Scottish charities say an SNP plan to allocate a ‘state guardian’ to all under 18-year-olds is rushed, “unhealthy” and unnecessary.
There have already been concerns that the Government plans to give a “named person” to every Scottish child could be unlawful.
Now it has emerged that charities have also urged caution following a public consultation on the issue.
Parents
The Scottish Parent Teacher Council described the plan as “ill thought through and offers no benefit to the majority of children, whose ‘named person’ is already in place – their parent or carer”.
The Autism Rights charity warned the idea was “as unhealthy as it is impracticable”.
And Children 1st, a charity which works with young people and their families, said it supported the idea, but highlighted youngsters’ problems with the plans.
Critical
Christian charity CARE for Scotland warned that the plan could result in young people being given contraception or abortions against the desires of their parents.
Liz Smith MSP, the Scottish Conversatives’ education spokeswoman, commented: “There are a mass of submissions and some are very strongly critical.
“I have grave reservations about the Named Persons aspect on two counts; firstly, it is the worst side of the nanny state, particularly if applied universally.
Wrong
“I have no problem at all assisting the most vulnerable children but it would be wrong on moral grounds to insist that every family has a Named Person.
“Secondly, I am very concerned about the extra resources required, concerns which are shared by the councils and the teaching unions.”
Last month the Law Society of Scotland said the plan could potentially breach European human rights laws on privacy and family life.
Interfere
Morag Driscoll, from the Law Society of Scotland, said that while the SNP’s policy aims were “admirable”, the plan could fall foul of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
She said: “The proposals could interfere with Article 8 of ECHR, the right to respect for private and family life, as there is scope for interference between the role of the ‘named person’ and the exercise of a parent’s rights and responsibilities.
“It could be interpreted as disproportionate state interference.”