Named Person is ‘not good law’ QC tells Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has been told that the Named Person scheme is “not good law”, in the final day of a hearing at the UK’s highest court.

Aidan O’Neill QC was speaking in a case brought by The Christian Institute and others against the Scottish Government.

The senior judges will deliver their verdict in the coming months.

Not enough

Under the Named Person scheme, every child in Scotland will be assigned a state guardian from birth to the age of 18, who would be tasked with looking after their “wellbeing”.

In his closing remarks, O’Neill said there is a “responsibility for making good law – and this is not good law”.

He added that it was not enough “for the Scottish Government to say it’s not a very good law so sue me”.

No guidance

He also criticised guidelines on the legislation behind the Named Person scheme – saying: “The guidance doesn’t give any guidance.”

The guidance doesn’t give any guidance.

Aidan O'Neill

Lady Hale, one of five judges hearing the legal case, said it was “extremely interesting”.

The Christian Institute, CARE, TYMES Trust and the Family Education Trust brought the case against the Scottish Government.

Clan Childlaw intervened to raise concerns about the legislation behind the Named Person scheme.

Mums and dads

Simon Calvert, spokesman for the No to Named Persons campaign, said the hearing had been “full and forensic”.

“We await the verdict with anticipation”, he added.

At the beginning of the week, Colin Hart, Director of The Christian Institute, said the scheme is an “insult to the fundamental human rights of mums and dads to bring up their children the way they see fit”.


He added: “This is a compulsory scheme. There is no way for parents to opt out or be the named person for their own kids.

“That means already limited and scarce resources will be spread even further.

“The Named Person scheme is just plain wrong.”

Related Resources