Chamber and committees

The Deputy Presiding Officer has been most courteous on the matter of time.

Inclusion Scotland’s briefing states that the proposed changes would disproportionately affect households in receipt of benefits. There have been a number of really positive suggestions on further increasing the funded childcare entitlement to the equivalent of 50 hours a week for low-income families. There has also been significant input from lone-parent families asking about the child payment. There has been investment in targeted employability support to deliver fair work and to consider the particular needs of priority family groups. All that was at the heart of the evidence that we took. We also need to see delivery of employability commitments and the best start, bright futures policy.

John Swinney touched on several points in his argument for a holistic approach to helping families. That is why I hope that he will join Scottish Conservatives in championing a policy that we want to see piloted, which is on family hubs that would aim to support the integration of health, social care and education, providing a one-stop shop for families who seek support. We could expand on that at a further date, but I think that such a measure could help families.

There is cross-party consensus that the best way to tackle child poverty is to ensure that parents and guardians are able to access employment opportunities and fair work. However, the report makes it clear that parents across Scotland still face significant barriers to employment and training opportunities. That is why I hope that its contents will lead to Scottish National Party and Green ministers focusing again on establishing innovative policies and on the committee’s suggestions for expanding childcare provision and flexibility and creating additional support schemes for parents who seek to re-enter the workplace or gain educational opportunities.

The committee’s report is a useful one. Looking beyond the ministers’ comments that we have heard in the debate, I hope that they will genuinely consider acting on the report’s recommendations.

The point that the former education secretary and Deputy First Minister also needs to understand is that the Scottish Government has created this model in which Scottish Government-funded early years units and nurseries are providing free hours for pre-school, which has had an impact on where people are working in the sector. We know that the number of individual childminders in Scotland, for example, has fallen considerably. Having the flexibility to decide, as a parent, what childcare you want has been impacted. I do not think that the Scottish Government understands—

The key thing is choice.

I will.

I agree with Meghan Gallacher on that point.

That is at the heart of what the report captured. The committee has asked the Scottish Government to reassess the scope and to accelerate its work in childcare provision. It has noted that the exact timings, hours of provision, eligibility and income thresholds for child provision have still not been announced by Scottish Government ministers. We do not, in fact, know what the Scottish Government is expecting councils to achieve.

The committee has also called on the Government to provide detailed spending plans in relation to childcare provisions. The latest programme for government does not set out any new funding that will be available to meet the new childcare commitments. The committee—cross-party, I should say—has therefore called on ministers to set out detailed spending plans that show what they aim to achieve and where spending will be provided for that.

The committee has also called on ministers to undertake an

“assessment of the current childcare workforce availability across the sector”,

which should include

“skills for children with additional support needs, and the levels of provision required to allow children from different cultural backgrounds to access the services, as well as the provision needed in remote and rural areas for parents to start or return to work.”

When we were in the Western Isles, we saw how different models are being provided by employers, the third sector and councils. That flexibility for parents in rural and remote areas, who sometimes have two or three jobs, needs to be considered. It is in relation to that flexibility that I do not think that the Government has got this policy right, to return to that point. I hope that this debate can be an opportunity for it to pause and think about that.

Perhaps most pressing, though, is the need for the Scottish Government to do more for parents who are returning to education. The committee called on the Scottish Government to

“evaluate successful initiatives”

and

“scale up work and ensure there is national provision for adults seeking to return to education.”

It also recommended that the Government provide

“part-time courses with flexibility built in”.

We heard important evidence about that when we were in Glasgow and met parents who were returning to college.

It is also important to consider the briefing that Inclusion Scotland provided to members ahead of the debate.

I felt that I had to intervene on John Swinney in the debate, to be quite honest. I want to ask about one of the key parts of the issue—the report touches on this—which is that employability schemes can be vulnerable and face budget cuts. I know that Mr Swinney cut employability schemes when he was finance secretary. Why are employability schemes being at the heart of decision making in Government, and the cross-party and cross-Government approach, not working?

Could you clarify something? My understanding is that, at the moment, the proposal in the bill is that a charge be made for seven nights of someone’s stay, and your amendment would double that, to 14 nights per calendar month. What guidance would be included in the bill in that regard? Perhaps the minister can also comment on that.

I heard what the minister had to say. As in our committee work on short-term lets, it is concerning that a framework bill leaves interpretation to councils. We know of two legal challenges that the City of Edinburgh Council has faced because of its interpretation of that legislation, and the Government’s approach sets up the legislation to be potentially problematic, with different councils deciding on different percentages. I will therefore test my amendment 27, to see what support there is for it in the committee.

I press amendment 27.

In the interests of time, convener, I will not move the other amendments in the group. However, I put on record that, for stage 3, we need far more clarification of how a percentage system would work and the impact that it would have. If that is just in guidance, there will be differentiation across Scotland. Specifically, I hope that the points that Mark Griffin raised will be taken on board by the Scottish Government for stage 3.

Amendment 29 not moved.

Section 5 agreed to.

Section 6—Rate for levy

Amendments 30 and 31 not moved.

Amendment 6 moved—[Tom Arthur].

Amendment 46 is a probing amendment. It comes from some of the evidence that we took from communities that are part of larger council areas. They are concerned. Businesses that operate in Skye and Arran raised concerns about significant tourism activity on those islands and whether they would secure a fair share of that funding once the local authority that they are part of takes decisions over where that would be distributed. I want to probe ministers on how the money that is raised is reported and what role they would play in where that money is spent. That important principle has not been pursued in the bill.

As with other amendments, I am happy to discuss that further with the minister. When substantial tourism activity takes place in parts of a council area, it is important that businesses in those areas benefit and that any money raised does not just go into the council’s wider pot.