Heather Bellamy spoke with Ciarán Kelly, the Head of Communications at The Christian Institute, about the implications of the Supreme Court ruling against the Scottish Named Person Scheme.

Ciarán: Absolutely historic, yes. This is the first time that the Supreme Court has struck down, in such a broad fashion anyway, any legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament. People bandy about the term 'historic' in every which way these days, but this is an example of a truly historic judgement.

Heather: What does this mean for the Named Person Scheme now?

Ciarán: Well, if you believe the Scottish Government, you would say not very much. They seem set on suggesting that there's just a bit of tweaking around the edges to do, but that's not the case at all. What the Supreme Court have told the Scottish Government to do is to go and rework the central plank of their legislation and they've been given some time to go and work this out again. So essentially that means taking this back to the drawing board.

To use an analogy, the Supreme Court have told the Scottish Government that the car that they've produced, this Named Person car, needs a new engine, it needs a new gear box. The Scottish Government is talking about doing an oil change.

It's quite clear that the real guts of this scheme are now history. What the Scottish Government may well do, they might choose to continue with something which they call a Named Person scheme, but the real heart of the scheme as had been legislated for, is now history. They cannot go through the data sharing mechanisms that they were seeking to do. There might be a voluntary scheme, there might be some sort of continuation of the Named Person name, but the real heart of it has gone.

Heather: The Named Person Scheme had already been trialled in certain parts of Scotland. That's obviously now been ruled as unlawful, so could legal action be brought against those councils by parents in those areas who've been affected already?

Ciarán: Yes, it's entirely possible. If any councils, health authorities, or public bodies, in the course of carrying out any version of this Named Person Scheme, have not been complying with data protection. If they have been sharing around the confidential data of parents, children and families, then they are likely to be found to be in breach of the law and legal action is entirely possible.

We are aware of a number of families who have approached us and are taking legal advice on just that. There should be real cause for concern in Scotland, in terms of potential legal actions.

Heather: Will this ruling affect any future laws and Government schemes in Scotland, or in the UK as a whole?

Ciaran: Well, the Supreme Court has certainly put down a marker with this really quite unprecedented strength of judgement. Just to remind you again, though this is in the context of when they are talking about Article 8 in the Convention, what they said, is the first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get at the children, "To distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families and indoctrinate them in their ruler's view of the world. Within limits, families must be left to bring up their children in their own way." That is very strong stuff.

While they are not saying that in Scotland you have a totalitarian regime, there's a real pause for thought there, for any instance in the future, if a Government tries to circumvent Human Rights law, in order to bring in flagship policies of any kind.

The Scottish Government, one would hope, has learnt from this, but the ramifications of this go beyond Scotland.