I AM disappointed that the relevant committee of the Scottish Parliament has seen fit to delay the progress of the named person Bill for a lengthy period of time (MSPs block named person Bill progress, The National, December 7).

I understand that all that committee was being asked to do was to approve the general principles of the proposed legislation which would have allowed it to be subjected to further development and scrutiny. Please allow me to state what I think are the general principles and ask them to make their objections clear for the benefit of all of us.

From time to time, in recent years, we have been horrified by sad stories of some child being abused by the very people who should be its main protectors – its own parents. Usually the circumstances are then the subject of an official inquiry, which often reveals that while there was ample information available, which could or should have alerted those with an overall responsibility to intervene on the child’s behalf, to take protective action, that information was not available as a coherent bloc, but was instead split up and distributed among various professionals (doctors, police, social workers and teachers) none of whom have a specific responsibility or an authorised right to see all of that information. The inquiry then usually ends with an expression of pious recommendations about the need for better means of communications.

As I understand it, the proposed named person legislation was an attempt to put in place the means to address that problem. Not every child has responsible and sensible parents.

There is a need therefore to introduce some other person into this situation, who would have legal access to the relevant information and who might provide watchful eyes with the child’s welfare as their responsibility. The vast majority of children will not need this additional safeguard, but some do. Since it is not possible to identify those who do (in advance of that need being exposed), it is probably best that all children are given hypothetical protective care of this nature.

If a large number of filing cabinets are filled with unnecessary documents, that is not of any great concern to me. I am puzzled, however, as to why some others are concerned, unless they are motivated by concerns which they are ashamed to admit.

Hugh Noble

Appin, Argyll

KEN Gilmour’s support for my Bill proposal on the basis of safety is welcome (Letters, The National, December 6) but I’d like to allay his fears that reducing speeds will somehow increase pollution.

Studies show that diesel emissions dominate urban road pollution with about 10 times the toxicity of petrol fumes. Research by Imperial College London found that for diesel vehicles there is a substantial reduction in harmful nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulates (PM10) emissions from implementing 20mph limits.

Setting a 20mph limit is equivalent to removing nearly half of all petrol cars. This massive air quality and public health gain must be implemented urgently to give us safer and healthier streets.

Mark Ruskell MSP

Scottish Green Party

KEN Gilmour expressed the view that while default urban speed limits would improve road safety, they would lead to increased fuel consumption and thus pollution.

I am happy to say his belief that slower speeds increase fuel consumption is erroneous. Slower speeds mean less acceleration and the laws of physics mean that less fuel should be consumed.

I tested this a couple of years back when I made five repeat urban journeys over the same routes at the same weekday times. Each pair of journeys was identical except that in the first my maximum speed was 20mph, in the second 30mph. Journeys were 4.5-9.3 miles in length and included residential roads, busy city areas and arterial roads.

In my final analysis I found that when speeds were kept down to 20mph I had a 12 per cent average improvement in fuel consumption relative to 30mph. In summary, my practical experience confirmed the theory. Fuel consumption is significantly better at slower speeds.

Bob Downie

Glasgow

I KNOW plans and forecasts are frequently misleading. But that is not an excuse for the UK Government’s failure to make an attempt to assess the impact of Brexit on the economy.

As any yachtsman will tell you, when you lay a course for a destination you can be pretty sure that tides and weather will divert you. But when you reset your course to allow for those variations, at least you know roughly where you are and so the new course you need is that much clearer.

David Davis’s admission makes clear the amateurish nature of Westminster government. It seems “muddling through” is still the British way. But I fear there is no margin of error for us in this voyage of discovery.

Peter Craigie

Edinburgh

I think that it must be my own sense of natural justice that has misled me into my grudging non-response to pro-Brexit MPs who told us that since we voted as a country we must abide by the decision of that country’s vote. I must have felt that they had a valid point.

But wait a minute, somethings wrong! We did not have a choice to vote separately! I am like the dormouse at the Mad Hatter’s tea party. I will have to start thinking like Alice in this wonderland.

Victor Moncrieff

Lanark