This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jul/28/scotland-child-named-person-ruled-unlawful-supreme-court
The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 4 | Version 5 |
|---|---|
| Scottish plan for every child to have 'named person' breaches rights | Scottish plan for every child to have 'named person' breaches rights |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| Judges at the supreme court have ruled that the Scottish government’s controversial “named person” scheme for supporting children risks breaching rights to privacy and a family life under the European convention on human rights, and thus overreaches the legislative competence of the Holyrood parliament. | Judges at the supreme court have ruled that the Scottish government’s controversial “named person” scheme for supporting children risks breaching rights to privacy and a family life under the European convention on human rights, and thus overreaches the legislative competence of the Holyrood parliament. |
| The supreme court has given the Scottish government 42 days to correct the defects in the legislation, which has been described as a snoopers’ charter by family rights campaigners, but said that it recognised that the aims of the scheme were “unquestionably legitimate and benign”. | The supreme court has given the Scottish government 42 days to correct the defects in the legislation, which has been described as a snoopers’ charter by family rights campaigners, but said that it recognised that the aims of the scheme were “unquestionably legitimate and benign”. |
| The scheme, which is part of the SNP government’s Getting It Right for Every Child framework, provides children with access to a named person such as a health worker or teacher who acts as a single point of contact. It aims to help parents access services and to identify those children in need of protection. But critics fear it erodes parental rights and will detract from targeted interventions for high-risk children. | The scheme, which is part of the SNP government’s Getting It Right for Every Child framework, provides children with access to a named person such as a health worker or teacher who acts as a single point of contact. It aims to help parents access services and to identify those children in need of protection. But critics fear it erodes parental rights and will detract from targeted interventions for high-risk children. |
| The five judges ruled that information-sharing provisions proposed by the scheme might result in disproportionate interference with article 8 rights under the ECHR, and that as presently drafted they risked breaching important regulations protecting privacy and confidentiality. They also expressed concern at the lack of safeguards that would enable the proportionality of an interference with article 8 rights to be adequately examined. | The five judges ruled that information-sharing provisions proposed by the scheme might result in disproportionate interference with article 8 rights under the ECHR, and that as presently drafted they risked breaching important regulations protecting privacy and confidentiality. They also expressed concern at the lack of safeguards that would enable the proportionality of an interference with article 8 rights to be adequately examined. |
| In the 48-page judgment, the court said: “It is thus perfectly possible that information, including confidential information concerning a child or young person’s state of health (for example, as to contraception, pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease), could be disclosed … to a wide range of public authorities without either the child or young person or her parents being aware of the interference with their article 8 rights, and in circumstances in which there was no objectively compelling reason for the failure to ascertain and have regard to their views.” | In the 48-page judgment, the court said: “It is thus perfectly possible that information, including confidential information concerning a child or young person’s state of health (for example, as to contraception, pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease), could be disclosed … to a wide range of public authorities without either the child or young person or her parents being aware of the interference with their article 8 rights, and in circumstances in which there was no objectively compelling reason for the failure to ascertain and have regard to their views.” |
| The court ruled that information-sharing provisions did not meet the article 8 criterion of being “in accordance with the law”, and were therefore not within the legislative competence of the Scottish parliament and could not be brought into force as they stand. | |
| The Scottish government pledged to start work immediately on the necessary amendments to the legislation, which forms part of the Children and Young People Act 2014, insisting that its aim remained to implement the scheme nationally as soon as possible. | The Scottish government pledged to start work immediately on the necessary amendments to the legislation, which forms part of the Children and Young People Act 2014, insisting that its aim remained to implement the scheme nationally as soon as possible. |
| The supreme court challenge was brought by the NO2NP campaign, a coalition which includes the Christian Institute, Care (Christian Action Research and Education) and the Family Education Trust. | The supreme court challenge was brought by the NO2NP campaign, a coalition which includes the Christian Institute, Care (Christian Action Research and Education) and the Family Education Trust. |
| Their arguments had previously been dismissed as “hyperbole” by the court of session in Edinburgh, which said named persons did not diminish the role of parents and had “no effect whatsoever on the legal, moral or social relationships within the family”. | Their arguments had previously been dismissed as “hyperbole” by the court of session in Edinburgh, which said named persons did not diminish the role of parents and had “no effect whatsoever on the legal, moral or social relationships within the family”. |
| Responding to the judgment, the deputy first minister, John Swinney, insisted that the the court had made it clear that “the principle of providing a named person to support children and families does not breach human rights”. | Responding to the judgment, the deputy first minister, John Swinney, insisted that the the court had made it clear that “the principle of providing a named person to support children and families does not breach human rights”. |
| Related: Named person scheme is yet more SNP big brother | Kevin McKenna | Related: Named person scheme is yet more SNP big brother | Kevin McKenna |
| Swinney added: “The court’s ruling requires us to provide greater clarity about the basis on which health visitors, teachers and other professionals supporting families will share and receive information in their named person role. We will start work on this immediately so we can make the necessary legislative amendments. The service will be implemented nationally at the earliest possible date.” | Swinney added: “The court’s ruling requires us to provide greater clarity about the basis on which health visitors, teachers and other professionals supporting families will share and receive information in their named person role. We will start work on this immediately so we can make the necessary legislative amendments. The service will be implemented nationally at the earliest possible date.” |
| The campaigners who brought the legal action described the ruling as a vindication. Responding to the judgment, Colin Hart, director of the Christian Institute, said: “We all accept the good intentions behind this law but a universal data-gathering scheme like this was always going to cause major problems. We are very happy with today’s ruling, which vindicates what we and others have been saying for years. | The campaigners who brought the legal action described the ruling as a vindication. Responding to the judgment, Colin Hart, director of the Christian Institute, said: “We all accept the good intentions behind this law but a universal data-gathering scheme like this was always going to cause major problems. We are very happy with today’s ruling, which vindicates what we and others have been saying for years. |
| “This strong endorsement of family autonomy will be welcomed by families all across the UK, including Christian families, who sometimes sense a creeping intolerance from government officials.” | “This strong endorsement of family autonomy will be welcomed by families all across the UK, including Christian families, who sometimes sense a creeping intolerance from government officials.” |
| The Scottish Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson, who promised during May’s Holyrood election campaign to repeal the named person provision as a matter of priority, said that the ruling was a victory for campaigners. “Simply put, the SNP does not know better than parents when it comes to raising their children. We have consistently argued against the named person legislation on grounds of principle and practicality. I hope today’s ruling will make the SNP stop and think again. | The Scottish Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson, who promised during May’s Holyrood election campaign to repeal the named person provision as a matter of priority, said that the ruling was a victory for campaigners. “Simply put, the SNP does not know better than parents when it comes to raising their children. We have consistently argued against the named person legislation on grounds of principle and practicality. I hope today’s ruling will make the SNP stop and think again. |
| “If the Scottish government arrogantly tries to implement this anyway – as it has threatened to do – it will face a heavy reckoning from Scottish parents who rightly want to be able to raise their children without state interference.” | “If the Scottish government arrogantly tries to implement this anyway – as it has threatened to do – it will face a heavy reckoning from Scottish parents who rightly want to be able to raise their children without state interference.” |
| Martin Crewe, director of Barnardo’s Scotland, welcomed the news that the scheme would go ahead following the ruling: “The court was clear that there needs to be sufficient safeguards on when information is shared. It has also identified that there needs to be clearer guidance for professionals working with the legislation to ensure that they are able to effectively assess when to share information.” | Martin Crewe, director of Barnardo’s Scotland, welcomed the news that the scheme would go ahead following the ruling: “The court was clear that there needs to be sufficient safeguards on when information is shared. It has also identified that there needs to be clearer guidance for professionals working with the legislation to ensure that they are able to effectively assess when to share information.” |
| Crewe added: “We look forward to working with the Scottish government and other stakeholders to ensure the named person service works effectively to support children and young people in Scotland. We are also encouraged by the court’s recognition that early intervention is a central element of the effective operation of the named person role.” | Crewe added: “We look forward to working with the Scottish government and other stakeholders to ensure the named person service works effectively to support children and young people in Scotland. We are also encouraged by the court’s recognition that early intervention is a central element of the effective operation of the named person role.” |