Named & shamed

I AM delighted that opposition to the allocation of a “Named ­Person” to every child in Scotland is continuing strongly (your report, 1 June).

A couple not adhering strictly to liberal orthodoxy in their parenting style, personal philosophy and moral standards is already likely to be deemed unsuitable to adopt or foster. Logically, if the state regards such a couple as unsuitable to look after other people’s children, surely there must be reservations about their ability to look after their own in accordance with the state sanctioned philosophy? Would “Named Persons” begin to raise such concerns and take the “necessary” action?

Also the emphasis on giving children channels through which they can express concerns could produce a system where they are urged to contact their “Named Person” when not satisfied with the service offered by parents. The “Named Person” would then step in as a mediator, dignifying trivial or vindictive complaints, thus undermining parental authority and democratising the family.

These excesses are not explicitly countenanced in the bill, but extrapolation from current attitudes justify serious concern.

Richard Lucas

Colinton, Edinburgh