:00:00. > :00:00.caused by that on and off election issue. But that is history. Thank
:00:00. > :00:14.you very much. Thank you. Tonight on Newsnight Scotland, who
:00:15. > :00:21.is in charge of your child's well-being? MSPs voted to appoint
:00:22. > :00:24.so- called named persons from the NHS and councils to monitor every
:00:25. > :00:29.young person's well-being from birth to 18. Is this practical support for
:00:30. > :00:34.children and parents or an imposition of the state into family
:00:35. > :00:38.life? Good evening. The Children and Young
:00:39. > :00:43.People's Bill was passed by the Scottish Parliament a few hours ago.
:00:44. > :00:46.It's a wide ranging bill which, among other things, entitles all
:00:47. > :00:50.three and four-year olds to 600 hours of free nursery care. And
:00:51. > :00:55.allows young people to remain in care until they are 21. So far, so
:00:56. > :00:59.uncontroversial. However, the proposal for the state to assign a
:01:00. > :01:02.named person to monitor every single child in Scotland from birth to
:01:03. > :01:10.adulthood has proved more contentious.
:01:11. > :01:15.11-week-old Caleb Ness, shaken to death by his father. Daniel Greaves
:01:16. > :01:21.was five years old when her mother's partner killed her. And
:01:22. > :01:25.other killed by her mother's boyfriend. And Brandon, dead at the
:01:26. > :01:31.age of two, mother cleared, but partner Jill are culpable homicide.
:01:32. > :01:35.Every time there is a part -- every time there is a case like this, the
:01:36. > :01:38.response seems the case, the agencies involved have shared
:01:39. > :01:44.information, should have acted sooner, this should never happen
:01:45. > :01:49.again, but it does. The bill tries to tackle cases like those by
:01:50. > :01:53.nominating a council or health service worker to look after the
:01:54. > :01:57.interests of every child. But it also extends free childcare and
:01:58. > :02:07.school meals. It strengthens the law on school
:02:08. > :02:10.closures. And it allows children in care to be looked after up until the
:02:11. > :02:19.age of 21, if they want it. The government says this is a
:02:20. > :02:23.landmark law, 600 hours free macro key saving families an average of an
:02:24. > :02:29.hundred pounds per year per child. Ingham ageing with beer and --
:02:30. > :02:34.engaging with parents are wanting to make sure that those 600 hours can
:02:35. > :02:39.be delivered in a more flexible way, which is why this is important,
:02:40. > :02:43.and at the other end of the age spectrum, making sure we give
:02:44. > :02:46.greater rights and support to young looked after care leavers, which is
:02:47. > :02:54.why from next year, young people leaving care will be able to stay on
:02:55. > :03:00.in that setting until 21. Singing macro -- SINGING.
:03:01. > :03:04.Kinship carers looking after children were protesting outside
:03:05. > :03:10.Holyrood today, saying they did not get the same recognition or money
:03:11. > :03:14.that foster parents get. I did not get any support, so this bill coming
:03:15. > :03:20.here seeing extra support, I do not get any, so we are is the extra?
:03:21. > :03:27.This is the future of Scotland. Not a bit of rubbish in the street. Our
:03:28. > :03:31.kids. And this afternoon, MSPs began a detailed examination of the law
:03:32. > :03:36.and amendments put forward to the idea of an interior called the State
:03:37. > :03:40.Guardian by opponents. The named person policy feels the criteria of
:03:41. > :03:44.what makes good law, tips the balance away from parental and
:03:45. > :03:49.family responsibilities towards the state, not properly costed and it
:03:50. > :03:53.will be open to legal challenge. Some believe this measure is
:03:54. > :03:55.absolutely necessary to identifying and protecting vulnerable children
:03:56. > :04:01.and that those who believe this is not required and can interfere in
:04:02. > :04:07.family life. I have no objection to a named person provision, but
:04:08. > :04:11.equally, I would hope that I do not believe it is the role of the state
:04:12. > :04:16.to bring up old children. And the plan has been opposed by a number of
:04:17. > :04:21.churches and religious groups. Why? What happens if the named person,
:04:22. > :04:26.the headteacher, then disagrees with a stance that parents have taken?
:04:27. > :04:30.The parents may not be doing anything illegal or unlawful, but
:04:31. > :04:35.perhaps if there is a conflict in some way that the parents are
:04:36. > :04:38.bringing up their particular child, does the named person have a right
:04:39. > :04:43.to interfere with how the parents bring up their children? What other
:04:44. > :04:48.kinds of issues where you think there might be conflict between a
:04:49. > :04:52.parent or guardian? I guess particularly, perhaps in areas of
:04:53. > :04:59.health provision, perhaps if there was examples of vaccinations, or
:05:00. > :05:05.health advice, or perhaps areas where the parents, particularly
:05:06. > :05:09.objecting to something that the school wants to do. And again, they
:05:10. > :05:14.might be within their rights to object, but the problem is with the
:05:15. > :05:18.named person was to take issue with that. The government insists there
:05:19. > :05:23.is no intention to undermine families. We have been clear that
:05:24. > :05:28.for the vast majority of families across Scotland, that parents of the
:05:29. > :05:31.most important influence in their child's life, providing plenty of
:05:32. > :05:35.love and support or their children and that most children go on to
:05:36. > :05:38.succeed in life, but we know that parents and families may have
:05:39. > :05:42.different challenges they face and may need that extra support, so this
:05:43. > :05:47.is about providing a mechanism for them to access that support and for
:05:48. > :05:51.the most vulnerable families providing much better and
:05:52. > :05:57.coordinated support. The trouble is, in all these cases, vulnerable
:05:58. > :06:01.families were already in contact with the police, social services and
:06:02. > :06:07.health boards. Will having one named person really make any difference?
:06:08. > :06:10.I'm joined from Aberdeen by the Chief Executive of Children First,
:06:11. > :06:13.Anne Houston. From Edinburgh by the Director of the Royal College of
:06:14. > :06:17.Nursing in Scotland Theresa Fyfe. And by the Minister of St Peter's
:06:18. > :06:20.Free Church of Scotland in Dundee, David Robertson.
:06:21. > :06:26.Anne Houston, first of all, can we ask you to explain how this works?
:06:27. > :06:33.Under what circumstances would either a child or parent go to this
:06:34. > :06:37.named person? The important thing is a named person is a single point of
:06:38. > :06:43.contact, someone the child and parents or carers will already know.
:06:44. > :06:48.That they can go to if, for example, a parent is looking for
:06:49. > :06:52.support for their child, perhaps a service, perhaps a few agencies
:06:53. > :06:57.involved and not speaking to each other, or they just need signposted.
:06:58. > :07:03.That is the kind of thing that they can talk to the named person, who
:07:04. > :07:06.can help them access services. A child also can talk to a named
:07:07. > :07:12.person, for example, at Children First, our service sometimes has
:07:13. > :07:16.parents calling us who are a bit concerned, looking for support, but
:07:17. > :07:22.perhaps do not feel it is serious enough to go to, for example, a
:07:23. > :07:28.social worker, or police, but basically need an opportunity to
:07:29. > :07:32.talk it food, to feel confident and get the help needed. -- talk it
:07:33. > :07:37.through. It is about keeping the child at the centre, about their
:07:38. > :07:42.well-being, and working whenever poor -- whenever possible in
:07:43. > :07:46.partnership with the parent. If the named person is a teacher, how
:07:47. > :07:49.different is it on the waiters at the moment? You would expect that,
:07:50. > :07:55.if the child is having problems, he would speak to their favourite
:07:56. > :07:59.teacher? they certainly can, the differences this being on the face
:08:00. > :08:02.of the bill, is a level of authority that that named person has to make
:08:03. > :08:08.things happen, to ensure that whatever is needed moves forward.
:08:09. > :08:15.And it is also a form of early intervention that actually reduces
:08:16. > :08:20.some things getting more serious, because there has been a lot of talk
:08:21. > :08:23.about it being important to target vulnerable children. Of course, it
:08:24. > :08:27.is important vulnerable children, their well-being is supported, but
:08:28. > :08:34.important those people are available to provide that targeted service and
:08:35. > :08:37.any child can become vulnerable at some stage. Any parents can need
:08:38. > :08:45.support. The other side of this, will this named person, so-called,
:08:46. > :08:52.have any powers that, for example, a teacher now does not have? They will
:08:53. > :08:57.have a level of authority to ensure other agencies respond, that
:08:58. > :09:01.information appropriate and necessary information is shared and
:09:02. > :09:05.that the well-being of the child is kept central and the parents, in
:09:06. > :09:11.fact, will have a right to expect that of that named person. David
:09:12. > :09:18.Robertson, what is wrong with that? Not a lot wrong with it. A lot of,
:09:19. > :09:21.first of all, the whole bill I would support, and the idea of a named
:09:22. > :09:26.person for some children, I think, is a good idea. I problem is some of
:09:27. > :09:33.the language used in the bill and also, but particularly, in the idea
:09:34. > :09:36.of a named person for every child. If it is going to be more than
:09:37. > :09:42.nominal, I do not how the state could afford it. I suspect it will
:09:43. > :09:47.not be properly resourced. The other thing I would want to know, as a
:09:48. > :09:57.parent of a 16-year-old, why does my 16-year-old need a state Guardian,
:09:58. > :10:02.need a named person? Anne Houston, what is the idea? A lot of parents
:10:03. > :10:06.will feel like that. No matter how you rationalise this, sorry, I am a
:10:07. > :10:12.parent, personally good, why should the state be appointing, if not a
:10:13. > :10:18.state Guardian, then this named person? I do not need that, and
:10:19. > :10:23.neither do my children. And that is fine, and many parents and children,
:10:24. > :10:28.thankfully, will not need a named person. But will get it anyway X
:10:29. > :10:35.macro am ready there they know they can turn to -- but they will get it
:10:36. > :10:42.anyway! They will be there if they needed. It is that they may be
:10:43. > :10:47.proactively looking into their life, which is what is assumed, adjust
:10:48. > :10:56.their death needed. A lot of parents will see, that they understand
:10:57. > :11:00.workers have responsibility for the children, but the idea a state is
:11:01. > :11:06.appointing a particular individual who, at any time, I sell for my
:11:07. > :11:13.child can go to, just feels like they are trying to take over family
:11:14. > :11:17.life. It seems such a pity, because it is additional support, an
:11:18. > :11:22.additional resource that is there, if and when it is needed, rather
:11:23. > :11:27.than being foisted on anyone, it is extra support. We are all keen to
:11:28. > :11:33.make sure the children are looked after, get the services needed, are
:11:34. > :11:42.supported if things are difficult. This is just about ensuring that
:11:43. > :11:48.takes place. Theresa Fyfe, what are your problems? Nothing with the bill
:11:49. > :11:53.at the moment. We welcome the Scottish governor implementing the
:11:54. > :11:59.named person for zero to five, which health visitors, what is sorry is
:12:00. > :12:02.the language seems to think this is something done to children and
:12:03. > :12:06.families, rather than enabling and empowering relationships, which
:12:07. > :12:12.health visitors have with families already. The point she was making,
:12:13. > :12:16.that I want to reiterate, is it is we have the model developed in the
:12:17. > :12:24.Highlands, implemented already, developed when listening to parents,
:12:25. > :12:30.which is someone that can be that single point of contact, can have
:12:31. > :12:34.that oversight of services, and enable us to actually navigate weird
:12:35. > :12:40.we need to be. That is what was asked for and with a model came for.
:12:41. > :12:43.For me, health visitors are about working with families and parents to
:12:44. > :12:47.ensure that the health and well-being of the child is at the
:12:48. > :12:53.heart of everything that is done, and we do the best for children.
:12:54. > :13:01.What about David Robertson's point that this might be appropriate for
:13:02. > :13:04.some but not all children? Targeting takes us away from this being a
:13:05. > :13:08.universal service. The lessons we have learned from the cases that
:13:09. > :13:14.were referred to earlier is that when we have not had that clarity of
:13:15. > :13:17.who is that named person, that single point of contact, they has
:13:18. > :13:22.not been good communication between all those service providers, there
:13:23. > :13:31.has not been clear messaging and they has not been a person who has
:13:32. > :13:35.had a child right in the centre. But working with parents and families,
:13:36. > :13:44.not working against them. It is about making sure no child or family
:13:45. > :13:49.falls through the net. David Robertson, what do you make of that?
:13:50. > :13:52.I question whether you are ever going to be able to make sure
:13:53. > :13:58.everyone does not fall through the net. The Highland experiment has
:13:59. > :14:01.largely been a good one and I think that the notion of better
:14:02. > :14:06.communication between health care professionals is fine but I still
:14:07. > :14:09.come back to what was said earlier, saying it was fine your daughter
:14:10. > :14:15.does not need one but she is going to get one whether I like it or not.
:14:16. > :14:18.My fear is this starts off very well intentioned but further down the
:14:19. > :14:25.road, the state takes more authority and uses the named person for that
:14:26. > :14:32.purpose. Like what? Explain what you mean. There was a similar experiment
:14:33. > :14:41.in the Isle of Man which basically collapsed. Why did it collapse?
:14:42. > :14:47.Because social services could not cope and it became a human rights
:14:48. > :14:51.issue as well. What the Evangelical Alliance was saying is true. What
:14:52. > :14:55.happens when the parents wishes clash with that of the state. What
:14:56. > :15:05.is happening here is the state's authority is being given precedence
:15:06. > :15:09.over the parents' . If their child goes to the named person, and this
:15:10. > :15:15.is not a matter of abuse or anything like that, they have had a falling
:15:16. > :15:21.out, and the parents take one view, who wins? Is that what you are
:15:22. > :15:26.suggesting? No, that is probably a trivialisation of it. Let's say, for
:15:27. > :15:30.example, the named person decides it would be in the best interest of the
:15:31. > :15:36.child to take extra nursery care and the parent does not want that. Who
:15:37. > :15:40.has the authority? My concern is with the whole language. This bill
:15:41. > :15:44.treats children in isolation rather than as part of a family unit. I
:15:45. > :15:50.know there are many children who need this kind of support and for me
:15:51. > :15:54.it is ludicrous to say, you have a universal benefit or a universal
:15:55. > :15:59.service for all. You don't need that. Not everyone needs to see a
:16:00. > :16:03.cancer specialist, not everyone needs to seek particular types of
:16:04. > :16:08.health care professionals. I think this is a mistake with the resources
:16:09. > :16:15.could be better used placed on many children. There are children who
:16:16. > :16:18.can't be in care because there is not enough provision. I don't
:16:19. > :16:23.believe the government has the amount of money to make this work.
:16:24. > :16:30.Are people going to be trained up? Are enough people going to be
:16:31. > :16:33.trained up for this to be practical? The point about resources is
:16:34. > :16:39.important because if we don't have the resources, it will be something
:16:40. > :16:44.that is not going to work. Going by government's estimated out with two
:16:45. > :16:47.implement this, we know we will need approximately 450 health visitors on
:16:48. > :16:53.top of the current workload at the moment. We have no commitment at the
:16:54. > :16:56.moment that the government is going to find that number of health
:16:57. > :17:01.visitors and we are hoping they will do so because not to fund the
:17:02. > :17:05.training of health visitors will put at risk the very heart of what this
:17:06. > :17:09.bill is about to include the health and well-being of children. You are
:17:10. > :17:15.saying they don't have the resources to implement this right now? No, the
:17:16. > :17:21.moment they don't, we are saying when the bill is to be taken into
:17:22. > :17:24.implementation, we are asking the government to commit to fund a
:17:25. > :17:31.number of health visitors that will be required to provide this service.
:17:32. > :17:37.Can I just coming? This is the first stage of the bill going through. We
:17:38. > :17:40.then go into a period of looking at guidance and the practicalities to
:17:41. > :17:45.make it work. But some of the evidence coming out of Highland is a
:17:46. > :17:49.production with a bit of time of putting this in place, there is a
:17:50. > :17:55.reduction on the need for the kind of crisis resources so that it
:17:56. > :18:00.spreads the resources more widely. But the guidance is the next stage
:18:01. > :18:06.when the detail will be worked out to make it possible to implement.
:18:07. > :18:10.What is your response to the point that David Robertson was making that
:18:11. > :18:16.further down the line, it is quite easy to imagine quite serious
:18:17. > :18:24.disputes arising which are not legal disputes between the view of a named
:18:25. > :18:28.person and a parent? I think it is important to remember that these
:18:29. > :18:35.named people are people that parents and children already know. They are
:18:36. > :18:38.not going to become some people doing something very different, but
:18:39. > :18:46.they will have an increased authority if they need to move
:18:47. > :18:48.things forward to support a working partnership with them. They are not
:18:49. > :18:56.someone who is not already working with the children. But they are not
:18:57. > :19:01.necessarily known to the parents and if there was a difference of opinion
:19:02. > :19:05.between the named person, the point David Robertson is trying to make,
:19:06. > :19:09.if there is a difference of opinion between the named person and the
:19:10. > :19:15.parent. And the parents would not necessarily know the named person
:19:16. > :19:21.very well. But there is no intention in removing any of the rights of
:19:22. > :19:25.parents. As I think I said earlier, it is giving parents more rights to
:19:26. > :19:32.expect... David Robertson, very briefly. That phrase, there is no
:19:33. > :19:35.intention of, when making laws is a disastrous phrase to be using
:19:36. > :19:39.because they may well be no intention but that question has not
:19:40. > :19:42.been answered. The whole discussion has been based on the idea that if
:19:43. > :19:48.you know the teacher, the nursery worker and the health David,
:19:49. > :19:52.everything is fine. But what if you know a teacher that you don't get on
:19:53. > :19:56.with, you don't agree, there is a fundamental difference in the ethos
:19:57. > :20:07.of the way that child will grow up. Now a quick look at tomorrow's front
:20:08. > :20:12.pages. The Scottish Daily Mail. David Bao we want Scotland to say in
:20:13. > :20:17.the UK. That's all from me. More news is
:20:18. > :20:19.always on BBC Scotland's website and Good Morning Scotland is on Radio
:20:20. > :20:29.Scotland tomorrow morning at 6.00am. Good night.
:20:30. > :20:36.A very good evening. Some wind and rain but that is going to happen
:20:37. > :20:40.overnight so tomorrow, especially in the afternoon, the weather should
:20:41. > :20:45.not be all that bad when the wind and rain clears into the North Sea.
:20:46. > :20:49.Is three o'clock. Take your umbrella because there will be plenty showers
:20:50. > :20:54.across Northern Ireland and western Scotland. This is one area through
:20:55. > :20:58.the lowlands where we could see shower after shower and it will not
:20:59. > :21:03.be such a great day. Into England and fewer showers around. But if you
:21:04. > :21:08.catch one of these, it will be quite heavy. The further east you are, the
:21:09. > :21:13.more likely you are to hang onto the dry weather. In London, we should
:21:14. > :21:22.have bright conditions for most of the day. For the south-west, pretty
:21:23. > :21:26.breezy around the coast. Gusts of 40 mph or 50 mph. But the windy
:21:27. > :21:27.conditions are going to stay with us