IF the issues at stake weren’t so hugely serious the clamour against the “named person” and the mass coverage it’s attracted could be regarded as yet another depressing campaign led by the religious right.
Yesterday children’s charities spoke out to defend the policy and to set out the reasons why they want the legal challenge to it at the Supreme Court to fail. We hope it does too.
The named person policy is being brought into to help co-ordinating better working among different public bodies playing a role in children’s lives – such as nurseries, schools, hospitals and schools – and help improve welfare safeguards.
Thankfully, for most children, the existence of the named person will be no more than a formality.
But there are many others for which the policy could be of benefit. In fact it could save their lives.
Crimes involving the abuse of children are particularly harrowing – but all too common.
Yesterday as the Christian Institute’s lawyers were trying to convince judges that the named person policy “breached human rights”, figures published by the children’s charity the NSPCC revealed that in the UK five children are sexually abused every hour.
Religious concerns that the role of the family is sacrosanct and is being undermined by the named person pales into insignificance in this context.
Sadly too, but not a point the campaigners against the named person are too keen to highlight, it is often members of a child’s family who are responsible for the abuse.
Remember Brandon Muir and Mikaeel Kular? These little toddlers weren’t kidnapped or lured away to their fates by strangers, but were killed in their own homes by those close to them.
And sadly their harrowing cases are not uncommon. Many others cases will stick in readers’ minds, for instance, Baby P and Victoria Climbie.
The National is absolutely clear: if the named person helps save just one child’s life it will be worth it.
We hope the judges considering the legal action to scrap it will agree.
Groups unite to defend ‘named person’ policy against action in Supreme Court
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here