Scotland's plan to implement a "named person" scheme to protect children has been blocked by judges at the Supreme Court, who say the plan risks breaching the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The case was brought by a coalition of charities, including some Christian groups, which argued the proposals would empower "state snoopers" and represented "unjustified and unjustifiable state interference with family rights".
Under the plan, which was passed unanimously by the Scottish Parliament in 2014, every child in Scotland would be allocated a named individual to ensure his or her wellbeing from birth to 18.
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
SUBSCRIBE & SAVE
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
Latest Videos FromThe Week
That person, usually a health visitor or teacher, would be a point of contact for the child or its parents for information or advice. They would also act as a central coordinator for the various agencies, schools or police forces that might interact with the child.
Critics argued the proposals eroded the rights of parents, says The Guardian, and feared that rather than targeting high-risk children, the plan would spread resources thinly across people who may never need them.
The judges did not reject the scheme, saying it was "unquestionably legitimate and benign", but instead gave the Scottish government 42 days to correct aspects of the legislation.
They added that the information-sharing provisions, which would allow the named individual to coordinate agencies, risked violating the ECHR and were therefore "not within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament".
The judgement said it was "perfectly possible" that "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… rights".
Both sides have claimed the result as a victory. The No to Named Persons coalition said the judgement proved its concerns were "properly founded".
"This ruling means the Scottish government… must scrap its plan for state snoopers with intrusive data sharing powers. It has to go back to the legislative drawing board. The Big Brother scheme is history," said a spokesman.
But the SNP's John Swinney said the court had made it clear "the principle of providing a named person to support children and families does not breach human rights".
The Scottish government said it would set about rewriting and expanding the legislation in line with the judgement and the scheme would go ahead at a later date.
