Ministers criticised over #NamedPerson consultation

26 Feb 2017

Campaigners opposed to the Scottish government’s named person scheme claim ministers have refused to engage with them during a consultation on plans to reform the policy.

 Education Secretary John Swinney launched the “intense” three month consultation last September.

But the group which mounted a legal challenge against the scheme said there had been no updates from ministers.

The government said it held more than 50 meetings during the consultation.

A spokesman said Mr Swinney would update parliament in “due course”

Aye well, he’s no the sharpest tool in the box so its gonnae take him a while to think up an adequate lie. It REALLY has to be a good one as it has to…

  • A. Fool us.
  • B. Cover his back
  • C. Justify him carrying on with his data gathering “scheme”

The named person policy, introduced as part of the Children and Young People Scotland Act of 2014, set out to appoint a single point of contact, such as a teacher or health visitor, to look out for the welfare of all children up to the age of 18.

The consultation was announced six weeks after the UK Supreme Court ruled elements of the policy to be “incompatible” with the right to privacy and family life, as set out in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

‘Sham consultation’ 

Feedback from it was due to be collated by the government, with Mr Swinney intending to outline his next steps before the end of 2016.

But the No To Named Persons (NO2NP) group, which mounted the legal challenge, said they were not involved in the process.

Freedom of information requests by the group for details of the consultation discussions were rejected. (yeah, I wrote to him, as many other Scots did, he refused to speak to me. Got one of his lackies to punt out a mass produced letter, the exact same letter EVERYONE got)

NO2NP spokesman Simon Calvert said: “The engagement period was really a sham consultation because Mr Swinney only wanted to deal with those who support the scheme and organisations mainly funded by the government. He refused to engage with us even though we represent an important cross-section of Scottish society, huge numbers of parents and more than 35,000 people who signed our petition. The three-month ‘engagement’ has long since ended. It looks like it could be more like six or seven months, March or April 2017, before we hear anything.”

He added: “The Supreme Court agreed with us that the intrusive sharing of private information which was at the heart of the Named Person scheme was unlawful. The court granted our appeal, and ordered the Scottish government to pay all our costs. It was a total defeat for the Scottish government. The substantial delay in announcing their plans to try to navigate a way around the ruling indicates that reality is finally beginning to bite.”

Come into force

After the legal challenge, Mr Swinney was forced to act to halt the roll-out of the named person scheme, which has already been trialled in some parts of Scotland. (ELEVEN YEARS in the Highlands! That IS NOT a trial. Where has 11 years of  UNLAWFULLY collected info gone? Oh & the “scheme” is still going. They haven’t stopped, although apparently they aren’t collecting data ?!! Aye right!! Am no as stupid as Swinney!! & my head does not button up the back.)

It had been due to be introduced across the country on August 31 2016, but Mr Swinney said he hoped the named person policy can now come into force a year on from that.

A Scottish government spokeswoman said: “The engagement involved more than 50 meetings with some 250 organisations and groups – and included around 700 young people, parents/carers, practitioners and professionals. This included leaders from health, education, local authorities, police, faith communities, charities, unions and professional bodies. The deputy first minister will update parliament in due course.”

BBC News – Scotland


2 thoughts on “Ministers criticised over #NamedPerson consultation

  1. Here in the US, on paper (i.e. worthless), it is illegal to steal. Yet by appointing someone to oversee a child as if it belonged to the state, is an act of intention to steal a child from somewhere, not based on any seriously adverse actions of the parents against their own child but on the mere pretense of possible emotional harm, by no means guaranteed to to ever come to emotional harm, as if emotional harm, undefined, were a serious threat to the child. By such an open definition, any parent could be accused of harm, since no parent is perfect or ever has been. In the USA, we have found great fault in past times of slave masters taking children from slaves, and both the US and UK support this premise. Yet on the same hand, making it OK if not proper for the US and UK governments to do what slave owners are denounced for having once done so. We live in time of incomprehensible contradiction and hypocrisy. I wish someone somewhere could explain this glaring injustice written into low. Simply outrageous and without any real excuse or justification. There ain’t a hell hot enough for these SOBs. I wish there were 😉

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.