And that partly explains the whole enormous mess-up, doesn't it?
You are not acknowledging that the role of the Named Person would have been much wider than you have told us. Very much not just a matter of forwarding reports on to Social Work Services - a far more active role, with parents and children invited to contact the named person for information and support if they felt it was needed. Which is why it was anticipated that this role would be carried out by a professional like a teacher or a health visitor, rather than an admin clerk. And of course that person would have had full access to all confidential reports about the child - everything would have been sent to them. And at their discretion they would have had the right to pass that information on to people in the child's life, like their GP and their school.
The legislation was blocked by the Supreme Court, because it breached families' human rights to privacy and family life (European human rights). However, John Swinney said that the scheme would go ahead despite the Supreme Court judgement - he tried to amend the faulty legislation. That was blocked by Holyrood's education committee, who refused to move the legislation along until they saw a draft code of practice for Named Persons. Swinney complained that producing a code of practice for Named Persons would delay things. And then - guess what - producing a code of practice for Named Persons turned out to be an impossible task. The idea was dropped.
But not completely - voluntary schemes are in place in parts of Scotland. If you have a look at how these work, it's clear that there is contact between the child and the Named Person.
"Once a wellbeing need has been brought to the attention of the named person, it is their responsibility to work together with the child, young person and their family, and other agencies if needed, to explore what support could be provided to address the identified wellbeing needs... There may be situations where a child, young person and family no longer wish to continue to work with the individual who has been offered as their named person and will seek someone else to undertake that role." (That's from the Scottish Government's website)
So it's certainly not a matter of collecting pieces of paper and sending them on.
Are these the hallmarks of an SNP policy? - huge overreach and disregard for citizens' rights, a belief that they are more intelligent, more right and more moral than everyone else, an assumption that they would make such a massive scheme work, despite their history of failing at even basic projects, trying to rush things through, avoiding or fudging inconvenient but hugely important things like a code of practice for Named Persons, losing at the Supreme Court but trying to go ahead with the scheme anyway, never accepting that they've got things wrong. And such a massive inability to imagine the probable unintended consequences, including the abuse of children.
NB. I've got the facts from 1) the BBC and 2) the Scottish Government.