[4] The review recognised that in order to improve outcomes for vulnerable children, agencies need to intervene earlier, in a better and more integrated way in response to identified needs and risks, and not when a threshold is reached to trigger action.
[7] The Lanarkshire pathfinder reported that GIRFEC had led to a sharper focus on the needs of the child and had also helped a culture of shared responsibility among education, health and social work.
[8] Implementation of GIRFEC has included some change management elements, with a programme designed to achieve some consistency around meeting the needs of – and improving outcomes for – all children and young people in Scotland.
[10] In July 2012, details of a bill were announced that included embedding the GIRFEC approach in a single system of planning and delivery across children's services[11] A 12-week period of consultation followed and many organisations and individuals submitted responses.
[15] Criticism of the Named Person requirement has been aired in some press,[16][17] newspaper columns,[18] and by home educators,[19] churches, various opposition MSPs and lawyers.
Lord Carloway also dismissed the concerns raised by the campaign group saying "It [the creation of a Named Person] has no effect whatsoever on the legal, moral or social relationships within the family.
[27] A panel of experts was subsequently set up by then-Education Secretary John Swinney to make the policy compatible with the court's ruling, but it concluded that it could not produce a workable code of practice on information-sharing.