Naming names

Donald J Morrison (Letters 16 August) clearly opposes the Named Person Scheme but shows appalling ignorance of how the scheme is envisaged to operate.

The Named Person is intended to be a single point of contact for children who may need additional support. It does not replace existing child protection structures and the principle is supported by a range of organisations working with children – professionals who have examined how the scheme will operate and people who know something about child protection. They will not and would never con- sent to being “state guardians” or “Big Brothers”.

It is accepted now by people who support the scheme that the primary legislation was flawed, as was ruled by the Supreme Court and as Mr Morrison sets out in his letter, with regard to the need to safeguard against unnecessary intrusion into family life.

However, Mr Morrison takes the reference by a judge to totalitarian states out of context. This was said in the context of the aforementioned required safeguards, particularly with regard to information sharing. To say that the judges said that “Scotland had been saved from a totalitarian curse” is blatantly untrue.

Of course, the fact that the five judges unanimously said that the aim of the scheme to promote and safeguard the rights and wellbeing of children and young people was “unquestionably legitimate and benign” does not fit with Mr Morrison’s narrative.

Finally, I note that Mr Morrison says that the scheme should be consigned to the brown box of history. In our house the brown box is used for recycling, which seems quite apposite to the situation with regard to the Named Person scheme.

GILL TURNER Derby Street, Edinburgh