Before the expansion of 1,140 hours, one of the issues that the Scottish Government consulted on was different models of support for delivery of ELC. That consultation happened between October 2016 and January 2017, and it included the model that the convener has alluded to.

The independent consultation analysis report that was published in March 2017 highlighted that the funding follows the child model was identified most frequently as the preferred model for best supporting the provision of high-quality ELC that is accessible and affordable for all. We see evidence of that in the figures that are coming out on the number of children accessing ELC and on parent and carer satisfaction about the quality and flexibility of the service that they receive.

As I said earlier and as Eleanor said, it is a mixed economy. The principle of the funding following the child means that parents are able to decide where they wish their child to receive early learning and childcare. We believe that the funding that we provide to local authorities through the funding formula that we agreed with COSLA is enough to enable them to pay sustainable rates to PVI providers.

I am not familiar with those figures, but, if the convener wants to send me the source of the information, I will be happy to look at it.

When looking at the funding that is provided by the Scottish Government to local authorities, it would be simplistic to say that there is £100 available and there are 100 children so that means that £100 should be divided by 100 and each child should get £1. I know that that is a very simplistic example. From their budget, local authorities have to fund not only the ELC for PVI providers but additional costs. They have things such as property costs, including the repair and maintenance of buildings and settings, and their own employee costs—

Local authorities are local authorities—if I can put it that way—but PVIs are businesses, so they have other sources of income.

Local authorities have additional costs such as other staff—operational staff, heads of centre and staff who do not count towards childcare ratios, including additional support for learning staff—support services such as information technology, finance and procurement; and the cost of meals for children who access both council nurseries and PVI providers. The latter cost is paid to PVI providers over and above their sustainable rates.

In the current settlement for next year, there is money for the deferrals policy change, which I am sure the committee is aware of, and for the equity and excellence leads. Local authorities have a statutory duty to provide 1,140 hours; they can be providers of last resort in areas where it is not financially sustainable for private services to provide childcare, and they have a duty for emergency responses, which they have carried out for those coming from Ukraine.

It is therefore not as straightforward as saying that providing 30 per cent of childcare equals passing on 30 per cent of the budget.

We have worked very closely with COSLA and local authorities through our financial working group to ensure that there is a fair and sustainable settlement for all our ELC providers.

If I remember correctly, you raised that issue in the chamber, convener. The issue was also raised during the debate about funded ELC. This is where the funding follows the child model is absolutely key.

I will ask Eleanor Passmore to speak about the work that we have done. If there are particular areas in which there is an issue, I would certainly like those to be highlighted to me so that we can try to facilitate working across boundaries.

The draft budget makes provision for £50 million to be invested in the whole family wellbeing fund. That will continue the vital preventative work that is required to keep children at home when that is the safest place for them to be.

In addition, we will invest almost £30 million in other activity that is related to the Promise, which includes funds to support The Promise Scotland, invest in the Promise partnership fund and take forward a variety of other actions that we committed to in the implementation plan “Keeping the promise to our children, young people and families”, which was launched last March. That includes funds that are required to bring into force the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced in December 2022. I believe that this committee will look at that bill, so I am sure that we will have further discussions on that and how it will fulfil the Promise.

Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to give evidence to the committee on two draft Scottish statutory instruments: the Police Act 1997 (Offences in Schedules 8A and 8B) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2022 and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exclusions and Exceptions) (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Order 2022. I hope that the following will be of help to committee members.

The instruments make amendments to the offence lists in the legislation covering disclosure. Those lists contain the offences that must be included when disclosure checks are carried out on individuals. The SSIs are required in order to ensure that there is consistency between state disclosure and self-disclosure.

Most of the amendments made to the offences lists by the instruments are intended to bring them into line with the equivalent lists passed by the Scottish Parliament in the Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020. The changes made by the instruments will remain in place until that act is fully commenced.

If an offence is not included in the lists, a conviction for that offence cannot be disclosed on any level of disclosure once it is spent according to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

Higher-level disclosures are used for roles involving a high degree of sensitivity, or where there is an expectation of integrity, or for the purpose of public protection. The offence lists therefore serve an important safeguarding purpose by ensuring that information about serious and relevant spent convictions can continue to be disclosed once the convictions are spent.

The legislation contains two lists of offences: list A and list B. Offences in list B are for convictions that must be disclosed in accordance with the rules and include those such as fraud or theft. An individual can apply to have spent convictions from that list removed from their disclosure. To do that, the individual must apply to the sheriff court.

There are some offences that must be disclosed regardless of how long has passed since the conviction. Those are the offences in list A, which include serious offences such as rape and other sexual offences as well as certain terrorism and firearms offences. An individual can apply to have those offences removed only after a certain amount of time has passed and depending on their age at the time of conviction. That application must be made to the sheriff court.

When the offence lists were reviewed for the purposes of the Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020, some offences were moved between list A and list B, some were removed entirely from list B and new statutory offences that had been created since the offence lists were established in 2015 were added to both lists. For example, the offence under section 1 of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 of abusive behaviour towards a partner or ex-partner is specified in list A of the Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020, but it is not specified in the offence lists in the legislation that is currently in force. That means that a spent conviction for such an offence cannot currently be disclosed on any form of higher-level disclosure. I have introduced the instruments in advance of the full commencement of the Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020 to remedy that and to reduce any safeguarding risks that might arise in the interim period.

In addition to the changes made to align the existing legislation with the Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020, some further changes are being made to the offence lists to take us through the interim period. Those changes relate to amendments that could not be made during the bill process due to the onset of the pandemic; new offences created since the Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020 completed its passage through Parliament; and a general review of the offence lists. The factors that informed the creation of the offence lists and the review for the purposes of the Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020 were revisited in order to classify offences as either serious, and therefore on list A, or less serious and on list B. Full details of the amendments are set out in the policy notes, which I believe members have.

Any corresponding amendments that are necessary to update the Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020 offence lists will be made as part of the implementation of those provisions in 2024.

My officials and I are happy to take questions on the draft regulations and order.

I think that there will be an opportunity to address that if children’s services are transferred into the national care service. I am aware of the history of kinship care allowances and of different local authorities paying different rates and allowances.

Kinship care might be transferred into the national care service, with ministers having accountability. We envisage that the NCS will set standards and that national frameworks should be implemented at a local level by directly funded care boards. One key aim of the NCS is to end postcode lotteries across a number of areas, as we have spoken about today. That will bring consistency in areas where there should be consistency, such as financial assistance for kinship carers.

The short answer to your question is yes. We think that the proposals should help to ensure consistency in care allowances across the piece, rather than having the current situation in which different local authorities pay different rates. I appreciate that that can cause frustration.

I am very familiar with that narrative. The bill gives us the opportunity to get consistency across the country. We have worked closely with kinship carers and have heard their concerns. This is one area in which we would have an opportunity to have national consistency for carers.

Children and young people are right at the heart of co-designing the service. It is really important that their voices are at the table, and we have been doing a lot of work with children and young people in that respect. We have been hearing from a lot of hard-to-reach voices, disability organisations, children’s disability representatives and so on to ensure that those voices are right at the heart of the co-design. That is important, no matter whether children’s services are included in the national care service, and the voices of the parents and carers of those children need to be heard, too.

It runs almost counter to some of the arguments that I have heard that we should not be looking at children’s services when we have not decided whether they should be in the national care service, but the fact is that we have to design a national care service that will be able to provide such services for children if that decision is taken, to ensure that they are not an afterthought and that we are not doing things retrospectively. As I have said, their voices must be very much at the table.

There are difficulties with recruitment and retention in adult social care services and, indeed, in children’s services, but those difficulties are not unique to Scotland. There are multifaceted reasons why people leave adult and children’s social care services. Some people have returned home after Brexit. It has been difficult to recruit and retain those staff, but we continue to support social care services to ensure that we have the staff.

I can give some examples of the work that we are doing to support recruitment across social care services—