Seòmar agus comataidhean

Before I bring in Graeme McAlister, I will let Jonathan Broadbery come in.

That is clearly an issue that we are trying to highlight. There seem to be different ways of counting this. ELC comes in different budget lines, which makes it difficult to look at how the policy is being implemented from a financial perspective. It is not so much about the policy. It is about how it is being implemented financially given that councils have different methods of counting. How do we know whether the money is being spent effectively, accurately and consistently across Scotland?

I see that Matthew Sweeney wants to come in. My point is that, in the space of two years, some of the shifts have been dramatic—I mentioned the shifts from 20 per cent to 36 per cent and from 55 per cent to 43 per cent. Could you also touch on childminding, Matthew?

It still has not happened.

It is quite interesting that the 15 local authorities that did not provide robust data include some of the larger ones, such as Dundee City Council, Glasgow City Council, North Lanarkshire Council, South Lanarkshire Council and Aberdeen City Council.

You mentioned a rural uplift, but, if Orkney pays the lowest rate, the uplift cannot be very significant.

While I was looking at the figures from the 17 local authorities that we have robust data from, I was struck by the figures from two neighbouring authorities, Aberdeenshire Council and Moray Council. In Aberdeenshire, private provision increased from 20 to 36 per cent between 2018-19 and 2020-21, yet, over the same period, in the neighbouring authority of Moray, it declined from 55 to 43 per cent, which seems quite significant. I am not comparing Moray with Glasgow or Edinburgh with Aberdeenshire. In my mind, the two authorities are quite similar in many respects. Is there a specific reason why the sector in some areas appears to be growing significantly while other areas are taking the opposite path? Is it because of the issues that you have mentioned, or are there other factors at play?

That was an excellent answer, to be honest.

You said that 75 per cent of placements are blended. The bureaucracy point jumped out at me. You said:

“the level of paperwork and bureaucracy associated with current childminding practice was the main reason that childminders had left the workforce”.

That was in 70 per cent of cases. It must be a tome that people are having to wade through if that is indeed the case. Perhaps you could comment on that.

While I am asking questions on this topic, I will ask about another thing that you have talked about, which is inconsistent local implementation. That is interesting. You said:

“some local authorities who understood the unique benefits of childminding had been supportive and were including childminders, but were in the minority”.

Can you talk to me about the bureaucracy and highlight some of the local authorities that are doing well and that other local authorities could copy in their methodology?

I will let Matthew Sweeney come in soon, because he has not spoken so far.

I appreciate that, if you have staff for 100 children and you get 98 children, you still have the same number of staff. I think that we all appreciate that.

In terms of the ELC finance working group, the new funding distribution formula will be based on the following split: 75 per cent on client numbers; 20 per cent on deprivation; and 5 per cent on rurality. You talked about figures set in 2014, but the figure that we have is that £39 million headroom was identified in the ELC-specific revenue grant, largely as a result of there being fewer children eligible for the entitlement now than was projected in 2018 rather than 2014.

From my perspective as, if you like, a layperson who is looking in on this, it is difficult to see how the spend can be monitored effectively if everyone has different methods of assessing how the funding is calculated. That is why I asked the question. I am sure that colleagues will want to explore that further.

I was on the Finance Committee from 2011 to 2016, and when we deliberated on the financial memorandum, the significant things included not only the difficulty in obtaining best estimates, but the tension that existed—as it often does—between the Scottish Government and COSLA as to how much should be allocated. It is interesting that, over the three years 2014-15 to 2016-2017, councils received £329 million of additional revenue to provide early learning and childcare, but they increased their spending on it by only £189 million. COSLA said that that did not account for the need for council efficiencies and so on, but that is a huge difference.

In 2018, a report highlighted inconsistencies in how councils compiled local financial return information. In the current financial year—I may as well include this in the question—more than £1 billion has been allocated, yet it looks as if expenditure is going to be £935 million. It appears that, throughout the process, the amounts of money that have been set towards the policy have been more than has been required. Is that the case or would you dispute that?