SCOTLAND’S “leading children’s charities and public sector stakeholders” have launched a staunch defence of the Scottish Government’s controversial named person’s policy, accusing the campaign against it of misleading the public.
It comes as the Supreme Court moves into a second day of hearing arguments against the proposals. A mixture of evangelical Christian groups and others have asked the court to challenge the policy, claiming it is not compatible with human rights laws.
In their letter, the charities, including Aberlour, Barnardo’s, NSPCC, as well as groups representing teachers, social workers and nurses, urge the Supreme Court to dismiss the case, saying the groups that have brought the action are running a misleading campaign.
Five Supreme Court judges heard yesterday from the Christian Institute, who, along with Family Education Trust, The Young ME Sufferers Trust and Christian Action Research and Education lodged the petition challenging the policy.
They claim the act “authorises unjustified and unjustifiable state interference with family rights”.
Dr Gordon Macdonald, from Christian Action Research and Education, said: “The Scottish Government’s named person scheme is very dangerous and will undermine parents and their role as the best guardians of their children. Simple logic dictates if you spread resources too thin, which this scheme will inevitably do, vulnerable children who are most in need of help may well be overlooked and put at risk.
“We have brought this case to the UK Supreme Court because it has the power to overrule the Scottish Government and also because we remain utterly convinced this scheme breaches international human rights laws, and therefore needs to be scrapped or redrafted.
“There is a growing sense of alarm in Scotland at the plans. If introduced, the state would be assuming too prominent a role in the raising of young people.”
This is not the first time the policy has been in front of a judge, the Court of Session in Edinburgh threw out the petition in January last year.
Two further appeals were then thrown out.
In their letter, the charities say: “We, as Scotland’s leading children’s charities and public sector stakeholders, hope the court dismisses this case as other courts have on two previous occasions.
“The campaign against the Named Person provisions of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act, has sought to portray the policy as a ‘State Guardian’ for every child and a material erosion of family privacy. This is simply not the case.
“The introduction of the Named Person was a direct policy response to requests from parents for a simplified approach to accessing support when they need it.”
The justices will consider if the Act is compatible with fundamental common law rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, and laws on the sharing and disclosure of information from Westminster and the European Union.
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: “The named person isn’t someone new or unknown – it is a person who is already working with the child and family, and simply strengthens that strong relationship.
“It provides a central point of contact for parents and children so they don’t have to tell their stories over and over again to a crowd of services and they can receive appropriate support if and when they need it.”
She added: “The Court of Session has twice ruled in favour of our named person legislation and we are confident that the Supreme Court will uphold these rulings.”
The National View: If named person policy saves one child, it’s worth it
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