I'VE just read with interest your article about the Named Person Act (“Tories ‘playing horrific politics’ over the Named Person scheme”, The Herald, June 7). I'm a parent of two small children, and I'm certain I'm not alone in thinking that if anything untoward were to threaten the health or well-being of my children - or indeed, any child - I would be doing my utmost to a prevent my, or any other child, being in harm's way.

However, I am not always around my children. Specifically when they are at school, or taking part in any of their other extra-curricular activities.

Kids will be kids, and in amongst all the good stuff, there will be bullying, aggravation and the occasional scuffle (or more) in schools. And, kids being kids, they don't always want to talk to parents about the bad stuff that might happen at school or elsewhere.

The idea that there are specific individuals looking out for my child - and every other child - seems to me a brilliant idea. Someone who monitors situations, reports and hopefully intervenes when I or my wife can't be present.

And for those children unfortunate enough to be "at risk", there is someone who monitors situations and intervenes on the child's behalf when a parent cannot or is unable to do so. Ideally preventing the kind of tragic situation that was reported last week.

And yet this act is somehow "controversial"? I just can't understand what could be controversial about a government wanting to do everything possible to protect children – vulnerable or not – from harm, abuse and, in the worst cases, murder.

For those who complain about the scope of the act, I would only ask one simple question: "What would you propose that could do the same job – but better?" I would be delighted to suggestions to improve the act from those politicians and other campaign groups who currently oppose it.

David Patrick,

Thirlestane Road, Edinburgh.