Chamber and committees

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?

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?

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?

That was very helpful.

We are particularly interested in the issue of employability and the extent to which the provision of 1,140 hours has taken people back into the workforce. We have some interim data on those going back to work, particularly on women—especially mothers—and, from some of the tables that we have been provided with, there is a bit of a sense of a drop-off in people returning to the workforce when their child turns three. There is also a slight increase in people going part-time—in other words, changing their working patterns to accommodate the childcare offer instead of the other way round. Have any of the panel members done any analysis, ahead of the summer 2024 report, to look at what the impact on three and four-year-olds has been?

Do you want me to move on to question theme 2 and blend the two together, convener? It follows quite naturally.

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

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?

John Taylor, you mentioned the current challenges with regard to interaction with local authorities, particularly around housing supply, and you said that wider dispersal will exacerbate those issues. Is the challenge with local authorities about what is available, or is it about how Mears chooses to interact with them? There have been a number of high-profile cases, which I think we would all recognise and which have been particularly concerning. Is it your view that the problem is with the interaction with local authorities?