THE Christian Institute and others, represented by Clan Childlaw, are currently taking a case to the Supreme Court challenging the Scottish Government’s Named Person Service under the guise of the ‘right to privacy’, behind which sits a fundamental Christian agenda that is distorting the intention of the state (“Children’s rights ‘are breached by named guardian’”, The Herald, March 4. The Court of Appeal upheld the initial court decision that the legitimate aim of the Scottish Government to give all children a central contact to promote their wellbeing did not interfere with the European Convention rights of individuals.

The Christian Institute, however, argues that the plan to give all children in Scotland a Named Person is an “intrusion on family life”. It has made disingenuous claims that children and their families will have a Named Person forced upon them, with access to information about their private lives. These assertions are disputed by the Scottish Government, which states that “there is no obligation to use the service, and Named Persons have no new legal powers to compel parents, children or young people to accept advice, support or help.”

The Christian Institute has fed the public two red herrings about the Named Person Service; the first that it downgrades the threshold for sharing information about children between agencies from the child being “at risk” to concerns about their “wellbeing”.

Wellbeing has, since the establishment of Getting It Right For Every Child in 2007, been clearly spelt out using the acronym Shanarri; Safe, Healthy, Achieving, Nurtured, Active, Respected, Responsible, Included. These headings give a focused understanding of the many ways in which a child can be “at risk”. For example, a risk of being malnourished, isolated or discriminated against.

The second erroneous assertion is that the child’s right to confidentiality is being reduced to the point that children may disengage with services for fear of their experiences and views being exposed.

This is tantamount to scaremongering. Information sharing is a key initiative for inter-agency working on child protection practices across Scotland. The Scottish Executive 2002 publication It’s Everyone’s Job to Make Sure I'm Alright put forward a raft of recommendations proposing the sharing of information between professionals and parents to promote the safety of children who “may be vulnerable or at risk”. Underpinning these proposals are clear legal frameworks ensuring that the confidentiality of both child and family is upheld.

The Christian Institute and others are misinterpreting the legitimate objectives of the Scottish Government in order to further their agenda of promoting the family’s authority over children. One of their central claims is that the proposed “state guardians” (as they call them) risk interfering with a child’s right to express their views and to privacy. Yet it is widely acknowledged that the Named Person Service will not interfere in family matters. Lord Justice General, Lord Carloway categorically states that “it has no effect whatsoever on the legal, moral or social relationships within the family”.

Colin Young,

Senior Policy and Outcomes Officer, The Health and Social Care Alliance,

349 Bath Street, Glasgow.

IN the week that the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom will hear the arguments presented by those opposed to the national roll-out of the Named Person service, 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. It represents a single point of contact for any family looking for help or access to public services. The Named Person will also co-ordinate action when signs emerge that a child or family might be in particular difficulty.

The people charged with this role, be they health visitors or promoted teachers, are already looking out for our children - we would expect nothing less. They already handle sensitive information and offer support when needed. They don’t snoop, or collect information unnecessarily nor do they share information inappropriately. That won’t change when the policy is rolled out. The new legislation will simply codify best practice and enhance the support available to families.

As Lord Carloway put it, when he threw out the appeal against the Named Person in September last year: “Its policy is to put the best interests of every child at the centre of decision-making… [and] to prevent some of the tragedies which have occurred in the recent past.”

Whilst we hope their legal challenge will fall once again, we will seek to work with those who are concerned about the policy and how it may be implemented to ensure the policy is as workable as possible and that their concerns are not realised.

SallyAnn Kelly, chief executive, Aberlour; Martin Crewe, director, Barnardos Scotland; Alison Todd, chief executive, Children 1st; Jackie Brock, chief executive, Children in Scotland; Matt Forde, director, NSPCC Scotland; Paul Carberry, director, Action for Children Scotland; Satwat Rahman, chief executive, One Parent Families Scotland; Clare Simpson, project manager, Parenting Across Scotland; Maggie Simpson, chief executive, Scottish Child Minding Association; Seamus Searson, general secretary, Scottish Secondary Teachers Association; Alistair Gaw, president, Social Work Scotland; Theresa Fyffe, director, Royal College of Nursing Scotland,

c/o 36 Park Terrace, Stirling.