Chamber and committees

Very productive conversations about the bill are on-going with Ms Smith, and I will arrange another meeting with her—as long as she is happy with that—prior to the summer recess.

I assure Mr Mason that we have been working at pace, because I am aware that recess is a long period during which we might be more limited in what we can do. I have been trying to be as proactive as possible before recess.

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.

I do not think that it would be appropriate to negotiate. I certainly would not class that as appropriate for either myself or the member in charge. However, as I have said in my correspondence with Ms Smith, it is appropriate for her to engage with COSLA and trade unions so that she has more of an understanding of some of the bill’s implications and is able to relay that to the Government. However, I do not think that it would be appropriate to negotiate.

Sorry, Andrew, I was going to bring you in on childminding; I was too busy chatting.

I do not think that I am going to say anything that I have not said before to Ms Smith, but she raises a valid point. I am very much in favour of leveraging private finance to support or supplement public finance; as far as I am concerned—and I believe that my colleagues will feel the same—it is definitely a possibility, especially in relation to outdoor education. There are private financiers who would welcome the opportunity to invest in that sort of thing.

If we are talking about putting in place, say, a public trust model or some other approach that we have looked at before to directly finance something that has been put on a statutory footing, where that funding would have to be guaranteed on a year-by-year basis, that will pose some difficulties. That said, as my colleagues and I have alluded to, there are definitely opportunities in that respect in relation to outdoor education.

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 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—

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.