THE Scottish Government's Named Person scheme is broadly supported by children's charities, all the political parties in the Scottish Parliament, apart from the Conservative Party, and as your editorial makes clear, The Herald (“Lack of clarity sinks Named Person law”, The Herald, July 29). In addition, the scheme, as you point out, has already been operating in certain areas for some time now and has been considered a success.
The vast majority of parents and children in Scotland will never need recourse to the Named Person policy, but I find it concerning that the letters from your correspondents who appear implacably opposed to Named Person (July 29) make no suggestions as to how vulnerable children in our society can be best protected. From the early 1970s with the shocking case of Maria Colwell, and all the horrific cases ever since of poor little souls who suffered at the hands of family members, the one response, made over and over, is "lessons will be learned". But all too often, they are not learned well enough, and another child slips through the net, suffers and dies.
The Supreme Court did not rule against the principles of the Named Person policy, calling it "unquestionably legitimate and benign" and John Swinney has accepted that changes must be made to the legislation in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court (“Named Person legal action warning after court ruling”, The Herald, July 29). This policy, when eventually rolled out nationally, will help to ensure that every child at risk in Scotland receives protection, and will have the chance of living a happier and safer life as a consequence. That is what is at stake here, and while I accept that some people oppose it out of genuine concern, it would be wholly irresponsible to seize on the Named Person scheme simply as a stick to beat at the SNP government.
Ruth Marr,
99 Grampian Road,
Stirling.
IT is disturbing that Colin Wilson (Letters, July 29) and others continue to misrepresent the Named Person legislation which the Supreme Court supported and described as "reasonable, legitimate and benign".
There have been far too many tragic cases where information was not shared but, as anyone who has been involved with data protection knows, the rules regarding the sharing of information can be complex and the Supreme Court felt more clarification was required in this area. It should be noted that the opponents failed in their main challenges to the Scottish Government's legislation.
The Named Person scheme is to enable parents, and more importantly vulnerable children, to easily get additional support before matters get out of control and must not be derailed by any self-righteous religious fundamentalists, right-wing zealots or politically motivated opportunists.
Mary Thomas,
27 Watson Crescent,
Edinburgh.
YOU appear to have lost your investigatory edge with the repetition in your editorial of the claim of children's charities that opponents are “hysterical and nonsensical” in their objections.
Children's charities are too quick to blame the customer rather than examining their own performance more critically.
A “benign and legitimate policy” has all the same been found unlawful, the principle of the Named Person cannot work without an information sharing element, and you should use your freedoms to investigate what local authorities claim about successful operation of the Named Person Scheme - evidence suggests pilot schemes were not run in many areas, and schemes that were run were not Named Person schemes as found in the legislation that has been stopped by the judges.
The Supreme Court judgement has not been taken seriously by the SNP Government, although it should have known that this outcome was likely, and you do not help to focus any minds by claiming that all that is required is more “clarity” when wholesale redrafting is required.
Health visitors and teachers will ultimately function as they did before the Named Person legislation first went before Holyrood. The Named Person scheme will be something which students of social history examine, asking not just how legislators failed but how journalism lost its investigatory edge.
Leo Lanahan,
10 Drumpellier Avenue,
Coatbridge.
YOU state in your editorial: “Make no mistake, the vast majority of teachers and health visitors, assuming workload concerns were managed, would have performed their role sensibly and professionally”. So, just like the vast majority of parents, then.
John Birkett,
12 Horseleys Park,
St Andrews.
THE Scottish Government should use the Supreme Court judgement on the Named Person scheme to go back to the drawing board and work out what exactly a Named Person scheme's purpose, objectives, remit and execution should be.
There is a crisis in our families, society and education system that manifests itself in many ways that do not augur well for a country with aspirations of independence. We have 160,000 people unemployed in Scotland who can't fill 70,000 vacancies and import people from abroad to do the jobs, from petrol station attendants to brain surgeons.
Too many young people I meet are not looking for work, or thinking about, or actually doing, courses such as "sound technology", media studies or childcare. They have the brains to study harder subjects which are more likely to get them a well-paid job.
This extremely complicated, entrenched problem starts at home and continues at school. Children need routine, challenge, good nutrition, stimulation and aspiration, not mantras kidding them they can be whatever they want and a resulting attitude of entitlement and learned helplessness.
There is an extremely impressive group of enthusiastic, grounded, highly educated young people who are the future of this country have benefited from structure, love and encouragement - irrespective of the social or economic class they come from. There just isn't enough of them, hence the need for immigrants and a future for thousands of low pay, illness and destitution on old age.
Targeted intervention is required to mitigate this looming disaster. The subtext of named person seemed to be that a child abuser lurks around most families. The real problem is to many people don't know how to bring up children, or are too lazy to work at it.
Ruthless prioritisation based on need and social and economic return, and proper investment of money and resources will start to eat into the problem and uncover solutions and success.
Unfortunately for all parties, not just the SNP, this means admitting the scale and source of the problem and alienating the very people who need the help and who provide a large chunk of their voter base.
Allan Sutherland,
1 Willow Row,
Stonehaven.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel