I'm running out of patience with the government's named person scheme.

I've never held with the view that it's a communist plot. Nor that it will lead to unfettered state interference in the heart of family life. It isn't a 'state sponsored snooper in every classroom'. But it's a presentational fiasco.

To quell the doubters, ministers issued guidance on how it will work. An analysis of responses to that guidance found only 55% of respondents thought it was clear.

Loading article content

Police Scotland, as the Herald revealed, has unanswered concerns about sharing information and keeping it secure.

Meanwhile senior social workers have been in discussions for months with civil servants, trying to ensure the named persons' introduction does not disrupt existing, and well-functioning, interagency child protection work.

The report on the Government's guidelines was generous to a fault. For example it found 38% of organisations said examples in the guidance hadn't been helpful, while 63% had. This is recorded as "in general, organisations found the examples... helpful".

Yet opaque jargon and a lack of detail have left the public suspicious. Even organisations repeatedly told researchers the guidance was complex, repetitive and left them none the wiser.

Perhaps ministers have been distracted. A vocal minority of parents believe health visitors and headteachers are such idle busybodies that they somehow have time to infringe on their family lives even if there is nothing amiss. Their campaign has been as noisy as it has been misguided.

But the Government seems to have neglected the more considered concerns about the new named person responsibilities. One very senior social worker told me this week that implementation would take place at a slow pace, while the government clarified what health visitors and school teachers are being asked to do. How can this really still be uncertain?

We still don't know answers to other simple questions. Will the scheme divert resources away from those who need them most? What happens if a named person thinks a child needs intervention but social workers think there is no need (or resources)? How will it help, teachers and health visitors already look out for children in their care?

I don't believe there is some sinister plot here, but not being able to explain - clearly - why a universal named person scheme will be able to help families better or sooner than existing arrangements has been a disaster.

Maybe the legislation is bad to the bone, or maybe it just needs to be better communicated. But ministers' current favoured explanation - "you never know when someone's going to need help" - just doesn't cut it.