Chamber and committees

As I confirmed during the members’ business debate yesterday, I have not yet drafted any amendments to Liz Smith’s member’s bill. I discussed areas for potential stage 2 amendments with Liz Smith at our meeting on 1 July, at which she indicated that she would be open to a more targeted approach to funding and to changes in commencement provisions. However, I made clear to her at the time that, procedurally, we are not at the point where producing draft legal text of stage 2 amendments is appropriate and that doing so would pre-empt the decision on the financial resolution.

Absolutely. I am very keen on the SFA programme. I visited one of its projects and can say that what it delivers for targeted primary school children from low-income families, through provision of before-school, after-school and holiday activity clubs, is fantastic. As Mr Adam rightly said, last Friday we announced that we are increasing our investment in the programme to £5.5 million. That will allow the programme to increase the number of clubs that it supports from 31 to 53 and ensure that it will reach children and young people across Scotland. The programme is very important because, as we are aware, families and children have different needs so taking a one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate. Understanding that will be absolutely instrumental as we work towards establishing a system for school-age childcare in future.

Recently, an annual impact report on the programme was published, which highlighted the improved outcomes for children who participate, and particularly for those from families on low incomes. That is one of two publications; a more detailed process evaluation report will be published soon, which will explore some of the themes that came out of the first report, such as tackling child poverty, improving school attendance and achieving improved outcomes for children.

I really encourage any members who have not visited one of the projects to do so, because they are fantastic. The children and young people who spoke to me at the one that I visited said that they were having a fantastic time, so expanding the programme is a very positive move.

In relation to the specific example that Mr FitzPatrick has raised around the provision of 24/7 childcare, cost is an issue. However, we are trying to provide, understand and build that system of flexible childcare through the actions that we are taking, some of which I have already alluded to, such as the early adopter work and the extra time programme.

One of the key priorities in relation to the 1,140 hours expansion was flexibility and ensuring that parents were able to access the childcare that they required and for it to fit around their working life or whatever their needs might be. I have already alluded to the point that no family is the same and that one size does not fit all in relation to that issue. A system to evaluate our ELC 1,140-hours expansion will be published later in December this year, but before I go on to that, I should say that although flexibility is one of the keys of the 1,140 hours expansion, we know that we have further to go to ensure that all parents have the ability to access that flexible childcare. Many issues impact on that flexibility—for example, our rural and island communities face different challenges—so a number of factors need to be considered.

We are taking action in several different ways. I have already spoken about some of the pilot projects, and we are also looking at how to overcome some of the barriers and challenges for rural and island communities. A number of things are in progress that will help with that issue. However, for us to understand how that flexibility is playing out on the ground overall, our evaluation later in the year of the 1,140 hours expansion will be absolutely key, as it might allow us to build on some of the actions that we are already taking to try to ensure that parents have that access.

I do not know whether I could say that I would be wholly satisfied with that, but it would be significant progress and very helpful.

As I say, at the moment, I would just like those meetings to take place. I have relayed that to Ms Smith in correspondence. I will consider the position once those conversations have taken place.

The Scottish Government will set out our position on the financial resolution in due course. However, I emphasise what I said earlier to, I believe, Mr Ross: I feel that our conversations on this matter have been extremely productive. We have moved forward a lot from where we were at the stage 1 debate, and I will continue to have those discussions with Ms Smith.

In a moment I will bring in Andrew Watson to speak about those obligations. I say to Ms Duncan-Glancy that I have heard about that issue frequently, and not just in Glasgow. I know about the specific issue that she raises with me. Concerns have been raised about that by stakeholders across the school-age childcare sector.

We are doing work on the regulation of school-age childcare, and we are trying to take a more balanced approach to allow for a system in which both those alternate models can work together. We do not want a situation in which providers are displaced. As I made clear to Mr Adam, we want to ensure that the school-age childcare systems that we have in place now benefit us in terms of the learning that we take from them and, most importantly, that they provide good experiences for children and young people and support families who are part of our country’s workforce.

I am actively involved in looking at the regulation of the sector, and I am considering whether we can strike a more balanced approach in some areas. I will bring in Andrew Watson to elaborate on that.

I can tell Mr Mason that, although I cannot disclose the contents of the bill at the moment, that has been considered in the process of its introduction. However, I am aware of the calls from Who Cares?, from care-experienced children and young people, and from other organisations that are involved, and I will be happy to discuss the contents of the bill—

It seems, from the correspondence between a specific local authority and the Government, that there has been some level of miscommunication. However, the Scottish Government has written to that local authority to set out the guidance more clearly and to overcome that miscommunication. I believe that we are waiting on the local authority reaching out further.

I and the First Minister have been clear in the chamber that we are further reviewing the guidance. At the moment, we are ensuring that local authorities are aware of the guidance as it currently stands.

Mr Adam raises a really important point. I have said a lot about the delivery of the Promise. We will not deliver that in isolation: we will need a joint approach between the national and UK Governments and we must work with UK Government colleagues, local government and our third sector.

We are taking a number of different approaches to ensure that we have that joint approach. For example, at Government level, we have a Cabinet sub-committee on the Promise, which includes ministerial colleagues who have a relevant interest, to ensure that everyone is aware of the actions that are being taken within their own remits. I recently met Paul McLennan, the Minister for Housing, to discuss housing issues in relation to delivering the Promise.

In relation to local authorities, the Promise progress framework will be instrumental in understanding how we are keeping the Promise and I welcome the oversight board’s recognition of that. That framework has been developed by COSLA, the Scottish Government and The Promise Scotland, with input from a range of key stakeholders, including Who Cares? Scotland, CELCIS and a number of other organisations.

To go back to my first point, this is the first step in understanding progress in relation to what is being delivered, by whom and how we are working together to deliver on the aims. There will be a number of actions that we can take from that, and a range of learning.

I have met UK Government colleagues to discuss different aspects of the Promise. We are, obviously, on quite separate journeys, but it is important to discuss that because it relates to a number of approaches that are being taken by the UK Government and we must be aware of those areas. It is relevant to ensure that we are talking to each other because of issues such as cross-border placements in secure care.

Finally, I draw members’ attention to the progress with, and success of, the whole family wellbeing fund. Mr Adam will be aware that that provides funding to children’s services planning partnerships in local areas to encourage a joined-up approach so that local authorities are working with relevant partners and key stakeholders. There can even be barriers to having departments within local authorities speaking to each other at times, but the whole family wellbeing fund has really helped to transform and embed approaches, which is key.

I thank Mr Adam for that question, because it is really important to place on record the importance of having a joined-approach to delivering on the Promise.