Poll: do you support Named Person?

Named person crop

Is the Named Person scheme a Big Brother move or a crucial safety net for children?

Graham Martin's photo

7th April 2016 by Graham Martin 81 Comments

Are you for or against the Named Person scheme?

Poll results (total votes: 3758)

Are you for or against the Named Person scheme?

From 31 August, a "Named Person" will be appointed to monitor the welfare of every child in Scotland.

To say the plan has proven to be controversial is an understatement. Opponents, who have tried and failed to have it quashed by the courts, argue that the legislation amounts to the nanny state at its most excessive.

They say it will undermine parents, breach a family's right to privacy and divert resources away from children who are genuinely vulnerable.

But many children's charities say the scheme will help ensure more cases of child abuse and neglect are uncovered and dealt with.

Where do you stand on the debate?

Are you for or against the Named Person scheme?

Vote now - and let us know what you think by leaving a comment.

8th April 2016 by Simon Gordon

There is already an army of organisations, statutory and voluntary, with children's well being at the core of their raison d'etre..They already identify and work with children at risk. But they - say Children's Reporter, Police, Social Work, Health Visitors- could very likely all do with significant extra funding for what they already do for children in difficulty. Spending time money and effort on administering ALL children in Scotland is barmy, and dilutes resource which is better spent on those that need it.

8th April 2016 by James Thomson

Simon says there is already an army of organisations with children's well being as their raison d'etre.This is true. However in some cases this army is the cause of something being missed. If each of this army is given one, possibly anecdotal, report about a specific child then it may not be investigated as for each organisation it is an isolated incident and there is often not the resources to look into every single claim.With a named person there is one person who ultimately receives these reports and can co-ordinate between the relevant organisations meaning that all those isolated incidents suddenly become a pattern and can be investigated.The opposition to this bill, to my mind, comes from mis-reporting and even down right lies about what it actually does.I live in an area where it has been in place for years without any major complaints. Indeed, most people aren't (or weren't) aware of it at all, because they don't need to be for it to work.It isn't perfect by any means, but if it helps prevent even a few children slipping through the cracks then it is worth it.

8th April 2016 by Stephen

All organisations that involve a child's wellbeing support this scheme, it is there simply to pool the information already available from all government depts through 1 person ( if needed) so that further help can be obtained - where needed. The fact scum politicians are now trying to score political points is disgusting. However, the SNP (and Labour/lib dens who also voted for it) have been remiss in not explaining its simplicity and aid to children and families - those that need it. Also shame on those trying to make this about the SNP and there unionist views rather than looking after children in Scotland.

8th April 2016 by Rob James

The system is already in place in Highland and Lothians I believe. Highland has reported a reduction in cases of child abuse as well as a reduction in child criminality. The system provides a point of contact who has the responsibility to deal with the case, instead of multiple agencies, where incidences of nobody taking appropriate action has led to problems.

10th April 2016 by Frazer Duncan

The trouble with sharing information is ,thats all it is information ,whats important is whether it is accurate information or just roughly made up to complete a form ,.Health professionals change information according to their personal opinions ,,.This can sadly lead to children being misjudged and incorrectly referred say to mental health services,when say their anxiety has sound foundation, resulting from poor teaching no t from their own inadequate mental health,for example the school named person, can blame the child and not the school,sadly I have experienced this already,even before the named person is fully up and running. the rights of of teenage children are not protected by the named person , the children are often the scapegoats for the schools failure to provide a good environment for learning.The schools need a named person NOT the children ,I promise you that,

11th April 2016 by Carol Brown

Throughout my career in education I supported cohorts of young people through secondary school as a Guidance teacher and Depute Head. Having the Name Person improves the system by ensuring effective communication among agencies using common terminology, consistency, effective review procedures and appropriate allocation of support for THOSE YOUNG PEOPLE WHO NEED IT. Some young people and their families will not require support but those who do will be better served.

11th April 2016 by manager

The named person act is quite simply an abomination. it sole purpose is to make sure someone from the state can be blamed when it all goes wrong. It is an exercise in nonsense and most worryingly it is the removal of parents rights to parent.

12th April 2016 by Calum Munro

There is so much mis-information and mis-understanding around the concept of the Named Person it is no wonder people are confused about it. The key issue for me is that it gives parents (and children) a single point of contact through which they can seek help. It should ensure the end of the “pass the parcel” syndrome in some areas where difficult cases were passed from agency to agency with the carers becoming more fraught as nobody wanted to listen. It is now the Named Person’s duty to listen and to seek the appropriate help for the family/child. The people most vociferously opposed to the concept of the Named Person seem to be based around organisations for families who want to home educate their children. There is nothing that I have read in the Getting It Right For Every Child (GIRFEC) agenda or the Named Person concept that interferes with the current right of a family to do that. But their right to home educate should not interfere with the right of families with children and young people who have additional support needs to have a simpler way of accessing services. Home Educators have nothing to fear from the Named Person and should not be campaigning to deny those who have need of it from getting it into place. What convinces me to support the Named Person is that for ten years I was a policy officer for Highland Children’s Forum, a small Highland Charity that sought to have the voice of children and young people with additional support needs and the voice of their parents and carers heard by Services and acted on appropriately by Services. My colleagues consulted with families and young people on GIRFEC and the Named Person and they strongly wanted a single easily identified point of contact who had duty to help them. I sat and listened to families tell tragic tales of time and energy – that should have been spent directly on their children – being wasted chasing around in circles seeking help. They needed a single point of contact. The folk who need the help want the Named Person! The Named Person is not about poking into families and denying families the right to set family frameworks. There are however families whose failure results in harm to children and young people and they need help and the children and young people are entitled to society’s protection. That need existed before the Named Person concept - it is Child Protection. Scotland should be proud of people who created the Getting It Right For Every Child concept and within it the Named Person role. The families of children and young people with additional needs deserve the best systems of support and the Named Person role will contribute to that outcome. Politicians and other vested interests currently campaigning against the Named Person need to listen to the families who really know the price of additional support needs, back them and put their energies into creating the resources to improve the outcomes for all our young people and their carers.Calum Munro Formerly Policy Lead to Highland Children’s Forum (2004 - 2014

15th April 2016 by James

You do realise that any online poll which is critical of SNP policy is going to draw swarms of multi-voting cybernats, don't you?

15th April 2016 by dorothy oliver

Big No

15th April 2016 by Margaret McDougall

Ill thought out piece of legislation.

15th April 2016 by Myra Paterson

No I don't support it, they're claiming every child is potentially at risk, that is not the case there is more good parents out there as opposed to bad ones. The money being spent on this could be put to better use by improving the already over stretched social work departments ensuring the help gets to those who actually need it, not those who don't. This is about the SNP trying to control all walks of life. If this gets the go ahead what will they interfere with next?

15th April 2016 by Maggie mellon

Against named oersob

15th April 2016 by Sheila Hepworth

It's fine for children at risk but the majority of children have loving parents. this is so intrusive I hate it

16th April 2016 by nickypirie

The problem isn;t to do with Home Education people or anyone opposing the Scheme. The problem is that the Scheme doesn;t allow for interpretation, variables and mistakes. No one wants another Baby P incident but having a Person devoted solely and only for the child doesnt; see the child as part of a family and the family as part of the child. They are inextricably linked. Every system we have allows for the possibility that there could be issues and therefor it;s necessary to have some way to appeal or a complaints procedure. What happens when the Named Person gets it wrong? Schools are suffering,Social Workers are suffering while so are Health Visitors. Over loading the systems that are already near to breaking point will be over come with referrals for things like ;decorating;.

16th April 2016 by Rita calder

this has shades of 1930's WHY!!!! why do you need to know all these folks info??? Spend the money on training Social Workers who need when they go to a door of a child who has been reported "at risk" to take a no response as OH they are not in, break down the door get an answer.

16th April 2016 by nickypirie

I also have had to witness at least two lots of children having been abused to which neither were believed. That;s with Social Services involved. Those children have grown older believing that they cannot be helped and are in abusive situations now. Children;s charities are nowhere to be seen.I am also aware of at least one family having to move because of Victim Retaliation (see Womens; Aid) while the Victims;s own child has never been regarded as in possible danger although the mother has been in Court many times. The stepfather is abusive to the point of choking the Victim till she almost died while Social Services refused to become involved because the Victim would have to approach them! Again Charities cannot do anything for those children or the family and a Named Person would not be trusted seeing as though the perpetrator of the Violence is in a trusted employee working in a caring capacity and has done for over a decade. All agencies are aware of the family while the abuse continues and no other informant can come forward as are the complexities of Domestic Violence.

16th April 2016 by David Hepburn

Is one allowed to opt out or not - that is the question...

16th April 2016 by V Colvin

Named Persons ( head teachers at least) have the potential to raise false concerns about a family if they don't like that you go to them with a problem at their school. They protect their school and career before protecting children. I speak from personal experience of this. Named person does not protect children, social services do. £61m has been spent on coming up with children's questionnaires and boxes that NP's tick if in their opinion there are wellbeing issues. That money would have been better spent employing more social workers. Head teachers, other named persons and other professionals already had in place a procedure to follow if they think a child is at risk of harm, it is their duty to inform social services. Several teachers, potential NP's, have been in the news recently in connection with child abuse etc. Collecting and storing data can give bad ones information about a family, enabling them and those like them to befriend vulnerable children and use it to their advantage. The data will never be secure. Sharing it makes children more vulnerable. What could have been a good idea of having a single point of contact for parents, was taken and distorted out of all recognition and is a terrible idea now. I will never vote SNP again.

16th April 2016 by Alan

Disgusting invasion of privacy.Also biggest insult ever to suggest parents and grandparents cannot raise their children.

16th April 2016 by Chris Ryan

GIRFEC/Named Person is an assault on the liberty of the people imposed by a tyrannical government.

16th April 2016 by Linda Pollitt

James Thomson, your comment shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what this legislation actually says. Having listened to the whole of the Supreme Court hearing I can tell you that whatever its original intention, it is distinctly not about child protection (and it is disingenuous to claim that is the case) it is about giving professionals the right to share ALL children's information in a way that runs roughshod over the rights of the individual child, with little in the way of any kind of oversight to ensure such sharing is proportional or that the system is not abused. Professionals who become NP will be overwhelmed with information, and it will make it much more difficult to identify the children who are truly in need of help not less. A much more sensible and helpful use of the money put into this terrible piece of legislation would have been to provide additional funding for social services, health visitors and other frontline services.

16th April 2016 by Al Murdoch

Save the resources to reinforce the Social Services who will have identified hundreds fof children at risk of being abused or will need accommodated. To waste scarce resources on every child is ludicrous. Typical warped Nationalist thinking!!!!

16th April 2016 by nancy Holehouse

This scheme will produce a shed load of data that will over burden services.The vast majority of the data will be irrelevant in helping vulnerable children however it will make it much harder to find the children at risk in time to actually help them. It will also create false situations where information will be taken out of context and misinterpreted. The case of the families accused of witchcraft practices that proved to be unfounded is just the tip of the iceberg that this scheme would create. It is an expensive white elephant and will not prevent abuse, but in fact do a great deal of harm.

16th April 2016 by Holliegreigjustice

Lulz and the SNP drones have been busy

16th April 2016 by Eileen Crichton

Definitely very againstthe Name Person its a breach of human liberties. And denigratesball parents even the good ones

16th April 2016 by Charles Gribben

David Hepburn, I'm against this scheme. If you can opt out it defeats the whole purpose of it.

16th April 2016 by B Fleming

This sounds very sinister. The actions of a totalitarian government.

16th April 2016 by jannet robinson

Most ill conceived scheme ever.

16th April 2016 by martin

are we really moving back towards a communist/Nazi state, that is what we are heading for under the SNP

16th April 2016 by sylvia mcainsh

I think there is already a whole lot of people teachers nursery teachers friends family neighbours social work its funding these organisations need more money not named person

16th April 2016 by James peebles

No going to happen

16th April 2016 by Les Hood

Scottish Govt has been very remis in practically disowning this policy for fear of not courting as much popularity. This has allowed unfounded fears of state intrusion to grow arms and legs. Getting It Right For Every Child policy includes the Named Person role which is pretty much what a reasonable person would expect of a head teacher or Health Visitor. They are not interested in snooping or involving themselves unnecessarily in anyone's life. This is a valid approach to prevent the kind of tragedies that always point to concerns not having been passed on to an identifiable, appropriate person at the right time.

17th April 2016 by William Croall

How can 16yr-18yr old Scottish children be mature enough to vote but still need a state controlled guardian to look after them.

17th April 2016 by Catherine Edwards

This scheme in theory is great but it gives way too much power to the named person and is open to interpretation... For example a child of 12 can go to the doctor on thier own and expect that anything discussed remains confidential.... But the named person would be allowed that information.... Not just parents rights would be taken away but that of the child? I find the arrogance of government in this while children whom are neglected and abused are being missed....some of these children stand out from the rest and the people who some would be the named person don't notice this scheme will not be any better for the children in most need....

17th April 2016 by James Dixon

This is the SNP all over. Control everything. Too much state control takes a country down a restrictive slippery slope! Maybe if the SNP had not carved up and destroyed Scotlands Police regional departments, children could have been better protected by the community within. After all, 50000 less crimes are solved by police scotland than before the amalgamation. When are people going to see through this devicive racist bunch of amateurs?

17th April 2016 by Sandra Craih

This proposed scheme is not lawful. Parents have primary responsibility and this will attempt to over-ride this. It is spying and interfering inappropriately and the proof of this lies in reports from parents involved in the pilot. It must be rejected and stopped.

17th April 2016 by una cameron

This is a total waste of time and money, not every child needs a social worker and this will just take time away from the ones that actually do, I grew up fine without any social care as did most of my friends, though there were a few could have done with a bit of help, I'd much rather they got it than someone who doesn't need it. Not every parent is bad, let them patent without being told how to do it, this country is becoming a joke, no wonder it's full of teenagers blaming the world for everything and them to lazy to get of their buts, get a job and have a life instead of expecting it to be handed to them on a plate

17th April 2016 by lorraine cleaver

It's already in operation in the Highlands yes, and already there has been one named person found guilty of sex offences. https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/moray/720335/moray-teacher-could-be-struck-off-after-sex-offences-conviction/

17th April 2016 by Pinny Winch

I am continually told by supports of this dreadful act that it's 'nothing different to what we do now'. My answers to that are: 1) if it's already being done then why is it costing £70 million pounds? 2) if it's already being done now, where are the records kept of the interventions. 3) think how much £70 million could do if it was directed to the ones who need it 4) Who is going to be a 'named person' for school aged children whilst the teachers are on holiday? 5) HVs are already stretched without having to take on extra work.I've not had any sensible answers at all.

17th April 2016 by Pinny Winch

It would be far better to direct the MILLIONS of pounds this is costing to those that require it.The scheme has already been tried in Isle of Man and it created a 500% increase in referrals to Social Services but no increase in flagging up any children in need.Mrs Murral said that 'it is not compulsory for parents to engage' - but it is compulsory for the children. There in absolutely NOTHING in the named person information that says parents do not have to engage.It is an intrusive act that does not recognise that the majority of parents are the people who know their child.It does not cover the school holidays when the headteachers will be on holiday. It does not cover the extra work that this will involve for Health Visitors.The NP will have MORE access to records than anyone else with absolutely no safeguards. One NP has already been convicted of child porn.Direct the money to the areas who need it. Direct the money to the services who need it.

17th April 2016 by Robert Mcbride

that is how hitler started

18th April 2016 by William

It looks like Calum Munro is firmly in a minority here . Every poll i've ever seen parents have been against it. Not only parents but now teachers and health visitors are speaking out against it . But are the govt going to listen to us or are they happy to infringe the human rights and privacy of every mum , dad and child in Scotland ?Trying to make Scotland "the best place in the world to grow up" is nothing more than an ideology that doesnt respect anyone's rights to privacy .Here is what the legal establishment think of the plans.Quote from the Faculty of AdvocatesPart 4 – Named Persons:This part of the Bill dilutes the legal role of parents,whether or not there is any difficulty in the way that parents are fulfilling their statutory responsibilities. It undermines family autonomy. It provides a potential platform for interference with private and family life in a way that could violate article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Faculty accepts that there may be cases where a ‘named person’ will be of assistance but the provision is not focused on the children for whom the measure would be helpful and it does not cohere with other similar measures for such children. No attempt is made in the Bill to integrate the role of a named person with similar roles when other services are provided.Information sharing:It is not necessary to violate the right to privacy and abrogate the data protection rights of all children and families in Scotland. The open transfer of data in the manner contemplated in the Bill represents a serious intrusion on individual rights. The data protection principles set out in the Data Protection Act 1998 were developed to secure an appropriate balance between the need to process information and the need to protect the rights of the subject or source of the information. It is not clear how that balance is achieved in these proposals, which may in any event relate to matters reserved to Westminster.http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EducationandCultureCommittee/Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill/FacultyofAdvocates.pdf

5th May 2016 by Rosemary Duncan

Another excuse to poke their noses into family's life's How the hell can Scotland actually afford this.

5th May 2016 by shirley freeman

I am completely against this. Any compulsory law that effectively over rules the right of a parent to opt out of any arrangement imposed by an agency or office is against my belief. The SNP have dropped in my estimation with this and leaves me wondering where they would take things to on the next level if this appears completely normal to them. I am not for any Government that want to invade my privacy or start ruling the people with compulsory orders.

6th May 2016 by Rosemary Duncan

Complete lunacy

18th May 2016 by Jonathan Ritchie

The named person scheme has nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with controlling their parents through state terrorism and child trafficking.

18th May 2016 by Kate Johnston

This is a safety net for a family and would only be used if there was a need. The children's safety should be paramount and this legislation should not usurp parents' rights unless they are not coping.

18th May 2016 by Richard

Tried to vote for it, and wouldn't let me. Then decided to try and vote against it, and it allowed it! Seems a bit corrupt to me!!

18th May 2016 by Seumas

The whole NO2NP is being lead by Christian Fundimentalists who have unenlightened views on children's rights helped by opportunist Unionist Politicians.

18th May 2016 by Rose Dorman

I voted SNP but disagree with this legislation going ahead in it's current form, far too ambiguous and more stress and worry for Named Persons involved.

19th May 2016 by Sheila Forbes

Please call it by its proper name -GIRFEC. The scheme has been operating successfully in the Highlands and Ayrshire. This is about joined up thinking and cooperation. It places responsibility in all professionals rather than Buck passing as happens all too often. It also makes sense for HV and teachers to be named persons for example under fives and school age children with social work taking responsibility for those where potentially serious child welfare issues are indicated. I cannot fathom why anyone would object to this policy. Unfortunately too much political posturing for all the wrong reasons has ensured a great deal of public misinformation. The fact is the majority of children and families will not have any extra-ordinary involvement with their identified professional than they would have without this legislation. The scare mongering going about is quite disgraceful. (SW)

19th May 2016 by Jim McLean

Parents do not have to comply with this but it should help prevent cases like babyP falling through the net. The scheme has also been running in areas for a while and is generally seen there as a good thing

19th May 2016 by Aaron Boucher

This is fundamentally a trust issue. People DO NOT TRUST government or more importantly local authorities . There needs to be a neutral ground found that can be seen to be trusted in order for a scheme like this to not be seen as state surveillance. Our Children are our most precious thing on that everyone is agreed. Government is NOT beyond reproach and needs to rethink it's strategy on child protection by listening to the experts currently working at the coalface of the issue and not its own think-tank of wombles sitting in there own echo-chamber....

19th May 2016 by Steve

No I do not support it, I watched first-hand a head-teacher abuse the system to "protect" her schools reputation against my wishes for my autistic son to receive the support he needed at a special school. I do not like the idea of teachers having access to my family's medical record without my consent. Especially when their view of autism is rooted in the dark-ages of "I can't see nothing wrong with him or he'll grow out of it!" I prefer professionals who understand autism.

19th May 2016 by David

I have read/heard an amazing amount of utter tosh in relation to Named Person legislation. I wonder if the naysayers have actually read it. As a Social Worker and depute CEO of third sector organisation, I fully support the legislation. There is creditable evidence the pilot schemes (one as long as 5 years) works and can offer support to both children and their families/carers. Thus far the major objections/objectors I've seen to this policy come from those who, wittingly or no, seek to score political points at the dangerous expense of children's safety.

19th May 2016 by Peter

What James Thomson said

19th May 2016 by John Ogden

The state interfering in private family life - absolutely NOT.

19th May 2016 by Peter A Bell

The results so far would seem to demonstrate the effectiveness of the hysterical propaganda campaign being conducted by low-life opportunist politicians and their accomplices in the media.

19th May 2016 by Peter A Bell

Have to say, I despise those who are putting petty politics and religious dogma before the welfare of children. I have nothing but contempt for such people.

19th May 2016 by Drew Millar

The named person is purely there for children and parents who need help. Health visitors and Head Teachers have always as part of their job helped parents and children when the need arose so the named person in a sense is not new just a name for legislative purposes. This is not a blanket service but purely for those that need help

19th May 2016 by Hugh McLean

I am sure that this proposal is sincere and well meant but it is fraught with danger. Human nature is such that those inclined to be busybodies or who take great pleasure in showing off their power, however limited, are likely to have a field day at the expense of both the child and the parents.

19th May 2016 by Sandra Scott

if it saves one childs life it will be worth it

19th May 2016 by ANN FULLER

the Highlands have run the named person scheme for years and it works well.

19th May 2016 by Tony McCandless

My 2 kids suffered at the hands of their mother and her new partner for 5 years as I fought for custody. Those meant to protect them hurt them and social work were, apart from 1 individual, useless.Had they had a named person to confide in they would not have suffered the way they did.Perhaps those who criticise this need to step back a bit and consider whether they are just on a moral high horse, SNPBad or have ever experienced a child subject to abuse.

19th May 2016 by Avril

I don't need an appointed person for my children I am that person. This will completely undermined parents and I think it is a disgrace. Why do the SNP feel the need to have complete control over people's lives this is suppose to be a free country. There are child services already in place to protect vulnerable children why do we need one for every single family this is an insult to all parents. Who are these people? What qualifications do they have? And how do we know if they are to be trusted?

19th May 2016 by Dave

Liam Fee, baby P, Victoria Climbie and many many others, far too many others. If this legislation stops just one of these tragedies then surely it is worth having.

19th May 2016 by Barbara Reid

Only children that need additional support will be aware of their named person. There has always been someone responsible for children, the named person scheme merely formalised it so that the buck can't be passed. Vulnerable children must be protected and most charities support the named person scheme. Why would the religious charities be against this. The church doesn't exactly have a good record when it comes to child abuse.

19th May 2016 by Grandma

Having been in the sad position of having my three granchildren ,in my care as there parents were drug addicts,I know first hand the importance of a named person for the children ,they need it to talk to someone who is not directly involved in their situation to be there as a confidant if necessary.

19th May 2016 by Eileen McNulty

It will remove resources from children really at risk. Most parents and their children do not want this, and find the idea intrusive and wasteful. Well-intentioned, but badly advised to the Scottish Government.

19th May 2016 by sandra macleod

I'm for it, if it helps even one child it's a positive for me

19th May 2016 by Robert Adams

If it stops one child falling through the cracks, it will be worth it.

20th May 2016 by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells

I am amazed how so many people are buying the scare stories about this. Some people are just plain dumb.

20th May 2016 by Alison Rollo

From everything I have read I think there has been a knee jerk reaction to this. To me it seems a good idea and perhaps a review needed after 3 years to check that it is helping those poor wee kids who slip through the net. If you are a good loving parent you will not be involved in this in any way.

20th May 2016 by Sandra Whyte

Regarding Parent Alienation:There are many fathers who are no risk to their children who have 'real concerns' about the safety and welfare of their children but are deliberately alienated from that child. A named person can make sure their child is safe when there are real concerns. The system as it stands is failing vulnerable children, and it certainly is not equal parenting in the eyes of the law. People who abuse children keep it secret so there is no point in pretending that everyone is nice and everything is okay...it's not! I am in favour of a Named Person.

20th May 2016 by Grant Brown

The Named Person cannot be taken in isolation. It requires to be understood alongside and partnered with GIRFEC: Getting it Right For Every Child. Once both are read and understood as a whole, you will see that they are not intrusive but supportive.

20th May 2016 by Andrew Richardson

Mmmm, who to believe. The opposition parties - who used to support this, but now don't for short term political points scoring. OR, The Children's Charities - who supported this at the start and still do as they believe this is best for CHILDREN. They cite the long term pilot schemes that are already up and running as examples of a good plan working well. Put simply, children have been protected. Shame on the opposition parties for changing their position for a pointless, cheap, forgotten tomorrow (but not by vulnerable children) parliamentary vote win. :-(

22nd May 2016 by Susie McCrae

I work in a school as a pupil support assistant, we have been operating under the scheme for a while now and I think it is definitely the way forward. I think it is unfortunate that so many people have been taken in by the extremely unscrupulous fear mongering perpetrated by individuals and groups whose motivation is purely political.I should also add that I am mother to two primary school aged boys and that I have NO concerns that the named person scheme will in any way usurp or undermine my parental rights or responsibilities.

12th June 2016 by Alexandra

This is a shambles! This policy is widely reported as being a single point of contact. It also enables the named person to "share information" beyond the tested and safeguarded current welfare concerns. There are no data protection (an area of law which is still reserved to wm) safeguards, so if the information which you may or may not know about that is shared about a child or their family is inaccurate or incorrect this has the potential for devastating consequences. There are no appeals, nor is there a complaints system in the statute, so there cannot be any complaints about it! (Wake up people!) What is troubling is the tiresome deception pumped out by supporters of this scheme. If you've nothing to hide is constantly used to counter people who are in favour or believe the rhetoric produced repeatedly by charities given additional funding by the SG to provide "services" for the scheme. If you dont agree with your named person/your childs named person then this can make you subject to intervention! They also have the power to request confidential information on anybody connected to a Child, even grandparents. What happened to being allowed the autonomy to make your own choices/raise your child as you see fit? The sg must think christmas has come early, the spineless lack of opposition from anyone other than the Tories is disgusting. Let's clear up another myth, most people in areas that have piloted girfec/named person are completely unaware of it's existence! So how can children and their families ask for something they know nothing about! (That claim for people asking for the state surveillance exercise came from the highland pathfinder which surveyed just 300 families). There are so many other reasons, however just look at the sadly growing list of (high profiled in throughout news) children that were failed........all in areas that already have girfec/named person. That in itself kills this toxic policy.

13th June 2016 by Isobel

A potentially damaging proposal - especially for families.

28th July 2016 by Brian Evans

There are 50000 teachers in Scotland and 1 million school children to support. That works out at 20 pupils per teacher. If only headteachers were used that would dramatically increase the pupils allocation to a named person. I cannot comment about other professions being used.