THE Scottish Government’s named person legislation came under attack from the right-wing press yesterday after claims that taxi drivers carrying children in the Borders will be expected to report “conversations to their state guardians”.
The Daily Mail suggested this was a “stasi-like interference into family life,” a reaction SNP MSP Mark McDonald said was “a giant pile of sensationalist codswallop.”
Effectively taxi drivers with contracts for transporting children will be expected to alert the authorities if they hear children talk about abuse or anything else worrying. Although the Tories and the Daily Mail do not support the named person proposal, it has support from all the other political parties and just about every children’s charity in Scotland.
What is this legislation?
Every child in Scotland will have access to a named person from birth until they turn 18 years old. For most children the named person will be a health visitor or a teacher. For most the new role is quite similar to roles they already perform. The governments say the named person is there to help young people who may have short-term difficulties, “as a result of illness, bereavement or moving school”, as well as those with long-term condition. The named person will “be available to listen, advise and help a child or young person and their family, providing direct support or helping them to access other services.” It is essentially about joining services up and trying to prevent situations becoming more serious.
Why are people opposed?
A coalition of charities – the Christian Institute, Family Education Trust, The Young ME Sufferers Trust and Care (Christian Action Research and Education) – took the government to court over the policy along with parents James and Rhianwen McIntosh, from Bonnybridge, and Deborah Thomas, from Comrie. They argued that it was a breach of human and constitutional rights and amounted to “unjustifiable interference by the state”. Their case was thrown out.
Who backs the legislation?
Parenting Across Scotland, Action for Children, Aberlour, Barnardo’s Scotland, Scottish Youth Parliament, Children 1st, Together (Scottish Alliance for Children’s Rights), One Parent Families Scotland, Scottish Childminding Association, Quarriers, Royal College of Nursing and the NSPCC have all thrown their weight behind the plan.
A roll-out of the scheme in the Highlands has seen some immediate short-term benefits for children and families, the charities say. In a briefing to MSPs the charities say it has meant “issues, when they arise, are dealt with more effectively, with less material passed to the children’s reporter”.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here