 Rwyf amdân, ond bydd John Swinney i'w pethau ffamilio'r pheirwyr, y First Minister i'r Cymdeithasedd Côrアedwyrterod ac Rhywodraeth i'w meddwl o gwestiynau i'i ddweud ydi'i ddweud i'r ddim yn gweithio'r prifoedd yma i ddim yn eitemau i gŷ, rwyf am rhoi. Rwyf amfattwch yng nghyd-dyn nhw ddylai mewn adeg. Rydyn nhw'n ddwellotheraeth o'i ddweud o'r ffathau'r gyrfaith diwrnau lle, a fawr diwrnod o'r roi'w ddweud o'r lle a'u gyrfaith i ‑fasiliau'r ddylch yn dechrau'r ysgolwyr. Mae rhyngwblion hyn yn ddechrau sylwyr o'r gyrfaith diwrnod o'r ddylch o'r ddylch yn diwrnod o'r ddylch i ddweud o ddylch i ddweud o'r digerwyrio'r ffathau. as it is known, is the best way of promoting the best interests of our children and young people. I would like to take the opportunity to set out the principles that underpin the GERFEC approach and why they are so crucial in driving Scottish Government policy towards children. GERFEC is the national approach in Scotland to improving outcomes and supporting the wellbeing of our children and young people by offering the right help at the right time from the right people. It supports them and their parents to work in partnership with the services that can help them. It puts the rights and the wellbeing of children and young people at the heart of the services that support them, such as early year services, schools and the national health service, to ensure that everyone works together to improve outcomes for a child or for a young person. 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 committees over many years of its inquiry. Fundamentally decent aims and ones that this Parliament has endorsed repeatedly on a cross-party basis, aims that have been welcomed by children's charities and the teaching and the nursing professions, and it is against that backdrop of a shared commitment to children's wellbeing that the named person service was developed. It was through the recognition, based upon real-life experiences and expert advice, that a timely and early offer of advice or help can prevent troubles from becoming crises, and in some cases, crises from becoming tragedies. The girfrech approach is one that works. It was taken forward in Highland, where the value of the named person role as a central point of contact was first identified by parents and rolled out across the authority between 2008 and 2010. Since then, more families have been receiving additional support and more quickly. That means that there has been less need for compulsory measures and the needs of many children have not escalated. Between 2007 and 2013, the number of referrals to the children's reporter in Highland dropped from 2,335 to 744, a drop of 68 per cent in complex, sensitive and costly processes. The number of children on the child protection register and the number of looked after children has been sustained at 15 to 20 per cent lower than prior to the girfrech approach being introduced. Moreover, social work caseloads have been reduced by up to 50 per cent from previous levels, now averaging around 15 at any one time. Accordingly, early intervention is getting more support to more children and those who need higher levels of intervention are also receiving that. Those figures represent progress, but the arithmetic represents something far more valuable. It represents the opportunity for young lives to be improved at an earlier stage and significantly so. Those are the benefits that we want to bring to the whole of Scotland. Although I accept that political support has not been universal, there has been and continues to be broad political and stakeholder support for the policy. However, the named person service has been subject to a legal challenge, which has cast uncertainty over its scope and its legality. Although both the outer and inner houses of the court of session upheld the provisions of the Children and Young People Scotland Act 2014, on 28 July, the Supreme Court determined that ministers needed to provide greater clarity about the basis on which health visitors, teachers and other professionals supporting families will share and receive information in their named person role. They ruled that the information sharing provisions of part 4 of the Children and Young People Scotland Act 2014 are incompatible with article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and that changes are needed to make those provisions compatible with article 8 to ensure respect for one's private and family life, his home and his correspondence. In recognition of the changes that are required in the legislation, I laid the necessary orders to pause commencement of the relevant parts of the act to ensure that all provisions were not commenced as intended on 31 August. Since the Supreme Court judgment, I have provided Parliament and key stakeholders and practitioners with regular updates on procedural progress in regard to amending the legislation. I welcome this opportunity to bring Parliament up to date with the next steps that will be taken. Crucially, the Supreme Court ruled definitively that the principle of providing a named person for every child does not breach human rights and is compatible with EU law. The Supreme Court also described the intention of the policy as unquestionably legitimate and benign. It rejected the petitioner's argument that the legislation relates to reserved matters. So the attempt to scrap a service that can bring benefits to young people and their families in different areas of Scotland failed, and this Parliament, which passed the necessary legislation on a cross-party basis with no votes against it, was vindicated. For the avoidance of any doubt, the Government remains absolutely committed to the named person service. The Supreme Court judgment does not dilute our commitment, but it has required us to revise part of the legislation to ensure that it is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. We want the legislation to achieve exactly what the Supreme Court says it needs to achieve, compatibility with article 8, along with greater clarity around the information sharing provisions. I am keen to commence the provisions of this act as early as possible. However, I am also keen to pursue an inclusive approach, one that takes this Parliament, stakeholders and the wider public with it. We recognise that information sharing has been an important issue for practitioners and the public alike. We want to ensure that there is a clear consensus across Scotland on how information sharing should operate. That must include the essential principle of consent and the rare occasions when it is not appropriate to require or to seek it. That must be addressed through open dialogue. For that reason, the Scottish Government will undertake a three-month period of intense engagement in Scotland. We will take input from practitioners, parents, charities as well as young people, those who support the named person policy and those who have concerns about it. I intend to involve the officers of the Children's Commissioner and the Information Commissioner as we look to address the Supreme Court judgment effectively. In order to address the concerns raised by the Supreme Court, we will discuss the principles that should underpin the legislation and the development of a code of practice to set out how information should be shared under the legislation. That work will be taken forward by the Minister for childcare and early years and by me. Once that engagement ends and we have an agreed way to proceed, I will return to Parliament and announce the next steps in terms of legislation. However, it is my ambition to work towards a commencement date for the legislation and the provisions of August 2017. I address one final point. The judgment itself does not require current policy to change. The judgment relates only to the information sharing provisions that were intended to come into force under the 2014 act, not to current practice under GERFIC policy. Any sharing of personal information that takes place now or in the future must be done in accordance with the data protection act 1998 and the human rights act 1998. A local authority or health board can nominate a person as the named person for a particular child and to arrange for that person to be responsible within the local authority or health board for the provision of services to that child. Organisations can, within the framework of existing law, continue to deliver or engage with existing or developing named person services. My message to local authorities and health boards is a clear one. Please continue to develop and deliver a named person service in your area to make the benefits of the service available to every child who needs that service. I am all too well aware of the debilitating impact that the peddling of misinformation has on practitioners and stakeholders, and I say to them today, thank you for your efforts in providing the best support network possible for every child in our country. Ministers know that what drives you every day is doing the best you can for the children with whom you interact. The commitment to the provision of a named person service has not wavered. The commitment to enshrining all aspects of the service in legislation at the earliest possible date following appropriate and inclusive consultation is absolutely resolute. As a Parliament, we have made significant progress on the Gyrfrech agenda. That progress has been enabled and facilitated by cross-party consensus on what is important and how improvements to the life chances of Scotland's children and young people can be achieved. The Supreme Court judgment provides us with an opportunity to amend the information sharing provisions in the 2014 act in a way that improves the named person's service and reassures parents and practitioners and the wider public. It provides us with the opportunity to continue in the spirit of shared purpose and consensus to getting it right for every child. The Deputy First Minister will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow 30 minutes for questions after which we move on to the next item of business. It would be helpful if members who wish to ask a question were to press the request-to-speak buttons now. I call First Liz Smith to be followed by Ian Gray. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I thank the Deputy First Minister for prior sight of the statement. I wonder if the Deputy First Minister could provide a categorical assurance this afternoon that any local authority, which was already implementing the named person policy prior to what had been the statutory implementation on the 31 of August and which was acting under Scottish Government guidance, was acting lawfully in terms of its data sharing practices. Secondly, and notwithstanding the fact that the Scottish Government is not obliged to provide its legal advice, what evidence from the information commissioner and other advisers made the Scottish Government so sure at the time of the Children and Young People's Bill that the data sharing aspect of the named person policy would be ruled compatible with article 8 of ECHR when many legal experts, including the faculty of advocates, the law society, Professor Norrie and MSPs on the education committee, raised serious concerns. Thirdly, given that the Deputy First Minister is urging local authorities to proceed with developing the policy, which in fact they cannot actually do because they do not know what it exists, could the Deputy First Minister tell us if he believes that the Scottish Government made a mistake by making a move away from the term welfare, which can be defined in statutory terms, to the term wellbeing, which has no clear definition and which as a result has lowered the possible threshold of intervention from at significant risk of harm to any minor concern about the child. Will he agree finally that the former chamber of the education committee, when he was challenged by my colleague Alex Johnson to define the term wellbeing, was entirely wrong when he said that this was a ridiculous intervention and nobody knew what they were talking about? In relation to the first point that Liz Smith has raised, I set out in my statement the current legal position, which is that if any local authority wishes to provide the service, it must ensure that it is compatible with the data protection act and the requirements of the human rights act in 1998. That is the legal framework in which the local authorities must act in designing their schemes. The point that I was making and the distinction that I was making in my statement is between the provisions that were made within the Children and Young Peoples Act 2014, which, clearly, the Supreme Court has said is required to be altered. That legal framework has not come into force, it has not been enacted, it was to come into force and the Supreme Court has said that it cannot come into force unless that is revised. Local authorities must vest their schemes in the existing legal framework that precedes that, and I cited the basis on which that should be done. On the second point that Liz Smith raised, and I am glad that she put the caveat in that we do not reveal our legal advice, because we do not reveal our legal advice, but I would point out to Liz Smith that the Parliament considered all of these issues when it legislated in 2014 and came to its conclusions. The act was then tested in the outer house of the Court of Session and the inner house of the Court of Session, and the legal challenges were dismissed in both of those courts. I do not think that it is fair for Liz Smith to say that somehow the Government has not taken due care and attention in taking forward this legislation, because we have had it tested already in two courts, the two highest courts in Scotland, and the legal challenges have been dismissed, but the Supreme Court has taken a different view in relation only to the information sharing provisions. If we look at the decision and the judgment of the Supreme Court in July, I think that the roots of that come from the thinking that has emerged on the Supreme Court, which originated in June 2014, in the handling by the Supreme Court of a case against the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, where the Supreme Court attached much greater significance to the vesting of provisions in relation to the convention rights by using their term in accordance with law, and that judgment post-dated the passage of that legislation by the Scottish Parliament earlier in 2014. In answering the point about the legal strength of our arguments, I would say to Liz Smith that having had the bill considered and challenges dismissed by the inner and outer houses of the Court of Session, I think that that is a strong vindication of the legal position that Parliament took. I have cited the basis on which I think there has been an emergence of thinking within the Supreme Court, which opens up what I would consider to be a new point of analysis on convention rights in accordance with law, which post-dated the passage of the legislation here in this Parliament. On the final point, and I think that that is a very substantial point in relation to wellbeing and welfare, because it relates to one of the other terms that Liz Smith used, which was the question of threshold. I accept, and the Supreme Court judgment raises this issue with us, that if we are to—I do not take the view that it should just be about welfare, I believe that it should be about wellbeing, because that is at the heart of GERFEC, because that is what provides for the early intervention activity to address difficulties that young people face and to intervene early to try to avert them becoming more serious issues. However, there has to be appropriate threshold, and that is the issue that now has to be examined as part of the analysis that I have undertaken. I hope that that provides the clarity of what will be in the minds of the Minister for childcare in early years and myself as we go about the process of ensuring that this legislation is given absolutely secure foundations. However, with it, it fulfills its purpose, which is to be of value and as an asset to protect the wellbeing of children in Scotland and to make sure that we can deliver the best outcomes for every single one of them, because in that respect, I am an unapologetic advocate of getting it right for every child and it will drive everything that I do as the education secretary in this Parliament. I also thank the Deputy First Minister for early sight of his statement. The Deputy First Minister knows that Labour supports the principle of the name person policy. The measures that he is taking to resolve the issues over information sharing are therefore welcome. However, exactly because we want this to work, we have to face up to the fact that this policy has lost the confidence of many Scottish families. Fixing that is as important as fixing the information sharing section of the bill. Responding to the requirements of the Supreme Court judgment is a necessary but not sufficient response. To that end, we have suggested that we use the opportunity of this pause to remove 16 and 17-year-olds from the scope of the policy. To include them was a mistake. To many people, it seems absurd, given that a 16-year-old can vote, marry, work, pay tax, all as an adult. To remove them would be a strong signal that, while the Government is not surrendering on named person policy, it is listening and not only to the Supreme Court. I simply ask again whether the Deputy First Minister undertake to remove 16 and 17-year-olds from the scope of the legislation. First of all, I thank him for the welcome that he has given to the provisions that I have set out today. I also agree with him that there is a need to gain confidence in the named person policy. The way in which I have set out the argument for named person policy and where the name person policy and where it originates from in the policy framework of getting it right for every child is one illustration of how I intend to try to build that confidence about the application of that policy. Mr Gray said that he did not think that addressing the provisions and the points that were made by the Supreme Court was necessary but not sufficient. It is necessary but it is also significant in boosting confidence in the policy. If we satisfactorily address the issue that I have closed my remarks to Liz Smith about the issue of threshold, we may begin to address some of the issues that have been raised about the policy. What we will allow us to do is to respond adequately to what the Supreme Court has asked us to do to address specifically the issue of proportionality in the application of the policy and the judgments that are made in the policy. I think that we can go a long way by properly and fully addressing the requirements of the Supreme Court to build confidence in the policy. When Mr Gray set out over the summer his call for me to look again at the provision for 16 and 17-year-olds, I indicated that at that stage I would be prepared to consider that issue and I remain off that view that I will consider it. However, I make two specific points to Mr Gray on the issue. The first is that in the report from Childline today, Childline revealed that 30 per cent of the contact with Childline is from 16 to 18-year-olds expressing their vulnerability to that particular medium. Although I understand and accept the points that Mr Gray makes about the fact that 16 and 17-year-olds are able to vote and are able to join the armed forces and can do lots of other things, but there are also a lot of 16 and 17-year-olds who remain very vulnerable. We have to address that fact in our consideration. The second point that I would make is that the Parliament did not legislate for 16 and 17-year-olds to come within the scope of the named person provision on a whim. It was done because the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as a young person up to the age of 18. Mr Gray will know from his long experience in those issues that the Government from times to times and Parliament from time to times comes in for criticism for not fulfilling international standards and points of recognition that are important in the policy process. I put those points on the record, but I will give consideration to the issue that Mr Gray has raised, because I have made clear my statement that my determination is to proceed on that issue with the objective of building consensus and to building broad agreement around that provision, and that will be the approach that I take in taking forward this policy. Before I call others, I have 11 members wishing to ask questions. Of course, I want to get them all in, so that depends on the length of the questions and, to some extent, on the length of the answers, so try to do your best. I call Rona Mackay to be followed by Adam Tomkins. I couldn't agree more with the cabinet secretary's concern about the debilitating impact of the peddling of misinformation on the morale and confidence of practitioners who, day in and day out, do one of the hardest jobs that there is that of supporting vulnerable children and families. Does the cabinet secretary therefore agree with me that the Tories should tone down their hysterical rhetoric on named person and accept the judgment of the Supreme Court, which stated that the intent of the legislation is unquestionably legitimate and benign? I think that the Supreme Court had an opportunity to look at all of the provisions here and they have come to their judgment. I think that what I am trying to do is to take forward the approach that is required to ensure that this legislation can be implemented as quickly as possible and to make sure that the public servants who are keen to make sure that they can provide the best possible connected services for the young people of Scotland and addressing the needs that they are able to proceed on this basis. I will press on in the fashion that I have set out and I hope that we can have a political debate around the subject that is focused on addressing the issues of substance that come out of the Supreme Court judgment and work to resolve those as speedily as we possibly can do. Thank you very much. I thank the Deputy First Minister for his statement and indeed for keeping Parliament appropriately informed during the course of the recess. The Deputy First Minister has identified that it was the information-sharing provisions of the named person scheme that the Supreme Court ruled unlawful in its judgment in July and he has explained that he proposes to remedy these defects even if he said nothing about how he proposes to do this. I said to the Deputy First Minister that it is not just about thresholds, it is also about definition and in particular the definition of wellbeing. The Supreme Court ruled that the relevant provisions were not in accordance with law because the Supreme Court found that they lacked clarity and certainty and the lack of clarity and the lack of certainty goes to the heart of this question of wellbeing. The Supreme Court said a lot more in its judgment. It did not focus on information sharing alone. The court stated that, even after the information-sharing provisions are sorted out, the named person scheme is still in danger of constituting a disproportionate and therefore unlawful interference with family life in many cases. Paragraph 100 of the judgment, the court states that the operation of the scheme is likely often to be disproportionate, those are the court's words, and that is even after the information-sharing provisions are rewritten so that they are in accordance with law. My question is why has the Deputy First Minister's statement today failed to address that aspect of the court's ruling? I think that my statement has addressed that issue because I have acknowledged the importance of addressing the issue of thresholds and proportionality. I take a different view to Mr Tomkins about the question of definition. I agree that the court says that the provisions need to be set out in accordance with law. That is now essentially a habitual requirement of Supreme Court judgments, and that is something that postdates the passage of the legislation. The definition of wellbeing is that we have defined wellbeing in the guidance documents that the Government has set out. The Supreme Court had that draft guidance in front of it, but the guidance does not constitute law. I accept that point. If I can perhaps do a dangerous thing of trying to summarise what the Supreme Court judgment was saying, it was almost saying, get your guidance into law and then address the issue, if I can perhaps not in the Supreme Court language, but that is what I would take from the provisions that they have put in place. There is a job of work to be done to define that, I accept that, and that will then make it in accordance with law, which will then address the issues that the Supreme Court has raised with us. The issue of proportionality is important because it will address directly the question that Mr Tomkins raises about what occasions and what circumstances might the information-sharing provisions be utilised. That is why I set out the policy position in the context of GERFEC. A very important point, which I know is perhaps not part of the narrative that has been used in the debate to criticise name person. There are plenty of families who want to go to a name person to get the support that they require, because people generally do not come to me at my surgeries to tell me how well connected the public services have been. They generally come to my surgeries to say, could you get the public services better connected for me, Mr Swinney? There will be an opportunity for members of the public to use the service to get the support that they require to assist their young people, and that is a good thing. I welcome the cabinet secretary's announcement regarding an intensive engagement programme. Can he provide more detail about how he intends to involve health visitors, teachers, parents, carers and, crucially, children and young people in that activity? The First Minister and I will spend a considerable amount of time over the course of the next few months in direct engagement with a variety of professionals, parents and young people, and with people who have been critical of the policy to find ways in which we might be able to address the substantive issues. There were some people whom I cannot reach in this, who are just implacably opposed to it. Even with the persuasive skills that I would like to think I have, there will be some people whom I will not manage to reach. I do hope that we can have a fair climate to address the issues raised in the Supreme Court, and the minister and I will engage in that substantively to make sure that that is the case before coming back to Parliament with further detail on how we will take forward the legislation. I welcome the First Minister's acknowledgement that addressing the point of confidence and faith that people have in the policy is as important as addressing the legal point. Teachers and health visitors all along have raised their concerns about the impact of named person on the time that they have to do their main job. Now that we have a pause, will Mr Swinney use it to find the resource and implement it so that those crucial professionals have the time and resource available to do the main job of caring and educating our children? If I take the last few words of Mr Johnson's question about teachers having the opportunity to care for and educate our children, that is exactly what I want our teachers to be able to do, which is why I am investing so much of my time in ensuring that they are liberated from bureaucracy to enable them to do that. However, when I go round the schools of Scotland, I talk to teachers whose conversation with me is not just about educational attainment, it is about their judgment about children when they walk in the door in the morning and what they need, what support, what nurture they need before they can even think about any learning. In some schools that I have gone into, I have been overwhelmed by the empathy and, frankly, the love of teachers for children. The first port to recall is to put the toaster on as opposed to to get a book out. I do not think that we should try to compartmentalise this, that somehow the named person is an added burden on to teachers. Teachers are looking at the children for whom they are responsible every minute of the day, trying to establish what support they require, what difficulties they are facing and how they can assist them to fulfil their potential. We should congratulate our teaching profession for doing exactly that. What I do not want is for us to have a debate that suggests that, somehow, being a named person is not something that almost comes naturally to the role of the teaching profession in assessing the wellbeing of young people in their care and taking every step that they can to enhance the wellbeing of young people as a consequence of their productive intervention. What reassurance can the cabinet secretary give parents and families about their interests in the process? What will happen if they are unhappy with the named person service? Conversely, what might happen should a family refuse to engage with the service? As a convener of the Education and Skills Committee, can I ask what role the cabinet secretary sees that committee playing in this progress through Parliament? I am sure that it is not for me to specify the agenda of the Education and Skills Committee, but I am sure that they will tell me what they want and I suspect that the way it will work. I am obviously very happy to engage with the committee in any way on those questions. In relation to Mr Dornan's point on the role of parents, clearly the provisions of law in this respect have not been challenged by the court with the exception that they suggest that we could better specify the opportunities that are for parents to essentially opt out of the provisions of the named person. That is obviously an issue that I will reflect on as part of the conversations that we take forward and I will have adequate opportunity to discuss those issues with parents, groups and representatives around the country. Alison Johnstone, to be followed by John Mason, is Johnstone, please. Thank you. I welcome the fact that the Supreme Court judgment has moved the debate on. Does the cabinet secretary agree that those opposing the principle of named person are on the wrong side of the judgment, and that what we must all focus on now is addressing the shortcomings regarding information sharing? I agree with that point. The Supreme Court did not strike down the legislation. It described its aims as unquestionably legitimate and benang. I have confronted the issues openly to Parliament today with the information sharing provisions. Within minutes of the judgment, I acknowledge that the Government would have to resolve those issues, and we now must concentrate on doing that and setting out a process to Parliament that will enable us to do exactly that. I look forward to dialogue with members of all parties about how we can most effectively take forward those provisions. John Mason, to be followed by Tavish Scott. I wonder whether the Government can confirm that it is essential that every child and every family in Scotland should be able to get help, advice and support if they need it. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that every person that is named available for every child and every family, just as there is an ambulance available for every child and every family. The Deputy First Minister I think that that is a very fair and realistic way of bringing this policy to life. That this is a resource that is available for families to call upon if they require that assistance. To repeat one of the comments that I made earlier on, I generally do not meet people who are coming to see me because they feel that public services have been well connected. They often come to see me because they need me to try to weave those services together for them. The point that Mr Mason makes is a fair point that the resources that are there to be utilised by families to ensure that the wellbeing of their children is most effectively supported by the public sector in any way that we can. I am sure that he is familiar with clause 95 of the Supreme Court judgment, which says that parents will be given the impression that they must accept the advice or services that they are offered. Their failure to co-operate with such a plan will be taken to be evidence of a risk of harm. Both as a minister but also if I may say so as a father, does he find that as concerning as I do? Does that not show the need for the scope of the examination of this policy that he is going to undertake in the coming three months, a policy that is now going to be delayed a year, to recognise the concerns of teachers and of health visitors given the 200 risk indicators that he talked about in the debate earlier in the summer, and therefore the need for the scope of that inquiry to recognise all those points and address them fully? Mr Scott will understand the importance that I attach to the democratic decisions of Parliament. Parliament is legislated for this act. It has put in place the provisions. They have been tested by the two courts in Scotland, and they have been tested by a third court in the United Kingdom, and the Supreme Court, the two courts in Scotland have said that the legal challenges are not substantiated. The Supreme Court has raised particular issues with us about information sharing provisions. Mr Scott will understand my democratic point that I think it is important because I want to operate within the rule of law and because I want to operate within the scope of acting on behalf of Parliament's democratic decisions why I am focusing on addressing the issues raised by the Supreme Court in their judgment. The point that Mr Scott makes about the provision of parents is a point that is illustrated by the Supreme Court's view that the sense that individuals can opt out of this is not perhaps as well understood or as well expressed as it could be. I will certainly consider issues of that nature, but I stress that we must be respectful of the democratic decisions of Parliament, which in 2014 decided that this would be the shape of the legislation and the Supreme Court have identified the areas where we specifically addressed that point. Gil Paterson to be followed by Monica Lennon and Mr Paterson. Many thanks, Presiding Officer. As a long-standing MSP who remembers well supporting this policy as an opposition MSP when introduced by the Labour Liberal Democrat Administration, I welcome that the cabinet secretary focused so much of his statement on the wider GIFIC policy. One of the most important aspects of the legislation in part 3, which requires local authorities to plan children's services effectively, can he advise when that will come into effect? I welcome the point that Mr Paterson has made, because it illustrates the fact that many of us have, in both our capacities as an opposition member and as a long-standing Opposition member. I supported this policy and have advocated it for many years. I was enthusiastically supporting our predecessors in bringing forward the policy framework. It is important that we set within that long-term policy of getting it right for every child. To answer Mr Paterson's specific point, part 3 will come into effect on 7 October, which requires local authorities and relevant health boards to have their first children's services plans in place from 1 April 2017, and those plans will cover a three-year period from that date. Monica Lennard, we follow by Fulton MacGregor. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is vital and important that the Scottish Government seeks to build the confidence and trust of parents and young people across the country, as well as staff on the front line. I am pleased that the Deputy First Minister recognises that. Can I ask the Deputy First Minister how the Scottish Government intends to engage young people during the consultation, and will that include 16 and 17-year-olds specifically? The Deputy First Minister will certainly do so. We will take steps through a number of the channels of discussion and communication that we have. We are very lucky to have a whole range of different organisations in Scotland that are well connected with young people in Scotland. We have various forums that exist in which that can happen, and ministers and officials will engage very substantively on those points. The issue that Monica Lennard specifically raised about 16 and 17-year-olds is a material issue for us to consult with that group specifically, recognising the fact that I can understand the perspective that has been put forward by Mr Gray on the issue. Equally, Monica Lennard will understand the perspective that I see from the data about the degree of vulnerability that exists among 16 and 17-year-olds. However, I give her the assurance that we will complete that exercise. Fulton MacGregor, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think that it is important to go back to basics in this, and to remember exactly why the legislation matters. Can the cabinet secretary therefore outline what difference this policy will make to the wellbeing of children, but particularly Scotland's most vulnerable? I think that it is important that we go back to the roots of this policy, because I encounter around the country—I was at a school this morning in Glasgow, which was a splendid example of how we need to identify, at the earliest possible opportunity, weaknesses and deficiencies that young people may be facing and to address them and to intervene as quickly as possible. I met a wonderful young man this morning who went to this particular school when he faced acute difficulties, but the early intervention and the support that he has had has made a transformative impact on that young man. It was because of good early intervention that that has been achieved and a tremendous amount of care and nurture in the intervening years. I think that the point that Mr MacGregor makes is a substantive one, that we need to take early steps to support young people as effective as we can, and to ensure that they are able to overcome difficulties and obstacles that they may face. That is at the heart of the thinking behind getting it right for every child, and we will underpin the development of the policies that we take forward. I will squeeze you in. Cabinet Secretary acknowledges the judgment of the Supreme Court, which is to be welcomed. However, in response to Liz Smith's question, the Deputy First Minister failed to make clear the position of local authorities, if I heard them correctly, who, acting in good faith in piloting the scheme, may have breached ECHR regulations while following Scottish Government advice and guidelines. Where do piloting local authorities stand in terms of liability if they are pursued on the Supreme Court ruling having followed Scottish Government advice and guidance? I do not agree with Mr Scott that I did not answer the question because I answered it very fully, I thought, but what I said in my answer to Liz Smith and what I said in my statement was that any local authority—what has been identified as being deficient are provisions in the Children and Young People Act 2014. Any local authority providing a service up until the passage of that legislation or up until today must be acting in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998. Any legal advice that went to local authorities in relation to the design of their schemes would have to be compatible with those two provisions. That was the answer that I gave to Liz Smith in her first question. It is the answer that I gave in my statement. It is the answer that I gave to Mr Scott. It is the only answer that I can give because that is the legal framework in which local authorities are required to operate. That concludes questions to the Deputy First Minister. Before we move to the next item of business, I will allow the front bench to take their places.