Aileen Campbell appears rattled in the Parliamentary debate

Ruth Davidson expressed her criticism of the Named Person scheme in the Evening Times:

As it stands, the policy will see vast amounts of information pass across a named person’s desk.  Much of this information will be private and will be imparted without parents having any say whatsoever.

This is wrong.

It undermines the right to a private family life and is a charter for prying eyes.

Secondly - and more importantly - this policy risks diverting resources away from truly vulnerable children; those who need the support most.

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/opinion/14117222.Ruth_Davidson__Time_to_stop_the_intrusion_of_the_state/?ref=twtrec

 

Unfortunately, Liz Smith was deterred from probing the data sharing aspect of the Named Person policy in the Scottish Parliamentary debate due to legal restrictions.

As it was, she put forward the view that it is the universal aspect of the Named Person provision, without opt-out, that is the problem with the legislation as well as the extra workload for already stretched services. To illustrate the level of bureaucracy she pulled out a long piece of paper, saying "There are 306 different criteria in the SHANARRI indicators when it comes to assessing children."

Dealing with the claim that there is no compulsion on any parent to accept the Named Person, she stated that professionals are not permitted to opt-out and so common sense tells you that neither are parents when the two are inextricably linked.

 

Parents who resist the Named Person or who have a different perception of the problem are seen as risk indicators. They are going to be picked on as parents who are not worthy.

There are contradictory points made about this in the recently released guidance.
 

On the one hand it states: "While the service must be made available, it is up to individual children, young people and parents, whether they wish to engage with the Named Person service."

 

On the other hand at section 2.5.7 there is this:

Early intervention and a compulsory supervision order are not mutually exclusive in promoting, supporting and safeguarding the wellbeing of a child or young person. The use of compulsion at an early stage may help to ensure compliance with interventions, and prevent wellbeing needs escalating. Parental capacity and willingness to change should be considered in order to assess whether the child’s wellbeing needs are likely to be met by voluntary support or whether a compulsory supervision order might be necessary. 

So if a parent does not agree with a wellbeing intervention then the Named Person has the option of using a compulsory supervision order.

Are we to believe that Aileen Campbell does not know what is in the guidance ?