The Scottish Government has been criticised after failing to respond to a group representing concerned parents.
A letter sent to First Minister Nicola Sturgeon from the No to Named Persons (NO2NP) campaign asked her to clarify “confusing and inaccurate” statements she has made about the plans.
However, the campaign – backed by over 25,000 Scots – only received an acknowledgement after press coverage of the snub.
Major discrepancies
NO2NP requested a meeting with Sturgeon on 1 April. They received a response from the Ministerial Correspondence Unit last week, claiming the letter, sent by email, was “received on 15 April”.
It reads: “Your correspondence has been passed to the relevant area for a response.”
The letter to the First Minister said that there are major discrepancies between what she has said in recent weeks and what the Named Person legislation actually states.
Urgent
During First Minister’s Questions last month, Sturgeon claimed that parents will be able to opt out of the scheme, which appoints a state guardian to every child in Scotland from birth to age 18.
However, last year the Scottish Government’s QC told judges in the Court of Session that allowing parents to opt out would “defeat the purpose of the scheme”.
Campaigners have also warned that named persons will be able to share a range of sensitive data on children without the knowledge or consent of their parents.
The letter states: “As a consequence of the discrepancies identified above, we request an urgent meeting with you to discuss this matter.”
Clarification
NO2NP, of which The Christian Institute is a part, also asked Sturgeon to clarify whether:
The Scottish Government communication said a response will be given within 20 working days.
Dogmatic
An editorial in the Scottish Daily Mail last week said that the scheme “staggers from crisis to crisis” and yet the Scottish Government “dogmatically ploughs on”.
It continued: “What will it take before it pauses for thought and gives serious consideration to the honest concerns about this deeply invasive scheme?”
Last month, the legal case against the plans reached the UK Supreme Court where judges heard that they bypass parents, and that the legislation is so complicated it is like “wrestling with an octopus”.
The senior judges will deliver their verdict in the coming months and have the power to put a halt to the legislation.