Judges will rule whether the Scottish Government's controversial named person policy is legal next week, as the Supreme Court publishes the outcome of a final appeal against the law.
The case brought by the Christian Institute and three other charities was heard by five senior judges over two days in March after the groups claimed it amounted to an unjustified interference with family rights.
However their argument that the Scottish Government had exceeded its powers was rejected at the court of session which dismissed the claims of campaigners in January 2015 and described them as "hyperbole" when their appeal failed in September last year.
The law providing each child in Scotland with a named person to safeguard their wellbeing comes into effect on August 31st. The Scottish Government had begun to make provisions for delaying the scheme if a ruling had not been received before the Supreme Court takes its summer break next month. But if the appeal is rejected when the judges rule on Thursday, it is now expected to go ahead, with health visitors and headteachers primarily responsible for acting as named persons to children assigned to them. The Scottish Government said last night that ministers would not speculate ahead of the outcome and would comment once the Supreme Court's decision is known.
The Christian Institute's Director Colin Hart said: “We have long argued that the scheme breaches laws protecting privacy and contravenes the rights of both parents and children.
“The Scottish Government is rightly concerned about child protection, but by undermining parents it is going about it in completely the wrong way. A universal scheme is fatally flawed.
“If the scheme is given the go-ahead, fewer vulnerable children will get the help they need, and more innocent families face unwarranted state intrusion.”
Simon Calvert, spokesman for the No to Named Persons campaign, said:
"This will clearly be a vitally important day. Five judges including two from Scotland conducted a forensic examination of the complex issues and we await their determination with anticipation."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here