Named Person Policy

Part of the debate – in the Scottish Parliament at on 8 September 2016.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Tavish Scott Tavish Scott Liberal Democrat

I thank the Deputy First Minister for advance sight of his statement

. I am sure that he is familiar with paragraph 95 of the Supreme Court’s judgment:

“parents will be given the impression that they must accept the advice or services which they are offered ... their failure to co-operate with such a plan will be taken to be evidence of a risk of harm.”

As both a minister and a father, does he find that as concerning as I do? Does that not show the need for the scope of the examination of the policy that he will undertake in the coming three months—the policy will be delayed by a year—to recognise exactly that point and the concerns of teachers and health visitors, given the 200 risk indicators that he talked about in the debate earlier in the summer? Does that not also show that the scope of the inquiry must recognise all those points and address them fully?