Chamber and committees

Most people are doing their best. The problems that you describe are very real. However, on our visit and in other contexts, the committee has been asked the question that Brian Inkster was alluding to: what can be done to ensure that a village does not end up with multiple abandoned crofts owned by people who may not even live in the country? For understandable reasons—I completely appreciate them, as I live in a community like that myself—you do not want people to be put in a difficult, poisonous situation.

I had hoped that the explanation would simplify matters, but I am not sure that it does.

I thank Jamie Greene for bringing this important matter to the chamber. Mr Greene’s motion begins by recognising

“the importance of funded early learning and childcare in giving every child in Scotland the best start in life”.

Scotland remains, it should be said, the only part of the UK where 1,140 hours a year of funded ELC are available to all three and four-year-olds and eligible two-year-olds, regardless of their parents’ working status. I believe that that helps to promote equality and make sure that every child accesses the same high-quality early learning foundation.

All that said, the motion notes that there are variations in the commencement date of the funded hours across local authorities. In the past few weeks, there have also been reports of some local authorities restricting funded hours to specific nurseries, including term-time-only nurseries.

Many individuals and organisations are pushing hard to ensure that local provision around the country meets demand. I can think of such organisations in my constituency, such as the Uist and Barra childcare forum and the new outdoor facility in North Uist, Otter Mountain, which just last week received its Care Inspectorate registration, allowing it to begin operating as an after-school and holiday childcare facility.

It is only right that I also acknowledge the challenges that are faced in rural and island areas, where the distances involved make it impossible for parents to shop around to access the childcare that they need. Some of the challenge is a consequence of the declining number of childminders. For instance, there are now no childminders left in Barra, Uist or Harris, and there has been a steep drop in the number of childminders in Lewis in recent years—a trend that is reflected in some other parts of the country. I have heard examples of parents having to take an interisland ferry journey daily to access a place at a nursery for their child, although that is an extreme, rather than a representative, example.

Last May, I carried out a survey among parents of young children in my constituency. Although it found that parents were making use of what was available and were grateful for it, 82 per cent of parents surveyed said that they or their partner were unable to work as many hours as they wanted because of childcare issues. Those views were reflected at a meeting that I held recently in Benbecula with parents on childcare. Solving the issue is not straightforward, but it is right that we debate it.

The countries that are often rightly cited as world leaders in childcare and pre-school education have available to them the fiscal levers of small independent countries. I respectfully suggest to those who come after me in the debate that, if we are willing to ask for substantial additional spending in this area, we must be willing either to identify the fiscal freedoms that would achieve that or to identify where in Scotland’s existing budget the money might be found.

I hope that there is a greater degree of consensus across the chamber on some of the other issues. Those include the need to ensure equity of access to funded provision across Scotland, the need to build on the good work that is already being done to boost the creation and sustaining of childminding businesses, the need for better tailoring of Care Inspectorate requirements, and the need to ensure good pay and conditions across private and local authority-run nurseries in order to strengthen Scotland’s childcare sector.

We have been speaking about data. Much of the fishing fleet is already embracing technologies such as remote electronic monitoring and catch monitoring. Would it be useful for the use of that technology to be mandatory in these sites and elsewhere?

It is on this subject.

It is the really the same issue as has been raised. You will probably have heard in the previous panel a discussion about the phrase “the best available science”. Obviously, the best available science is all anyone can and should act on, but is the Government constantly assessing where the gaps in the data are in order to try to proactively fill those? That was one of the questions that was being asked by the previous panel.

For people who are perhaps less well acquainted with the subject, could you provide a picture of what practical difference the proposed measures would make in those areas from the point of view of practice and the species that you feel would benefit?

Elspeth, you set out your organisation’s views. I note that the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation is on record as saying that Scottish ministers have been

“willing to adopt common sense measures based on dialogue”.

However, we have just heard some discussion specifically about static gear. How did you seek to represent the views of that sector in the conversations with the Government?

In that case—this applies to anyone on the panel—how do you feel about the opportunities for engagement? How will the conversation go forward, specifically on static gear?

I know that, in the future fisheries management delivery plan, the Scottish Government has committed to a review of penalties for fisheries offences. Has that work been done, and have you any views on penalties and how they would apply in this case and in relation to this order?