Blog
Keeping you up to date on the progress of the Named Person scheme and the NO2NP campaign.
NO2NP requests meeting with First Minister to clarify opt-out confusion
Posted 8 years ago
The NO2NP campaign has written to the First Minister requesting an urgent meeting to discuss her recent comments on the Named Person scheme, which have caused considerable confusion.
Nicola Sturgeon has been accused of sending “mixed messages” in her claim that the Named Person scheme is “not mandatory”, a claim she has made repeatedly in recent weeks.
The campaign highlighted that there had been major discrepancies between what the First Minister had said and what the legislation actually says. The campaign also pointed out that the First Minister’s claims were at odds with what the Government’s own QC has said about the scheme in open court.
Simon Calvert, writing on behalf of NO2NP, asked if the First Minister could clarify matters by answering a series of questions including:
“Will you confirm that parents, who know what’s best for their children in the vast majority of cases, should have the power not to have their children exposed in any way to the Named Person scheme?
“If a parent wants to have ‘nothing to do with’ the Named Person, can they stop them seeking and sharing confidential data on them and their family?
“If a parent refuses to take advice from the Named Person who takes this as a sign of ‘non-engagement’ and convenes a meeting with social workers and others to devise a Child’s Plan, can the parent do anything to stop this process?”
NO2NP stated:
“Let me start by saying that those who oppose the Named Person scheme understand and wholeheartedly support the Government’s intention to protect children. We all want children to be safeguarded from abuse, and we want families to have access to the services they wish to use.
“However, you have made various statements in recent days concerning the implementation of the Named Person scheme that seem to be confusing.
“The content of these statements is at some significant variance with the legislation as passed by the Scottish Parliament.
“In addition, your comments appear to be at odds with those made by the Government’s own QC during the judicial review process.
“You have stated:
“It’s not compulsory. It’s an entitlement not an obligation. If a parent doesn’t want to have anything to do with the Named Person scheme, they don’t have to. It’s an entitlement that families would have, to have somebody if they do have issues or concerns.” (BBC interview with Brian Taylor, 11 March 2016)
“But let me repeat again today, parents are not legally obliged to use it because it is an entitlement not an obligation. I think that’s sensible, making sure it is there for everybody when they do need it, if they do need it, but not obliging anybody to use it if they feel they don’t need it.” (First Minister’s Questions, 24 March 2016)
“Parents and families who are doing fine don’t have to look for, ask for, or pay any heed to the advice of a Named Person. In fact, the Named Person will only give advice at the request of a parent or a young person.” (STV, 31 March 2016)
“Yet the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 at no point refers to parents’ rights to decline the intervention of a Named Person. The legislation states that a Named Person’s functions involve advising, informing, discussing etc “where the named person considers it to be appropriate in order to promote, support or safeguard the wellbeing of the child or young person” (section 19 of the Act).
“Furthermore, the Scottish Government’s QC in the Court of Session, Alistair Clark, said that allowing parents to opt out would “defeat the purpose of the scheme”.
“Even if it were true that the legislation allowed parents to ‘opt out’ of engaging with the Named Person, the Named Person would still be required by law to engage with both the child and their parents.
“(We are leaving aside the existing compulsory powers that exist when the child protection threshold is reached, which remain unchanged.)
“As a consequence of the discrepancies identified above, we request an urgent meeting with you to discuss this matter.
“Numerous important questions obviously arise as a result of your personal intervention. Indeed your comments seem to have added to the confusion rather than shed any light on what everyone agrees is an issue of vital importance.”
The First Minister is yet to respond to the campaign’s request for a meeting.