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

