MSPs will today discuss the next step of controversial plans that could see every child in Scotland provided with a state guardian.
The Scottish Parliament’s Education and Culture Committee will consider the second stage of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill as it moves closer to becoming law.
One of the most eye-catching proposals is to have a “named person” such as a social worker who, according to the Scottish Government, can be a point of contact who can advise, inform, support or help the young person or parent.
The “named person” could also discuss or raise matters about the child with a service provider or authority, if required.
Children’s minister Aileen Campbell has said such a scheme could have prevented the murder of Daniel Pelka, who was beaten to death by his mother and stepfather after growing up in a household dominated by routine domestic violence and alcohol abuse.
Conservative Mid Scotland and Fife MSP Liz Smith has branded the plan “unnecessary” and “an undesirable intrusion” and tabled an amendment to the legislation during a previous Holyrood debate, although that was defeated by the Scottish Government.
The proposals have also been criticised by a range of organisations, including the Scottish Parent Teacher Council and the Faculty of Advocates.
NHS boards and councils have also questioned the cost implications, while Ms Smith said the move would completely undermine the role of basic parenting.
She said: “If there are thousands of parents across Scotland doing a thoroughly good job and there are then what right does the Scottish Government have to tell them that the state knows better?”
She added: “It is an unnecessary and undesirable intrusion of the state and, just as importantly, it threatens to take away resources from those children who are the most vulnerable.”
However, children’s charities including Aberlour, Action for Children, Barnardo’s and Children 1st have given their backing to the plans.
In an open letter, Aberlour said a pilot project in the Highlands had shown the benefits of putting the scheme in place.
It says: “The reality is however, that this ‘named person’ should serve to connect the family more effectively to a range of services and professionals when they are needed without excessive red tape or delay and will rightly be somebody that the family are likely to already know and be happy to approach, like a head teacher or a health visitor.”
The letter adds: “We therefore feel that the criticisms leveled by some lobby groups against the named person in the draft Bill are inaccurate and unjustified. We do not feel that these provisions represent some new intrusion into family life by the state.”
For more on this story see Wednesday’s Courier or try our digital edition.