STAY OUT OF FAMILY LIFE!
Poll shows almost two thirds of Scots think SNP flagship plan to impose state snooper on EVERY child is ‘unacceptably intrusive’
NEARLY two thirds of Scots have condemned the SNP’s state guardian scheme as an ‘unacceptable intrusion’ into family life. A new poll highlighted the backlash against the policy, which will assign a Named Person to all children up to the age of 18.
Only 24 per cent said they would trust a Named Person to act in the best interests of a child at all times.
The findings come as campaigners challenge the legislation at the Supreme Court in London.
Under the scheme, children’s development will be monitored by health visitors and head teachers, who will have the power to snoop on confidential medical records.
Last night, Scottish Conservative young people spokesman Elizabeth Smith said i t was time the ‘ sinister and deeply unpopular’ legislation was scrapped.
She added: ‘This poll is yet further confirmation of the widespread public opposition to the Named Person policy.
‘At the heart of the opposition is the concern that the crucial trust between parent
and child – on which all successful families are built – will be undermined.’
The poll was commissioned by the Christian Institute, which is part of the No To The Named Person (NO2NP) campaign group.
It found 64 per cent of Scots believe a Named Person for children is an ‘unacceptable intrusion’. Only 24 per cent think every child should have a Named Person. And 50 per cent of parents believe the Government wants to interfere too much in family life.
The poll provided an insight into the lack of trust in the Named Person scheme.
Some 79 per cent of adults said they would be concerned that they could disagree with the Named Person over what was in their child’s best interests.
When asked if it was ‘ reasonable for a Named Person to ask children questions about their family life, even if there is no sign that anything is wrong’, 57 per cent disagreed and only 28 per cent agreed.
The vast majority – 84 per cent – said parents should be responsible for children; 80 per cent believe child protection resources should focus on those most at risk rather than monitoring every child.
The poll asked questions on social services and found low levels of confidence in them. It also uncovered evidence that parents are
‘Most audacious power grab in parenting history’
living in fear of aggressive and unwarranted investigations by social services.
Some 55 per cent said social services sometimes act too quickly against parents who have done nothing wrong. Only 32 per cent agreed the Government does a good job of balancing the need to protect children at risk without penalising ordinary parents.
More than one in five (21 per cent) were worried about taking their own children to A&E or a GP because of concerns it might trigger an unwarranted investigation by child protection staff; and 23 per cent said they knew other parents who felt that way.
Revealing the ComRes poll results, Christian Institute director Colin Hart said: ‘The Named Person scheme is the most audacious power grab i n the history of parenting. Parents are, on the whole, best placed to care and look after their children and where they are not, the state and all of its agencies should focus on helping those people.
‘It should not be targeting decent, hard- working people who are simply trying to raise their children according to their beliefs and values.’
The poll comes as campaigners await the outcome of the legal challenge in the Supreme Court to the state guardian scheme.
NO2NP says Holyrood exceeded its powers as the scheme is in direct contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to a family and private life. In addition, campaigners object to the way the Scottish Government’s scheme involves sharing private and confidential data on families and children between numerous officials.
In a judicial review, the Scottish courts rejected claims that MSPs exceeded their powers in passing the Named Person provisions contained in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014.
The arguments were heard again on appeal before a five- strong bench at the Supreme Court.
The challenge is being mounted by campaigners involved in the NO2NP campaign spearheaded by a range of groups including the Family Education Trust, TYMES Trust, CARE, and i ndividual parents.
Clan Childlaw, a charity providing free legal advice to young people in Scotland, is also supporting the legal action. The scheme will go
‘Interfering and aggressive’
ahead in August unless the campaigners succeed – but they have vowed to take the fight against Named Persons to Europe if the Supreme Court challenge fails.
Mr Hart said: ‘The Government and social services are seen as interfering and too quick to launch aggressive and unwarranted investigations. No wonder parents are living in fear.
‘The figures on A&E visits are shocking. Parents should never be frightened about taking children after an accident to see a doctor but, as state interference in our private lives increases, anxiety among normal caring parents also rises.’
Miss Smith said: ‘In recent weeks, Nicola Sturgeon has been trying to tell us Named Persons are optional and that parents can choose not to engage. This is disingenuous.
‘There is no provision for professionals who are Named Persons to opt out and they have the power to report patents who will not accept their advice about how to bring up their child. It is time this sinister legislation was scrapped.’
The Scottish Government cannot comment on policies ahead of the May election because of ‘purdah’ rules to limit the risk of prejudicing the campaign.
But an SNP spokesman said: ‘The Named Person policy is about supporting, not diminishing, the role of parents – and has already been upheld by the highest court in Scotland, including a ruling which said the policy had “no effect whatsoever on the legal, moral or social relationships within the family”.’
ComRes polled 523 adults in Scotland.
WHAT will it take to convince the SNP that its flagship Named Person legislation is deeply flawed?
There is no question that the project is a well-intentioned attempt to protect vulnerable youngsters from genuine danger.
But such is the vague nature of the remit for so-called state guardians, who will be imposed on every child in the land, there is a very real risk that parental control will be undermined.
In the name of looking after a child’s ‘wellbeing’, the state guardian is expected to consider everything from family finances to what a child watches on television.
The scope for differences of opinion is clear and competent parents could find themselves facing the full power of the state over something as trivial as how a child’s bedroom is decorated.
The onus is on the named person to share information and it is possible a host of state agencies could be, f or instance, discussing a teenage girl getting contraception. Her parents might not be involved at all.
Critics’ claims that all this adds up to an Orwellian nightmare are not far-fetched.
A blundering intervention by MP Pete Wishart gives us a remarkable insight to the SNP’s unconditional backing for the project. He declared all opponents of the Named Person scheme were ‘ Tory/ Unionist’. In other words, any criticism is merely political point- scoring and can be easily dismissed.
Not for the first time, the MP for Perth and North Perthshire is utterly wrong.
There are genuine and legitimate fears that this project goes too far and those concerns deserve proper consideration by the Scottish Government, not a witless dismissal.
Indeed, a poll we report on today says an alarming two thirds of Scots feel the guardian scheme is an unacceptable intrusion while just 24 per cent think every child should have a state-appointed named person.
Nicola Sturgeon has not helped matters with a muddled intervention of her own in which she claimed the scheme will be universal but not mandatory.
That flies completely in the face of what her own government’s QC told judges considering the scheme’s legality.
With criticism mounting and a poll showing deep disquiet about its implications, why won’t the First Minister look again at a state guardian scheme that could damage the fundamental building block of society, the family?