Hansard

Liberal Democrats have always supported the getting it right for every child policy. That is not surprising, because it touches on elements of Liberal philosophy that are dear to us. One element of that is the idea of concentrating the solution to a social problem on the individual and building that solution upwards rather than creating a solution for the cohort, because doing that would not get the right answer.

I congratulate Parliament's most recent father, Jamie Hepburn. I do not wish to discourage him, but I must make an observation. For those of us who had the benefit of a good upbringing and who enjoyed support from our parents and others, and who brought up our own children with that background, the phrase "cutting the umbilical cord" is a bit of a myth. However, for those who have not had the benefit of such a background, cutting the umbilical cord is not just an act that takes place at birth: it is the removal of the very necessary support that is so vital to children. That is why we are having this debate.

I discern no disagreement on the GIRFEC principles in the chamber at all; our concerns are about how we take GIRFEC forward and what lessons must be learned, even from the pilots and some of the reports that have been mentioned. The two reports that have been specifically referred to—although Duncan McNeil referred to a third—are instructive. The University of Edinburgh report refers to focusing on outcomes. I advise the minister that some organisations have given reports on outcomes to members. Organisations such as Aberlour Child Care Trust are concerned that, while getting the structures right was correct, the emphasis is perhaps too focused on process—they believe that we must consider outcomes. It is therefore welcome that the University of Edinburgh report is very much focused on outcomes in the way that Margaret Smith and Liz Smith mentioned in their opening remarks. There is much to be learned from that approach—which, of course, is wholly consonant with what the new Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning said in his speech this morning.

The HMIE report is equally vital. It makes absolutely clear to every one of us that there is no room for complacency. Although it does not specifically address all GIRFEC issues, it highlights elements that need to be addressed. I make clear to the minister the Liberal Democrats' whole-hearted and total commitment to progressing and applying GIRFEC. However, without intending to be negative, we say to him that a number of issues must be addressed and that he and the Government must satisfy Parliament on them.

We all know, of course, that GIRFEC came out of the review of the children's panel system, as a number of speakers have said. If that system is to be reformed, the Liberal Democrats want the reforms to be compliant with the European convention on human rights. However, if the drafters of the new legislation focus on the GIRFEC principles, we have great difficulty in believing that they will end up offending ECHR principles. For the life of me, I cannot see how that would be possible. I am glad that the minister has taken away the earlier, slightly misguided proposed reforms of the children's hearings system. I hope that a version will return to us soon that applies the GIRFEC principles.

Of course, the first, elementary principle of GIRFEC is the involvement of the child. Again, I say to the minister that we support that, and we know that he does. However, we should be aware that some people are rather concerned that the greater involvement of children in decisions about themselves is not entirely evident. The reports of the national residential child care initiative, which were published on Wednesday, identified that more than one third of looked after children are not aware of their care plan or what it contains. The principle of why they need that is not disputed. Evidence has been brought before us that must be addressed.

Similarly, we totally support the development of early intervention. That element has probably occupied most time in this debate. I was very interested in the remarks of my colleague Margaret Smith and of Elizabeth Smith and Ian McKee on focusing on and understanding the fact that early intervention really means early intervention—indeed, it might mean intervention in the families of individuals who are about to give birth.

The recent Scottish Children's Reporter Administration report that Duncan McNeil referred to focused on another aspect that we must be careful about. However, I am bound to say to him that we Liberal Democrats view that report as a clarion call to apply the GIRFEC principles more quickly. Duncan McNeil did not suggest that the SCRA report was a criticism of GIRFEC, but he raised a number of serious issues that need to be dealt with. Having read the SCRA report, the Minister for Children and Early Years must respond by ensuring that the GIRFEC pilots are rolled out.

Of course, early intervention must deal not only with children who live with alcohol or substance abuse but with the earlier stage, where potential parents live in such circumstances. Having that focus at the earliest possible stage is a matter of real concern.

Finally, we support Mary Scanlon's point about child and adolescent mental health services—