Chamber and committees

I thank the minister for giving way again. Does she not accept that the reality is that the private, voluntary and independent sector percentage is higher because local authorities have not been able to meet the demand or timescales? It is not because the PVI sector has been well supported.

I hear what the minister says about the year-on-year increases in funding, but in 2012, when the policy was first introduced, 6,009 two-year-olds accessed the provision, so there are now fewer children accessing it than there were at the start—that is not a policy that is working well.

I do not want to pick on Gillian Martin’s speech. There was lots in it about the good things that are happening, and I recognise those as I see them in my constituency, but I cannot believe that Gillian Martin, in the time since the policy has been under development, has not had any contact from private, voluntary and independent nurseries expressing concern about how the policy has been delivered. Those concerns persist. I will come to some points on Aberdeenshire later.

Although I am willing to accept that Covid has brought with it a unique and unprecedented set of challenges, and that the Government felt that it had no choice but to delay, Covid is not the full story. The policy has been riddled with concerns and poor implementation from the get-go.

I will not forget the previous minister Marie Todd’s explanation to my colleague Liam Kerr when he asked her about concerns that nurseries faced in the north-east and about how the provision would be delivered in practice, with some nurseries facing closure. She told him that one would not expect to be able to drive over a bridge

“18 months before it was built.”—[Official Report, 14 March 2019; c 3.]

As was pointed out at the time, one would not expect the bridge to be there, but one would expect detailed planning to have taken place before the building work began. All the way through development of the policy, it has been clear that no detailed route map or planning existed. That has created unnecessary tensions and challenges, many of which could have been avoided under better leadership.

Although we have come a long way in building a system that has the capacity to provide increased hours, we are not fully there yet. Like many members, including my colleague Pam Gosal, I have concerns about a potential collapse in the private, voluntary and independent sector. In the medium-to-long term, the policy will not be possible without that sector’s support and continued commitment.

I raised the staffing challenges with Audit Scotland at this morning’s Education, Children and Young People Committee.

When I visited Annan on Friday morning, I met a community that was in shock. The bridges there served as vital links and memorials, and were part of people’s lives. Another bridge, between Irvington and Kirkpatrick Fleming, is at risk. As the Deputy First Minister knows, Dumfries and Galloway Council is a small rural authority. Will the Scottish Government commit to providing emergency funds to allow those vital crossings to open as soon as possible?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I seek your guidance in relation to rules 3.1.3 and 7.2.1 of the standing orders, in light of the fact that I lodged a very similar question to that which is due to be raised during the next item of business. This is not the first time that I, as a constituency member, have seen that a question that relates to the communities that I am very proud to represent has been allocated to another member.

I understand the need for all members to be treated fairly, and I have a great deal of personal respect for Colin Smyth, who is, rightly, championing an issue that affects the whole of the South Scotland region. However, the choice to select another member limits my ability to scrutinise the Government as fully as I might have wished.

I would welcome your clarification, without reference to the particular instance, of whether there has been a departure from the previously established convention—if not a rule—whereby constituency members are, when balancing many relevant considerations, seen as having a direct locus and interest in matters relating to their constituency.

I listened carefully to what you said, Deputy First Minister. Because of the passage of time, it will not be immediately obvious how some short-term placements came about. Through my constituency work, I am aware of families that are really struggling, and it is often social workers, healthcare workers or other Government-funded professionals who step in and suggest that they should think about respite to avoid going down a different route and as a way of giving the family a chance to reset.

I wonder about the detail of some of the cases. I cannot imagine that accessing short-term placements was necessarily presented as a choice to all parents. What would happen in such circumstances? How would you weigh that up?

It is important to note, as a point of fact, that there are survivors who continue to have concerns in this area. I do not propose that the committee make any further comment in that regard, but it is important to put that on the record.

Thank you.

That is helpful. It will not fully satisfy everyone, but it is a step forward from where discussions were previously.

On the issue of seeking an enhanced payment, will those individuals who found themselves in that situation be entitled to the same advice and support as anyone else who accesses the scheme? Will they be able to seek some basic legal advice?

I recognise the policy reasons for the Government going down that route, but I still think that there will be a number of cases where orders are not progressed because families had taken advantage of short-term placements. Sometimes those were repeat placements, and individuals could have been subject to multiple, repeated incidents. It is a wee bit complicated in places, but I am happy to accept the explanation that has been given.

However, my real question is why you went down the exclusionary route and did not opt for a model that would allow each individual case to be considered. It is legitimate to be clear about the limits of the scheme and what the expectations are, but my point is about creating a space for people with exceptional circumstances, such as multiple short-term placements with the same abuser over a number of years. Such placements were probably encouraged by the state. Why would there not be provision for those people to have their individual circumstances looked at? Why did you go down the route of exclusion?