Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill

On Wednesday of this coming week (19th), the Scottish Parliament will consider, at Stage 3 (the final debate and vote) the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill.  This is a Bill that, if enacted, would allow the appointment of a 'named person' for every child in Scotland, who would have powers that could be used to over-rule decisions made by the biological parents.  This is a matter of great concern to many, and the following is a copy of the e-mail that I have sent to my own MSPs.  I would encourage others to contact their MSPs as well.  Please feel free to use any of the information that is below, but do not simply copy and paste the e-mail.  It's not that I would be complaining about any breach of copyright (!), but simply that if a number of identical communications are received, then only one is considered!

"Dear [name]

As you are aware. I have been concentrating, recently, on other matters.  However, I am now obliged to turn my attention to The Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill and, in particular, Part 4.

It would seem to me, and to many others, that this section of the Bill, if enacted, has the potential to undermine parents and carers - particularly if the 'named person' were to disagree with the parents or carers over a matter concerning the up-bringing of the child.  Even as august a body as The Faculty of Advocates raises similar points regarding a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In their submission to the Education and Culture Committee they add that the Bill “dilutes the legal role of parents, whether or not there is any way that parents are fulfilling their statutory responsibilities. It undermines family autonomy.”

The Law Society in Scotland similarly notes that the proposals could potentially breach European Human Rights Law on privacy and family life, stating that, “there is scope for interference between the role of the ‘named person’ and the exercise of a parent’s rights and responsibilities.”

There is also the matter of data protection.  Under current legislation, information can be shared without parental consent only if there is a danger of “significant harm”, but the Bill, if enacted, would enable data to be passed on to a named person without permission if there is a perceived risk to a child’s “well-being” [26.3,4.(a)]. What constitutes “well-being” is, obviously, subjective and could lead to unnecessary investigations into a child’s personal life.  This could well have the, I would hope unintended consequence, of parents, in the case of an accident involving their child, being deterred from taking the child to a hospital, or even to their GP's surgery, because they were afraid that they would become embroiled in the care system.

No-one is going to pretend that there are not cases in which a child needs to have an adult, other than the biological parents, involved in its care.  Indeed, during the twelve years in which my wife and I fostered, the majority of the children for whom we cared would have been thus classified.  However, this is, thankfully, a small minority.  Do you really want to see parents who are perfectly adequately looking after their child(ren) have their position usurped by the State!

Just last month, prominent Human Rights lawyer Aidan O Neil QC said that it is “startling” that the proposal “appears to be predicated on the idea that the proper primary relationship that children will have for their well-being and development, nurturing and education is with the State rather than within their families and with their parents”.

I am also concerned about Part 7 of the Bill and the concept of "Corporate Parents" - especially given the vast array of persons who would come under that description, as outlined in Schedule 3.  Once again, it would seem to me, this is an attempt by the Scottish Government to undermine perfectly good and responsible natural parenting in a manner that is worthy of Plato's Republic!

I am asking, therefore, that you either oppose the Bill in its entirety, or that you support any amendment that would remove Part 4 and, even Part 7.

Yours sincerely,


For those in the Motherwell and Wishaw Constituency, the MSPs are:

Mr John Pentland, MSP    john.pentland.msp@scottish.parliament.uk

Mrs Clare Adamson, MSP   clare.adamson.msp@scottish.parliament.uk
Mr Mark Griffin, MSP    mark.griffin.msp@scottish.parliament.uk
Mr Richard Lyle, MSP  richard.lyle.msp@scottish.parliament.uk
Mrs Margaret McCulloch, MSP   margaret.mcculloch.msp@scottish.parliament.uk
Miss Siobhan McMahon, MSP  siobhan.mcmahon.msp@scottish.parliament.uk
Mrs Margaret Mitchell, MSP   margaret.mitchell.msp@scottish.parliament.uk
Mr  John Wilson, MSP  john.wilson.msp@scottish.parliament.uk

Marriage Consultation.

The high number of 'hits' continues!  I hope that many of those who have checked out this blog will do so at least one more time, in order to read the following.

In the next couple of days, supporters in Scotland will receive a postal mailing from CARE which contains information to help them respond to the Scottish Government's ongoing consultation on the implementation of their plans to redefine marriage.  In particular, the consultation looks at the impact of redefining marriage on civil liberties, e.g. for teachers, registrars and public authority workers.  As you will appreciate, my own case has a bearing on this!  However, there will be many who are not on the CARE mailing list - or on any other that might be used.  Accordingly, I am providing the links to both the consultation paper and the CARE briefing.

The best way to respond to the consultation, which closes on 20th March, is to formulate a personal response, using your own words.  You can do this by completing the form on the Scottish Government website which can be found here.  A CARE for Scotland briefing giving advice on what you might like to say can be found here.

A webpage will also be published next week to help those who are pushed for time make a submission online – do look out for this next week!

Thank you for all of the support that you can provide to uphold the current, God-instituted, definition of marriage.  Please share the above information with as many people as possible!

Freedom, and democracy.

It is reported that the Scottish Government is likely to make a final decision with regard to the redefinition of marriage on July 10th.  Official figures indicate that some 70,000 responses to the consultation were received (as against 21,000 on the issue of Scottish independence!) with those in favour of retaining marriage in its traditional form outnumbering those who wish to have the relationship (which is much more than a word!) redefined, by approximately 2:1.

We will have to wait to see what the Scottish Government does, but one would hope that they will act in a truly democratic manner and accept the clearly stated will of the people.  This is, after all, part of what freedom is about.

Of course, as The Gaither Vocal Band remind us in this clip, there is an even greater freedom that is available - even to those who may be incarcerated because of their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.  I think of those in North Korea; in Pakistan; in China; in Eritrea; in Burma; in Iran; and in many other countries around the world.  To them, I would dedicate this song.

God works in a mysterious way!

Not a Councillor - but still very much a "political animal", and keeping an eye on the situation here in the UK.  And there is much to watch!  The Local Council elections gave the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer some serious food for thought (or should that be "some food for serious thought"?!).  I suppose that the Deputy PM has some deep thinking to do as well - but let's not waste time and space on nonentities!

According to today's various news reports, Messrs Cameron and Osborne are taking a great deal of flak from both their back-benchers and their supporters around the country.  The very poor showing of the Conservative Party on Thursday is being blamed on the (Liberal) policies that the Coalition Government is seen as having espoused.  To many, it has been a case of the tail wagging the dog!

The response has been, to say the least, interesting. Speaking on the Andrew Marr Show, on BBC television, Mr Osborne indicated that  the controversial reforms of the House of Lords, and plans for homosexual/lesbian marriage were being kicked into the long grass. Yet, not so long ago, Mr Cameron was passionately supporting the latter - even at a meeting of senior clergy!

Personally, I am totally in favour of reforming the Upper Chamber in Westminster.  I would immediately throw out every single one of the jumped-up Prescotts, Kinnocks, and other so-called "Life Peers", and all of those who, regardless of their background, have been found guilty of fraud or any other crime.  I would then re-instate the hereditary Lords, on the one condition that no-one would be permitted to be connected to any political party.  In that way, I believe, we would achieve an independent Upper House, with all of the life experience that many of these noble Lords and Ladies are able to bring to debate.  I know that there have been many times, in the long and distant past, when I have been so glad to have an unelected Chamber of hereditary Peers who were able to inject what is, in our political circles, that most rare of commodities - common-sense - into debate, and frustrate the stupidity of the elected representatives (usually representing themselves!) in the House of Commoners!

As far as the proposals anent the redefinition of the God-ordained institution of marriage as between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, for life, is concerned, I hope that the Scottish Government will take the hint as well.  I have already e-mailed Mr Salmond to inform him that the SNP support for this redefinition lost him my First Preference vote on Thursday.  Okay, so I would have given myself that vote in any case - but the SNP didn't even receive my Second Preference!

God does work in a mysterious way, His wonders to perform.  Could it be that the results on Thursday were actually His means of having this proposal taken out of play?  It will be interesting to hear the Queen's Speech (actually, the Government's Speech, read by HM!) on Wednesday!   I only know that He is the Sovereign God, Whose plans and purposes shall come to pass - regardless of political parties and/or personalities.  All praise and glory to His Name.

More on marriage!

I was in Edinburgh, this morning, with more than 150 others, demonstrating in support of the traditional meaning of marriage as being a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, for life. The numbers would probably have been greater, but the organisers deliberately didn't put out much publicity in order that the demonstration would not be hijacked by opponents.

It was a dignified demo, with Gordon Wilson (former leader of the SNP), Cardinal Keith O'Brien, and Ann Allen, being the 'keynote' speakers, and each making an impassioned plea for the continuance of marriage as defined by Article 161 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights which clearly states that it is a union of 'a man and a woman'. The importance of a child's right to a father and a mother was also stressed, as was the fact that the homosexual/lesbia community (small 'though it is!) already have all of the legal rights of a traditionally married heterosexual couple, in civil partnerships. Indeed, a civil partnership gives the two persons involved greater rights than, e.g., two elderly siblings who share a home - but not a bed!

The demand for "same-gender marriage" has nothing to do with equality, but a lot to do with a continuing effort to undermine one of the basic building blocks of a stable society - the family.

It was also pointed out that to redefine marriage would open the same 'can of worms' that has been opened in countries like Canada where a man is using the legislation to claim that he may have a legal polygamus 'marriege'! Here, in Motherwell, there was an outcry just a few months ago, when a brother and sister were caught in a full sexual act in the local railway station; and the young man was taken to court. However, if marriage is redefined, could not the failure to permit such an incestuous relationship be seen as discriminatory?!

As history often shows, we tamper with the design of the Creator at our peril. It is to be hoped that the Scottish Government will listen to the will of the people of Scotland, rather than give in to the demands of a vociferous minority, within a minority!