The Christian Institute and Others v Scottish Ministers
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lady Hale,Lord Reed,Lord Hodge,Lord Wilson,Lord Hughes |
| Judgment Date | 28 July 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] UKSC 51 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Scotland) |
| Date | 28 July 2016 |
[2016] UKSC 51
Lady Hale, Deputy President
Lord Wilson
Lord Reed
Lord Hughes
Lord Hodge
Appellants
Aidan O'Neill QC
Laura-Anne van der Westhuizen
(Instructed by Balfour & Manson)
Respondent
W James Wolffe QC
Christine O'Neill
(Instructed by Solicitor to the Scottish Ministers)
Intervener (Community Law Advice Network)
Ailsa Carmichael QC
(Instructed by Community Law Advice Network)
Heard on 8 and 9 March 2016
Lady Hale, Lord Reed AND (with whom Lord Wilson and Lord Hughes agree)
This appeal concerns the question whether the provisions of Part 4 of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 lie within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. Before considering the issues that arise (summarised in para 26 below), it is helpful to begin with an account of the background to the legislation. A suitable starting point is the consultation paper, "A Scotland for Children", published by the Scottish Government in July 2012. In general terms, two ideas underlay many of the proposals. The first was a shift away from intervention by public authorities after a risk to children's and young people's welfare had been identified, to an emphasis on early intervention to promote their wellbeing, understood as including all the factors that could affect their development. The second was a shift away from a legal structure under which the duties of statutory bodies to cooperate with one another (under, for example, section 13 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 and section 21 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995) were linked to the performance of their individual functions, to ensuring that they work collaboratively and share relevant information so that "all relevant public services can support the whole wellbeing of children and young people" (para 73). In that regard, the consultation paper stated that it was "essential that information is shared not only in response to a crisis or serious occurrence but, in many cases, information should be shared about relevant changes in a child's and young person's life". There was, however, "no commonly agreed process for routine information sharing about concerns about wellbeing" (para 110). The establishment of a new professional role, that of named person, was proposed in order to address those concerns (para 111).
On its introduction in April 2013, the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill was accompanied by a Policy Memorandum which was similar in content to the consultation paper. It stated, in relation to named persons:
"They can monitor what children and young people need, within the context of their professional responsibilities, link with the relevant services that can help them, and be a single point of contact for services that children and families can use, if they wish. The named person is in a position to intervene early to prevent difficulties escalating. The role offers a way for children and young people to make sense of a complicated service environment as well as a way to prevent any problems or challenges they are facing in their lives remaining unaddressed due to professional service boundaries." (para 68)
The Bill aimed to ensure that every child in Scotland had a named person (para 70). It provided for a wide-ranging duty on all relevant public authorities to cooperate with the named person in the conduct of their duties. This would be of particular importance in the area of information sharing, since the "role of the named person will depend on the successful sharing of information between relevant public authorities" (para 73).
The memorandum explained that concern had been expressed about the existing legal framework for information sharing. This was felt to be confusing and potentially insufficient to enable the role of the named person to operate as well as anticipated. In particular, there were concerns regarding sharing information about children where consent was not given (para 75). The memorandum continued:
"Currently, information about a child may be shared where the child is at a significant risk of harm. However, the role of the named person is based on the idea that information on less critical concerns about a child's wellbeing must be shared if a full picture of their wellbeing is to be put together and if action is to be taken to prevent these concerns developing into more serious issues. Without the necessary power to share that kind of information, the named person will not be able to act as effectively as is intended … Specific provisions in the Bill, therefore, set out arrangements on information sharing, to give professionals and named persons the power to share information about those concerns." (paras 76–77)
It appears, therefore, that one of the principal purposes of Part 4, as envisaged at that stage, was to alter the existing law in relation to the sharing of information about children and young people, so as to enable information about concerns about their wellbeing, held by individual bodies, to be pooled in the hands of named persons and shared with other bodies, with the ultimate aim of promoting their wellbeing.
Part 4 of the Act begins with section 19, which defines a "named person service" as the service of making available, in relation to a child or young person, an identified individual who is to exercise the functions listed in subsection (5):
"(a) … doing such of the following where the named person considers it to be appropriate in order to promote, support or safeguard the wellbeing of the child or young person -
(i) advising, informing or supporting the child or young person, or a parent of the child or young person,
(ii) helping the child or young person, or a parent of the child or young person, to access a service or support, or
(iii) discussing, or raising, a matter about the child or young person with a service provider or relevant authority, and
(b) such other functions as are specified by this Act or any other enactment as being functions of a named person in relation to a child or young person."
In relation to section 19(5)(a)(iii), the expression "service provider" is defined by section 32 as meaning, in a context of this kind, each health board, local authority, directing authority, and the Scottish Ministers. The expression "directing authority" is defined by section 32 as meaning the managers of each grant-aided school, the proprietor of each independent school, and the local authority or other person who manages each residential establishment which comprises secure accommodation. The expression "relevant authorities" is defined by section 31 and Schedule 2 as including a wide variety of public bodies, including NHS 24, NHS National Services Scotland, the Scottish Ambulance Service Board, the Scottish Sports Council, the Scottish Police Authority, and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.
Under sections 20 and 21, responsibility for the provision of a named person service lies with health boards in relation to all pre-school children residing within their area, and generally with local authorities in relation to all other children residing within their area. There are exceptions in relation to pupils at independent and grant-aided schools, where responsibility lies with the directing authority; children kept in secure accommodation, where responsibility lies with the directing authority; children kept in custody, where responsibility lies with the Ministers; and children (as defined) who are members of the armed forces. Under section 22, named person services must also be provided in relation to all young people over 18 who remain at school. Responsibility for making provision for them in that situation lies with the local authority, except in relation to young people at independent or grantaided schools, where responsibility lies with the directing authority.
Section 23 deals with the communication of information following a change in the identity of the service provider in relation to a child or young person (defined by section 32, in this context, as meaning the person whose function it is to make arrangements for the provision of a named person service in relation to the child or young person). That will occur, for example, when a child first goes to school, and the service provider ceases to be the health board and becomes the local authority or directing authority, or when a child goes from a local authority school to an independent or grant-aided school, and the service provider ceases to be the local authority and becomes the directing authority of the school. In terms of section 23(2)(b), the outgoing service provider must provide the incoming service provider with:
"(i) the name and address of the child or young person and each parent of the child or young person (so far as the outgoing service provider has that information), and
(ii) all information which the outgoing service provider holds which falls within subsection (3)."
Information falls within section 23(3) if the outgoing service provider considers that:
"(a) it is likely to be relevant to -
(i) the exercise by the incoming service provider of any functions of a service provider under this Part, or
(ii) the future exercise of the named person functions in relation to the child or young person,
(b) it ought to be provided for that purpose, and
(c) its provision would not prejudice the conduct of a criminal investigation or the prosecution of any offence."
In considering for the purpose of section 23(3)(b) whether information ought to be provided, the outgoing service provider is, so far as reasonably practicable, to ascertain and have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...with Article 8 rights.” Furthermore, I bear in mind what was said by the Supreme Court in Christian Institute v Lord Advocate [2016] UKSC 51 at paragraph 88: “This court has explained that an ab ante challenge to the validity of legislation on the basis of a lack of proportionality faces a......
- R (on the application of Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police (Information Commissioner and Others intervening)
-
Keatings v Advocate General for Scotland
...2019 SCLR 1028; [2020] AC 373; [2019] 3 WLR 589; [2019] 4 All ER 299; The Times, 14 October 2019 Christian Institute v Lord Advocate [2016] UKSC 51; 2017 SC (UKSC) 29; 2016 SLT 805; 2016 SCLR 448; [2016] HRLR 19; [2016] ELR 474; 19 CCL Rep 422; The Times, 26 September 2016 Craig v Advocate ......
-
The Secretary of State for the Home Department v R the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants
...Hodge JJSC (with whom Lord Wilson of Culworth and Lord Hughes of Ombersley JJSC agreed) put it in Christian Institute v Lord Advocate [2016] UKSC 51; (2017) SC (UKSC) 29: “This court has explained that an ab ante challenge to the validity of legislation on the basis of a lack of proportion......
-
Supreme Court rules Named Person scheme 'unlawful'
...votes). For the long version see the court's judgement available here: The Christian Institute and Others v The Lord Advocate (Scotland) [2016] UKSC 51. For the short version read our blog below to find out what the Named Person scheme is, what the Supreme Court said and what will happen to......