Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. I am just trying to understand. Amendment 1 removes OSCR’s unilateral power to make a decision to remove someone’s details, perhaps without their consent. Are there scenarios in which that power would be required? An individual might not see the risk to themselves, but there might be a wider risk meaning that action would need to be taken.

What discussion was there with OSCR on the provision? Was OSCR concerned that it would require that unilateral power?

I come to the bill without having heard all the evidence that other committee members have heard. What was the rationale for enabling OSCR to remove someone’s details of its own accord? Would that have been done when there might have been a risk to the person who was registered? I just want to understand the Government’s rationale in lodging an amendment that would mean that OSCR would not have that power.

I engaged in this discussion in the stage 1 debate, when I said that I shared several of the concerns that Jeremy Balfour and a number of churches have raised. The argument has been well rehearsed in the chamber and elsewhere. There is a challenge. Obviously, the Government has agreed to a year’s grace period for the implementation of the provisions of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016, but there is serious concern about the fact that, rather than a solution to the issue being put forward, we have simply had a pause.

There is a balance to be struck. Part of that balance is about ensuring that we have transparency with regard to who has a controlled interest in land and property. If we can ensure that information on trustees is transparently available via the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator process, and thereby remove the burden from churches, it might be worth considering Jeremy Balfour’s amendment in more detail. The Church of Scotland passed that deliverance at its general assembly just last week. We need to take cognisance of that.

I am keen to understand the definition of “religious charity” as outlined in Mr Balfour’s amendment. Is there a legal definition of a religious charity? I am playing devil’s advocate—pardon the pun—but I just want to understand whether, for example, someone could set up a religious charity to try to mask the fact that they own land. I am not saying that that would happen; I am just trying to understand whether the term “religious charity” relates to a church or religious group or whether the definition is wider.

Thank you.

Good morning. I am keen to begin with what is quite a broad question about the impact of the 1,140 hours of funded childcare. What are the key lessons that have been learned from the expansion? Obviously, there will be a full report in the summer of 2024, but we are keen to get a sense of the lessons that have been learned thus far. Matthew Sweeney, would you like to start?

I thank Jonathan Broadbery for that response.

I want to find out about witnesses’ reflections on the impact on one and two-year-olds, and then I will move on to speak about expansion—thanks to the convener’s indulgence.

The uptake for the most vulnerable one and two-year-olds in our communities is only 52 per cent. That is a concerning figure, given the determination to support people back into work in our communities. Can witnesses reflect on where the 52 per cent figure has come from and why the uptake has been low? Also, Matthew Sweeney, can you say what councils are doing to encourage parents to take that offer up?

Before I go on to the next section, I should probably draw colleagues’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests as a former education convener at East Renfrewshire Council.

We are now looking towards expansion. The new First Minister has made statements about expansion of provision for one and two-year-olds. Matthew Sweeney referenced the programme for government, and I am keen to understand the challenges in that, particularly because it commands a lot of support from across the Parliament. Often, the challenge in a lot of this is about getting the right amount of flexibility to allow parents to go back to work.

Flexibility brings with it a big cost, because we have to be able to provide a blended model or the physical space to accommodate lots of children and young people. Again, I am looking at Matthew Sweeney to speak from the local authority perspective, but I am also keen to hear from other providers about what will be required to allow expansion to the most flexible options for one and two-year-olds.

I have been speaking to people in local authorities who have told me that that could mean 10 new buildings, which means a huge capital cost. One and two-year-olds have different needs to those of three and four-year-olds. For example, they have to sleep if they are in all day. What modelling have you been doing on that?

That was very helpful.

We are particularly interested in the issue of employability and the extent to which the provision of 1,140 hours has taken people back into the workforce. We have some interim data on those going back to work, particularly on women—especially mothers—and, from some of the tables that we have been provided with, there is a bit of a sense of a drop-off in people returning to the workforce when their child turns three. There is also a slight increase in people going part-time—in other words, changing their working patterns to accommodate the childcare offer instead of the other way round. Have any of the panel members done any analysis, ahead of the summer 2024 report, to look at what the impact on three and four-year-olds has been?

Do you want me to move on to question theme 2 and blend the two together, convener? It follows quite naturally.

Do any of the other members of the panel want to make a broad comment on the key principles?