Plans to assign a named person to every child in Scotland clash with fundamental human rights, Scotland’s supreme civil court heard in mid-November.
Speaking during the judicial review against the scheme, leading human rights QC Aidan O’Neill accused the government of putting out ‘rubbish’, and not being open enough about the legislation. He told the judge, Lord Pentland, that the plans interfere with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, requiring respect for private and family life.
Legitimate aim?
O’Neill maintained that the government’s defence had failed to show a legitimate aim for the scheme. ‘There is a responsibility in legislating. You don’t just put out any old rubbish’, he said. O’Neill argued that a com-is for every child pulsory named person unnecessary. The legislation gives responsibility to the named person to promote a child’s ‘wellbeing’, ensuring they are ‘healthy, nurtured and included’. But O’Neill pointed out that these are all things ‘which we can expect that parents will be doing for their child with love and respect in the context of the family home’. In that case: ‘There is no need for a ‘named person’, but nonetheless a ‘named person’ is going to be appointed’, he explained.
