Chamber and committees

Do any of the other members of the panel want to make a broad comment on the key principles?

Before I go on to the next section, I should probably draw colleagues’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests as a former education convener at East Renfrewshire Council.

We are now looking towards expansion. The new First Minister has made statements about expansion of provision for one and two-year-olds. Matthew Sweeney referenced the programme for government, and I am keen to understand the challenges in that, particularly because it commands a lot of support from across the Parliament. Often, the challenge in a lot of this is about getting the right amount of flexibility to allow parents to go back to work.

Flexibility brings with it a big cost, because we have to be able to provide a blended model or the physical space to accommodate lots of children and young people. Again, I am looking at Matthew Sweeney to speak from the local authority perspective, but I am also keen to hear from other providers about what will be required to allow expansion to the most flexible options for one and two-year-olds.

I have been speaking to people in local authorities who have told me that that could mean 10 new buildings, which means a huge capital cost. One and two-year-olds have different needs to those of three and four-year-olds. For example, they have to sleep if they are in all day. What modelling have you been doing on that?

I thank Jonathan Broadbery for that response.

I want to find out about witnesses’ reflections on the impact on one and two-year-olds, and then I will move on to speak about expansion—thanks to the convener’s indulgence.

The uptake for the most vulnerable one and two-year-olds in our communities is only 52 per cent. That is a concerning figure, given the determination to support people back into work in our communities. Can witnesses reflect on where the 52 per cent figure has come from and why the uptake has been low? Also, Matthew Sweeney, can you say what councils are doing to encourage parents to take that offer up?

Good morning. I am keen to begin with what is quite a broad question about the impact of the 1,140 hours of funded childcare. What are the key lessons that have been learned from the expansion? Obviously, there will be a full report in the summer of 2024, but we are keen to get a sense of the lessons that have been learned thus far. Matthew Sweeney, would you like to start?

That was very helpful.

I have a brief question on international examples. Professor Miller mentioned Finland, which was helpful, but I think that the committee would find it useful to reflect on where else in the world this has happened and what the outcomes have been. The documentation refers to Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Colombia and Brazil and the variety of ways in which justice is accessed in those nations, but are there any other examples that we should be focusing on?

We have touched on some of this already. I am particularly interested in how we monitor and scrutinise the minimum core obligations and in what the Parliament’s role would be in that. Is there a role for the Parliament? Should parliamentary committees scrutinise whether organisations are meeting the minimum requirements? We have heard suggestions about local authorities and it is crucial to think about the Scottish Government. Who holds the Government to account and checks whether it is meeting its obligations? In connection with that, what indicators would you measure Government or public bodies against? I appreciate that that is quite a wide-ranging question, but I am keen to know what our role should be.

Does anyone else want to add anything? That was very helpful. This and other committees of the Parliament, absolutely have a scrutiny role and a responsibility to ensure that legislation is compatible.

I suppose that my question is partly about what happens when targets or standards are not met. In a parliamentary democracy, it can often be difficult to enforce those, if I can use that word, because of the nature of majorities. Would the courts be the place where much of that would be done, rather than the Parliament? Alternatively, is there a role for a commissioner within the Parliament or the Scottish Human Rights Commission to have those powers of redress, I suppose, and to deal with significant issues when they arise?

To ask the Scottish Government what support it provides to retired carers. (S6T-01394)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. Yesterday, BBC Scotland reported some very troubling accounts of carers who reached retirement age only to find themselves facing the rise in the cost of living without any substantial support.

As a result of dedicating their lives to caring for a family member or a loved one, many unpaid carers miss out on a workplace pension—something that many other people have and rely on in old age.

The Scottish Government has said that we can now expect the new carer support payment to be introduced later in 2023 with a roll-out in 2024, but does the cabinet secretary agree that the process of rolling out that new carer payment has been too slow? Does she agree that the Scottish Government should be acting with all urgency to introduce a fairer payments system to prevent unpaid carers from falling into poverty?

I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate, and I thank Jackson Carlaw for bringing the issue to the chamber. As he mentioned in his opening speech, it is a hyper-local issue but could perhaps have far-reaching effects across West Scotland more generally.

It is great to be talking about East Renfrewshire Good Causes in the chamber. It is an organisation that I, being an East Renfrewshire boy, know well. Having spent much time, like Jackson Carlaw, working in our community, I know that the charity is well thought of across East Renfrewshire. Most importantly, it has attracted consensus across the political divide. That can often be hard to achieve in East Renfrewshire, but it is remarkable to see the amount of support that there is for the work that Russell and Yvonne Macmillan have done over many years.

As I was sitting here, I was reflecting on the times when we come together across political lines to mark the sad passing of Jo Cox. In the great get together, we reflect on her words:

“we ... have ... more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 3 June 2015; Vol 596, c 675.]

I think that that gets to the heart of what we are talking about with regard to East Renfrewshire Good Causes.

The work that Russell has done, which is rooted in his faith, is about finding our commonality and our shared humanity, and recognising the fact that all of us, at different times in our lives, experience adversity and often need the helping hands of neighbours and friends to get us through. We have heard some practical examples of the way in which Russell and East Renfrewshire Good Causes have, as good neighbours and good friends, reached out and supported so many people in all the communities of East Renfrewshire.

It was good to hear Jackson Carlaw refer to the support for the organisation across the local council. When I was a councillor in East Renfrewshire, my colleague Councillor Alan Lafferty—now a former councillor—was very supportive of the charity’s work. I know that, as well as Jackson Carlaw, Paul Masterton, the former Conservative member of Parliament; Kirsten Oswald, the current Scottish National Party MP; and Jim Murphy and Ken Macintosh—names from Labour’s past—were all supportive of that work, which, again, shows the breadth and depth of the support in the community.

However, it goes far beyond that, because it is about the people in our community as well. In preparing for the debate, I reflected on some of the cases in which the organisation has made the most difference. Back in 2009, a young girl from Netherlee with cerebral palsy, who was a wheelchair user, was able, using a power-assisted walking frame, to stand upright and gain her independence and travel to different places. Without the technology and the equipment, she would have been unable to do that. It was East Renfrewshire Good Causes that came to the aid of that family by providing money towards that facility, enabling her to get her own standing frame, which increased her independence and cut down her reliance on others.

I also reflected on the amount of work that East Renfrewshire Good Causes does for young people, in concert with our local schools, and I thought that I would share a testimonial that I read from the depute headteacher of Mearns primary school. She said:

“East Renfrewshire Good Causes charity never fails to bring about positive change in our community. Without their support and contributions, it would not be possible for some of our pupils to participate in activities with their peers.”

Likewise, the manager of the East Renfrewshire Carers Centre offered a testimonial. He said:

“East Renfrewshire Good Causes is a true friend of the Carers’ Centre and has over a number of years supported many carers to purchase vital equipment without which their caring role and life generally would be much harder.”

Those are two excellent examples of community testimonials about the difference that East Renfrewshire Good Causes makes to many people across the area.

I know that Russell Macmillan’s reason for starting East Renfrewshire Good Causes was to say thank you in terms of his life experience and the gift that he was given. It is important that we, in this chamber—and the community in East Renfrewshire—all take the opportunity to say thank you very publicly in the Parliament to Russell, Yvonne and all those who are involved in and who support the work of the charity for everything that they have done and will continue to do not only in East Renfrewshire but beyond its borders, and we must also, once again, offer them our support in all of that work.