Chamber and committees

Yes, convener, if that is all right.

Under the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, local authorities have a duty to plan for a young person’s transition as they leave school. In addition, the Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Act 2013 aims to ensure that care and support are delivered in a way that supports a young person’s choices and ability to have control over their own life.

When it comes to other areas, we have heard from Stephanie Callaghan about Independent Living Fund Scotland’s transition fund and the opportunities that that presents.

In previous evidence sessions, the committee has heard about opportunities in further and higher education and employability services to support delivery of the no one left behind approach, including the local delivery of the young persons guarantee and, through that guarantee, our ambition to provide all young people, including disabled young people, with opportunities for work, training, education, enterprise or formal volunteering.

During the past year, we have invested £23.5 million in the delivery of fair start Scotland, which provides intensive and personalised pre-employment and in-work support for unemployed disabled people and those with health conditions or other barriers to progress in work.

The developing the young workforce programme begins in schools and is facilitated through Skills Development Scotland and careers advice.

It is important to recognise that support is different for everyone, including young people, who have different needs, ambitions and wants. It is about having a tailored approach to that young person’s ambitions for their life.

I can start on that one. With regard to the work that the Scottish Government is doing, I know that the committee has heard about how GIRFEC can be used to support transitions for disabled children and young people. We are committed to fully embedding GIRFEC—as the committee will know, that approach is internationally recognised and has been internationally replicated, locally embedded and positively embraced by practitioners. I know from my own previous practice how valuable GIRFEC is in providing for a shared language and shared plans across health and social care.

We refreshed the GIRFEC policy and practice guidance materials last September, and we are starting to refresh GIRFEC guidance on transitions. I am happy to keep the committee updated on that work, because it will be relevant across the committee’s remit.

The Scottish Government has also started to do work on GIRFE—I know that the committee heard about some of it during the session on the national care service. Work is on-going in other areas in relation to supporting not only disabled children and young people, but everyone. It is about being person centred and having a universal offer.

As I outlined in my opening statement, we have a lot of questions about the bill as drafted. That is not to say that the bill could not be amended or changed.

Can I just come in briefly?

I think we all want to be more ambitious, to go further and faster and to improve things, but we have to do that at a pace that stakeholders are comfortable with. We should not just put plans in place for the sake of putting plans in place; we need to have the evidence and the research behind that as we trial things and see what works. That is what the ARC pilots are doing: they are giving us the evidence.

I have some statistics in front of me, which show improvement for attainment and initial leaver destinations for the transitions of secondary school and special school leavers. I am happy to provide the committee with those statistics as one piece of data that we can point to where we can see improvement.

The additional support for learning work and the Morgan review are part of a plethora of work that we are doing to improve transitions. As Christina McKelvie suggested, some of that work is coming to its conclusion—some of the pilots are approaching their conclusion—and we will be able to point to the results of that work and identify the difference that it makes. We will be able to say why we want to expand a piece of work, or we may conclude that something does not work, so it is not a system that we want to continue working through.

I absolutely recognise that that is an area that Mr Rennie and I have had correspondence on for some time. I am delighted that we got the data-sharing arrangements in place. I think that the legislation went through the UK Parliament in October. We are working with local authorities and COSLA to help them to make maximum use of that data, and we hope that they will be able to access it by the end of this financial year.

I am happy to talk Mr Rennie through the process of how that will work, if that would be helpful to him. In relation to the two-year-olds, local authorities will get access to a limited amount of Department for Work and Pensions data three times a year. Local authorities will only be able to access the amount of data that they need to identify those families who would be eligible, which will give them the opportunity to write to those families to make them aware of that offer. They will only be allowed to use that information for the specific purpose of targeting those groups. We will continue to publicise the offer through the Parent Club and other Scottish Government channels.

I will be happy to come back to the committee on that next year. We anticipate that there will be an increase, and there is funding in next year’s financial settlement to fund those eligible two-year-olds. The rate has gone up again. It has gone up to 14 per cent, but I appreciate that there may well be more children out there whose parents are not aware of the offer. I am sure that I will come back to the committee on that issue.

I do not recognise what the convener said about top-slicing.

We are engaging with the SSSC on the possibility of having the scoping and mapping exercise. I am more than happy to write to the committee with updates on that.

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.