Seòmar agus comataidhean

Is that transition recognised in the current SFC arrangements?

The evidence that we have heard so far has prompted some questions in my mind. It is clear that there is broad support across the Parliament for increasing the options, particularly for people from more economically deprived backgrounds. That is a big positive. However, from the outside, I have found it quite difficult to understand whether the programme and big investment of taxpayers’ money is about childcare or education. The Scottish Government has said that the benefits are increasing family resilience, closing the poverty-related attainment gap and supporting parents into work. Some people would say that some of those things might be in conflict, although I do not necessarily agree. Is it childcare or is it education?

The answers to those questions were very useful. We are all concerned about the impact on individual children. We need to ensure that the sector as a whole has the ability to provide the care that we all want to see. That relates to the answers to Willie Rennie’s earlier question. Was any modelling done on whether recognition of deprivation of liberty orders in Scots law could result, for any reason, in a decrease or increase in the number of cross-border placements? Has any analysis been done of that?

I thank Jane Brumpton for that good overview of the challenges, which we have covered at length. Will Jonathan Broadbery talk briefly about how the pandemic has exacerbated existing problems?

In your letter to the committee, you are clear that

“funding models based on the acceptance of cross-border children cannot be sustained, and that Scotland must do all it can to prevent the monetisation of the care of our children.”

You have confirmed that. That is a question for both the UK Government, in terms of its actions to provide appropriate care in England, and the Scottish Government in ensuring the security and viability of facilities in Scotland, whether that is based on Scottish children alone, a reduced number of Scottish children or otherwise.

I appreciate that confirmation.

Do the other witnesses have specific comments about the pandemic?

I understand what you are saying, but that is quite worrying for me. In essence, it has become a numbers game in terms of inputs: we know that X number of families and children are accessing the provision. However, as a Parliament, how are we supposed to evaluate whether the policy is increasing family resilience, closing the poverty-related attainment gap and supporting parents into work? As the Improvement Service, you might claim that that is not your job and maybe we need to find other people to do that job. Those are the policy intentions, and we need to be able to draw the causal link between the investment and the outcomes, rather than just the inputs.

In answer to Willie Rennie’s questions, you said that you do not really collect that information or assess the policy in that way and that you just look at the numbers. Is that correct?

I will put roughly the same question to Matthew Sweeney. In COSLA’s view, is the policy about childcare or about education?

It does—and I appreciate that.

It seems to me that there is some level of conflict between the different outcomes, with the sheer push to increase numbers of hours and the question whether we are providing education or childminding.

I also have a question about the impact of the pandemic, but I am not sure whether you want me to proceed with that now, convener.