that there should be better co-ordination among public services and we should try to pick up problems at an earlier stage and as far as I'm concerned this is a minor tweaking of the present system in particular from a faith perspective it has been suggested that this scheme in some way goes against Christian faith perhaps because families are the key building blocks in society and we should not be interfering with or undermining them the reality is that there is no one Christian view on this topic and as I go round various churches I've met people with a very strong Christian commitment especially teachers and social workers who are strongly in favour of the named person scheme and many are puzzled why Christian groups would oppose child protection now one of the main organisations behind no to named person is the Christian Institute they do a lot of good research and I've worked closely with them in the past on a variety of issues however in this issue I consider they are scaremongering or at very least making a mountain out of a molehill they are not representing biblical or traditional church teaching in the kinds of evangelical, catholic or other churches which I am familiar with there are a number of parts of Christian teaching which teach in the importance of children families and vulnerable people in general for example the gospels and the act lay great stress on this the family is very important in Christian teaching but it's certainly not sacrosanct and the bible is very open it gives examples of families going seriously wrong in the very first family we have in the bible Cain murdered his brother Abel Joseph's brother sold him as a slave into Egypt and Jesus himself suggested that families would be split with some members following him and some not Jesus said that his closest ties were with those who believed in him rather than with those who were his own flesh and blood so let us not have some romantic or idealised view of family life with the suggestion from some like the Christian Institute that we as the wider community should never get involved most families do work their way through difficult problems but some families are struggling with financial and other issues and do need help and support from the wider community and there are a tiny number where real abuse is going on within the family and we as a Parliament and representatives of Scottish society have a responsibility to make the present system work better the conservative idea of less Government so leaving individuals and families to their own devices too often leads on to the law of the jungle where the strong win and the weak lose out and that is not the kind of society that I want to see in Scotland of course any legislation can be improved on as it settles down and as we see things happening that we are not expected so I fully support a review of this and all legislation in fact after a few years but if we are agreed on the principle of the named person we really do need to go ahead and put this into effect as I said if we sat and waited until every piece of legislation was perfect we would never do anything to make children ahead of imagined fears and let us support the named person thank you that would be a no Monica Lennon to be followed by Oliver Mundell thank you Deputy Presiding Officer I think it's my turn a few things are more important than the wellbeing and welfare of children and young people our collective approach to this debate should be robust yes but it must be responsible there is no place for spin and speculation when it comes to the safety of children in a small number of debates I have attended in this chamber so far members have talked at length about our shared ambitions for Scotland's young people for a fairer, healthier and a more equal Scotland today we should seek to rediscover that shared commitment to our children and young people that has existed here before Scotland's ambition to deliver child-centred integrated services through the GIFEC framework isn't new it's been shared by successive Governments for over a decade when I was thinking through the principles and practicalities of named person it seemed to me that it was largely a means to strengthen existing practice but recently relentless posturing headlines and confusing interviews have caused even me to reflect and question the facts more than once the aim of named person was to formalise the duty of care of professionals like health visitors allowing problems to be identified early and support provided if necessary we've heard today that in some local authorities the scheme is already in place named person provision has the potential to play a key role in bringing about the shift towards preventative and early intervention practice and a culture which supports children's wellbeing and gives them the best protection from harm if implemented correctly it should reduce the risk of the needs of vulnerable people being overlooked and will provide a single focal point for children and families seeking support it is no surprise that named person provision received widespread support from the children's sector when the children and young people bill came before Parliament Scottish Labour supported the principle then as we do now as a protection for children who need it and a means to provide families with additional help if required Looking back through the record I found that the Tories led an earlier debate on named person back in September 2013 Throughout that debate Scottish Labour members voiced concerns that the Scottish Government at that point was failing to accurately define how an named person and lay out exactly how the policy would be financed and resourced That was September 2013 Kezia Dugdale said at that time that the SNP did not have to sell the bill to opposition parties because of course back then they had a majority and could pass any bill they liked However, in order for the bill to work Kezia Dugdale cautioned that the Scottish Government had to get the support of parents across the country and of professionals on the front line That remains unfinished business Deputy Presiding Officer for the Scottish Government Parents are still asking tough questions about named person and rightly so Back in March this year Scottish Labour again repeated our support for named person principles but called for a pause and a full review by the Children's Commissioner in order to properly address the concerns of parents We said in 2013 that the confidence of parents was crucial, we repeated this in March and we say it again today It does not give me any satisfaction to say that the SNP has messed up in a second the introduction of named person failing to reassure parents, debunk tabloid stories and address concerns around resources Joan McAlpine I thank the member for taking the intervention I wonder if she has read the briefing from the Children's Commissioner where he says in his last paragraph very clearly I do not support the motion to pause implementation of named person provisions Thank you I am aware of that position but like I have said already it is the concerns of parents that still need to be addressed and that is why I want to continue Thank you We need space for the concerns of parents to be addressed and to build confidence across the country I hope that Joan McAlpine agrees with me on that When a mum came to my surgery in Hamilton recently, I tried my best to reassure her that when her daughter starts at Mary's primary in Hamilton in August she will not find her family life intruded upon but it is not my job to reassure her that is the job of this Scottish Government It is simply not good enough for children and young people across Scotland that too many of the people who have their best interests at heart have genuine doubts about the roll-out of named person It shouldn't be this way Named person is supposed to be a simple system based on a single point of contact It is a formalisation of practice that already exists across Scotland but the anxieties of parents are not going away The children's sector remains supportive of named person and this should provide confidence that the principles are sound and I am grateful for the information organisations like Bernardo's and Children's First and NSPCC have shared with me and the other members Deputy Presiding Officer we are having this debate today because the Tory's have a lot of hype to live up to but the SNP have a lot to make up for The amendment table by Scottish Labour to pause and review is I hope a constructive one and does provide a remedy irrespective of what has been said before We all have a duty to serve the best interests of our constituents I hope that we will move forward towards achieving the right measures and outcomes for every child and young person in Scotland Thank you I call Oliver Mundell to be followed by Stuart McMillan Mr Mundell, this is your first speech I take it It is a great privilege not just to make this maiden speech but to do so as the first conservative to represent the Dumfrieshire constituency in this place Perhaps strangely I was both delighted and sorry to win what was Labour's safest seat in Scotland Delighted for my party's stalwarts past and present who kept going even in the darkest of days but also sorry to bring to an end a lame Murray's 17 years of dedicated and attentive representation for our area here at Holyroods Of course I owe much to a certain member of Parliament who in his own way has set the ultimate example of public service and whose reputation for community commitment and whose willingness to take on his own party in the pursuit of the needs of his constituents still defines the politics of the communities I now represent While I wouldn't be here without my dad members will be I'm sure relieved to know that I'm in fact talking about the former Dumfrieshire MP Sir Hector Monroe Sir Hector was quite simply a giant amongst men and I will never forget my earliest political memories of campaigning alongside him in the run-up to the Scottish Parliament elections in 1999 Invariably days on the campaign trail involved touring round the small villages of Dumfrieshire in his vintage Bentley I'm peeping the horn to announce our arrival in a village and whilst understandably my own red Ford Fiesta didn't cause quite the same stir as I completed my own tour of over 70 communities ahead of the election those same memories came back to me Looking back now and although I didn't realise it at the time I was actually witnessing the end of an era a changing of the guard because just a few short months later I would sit in the public gallery and watch the opening ceremony of the Scottish Parliament Indeed, I can still hear the words of Donald Dure echo in my ears and the iconic tones of Sheena Wellington still cause the hairs on the back of my neck to rise Why do I mention all of this? It's because I want this chamber and this Scottish Government to recognise that this new intake of MSPs represents an important moment in the life of this Parliament to gently remind them that every generation of Scots for whom the Scottish Parliament has always existed and for whom the battles of the past no longer define their politics and most importantly of all who will not forgive the Scottish Government for blaming others That is not to say that we shouldn't give history its place Indeed, ahead of today I reflected a great deal on the many distinguished people from outside the field of politics who have proudly called them so much to our nation It's a list of individuals as varied as they are gifted from Thomas Telford who literally helped build our nation to Lord Dowding who helped save it in the darkest days of World War II to the literary greats from Alexander Anderson and Thomas Carlyle to our beloved Robert Burns from missionaries like Jane Haining who paid with her life for her beliefs and outfits to the reverend Henry Duncan whose visionary approach to banking allowed the ordinary man to save for the first time but in doing so we're also duty bound to celebrate the present and to fix our sights firmly on the future with more modern successes like the Olympic gold medal winning curlers from Lockerbie the three times limon winner Alan McNish and of course a favourite of Mrs Mundell's international superstar and DJ Calvin Harris For me our greatest asset in Dumfrieshire will always be our people and the sense of community that binds us together and while we may have led the way from disco to defence and from engineering to banking Dumfrieshire is at its heart most of all a place of quiet determination a corner of Scotland where community and family still matter far more than government a place where for hundreds of years across the generations we've been self-reliant and resilient because we've had to be indeed very little has changed since the creation of this Parliament partly because we haven't shouted loud enough and in no small part because the Scottish Government refuses to listen hopefully across the next five years we can do something about that and make a change together and as I turn now to the matter in hand I say to all of those on the SNP benches that I am quite like the present indeed today's debate perfectly captures a Government out of step with the people whose policy priorities have been lost in the crossfire of the debate whose determination to save face has seen legitimate criticism fall on deaf ears even the most ardent supporter of the name person legislation must now recognise that the measure does not command the confidence of all parents and professionals in Scotland I've never heard as much talk of compromise and consensus as I have in this place in the last month we have a minority Government and it's in that spirit I ask the Deputy First Minister not to look to the left or to look to the right but to hit the pause button and look at the growing body of evidence in front of him and across the next five years I'll no doubt stand up many times for the Scottish Government for inaction but today I end with a more quiet and considered request that the cabinet secretary and his team consider the possibility just the possibility that hasty action may do more harm than good in this case thank you and the excellence starts six minutes on the button Mr Mundell excellent I call Stuart McMillan to be followed by Rhoda Grant Mr McMillan please I'm sitting also the focus of today's debate has been raised due to the implication that the name person policy is somehow not in the best interests of Scotland's young people I support the name person legislation I've got constituents who have contacted me expressing their concerns and fears about the name person policy as well as others who are supporting it however I do hope that today's debate will actually go some way to addressing any fears but I did hope that until I heard the contributions from earlier on today I actually thought that the Conservatives taking a different approach to the name person policy was a step forward today they're calling in their motion they're calling to pause the implementation of the policy instead of page 9 in the manifesto which states that one of our first priorities will be to call immediately for a repeal of the name person's provisions I also thought that Ruth Davidson's comments on page 3 of the manifesto is to come I will take the responsibility of this post seriously and serve with every ounce of determination, skill, tenacity and moral courage that I possess I think unfortunately however that Christine Hears' comments in the manifesto will highlight what's actually coming short term political point scoring the name person is a serious policy and has an objective of helping Scotland's children treating the policy with that seriousness I will remember as we have already heard getting it right for every child gyrffec approach puts the best interests of the child at the heart of the decision making to ensure the child's wellbeing it works with and 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 child's best interests the cabinet secretary on to explain some further detail about the policy objectives but we know that the service has support for some of the major third sector agencies involved in child welfare the government amendment that highlights that also has the backing of professional bodies representing teachers, social workers and nurses and in addition to this there is also Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation who understand the importance of such an initiative into helping our children the language of appointing state guardians and an intrusion into family life have been utilised a lot by those who are against the policy indeed, I actually heard a six minute rant using that type of language from the local Conservative candidate during the recent election campaign I believe that there are people who have genuine concerns clearly there is a job to be done to improve the guidance and communication of the policy something that is recognised in the government amendment and implying misinformation is something that those serious about the policy should always consider the name person service will certainly have a role to play in child protection but families could make use of the service for a variety of reasons where a child has additional support needs where a child or a young person has poor mental wellbeing where there is a carer in the family or where the family is struggling financially and this is affecting a child at school or their health or all examples of where a child or a young person service could actually coordinate support sometimes there are barriers real or perceived in families access and support one of those barriers is a perception that they are poor parents they can't cope or they hear that they are part of a multi generational cycle of poor parenting the important thing to remember is that anyone can find themselves needing support from time to time and the key to early intervention for those seeking support it's important to highlight that the vast majority of children will have no contact with their name person and their name person capacity the vast majority of children are safe healthy, achieving and leading active lives with loving supporting families and don't need additional support outside of the universal healthcare and school services the name person service will not change this in the vast majority of cases health visitors and teachers will have no additional workload for the same reason the name person simply puts into statute the work that these professionals already do on a daily basis by recording information and sharing information appropriately with other professionals to ensure the best action outcomes for the child and as the First Minister reiterated recently there is no obligation for families to make use of the name person service or to engage if they feel it's not in their interests to do so there is no opt-out in the legislation this is misleading the legislation requires public bodies to set up the name person service there is no legislative requirement for families to engage and no need for formal opt-out organisations and parents back it because they know that the name person does not replace parents or professionals Mr Tomkins I'm very grateful could the member assist me then could the member point me on the action of the provision in the act that enables a parent to challenge the appointment of a named person because I couldn't find it you're in your last minute Mr McMillan sorry as I said a few moments ago if Adam Tomkins checks the act again and looks at the information that's there he will actually see that for himself organisations and parents back it organisations and parents back it because they know that the name person does not replace the name person but it helps to make the links between them if and when they need to be made by all means let's refresh the guidance provided to professionals as well as improve the communication to public however I agree with Barnardo's let's not pause its implementation and why not consider post-legislative scrutiny in a few years time post-legislative scrutiny is something that hasn't spoken about in the before in this Parliament and it's something that should happen where appropriate thank you very much as we're so tight for time as usual I have to say the last four remaining speakers Gillian Martin, Ross Thompson, Fulton, McGregor, Ross Greer it will be up to five minutes no more Rona Grant when the proposals came forward to roll out the name person policy devised in the Highlands our support of it could only be a good thing we need to protect young people and give them a good start in life there's a tragic list of young lives that have been lost have been lost. Each of those losses is followed by inquiry and subsequent changes to child protection. The circumstances that instigated the name person policy, Daniel Reid, was murdered in Inverness in 2003. She was not on an at-risk register. After her murder it became clear that a number of people were uneasy about the circumstances that she was living in. None of them individually thought ddaeth i ddechrau ddigon yn eu risum. Mae'r ddaeth gweithio wedi datblyg i bob hwnnhae nhw cyd-dilygau i rhanosodd y dynol, ac mae'n ddweud i ddweudiaeth pethau hynny diwethaf o'r clywbeth. Ond mae'r ddod o'r cael ei ddweud o'r ddreddau, mae'n cyd-dygon i'r ddweud amgylcheddau afalle, ac yn ei ddweud, mae'n byw'r clywed o'r pryd-dion o'r casef. How, then, do yew put in place checks and balances to protect children in those circumstances? The need for anislycatechial, central point of contact was required, hence the name person policy was devised, and obvious contact in a child's life could become the repository for concerns. If only one insignificant concern is received, it wouldn't warrant any action, however, a number of concerns would. This policy was designed to stop children falling through the safety nets that were already in place and to allow early intervention. However, child protection processes would remain in place for serious concerns or where a collection of concerns flagged up a worrying pattern of behaviour. As the cabinet secretary said in Highland, where the name person policy was devised, referrals to the children's hearing system fell from 2,335 in 0506 to 744 in 1314. That is a dramatic change, showing early intervention, not only work to protect a child, but it also prevented escalation of cases. We cannot say that all those 744 children will be safe, or indeed that no others will fall below the reader, but we can confidently say that risk has been cut. Imagine therefore my disappointment when the roll-out of this policy was so badly handled for it to work. It needs the confidence of parents, family, neighbours and professionals. The SNP Government has managed to alienate most of them. The policy should have been welcomed by all who are concerned about child welfare, but it has become mired in confusion, rumour and supposition. Where are the clear guidelines? Where is the training for named persons? Where are the additional staff and resources? Why are we reading such ridiculous stories of needless interventions in the press? The First Minister herself appeared not to have a grasp of her own policy saying that it was optional. Of course, a parent can opt out of not using their child's name person for advice and information, but they cannot withdraw their child from having a name person. Child protection is not optional. It is little wonder, therefore, that there are real concerns about the policy. To make it work, we need to pause, we need to take stock and make sure that it is implemented properly. A trusted independent person needs to review how the policy has been implemented. They also need to listen to the real and genuinely held concerns of parents and professionals. New guidance needs to be issued by someone who understands not only the policy but understands the concerns of parents. There are wicked people out there that cause for harm. Therefore, we need to have that protection in place. Those protection systems are not there for the children of many great parents who bring up their children well. Why would you waste limited resources when they are not required? However, we need to put protection and resources in place to protect those at risk and to identify them early to intervene. Sadly, you can have all the policies in the world, but they will not work unless you have enough trained staff to implement them. One of the real concerns of all of that and of all child protection is resources. Council budgets have been slashed, social workers are in short supply and those who are there are overworked, often to the extent that their own health and wellbeing is being put at risk. If we are going to protect vulnerable children, we need well-resourced services. We and the Labour Party are clear that the cuts from both our Governments are putting the most vulnerable in our society at risk. We need to stop the cuts, fund our services and protect our future generations. Thank you very much. I call Julia Martin before we follow by Ross Thomson, Ms Martin. Signs that a young person needs help are often most apparent in their behaviour attending some work at school. I particularly want to highlight the role of guidance teachers in secondary schools. As part of the name person service, in most cases it will be the guidance teacher who will be a child's name person. At this point I should declare that I am married to a guidance teacher who teaches at a secondary school in my constituency and he is 100% behind a name person legislation. That a guidance teacher should be the single point of contact for a child or parent who needs support makes absolute sense. They are already responsible for the pastoral care of the child at school and a relationship will have been established not just with the child but with the parent or parents during that time. The Conservative amendment put before us today says that there is, quote, confusion amongst parents about whether their engagement with a child's name person is compulsory. This suggests that a name person will be involving themselves in the lives of parents and children in a manner that is new, unwanted and intrusive. Something to be resisted, something to be which a parent will have no say. Something that, in the words of one correspondent who got in touch with me this week said, smacks of big brother. I look at the teachers I know and I do not recognise that picture. Teachers along with police, social services and health services can already take a range of actions for the child's wellbeing. The responsibility is not new, but the multi-person approach has been seen to lead to duplication and most concerning the potential to miss situations that could put the welfare of a child in jeopardy. Providing one person as a central contact will streamline this process and is a major step in ensuring that key information is not missed. In Aberdeenshire, the guidance teachers are already acting as a central point of contact for families and a medium through which agencies, parents and children can communicate in a way that ensures that all those conversations will take place in one setting and that one person is responsible for recording agreed actions and will, from August, be legally responsible for maintaining that record so that the cracks that we talk of children falling through diminish. What guidance teacher is not is a judge and jury on the welfare of a child. It is disingenuous to suggest that professional people are overriding the wishes of parents. They do not do that now and becoming a name person will not change that. I wanted to use my speech to talk about young carers that I am obviously going to have to come out short, but I will say that young carers who perhaps occasionally miss school because of having to take a parent to hospital or having to stay at home if a parent's condition deteriorates can feel far more comfortable having a conversation with their guidance teacher, maybe one who has spotted early signs that a child might be having difficulty and will be able to point the family in the direction of support and even financial help. Mr Tomkins would label this as talking behind a parent's back or coercive power. This support could be the difference between that young person achieving or failing at school or becoming overwhelmed and unable to cope at home. Let's be absolutely clear, if a family is fortunate enough to have no issues that require additional support, they will never need to contact their name person out with the routine parents' evenings appointments that guidance teachers give them. To suggest that professionals like those teachers whose workload is already a huge challenge will be seeking to involve themselves in the everyday workings of the families that they are there to support, not only does a huge disservice to the professionalism of every guidance teacher, but also simply misses the point of this legislation in some cases deliberately misses the point. In the name of politicking and whipping up a frenzy of newspaper headlines, like the one in the Daily Mail on Monday, who referred to people like my husband and his colleagues as state snoopers, I suggest that this type of language, which I have heard echoed by Conservative members during the election debates in this chamber, not only is that the root of the confusion the amendment cites, but has been the fuel for a lot of the misinformation that has been bandied around, which has led to the many emails that we have had from concerned constituents. I do not remember any media hysteria when getting it right for every child was being developed, which this legislation is a natural conclusion of. It is the source of this distorting language and the accompanying implication that the civil liberties of parents are being attacked that confuses me because its source seems to be from members of a party who think that it is acceptable to allow the state access to a citizen's private emails and phone calls via the investigative powers bill. If you want to talk about intrusion, let us talk about that first. The pause that we need is a pause in the conservative misleading rhetoric. I would like to declare an interest as an Aberdeen city councillor and refer members to my register of interests. I have no doubt that the name person policy of the children and young people 2014 act was designed with the best of intentions to achieve early intervention with greater collaboration and co-operation between different agencies and service providers. No one would argue against the need to do everything that we can to protect children and ensure that the system in place is as robust and effective as it possibly can be. However, what is absolutely clear now is that this policy has lost the confidence of the public and there is growing concern amongst many of the front-line professionals who will be tasked with implementing it. A poll published by a national newspaper last week showed that two thirds of Scots thought that name person is an unacceptable intrusion into family life. Further evidence that the public are deeply concerned about the impact that a state guardian will have on their family. I would like to make some progress just now, but I will take on for inches later. I know from my own experience on Aberdeen city council just now how anxious some members of staff are. I recognise that Aberdeen city has worked hard to engage with staff to ensure that they are prepared for implementation. Concern has been expressed to me that the cost to the council as a result of implementing the legislation will be more than £2 million a year. Naturally, with increased statutory duties, there will be costs in terms of head teacher time, senior management time and administration time, which goes above the current work that they do, not to mention all the support and training that will have to be carried out. Yes, I will give a way to Mark McDonald. I hear what the member is saying, but he will be aware that a report went to the education committee at Aberdeen city council, stating that Aberdeen city council is well placed to implement the name person policy. That does not chime in any way with the rhetoric that he is espousing in this chamber. I am glad that I can advise Mark McDonald that, due to my intervention, there will be a report coming to the October education committee, which will be detailing the full cost of the implementation of name person from August. I am glad that we have achieved that. In supporting a pause today, we can properly review and have an undertaking of the workability of the scheme, giving full consideration to the burden to councils across Scotland to ensure that we have a clearer picture of what the costs are and the resources that will be needed and what support the Scottish Government can give councils in order to meet its legislative requirements. Further, the growing number of teacher vacancies in Aberdeen in Aberdeenshire is having a crippling effect on our schools. Aberdeen hosted a summit in autumn last year, and I have written to the cabinet secretary on that, and I look forward to hearing from him in due course. Speaking to education officials on this very matter, it has been made clear to me, just as the leader of Aberdeen city council has publicly stated, that the nervousness around the implications of the new legislation and the new responsibilities that come with it are having an impact on our primary teacher vacancies in particular, exacerbating an already serious problem. If that was not enough to give politicians today pause for thought, then consider the warnings from the country's largest teaching union, the Education Institute of Scotland, the EIS, that tell us that teachers are becoming increasingly concerned about the impact name person will have on their workload and have criticised a lack of clarity on how the scheme would work in practice. Unison, another large union that represents health visitors, said that the scheme was not sensible at this time, and that staff shortages meant that the system is already stretched to the limit. Today, a Glasgow-based senior youth work practitioner, Simon Knight, who will be a name person under the legislation, has broken cover to warn that cases of serious harm will inevitably get lost in all the clutter. Now, if the SNP Government is not prepared to listen to public opinion on this issue, here we have two unions representing the very people who will fill the name person role and a senior youth practitioner raising serious concerns about the policy. I would like to make progress. If the hard-working professionals who will be tasked with monitoring all of our children are not behind the legislation, then how on earth can we expect it to work? Even Jim Sillers, a former deputy leader of the SNP, has said that the vague and ambiguous wording of the bill would not pass muster under scrutiny at Westminster. In today's telegraph, the former SNP leader Gordon Wilson is calling for the legislation to be repealed, warning his colleagues in this place not to be stubborn. I hope that the SNP will take heed of the concerns today and agree with the amendment in Liz Smith's name to press pause so that we can decide if this law is workable in its current form. A majority in Scotland do not believe it is. I call Fulton MacGregor, who is followed by Ross Greer. It gives me great pleasure to speak in this debate and to specifically address the named person legislation. I have been a qualified social worker for the last 12 years and, as I said at my opening speech a couple of weeks ago, predominantly working in the field of child protection. I think I can speak first-hand experience and how I feel this act will benefit Scotland's young people. I have to say that I do not recognise what Liz Smith had said earlier in terms of professionals being against the act. My own personal experience tells me otherwise. One thing I would like to be clear on, as others have already mentioned, is that the concept of a named person is certainly not new. Every child in Scotland already has a lead agency through the getting it right for every child framework—a phrase that we have heard already today. Usually a health visitor, a primary school head teacher or a guidance teacher. As parents—and I am a dad myself—we know at any one time in our child's life where we can go to for contact and support if we need it. The name person's legislation is a natural extension of this and is aimed at increasing protection and services for Scotland's most vulnerable youngsters. The changes will not affect most people in their daily lives. Remember that the Court of Session has already ruled that the legislation would have no effect whatsoever on the legal, moral or social relationships within the family. That is a fundamental principle that I and this Government believe in. It is telling that many front-line child protection workers, children's charities, such as Barnardo's and many others mentioned, support this legislation. Why would they do that if they felt that the legislation was in any way detrimental to family life? The answer is simple—they just wouldn't. They are all guided by one underlying principle, that the need of the child is paramount. Of course, they are also guided by the desire shared across this chamber to offer the best protection and services to our most vulnerable. I would like to mention here a local charity organisation, the Moira Anderson Foundation, which is involved in excellent work across Lanarkshire. The charity was set up by Sandra Brown, OBE in 2000, as a legacy to Moira Anderson, who disappeared in Coatbridge on a winter night nearly 60 years ago. I would also like to take this point to declare it that I was a previous director on the foundation board and direct members to my register of interests. I did not receive any remuneration for this role. In speaking to Sandra Brown just yesterday, she also confirmed her support for the legislation, saying and a quote, I welcome the impact I think this scheme will have and the signs are hopeful that it will improve things for young people across the country. This is yet another example of a children's organisation working directly with vulnerable people, which supports this move forward. I, like many of these organisations, believe that such measures will, contrary to the criticism that we have heard from the Conservative branches, lead to less-state intervention and not more. Social Work Department caseloads are notoriously high, and that has already been acknowledged within the chamber. The demands on a typical children's family team, such as the one where I previously worked, can be extreme, involving almost constant crisis intervention, leading to long working hours, high stress levels, periods of absence and, in some instances, resulting in children who need services not getting that help. By offering a single point of contact and making it legal, this legislation can help to solve problems before they become a crisis and free up-front line workers across agencies to ensure that those most in need of our services are prioritised, ultimately reducing risk. Of course, the Opposition will argue that they are against this legislation as they have, because there have been some concerns raised by members of the public. However, I would argue, as has already been said, that this is just political posturing and playing on people's fears, and if the chamber does not mind me divulging a tactical use during the recent referendum campaign. I do, however, understand that some people are wary, but what I have found and what I would encourage other members in the chamber to do is to, if you take the time to explain it to people, there is an understanding and an acceptance of the principles and the benefits. I really believe that this legislation will be of benefit to all our children, but particularly our most vulnerable. It will not help only children at home, but also those who are looked after and accommodated. It should prevent unnecessary referrals to the reporter and the social work department while helping to ensure that those who need protection do not slip through the net. Over the past few weeks, we have heard a lot about common ground within this chamber. I would have thought that this legislation would have been a good opportunity to demonstrate that, and I would now urge all MSPs to fully back the Government's plans for this legislation. The Scottish Greens supported the name person legislation and we continue to do so. I have to wonder why, at a time of a shocking attainment gap, deeply unpop your standardised testing and the very real possibility of industrial action by teachers, the Conservatives felt that their top priority within the education portfolio was to throw obstacles in front of very necessary child protection legislation. I do not think that this debate is about simply throwing obstacles in the way. It is certainly not about pausing to carefully consider the implementation of the name person. It is about further damaging public confidence in a system that has been misrepresented, misunderstood and, frankly, on occasion outside of this chamber, lied about. That is not some fatally flawed proposal, as has been already mentioned. It has widespread professional support from the Royal College of Nursing, to Barnardo's, the Police Federation and others. It is clear that the Scottish Government must embark on a campaign of building public confidence and better explaining what name person really means in practice. Until now, it has been the opponents of the system, who have successfully defined it in the public conscious. Those misrepresentations have understandably given rise to significant public concern. We do not, for a second, dismiss those concerns. Indeed, I would remind those on all sides of the debate that it is not just the concern of parents and guardians that we should be listening to, but the concerns of young people themselves. I am concerned that, due to the confusion and incorrect information in this debate, young people across the country may no longer feel confident seeking confidential support and advice at the very times when they need it the most. There is no doubt that name person could have been presented and explained more effectively. Even the name itself is far from perfect and easy to build the image of a bogeyman around. However, that is not the reality. There will be no state appointed snooper in every child's bedroom. Those using such language have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the legislation aims to achieve and who it is trying to help. The reality is that almost all children and young people will have no need for their name person, and the name person will not be interfering in their life of that of their family. That system is for those children who need help, who would otherwise slip through the net and whom we have the greatest responsibility to. Constituents have been asking me this week in particular why the system must be universal and why not appoint name persons only for children who are known to be at risk. Although it is entirely understandable that perfectly good parents and guardians are concerned that their children might have a name person, those children who are at risk need that guarantee that no matter what, someone will be there for them and it is those children who are at the greatest risk of slipping through the net. That is why universal system is what is necessary. There is no reason to believe that the name person will be intervening in cases where a child grows up in a perfectly safe and stable environment. Although, of course, the judgments made by the name person can be somewhat subjective, they are being made by professionals who we already trust with a great deal of responsibility. Most children are not born at risk, they do not enter nursery or school with an at risk label on their shirt, and often those who are at the most risk are the hardest to identify. Given that the name person should be known to the child or family to begin with, the great majority of families will see no change in their relationship with the name person. Indeed, they will not, as members have already mentioned, be interacting with them as a named person, but for those who need it, having that single point of contact is invaluable. The name person scheme has been operating smoothly in local authorities such as Highland and has been mentioned a number of times in this debate, but it is only in recent months that certain political groups have realised that they can use it to their own advantage, that they have started throwing up obstacles to its national roll-out. If it is time for anything at this point, it is time for us as a Parliament, as a country, to look at the whole picture of how Scotland supports our most vulnerable children. How can we improve their lives with bold, transformational changes that run deeper than welcome but limited change to any one individual part of the system? In New Zealand, they have done that, and indeed they have done it with Scotland's support, looking at it for children who are looked after. Ministers from New Zealand came and visited Scotland, they spoke to children and young people here who had been in care, young people from Scotland visited New Zealand and helped them to develop a system, and it is that kind of approach that we need, one that takes service users into account. The Greens do not support any pause in the implementation of name person. Its opponents cannot attempt to whip up a breakdown in public confidence and then point to those attempts as reason for the Government to cave in to their own political objectives. The name person scheme will protect Scotland's most vulnerable children. It will most likely save lives. By all means, let's review its effectiveness once implemented, but for now let's stop the hyperbole, build public support and confidence and ensure that the guidance and resources are in place to make this a success that it needs to be. Thank you, winding up speeches, I call Tavish Scott, for the Liberal Democrats. Six minutes, please. I first begin by congratulating Oliver Mundell on his maiden speech this afternoon. I particularly appreciated his reference to Sir Hector Monroe, who was good enough when the Brair went to ground on Shetland in 1991 to come up along with many other ministers, I may add, and look at some oiled neeps, I recall, he had a particular interest in that. The farmers' concern was genuinely grateful for that attendance at the time. Many of us enjoyed the sparring with Oliver Mundell's father over the years in this place and in a previous place up the road, so it's good to see him here. I suppose it's good for the Conservatives to see him here, I suppose others might reflect in a slightly different way. I must confess that I don't know quite how the Tories managed to merge the issue of their concerns with the details of this bill with their principled opposition, if that is indeed a principled, to the named person act that is now in front of us. Not least of which, because every time I read a national newspaper, there's another excoriating attack on the policy and on the principle from a Conservative MSP. There's a couple in today's newspapers, and indeed Adam Tomkins, who's going to wind up on the front bench here for the Tories, wrote, I just thought a load of nonsense in the daily mail last week on this. Adam Tomkins may be going to give us a very legal lecture on the guidance and so on and so forth. I don't know what he plans to say, but the point that I think the cabinet secretary was making in his opening remark at the start of this debate, Presiding Officer, was about the importance of reflecting on what needs to be done in terms of that guidance and ensuring that guidance changes to reflect the circumstances that have been reflected in many contributions across the chamber this afternoon. It's all very well saying that the guidance is X, Y and Z, but the point of Parliament is to look at where that needs to be improved, refined and reset. I certainly hope that that's exactly what the Scottish Government is now going to do. The language that has been expressed today in Liz Smith, I thought, gave, as usual, a very moderate speech by, I was going to say, by her status. That's very unfair. That's not at all what I meant to say. By her party's status on this issue was what I was looking for. It was right in many of the observations that she made, but it is not in anyone's interest to use phraseology, as other members have rightly described in Parliament this afternoon, around state snoopers, when it is patently simply not the case. Can I draw out a couple of the more broadly thought about policy issues that have come through this afternoon? There have been representations from all sides of this chamber to the Government on the importance of getting resourcing right behind this measure. That is not just from Opposition members, but it is also from contributions from the Government's own side. They reflect all our regions and constituencies and their thoughts on where early intervention can happen, preventative work can happen, but the need to resource that against the lives of very busy professionals in many aspects of both the health service and of our schools as well. The second is on the single point of contact and the evidence that Ian Gray rightly led in front of the Parliament earlier today. My view of Bill Alexander's evidence not just to the committee some years ago, but also in what he was saying in his briefing earlier this week about the importance of these measures is that he says that the name person role has cut out—this is in Highland—unnecessary and unhelpful information sharing created a clear point of contact for the family and very importantly a means of ensuring at services that the family want are mobilised quickly and without bureaucracy. That flies again in the face of all those who simply say that all of this is about more paperwork and more meetings and more bureaucracy. We should be surely learning and this is the point for the professionals across the field, it is not for Parliamentarians, it is about those who are taking forward this policy that if Highland can work on this for a number of years and the director of care and learning can make that observation about it, which is entirely consistent with the Christie commission's recommendations that we all looked at some years back, then that is a step forward in this particular area. The other aspect of Bill Alexander's evidence that I do find compelling is that—and I really would stress this and hope that the ministers would be prepared to respond to this in the wind-up—is that he states that the bottom line is that a health visitor or a head teacher, a name person, would not engage with another professional without the family's consent, which gives a lie to the suggestion—I'll put it more strongly than that—that this will all be imposed on families and that their right to look at their child's future and be utterly involved in that is somehow taken away by this name person measures. Now I'm going to just finish on these couple of points. That is the evidence of Bill Alexander and members who want to intervene on this might want to go and read it and listen to it and maybe take it into account rather than coming up with their own prejudicial view of what this is. They can sit in sedentary positions and make as much noise as they like. They're wrong on this and I respect a professional who says what it is. I finally want to encourage the Government to make sure that they understand the importance of what Parliament is saying today about the clarity of what needs to be achieved with this policy. That is not there yet and it needs to be there to adequately resource it in a way that can give us all confidence in that and, crucially, to make sure that the training of professionals who will have to take forward this policy is done in the right way and with the right resources to make that happen. Thank you very much. I'll call Daniel Johnson to wind up for labour. Six minutes, please, Mr Johnson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It's always nerve wracking doing something for the first time. I know that I was incredibly nervous speaking in here for the first time just a couple of weeks ago, but that was nothing as compared to doing the huge task of bathing my baby daughter for the very first time, trying to bathe a slippery, squarmy little person in a plastic bowl of water terrifying. The Scottish Government's talked a lot in the last few weeks about giving parents a box for the baby, but I'm sure that I'm not the only dad in Scotland who'd quite like an instruction manual, too. The secret fact of parenting is this, that no one really knows what they're doing and we're all just making up as we go along and hoping that none of our mistakes are too big or at least not too enduring. Parents need space and trust to do their job. Like lots of parents, my initial reaction to name person was one of caution. The thought of someone looking over our shoulders spotting and marking what we were doing wrong sounded scary. But while most parents do figure it out, others don't. In the most extreme cases, parents struggle in the most fundamental ways. In those cases, we need to work together as society to intervene. We need to have a clear pathway of escalation. In the debate about name person, trust has broken down. Parents feel that they are not being trusted and that they are going to be watched. The point of name person isn't to spy on parents or to second guess them, it's to ensure that issues are spotted and help delivered when it's needed. But in the poor implementation of this, trust has been lost. Parents have lost trust in the Government, they've lost trust in the intent of the scheme and, most worryingly, this trust threatens the trust in some of the people that we're asking to be named persons. I think that we've had a very good debate today. It's been constructive and it's been engaged. In particular, the contributions from Jenny Gilruth, Stuart McMillian and Gillian Martin, talking about the trusted professionals that we are relying on and teachers, health visitors—these are the people that we trust to give us advice. They're the people who we trust to take action when they have concerns. I'm lost to interrupt your flow, but if you turn away from the microphone— Oh, sorry. Thank you very much. And indeed, they're right to question the language that some members have been using, because we destroy that trust with absolute caution and at our own peril. But it's also why we need time to build trust in this scheme. I'd also like to comment on Tavish Scott's contributions, because I think that he's right that some of the key points are important. The ability to say thanks but no thanks to advice, the importance of unclear circumstances for escalation and safeguards, but most importantly, we need resource to make this work. It's why I welcome the Deputy First Minister's contributions in terms of working on the guidance and communication. However, I urge the Deputy First Minister that we need a pause to build that confidence, and we need a review. The problems of the name person arise from poor communication and confused guidance. Those are real concerns about whether the resource and capacity are going to be in place to make this work. In March, I held a meeting with people running nurseries and day care in my constituencies, and their big concern was that health visitors who have no administrative support will simply be overwhelmed by the volume of communication. Therefore, we need a pause to communicate and rebuild trust, and we need a review to make sure that it will work. Bluntly, failing to do this will make it harder, not easier, to protect our most vulnerable children. However, those are points for the Government. Today, we are debating a Conservative motion, and for weeks and months, they have been railing against name person. This is apparently meant to be the cornerstone of their strong opposition, but they have come to Parliament today and said that all we need is a bit more of a debate. If the SNP is guilty of getting the principles of reform right by implementation wrong, the Tories are guilty of something far worse—empty posturing—saying one thing out there and another thing in this place. At a church hustling in Morningside, Daniel Johnson agreed with me and all the other candidates that it was important that we take time to review the policy in pause. What does he say to parents and grandparents now that he won't be supporting our motion this evening? I'm supporting the Labour amendment, which calls for a pause in a review, so thank you very much, Miles, for underlining our position. Liz Smith, I think, let the cat out of the bag in her opening speech. She had her speech full of warm words, talking about resources and guidelines, but in response to my intervention, it came out that, actually, they don't support the whole thing, that they'd like to see it scrapped. So she could have saved the 11 minutes in 30 seconds and given the 30 seconds of the real point. No, I've already taken one intervention. Again, we had dug this rose, no thank you. We had quotes from constituents about concerns, about implementation, about agreement on the principle, and that's why they needed a pause, and then he slipped out at the end that he had disagreed with the whole thing. But ultimately, I think, what sums it up was Adam Tomkin's contribution. Language, talking about behind-parents backs, is just frankly destructive, so much for a constructive approach. I think that we saw the real conservative position when we heard Adam Tomkin's remarks. Because the truth is this, time after time, they've argued against it. Ruth Davidson in her conference speech said that name person is bad law, and they manifest what they said it had to be scrapped. Even just a couple of days ago, Ruth Davidson wrote that the conservative disagreed with it in principle. But today's motion doesn't call it for it to be scrapped. It calls for a pause and a debate. A pause that just weeks ago, Ruth Davidson was lambasting Labour for proposing. Indeed, when Labour called for a pause, she described it as a screeching u-turn. Well, I hope that they are wearing their earplugs today, because I think that Ruth Davidson just pulled the handbrake and pulled it pretty hard. So we need a pause. We need pause to rebuild trust. We need pause to rebuild confidence. We need a review to make sure that this works, and that's why Labour is proposing the amendment that we have made today, and that's what we'll be voting for. I call Mark McDonald to wind up the Government. Eight minutes, please, Minister. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Can I take this opportunity to formally welcome yourself and the rest of the Presiding Officer team to your roles? We've had a debate today, Presiding Officer, which I think has got to the heart of some of the issues that have arisen around the name person policy, and I want to deal with some of the contributions that have been made today. The first thing that I would say to Daniel Johnson is that, as the minister who is responsible for the delivery of the baby walks, I have made a note to see if we can get some form of grippy gloves to put into that in order to assist him with the bathing of his daughter, which is clearly causing him some difficulty. In terms of the contributions that we've had today, I want to single out Tavish Scott's contributions. Tavish Scott has made extremely positive and thoughtful contributions both in his opening remarks and in his closing speech, where he has highlighted the examples that exist in Highland and elsewhere of where the name person policy has worked. I hear absolutely the point that he is making about resources. I can say that this Government is absolutely committed to making sure that this policy is properly resourced, and we will be happy to support the Liberal Democrat amendment when it comes to decision time today. He asked in his remarks about how somebody could go around changing a named person if they had a disagreement. I say to him that, in the draft guidance that states that the name person provider must ensure that children, young people and parents can, in exceptional circumstances, request the name person's service to consider the identification of an alternative name person. The provision is there to enable it to be done and it then becomes the responsibility of the relevant authority to enact on those wishes should they identify that the circumstances are reasonable. Liz Smith and a number on the Conservative benches spoke about paperwork and caseload. I thought that this point was rather successfully neutered by both the Deputy First Minister and by Ian Gray and indeed by Rhoda Grant, who cited the figures in Highland of the reduction in caseload that came about as a consequence of the implementation of the name person policy in Highland. That is a demonstration of the benefits of early intervention. Perhaps I could develop a little further into my speech and then we will maybe get into the position of taking some interventions. My colleague George Adam on the back benches questioned whether the principles of GERFEC were being questioned in the debate. I saw no disagreement on the Conservative benches. Minister, I am accusing you of talking away from the microphone. I saw no disagreement on the Conservative benches at that point, which is a relief, because they have obviously changed tack from the article that Professor Tomkins, who has been mentioned a lot in this debate, published in the spectator, where he referred to GERFEC getting a right for every child as a ghastly Orwellian acronym. The only thing that has been ghastly in this whole process has been the rhetoric of the Conservative party and its spokespeople in relation to the policy. Douglas Ross in his contribution said that he felt that the name person policy was unworkable. I say to him that, as a member for the Highlands and Islands, he does not have to go far to see an example of it working perfectly in practice. If he fancies a day trip, he could go to South Ayrshire, a council controlled by the Conservative party, which has implemented the name person, is operating it and is reporting that it is working just fine. Why is it okay for the Conservatives to implement it in South Ayrshire and say that it is working just fine, yet they come to this chamber and spread misinformation about the policy? Mr Ross. I am grateful for that, allowing the intervention. I think that the minister will have to reflect on his remarks, because the policy that was implemented in South Ayrshire was about getting it right for every child. The Conservative support there is not specifically on name person, but, speaking about visits, would the minister accept an invitation from myself to visit Murray council and address the concerns that I raised in my speech, that two senior officers on separate days had to take the workload of 80 name persons? I would appreciate him coming to Murray to discuss that. The first thing that I would say is that the name person and GERFEC are absolutely integral parts of the Children and Young People Act, and to attempt to disaggregate them, as Mr Ross has done, is, I am afraid, wide of the mark. On his point about Murray council, the point that I would make is that the issue around caseload is that, first of all, the normal channels of child protection legislation apply in terms of the upscaling of concerns where they exist. What the name person is about, and I will come on to that later, is about that early intervention and nipping in the bud of issues before they escalate to the point of crisis and before they require further intervention. I listened to the Conservative benches getting rather animated when my good friend and colleague Jenny Gilruth was highlighting quite correctly the appalling rhetoric that the Conservatives have employed in recent weeks around certain tragedies that have occurred and trying to link those fundamentals to the name person. They called on her to withdraw, and I say that they would perhaps be well versed to go and read the article written by Professor Tomkins, there he is again coming into this debate in the Daily Mail, where he did not just link one tragedy in an attempt to undermine the name person, but two, so perhaps before they make those kind of remarks they should bear in mind the rhetoric of their colleagues and the words that they are using out there. Monica Lennon, I think, made a very important point around the concerns that parents have and the need for us to ensure that those are addressed. I, as a constituency MSP, but also as a parent, am coming into contact with those concerns and I am doing my work to address those. I say to members across the chamber, those members who are supportive of this policy, I want us to work together to address those concerns. We all have a responsibility, I recognise the Government's responsibility in terms of making sure that this legislation is implemented, but we all have a responsibility to ensure that those messages going out there to parents are consistent and I will happily work across the benches with those members who want to do that. Can I pay tribute to the debut speech of Oliver Mundell? I have very good friends who live in Anand, so I have spent a number of long weekends in Mr Mundell's constituency. It is a fine part of the world and I look forward to visiting it in my ministerial capacity. The only part of his speech with which I would take a slight issue is that he made a call for the Deputy First Minister to hit the pause button on this legislation. My problem with this is that the Conservatives do not want us to hit the pause button, they want us to hit the eject button, and that frankly is something that we on these benches absolutely will have no truck with whatsoever. Stuart McMillan cautioned against playing on fears and peddling of a misinformation. I fear that that may fall on deaf ears on the Conservative benches, but we can live in hope. Rhoda Grant made a point around the training, and I would cite to her the training that is being provided this month in Aberdeen City Council as just one example, which the Scottish Government is providing £14,000 towards. The training is being rolled out for professionals to make sure that they are ready in terms of the act coming into force at the end of August. Ross Thomson spoke about the workability of the scheme as well, and also cited issues around support for government. I say to him that there is an example of the Government giving support to the council of which he is an administration member, and he should know that very well before he is making those comments in the chamber today. Fulton MacGregor and Ross Greer absolutely got to the nub of this issue. Fulton MacGregor spoke about the need to solve problems before they become a crisis, and Ross Greer spoke about the concerns of young people themselves, and our concern should be the wellbeing and the welfare of those children. All too often, what I hear from those Conservative benches is a complete absence of concern around the welfare and wellbeing of those children, because the thing that the name person is, first of all, it is around early intervention, the prevention of escalation. Secondly, it is about ensuring that support for families is in place, where, for example, in my own example where we receive the diagnosis of an additional support need, the opportunity is there for appropriate signposting to relevant services and support networks. Thirdly, it is about ensuring the upscaling to the appropriate channels of child protection, which, at the end of the day, do sit above the level of the name person, but the name person at the very outset in terms of joining up that approach has a critical role to play. That is why we on those Government benches support that policy. The Conservatives have come here and tried to cloak their position in a motion that talks of reasonability. Thankfully, the Parliament appears to have seen through that, and I look forward to them reinforcing the support for this policy at decision time today. Thank you. Paul-Adam Tompkins, to wind up the debate. Mr Tompkins, still 5.30 or thereabouts. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. The principal problem with this law, Presiding Officer, is its overreach. Of course we need, and of course we should have, robust and effective child protection laws that focus on harm, abuse and neglect, that require intrusive powers. We already have those, and everybody in this chamber fully supports them, especially the people on those benches. The name person's legislation sits in addition to all of those powers. However, here, unlike in that context, the focus is not on abuse or neglect, but on wellbeing and elastic concept, given a remarkably broad definition in the act. The named person will have three sets of powers under section 19 of the act, with regard to wellbeing, a power to give advice and support to a child or a parent, fine, a power to help a child or a parent access a service, fine, but also, and critically, a power to discuss or raise a matter about a child's wellbeing with a whole host of bodies and agencies, and that is where the act goes too far. In terms of the first two functions, of course parents do not have to accept the advice offered by a named person, but the third function not merely empowers, but in certain circumstances requires the named person, irrespective of the parent's wishes, to report a wellbeing indicator to a school, a local authority, the Scottish Government, the police, Skills Development Scotland, a broad sweep of Scottish public services. Who is this named person? What say do parents get in choosing who has this power over their children? None. What statutory right of appeal is there in the act for a parent to challenge the appointment of a named person? None. Tavish Scott says—let me finish this point—that there should be, and I agree with him, but the law as enacted does not allow for it. The only way of putting it right is to rewrite the law, which is precisely why we are asking for its implementation to be paused. I want to get to the nub of what the objection Mr Tomkins has to the role played by health visitors, head teachers and guidance teachers, because he asked who is the named person, what is his problem with that? The second problem, which is precisely the answer to the minister's question, is the bureaucracy that it entails. Well-being is so compendious a topic that named persons will be required—again, the word is required—to consider an astonishing 222 risk indicators and 304 outcome signifiers, as represented in the Shinari wheel of wellbeing, the resilience matrix and the My World triangle. This bureaucracy is supposed to ensure, as we have been told many times, that no child slips through the net. The very opposite will happen. The net is being so stretched by this burden of box ticking that our most vulnerable children are at an increased risk of falling through it. At the same time, those charged with the responsibility of safeguarding Scotland's most at-risk children cannot but find their scarce resources diverted and diluted. I will let you in in one minute, Deputy First Minister. Let me be clear. Our focus should resolutely be on children at risk of harm. Anything that undermines or lessens or obstructs that focus is contrary to the public interest and should be resisted. I give way to the Deputy First Minister. I am grateful to Mr Tomkins for giving way. How can you make those remarks in the face of the specific evidence that this Parliament has heard from Highland Council about the reduction in the number of children on the child protection register, and the reduction in the number of children who require more detailed intervention from the local authority? As the Deputy First Minister well knows, opinion on the name person scheme is divided. We have evidence from the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, we have evidence from Maggie Mellon, the vice-chair of the British Association of Social Workers, and we have evidence from the Scottish Association of Social Workers. It goes on. I have no doubt that the name person's legislation was well intentioned. I do not believe for a moment that its proponents want to undermine the effectiveness of child protection, but the evidence strongly suggests that that is precisely the unintended effect of this ill-considered law. That is what we heard from my colleague Douglas Ross. I know that the legislation was extensively examined in committee, but what happens here in this chamber matters. The stage 1 debate on this voluminous act—18 parts and more than 100 sections—was completed in less than an hour and 45 minutes, and the stage 3 debate on the named person's provisions lasted for no longer than an hour and 10 minutes. It is the job. It is the job of this Parliament to act as the revising chamber for the laws passed in the last one. That is why we are asking in today's motion for this law to be paused. Everyone here knows that we think that the name person's law should be buried, not paused, but that is not what we are asking for today. All we are asking for today is for this Parliament to take another look, to take stock, to reconsider, to listen to the evidence and to think. I say to the Labour Party that it is depressing that they cannot bring themselves to support this motion despite the fact that it is precisely what their leader called for during the election campaign. Then again, perhaps that is why they are sitting over there and we are sitting over here, because their flip-flopping on child protection laws was every bit as off-putting to the electorate as their flip-flopping on the union. As for the Liberal Democrats, I still do not understand why Scotland's so-called liberal party supports the bill. That the contention by Mr Tomkins that we only took an hour of debate on stage 3 is inaccurate, then in fact we debated that stage 3 will have passed eight on that particular day and he should get his facts right in these circumstances. The noise in the chamber, Mr Crawford, I do not blame you for not being able to hear that what I in fact said was that the stage 3 debate on the named person provisions lasted for no longer than an hour and ten minutes, which is that's what I said and it's correct. As for the Liberal Democrats, I have to say that I still cannot understand why Scotland's so-called liberal party supports the single most illiberal law that this parliament has passed since its creation 17 years ago. If Labour shows us that the only effective... No, if Labour shows us that the only effective opposition to the SNP is going to come from us, then the Liberal show us that the only true defenders of liberty and freedom and responsibility in Scotland are the Conservatives, which brings me to Mr Swinney's amendment. Mr Swinney's amendment says that the Parliament believes that most children and young people get all the help and support they need. Precisely, which is why most children and young people in Scotland don't need a named person. Mr Swinney's amendment identifies the first two functions of the named person to provide advice and support and to point parents and children in the right direction when they need it, but it fails to mention the third function of the named person, legislated for in this Parliament's own legislation, which is, as I have said, to discuss issues pertaining to wellbeing with a whole host of institutions, including the Scottish Government. Like everybody else in this chamber, I welcome, albeit very belatedly indeed, the Scottish Government's acknowledgement that there are concerns expressed about the implementation of this policy. It is imperative that we get this right. All afternoon from these benches, we have heard, after speaker present evidence and reasoned argument, that we have not got this right. It has not been... I am in my last minute, Mr Swinney. It has not been our intention. It's up to Mr Tomkins. Mr Swinney is up to Mr Tomkins. It has not been our intention today to turn up the heat on this issue. It has been our intention to shine as clear and as bright a light on it as we can. This law is defective. Let's stop here. Let's pause. Let's take another look and let's support the motion. Thank you, and that concludes our debate on education. The next item of business is consideration of business, motion 371, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting out a business programme. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press their request to speak button now. I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move, motion 371. Formally moved. Thank you. No member has asked to speak against the motion. I will now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion 371 be agreed. Are we agreed? We are agreed. The next item of business is consideration of two parliamentary bureau motions. I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move, motion 372, on a variation of standing orders, and motion 376 on committee membership. The question is on those motions will be put at decision time to which we now come. Mr Harvey. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to raise a point of order regarding the motion that we are about to consider on committee membership. There has been some discussion, including prompted by our own group, about the role of committee members who also serve as parliamentary liaison officers. Today we are being asked to approve a motion on committee membership prior to having seen an announcement from the Government about who will serve as their parliamentary liaison officers. The question will emerge again, as it did in the last session, if a member sits on or even convenes a parliamentary committee, holding to account the minister who appointed them to the role of parliamentary liaison officer, who is accountable to whom. Given that we are being asked to approve the motion on committee membership today, to which I have no objection at all, what opportunity will we have to prevent such potential conflicts of interest emerging once the Government decides who will serve in the role of parliamentary liaison officers? Thank you, Mr Harvey. I would thank you for the advance notice, although I did just receive it myself a few minutes ago. I do not believe that it is a point of order as the matter is not covered by standing orders. However, it is an important political point that you have raised. I think that it is one that is probably best dealt with immediately by the business managers in the bureau, and I would ask that you bring it up at the Parliamentary Bureau next Tuesday. I will reflect on the matter that you have brought to my attention. I will also report back to Parliament on any decision or through the Parliamentary Business Managers, but I am ruling that that is not a point of order for current decision now. Yes, Mr FitzPatrick. Just to clarify that the nominations of the SNP group for committee places is for the SNP group. I think that the point of order that Mr Harvey was bringing was about parliamentary liaison officers. It was not about committee membership. I have ruled that it is not a point of order for now. It is a matter for political discussion between the parties. There are six questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that amendment 345.1, in the name of Tavish Scott, which seeks to amend amendment 345.1, in the name of John Swinney, on education, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote is as follows. Yes, 74. No, 30. Abstain, 22. The amendment is therefore agreed. There is a preemption on the next amendment. I wish to remind members that, if the amendment in the name of John Swinney is agreed, the amendment in the name of Ian Gray falls. The next question is that amendment 345.1, in the name of John Swinney, as amended, which seeks to amend motion number 345, in the name of Liz Smith, on education, be agreed. I hope that you followed all that. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will therefore move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote is as follows. Yes, 74. No, 31. And there were 21 abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 345, in the name of Liz Smith, as amended, on education, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We should move to a vote and members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote is as follows. Yes, 74. No, 31. There were 21 abstentions. The motion, as amended, is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 372, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on the variation of standing orders, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. The next question is that motion 376, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on committee membership, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. That concludes decision time and we will now move to members' business. I will give a few minutes for members to clue the chamber.