Named person debate: what each side has to say

'It’s not about a ‘Nanny State’ or a ‘Big Brother’ plot by Scottish Government, as some media headlines might suggest'

Theresa Fyffe, Royal College of Nursing Scotland director

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’s not about a ‘Nanny State’ or a ‘Big Brother’ plot by Scottish Government, as some media headlines might suggest. Rather, it’s about making sure there’s a single point of contact for children, young people and their families if they have any worries or need support. As a parent myself, now with grown-up children, there are definitely times I would have appreciated that.

Critics of the named person argue that the responsibility for protecting children and promoting their wellbeing is the role of parents and families. Absolutely! And having a named person will not detract from this at all. Indeed, three judges at Edinburgh’s Court of Session recently ruled that named persons have ‘no effect whatsoever on the legal, moral or social relationships with the family’.

Our full support for the named person role, however, must not be confused with our consistently raised concerns about its implementation. There’s currently a shortage of health visitors, who will be the named person for children under five. The Scottish Government is funding 500 more health visitors, but phased in up to 2018.

In the meantime, we’re clear that any gaps in the workforce must not be used as an excuse to give work to other staff that, quite simply, should be undertaken by a qualified health visitor. That would not be in the best interests of our children.

'The Act breaches what most would consider a fundamental right to confidentiality'

Eileen Prior, Scottish Parent Teacher Council – the national organisation for parents’ groups in Scottish schools – executive director

From our perspective, the Act effectively sees families as part of the problem and ignores the place of the child within their family. So, concerns will now go to the named person and not the parent(s) who are legally responsible. Nor is the scheme optional. Those who chose not to engage with their child’s named person will find their file has a red flag because non co-operation is seen as a cause for concern.

At school, a head or guidance teacher may be the named person for hundreds of young people, with a legal responsibility for their wellbeing. The fact is, neither resource nor time is there, during or after school hours. The Act also breaches what most would consider a fundamental right to confidentiality. Professionals can currently legally act where they judge there is risk of harm.

Soon, information can be shared – with or without permission – where they have concerns about the child’s wellbeing. The impact is likely to be that people don’t ask for help when they need it.
Media coverage has focused on cases where children have suffered abuse or death at the hands of their parents.

The suggestion is that the named person will stop these things happening. We believe this is dishonest. In each of these tragic cases, had the named person scheme been in place, there would have been a lead professional to work across services, making sure the child did not slip between the cracks. Government should focus its energies on resourcing this role, which has the potential to make a real difference to children and families.

'There will be less information going round the system because there is clarity about where the information goes – that’s the bottom line'

Bill Alexander, director of care and learning at Highland Council, which has had named person service since 2010

Let’s say 15 years ago, a youth worker was worried about Jimmy, who is 15 years old and drinking in the park. That youth worker might have talked to lots of different professionals about that issue – they don’t do that now. Jimmy drinking in the park might not be a child protection issue, but would you be worried about 15-year-old Jimmy’s wellbeing?

You would want to pass that on to someone – and you would pass it on to the school, because the school know Jimmy, and the school will know if the family are being supported in dealing with it. The issue wouldn’t be sprayed all over the place, as used to happen.

That’s the reality when you get down to talking absolute facts and actual situations in which the named person service operates. No, that is not a child protection concern, but are you going to walk past Jimmy in the street? Now you know what you can do with that.

The headteacher and the school might already be engaged with the parents about Jimmy’s behaviour, or it might be new information, but who would the parents want that to come from? Half a dozen different people, or someone who they are likely to trust, from his school.

If the parents say, ‘we’re dealing with it, stay out of it’, which in our experience is not likely, unless there is a child protection concern, the school stays out of it, it’s not their business. There will be less information going round the system because there is clarity about where the information goes – that’s the bottom line.

'No one seems to feel it is necessary to refer to or be bound by the wording of the actual law that is due to come into force in August'

Maggie Mellon, British Association of Social Workers vice-chair

I have been astonished to read recent ‘explanations’ of the named person law by government and supporters of the measure that it is ‘just what we always have done and has been happening anyway’, is necessary to stop children ‘slipping through the net’ of child protection and being killed, and voluntary because ‘parents don’t need to have anything to do with the named person’.

No one seems to feel it is necessary to refer to or be bound by the wording of the actual law that is due to come into force in August. For the avoidance of any doubt, here is the relevant paragraph (19.5) of the Children and Young People Scotland Act 2014 setting out clearly the functions of the Named Person.

These are: “doing such of the following where the named person considers it to be appropriate in order to promote, support or safeguard the wellbeing of the child or young person - 

(i) advising, informing or supporting the child or young person, or a parent of the child or young person, 
(ii) helping the child or young person, or a parent of the child or young person, to access a service or support, or 
(iii) discussing, or raising, a matter about the child or young person with a service provider or relevant authority, and 
(b) such other functions as are specified by this Act or any other enactment as being functions of a named person in relation to a child or young person”

Aforementioned supporters and explainers please note it is named persons who will be doing what they consider to be appropriate, not the parent or the child. There is no provision for consultation with parents or children. Please also note that these functions are to be exercised in relation to the ‘wellbeing’ of the child or young person, which includes any aspect of their lives.

This is not about child protection. It is about micro-managing the personal lives of children and their families in order to improve children’s ‘wellbeing’. Please also note that the named person’s functions do not include being able to provide a pair of shoes, a decent home, or even a hot meal.

Of course, we should support children’s wellbeing, and we must protect children from harm – provable harm not supposition. The Social Work Scotland Act of 1968 provided powers to councils for the ‘promotion of social welfare’. The Children Scotland Act of 1995 and other acts provide powers to override parental or children’s wishes if a child faces ‘significant harm’.

This is a top-down, ill-informed piece of legislation. Please note, the named person has no power to even order a hot meal. This government talks a good game about social equality but inequality is widening. Children are malnourished. Parents are going without meals to feed them. That is what they should be tackling with real social welfare measures. Fiddling around with family life is not going to work.​