Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you, David. Are colleagues content with that, or do they have any other recommendations?

I reassure Rhoda Grant that we were given to understand that the National Services Division and the Scottish Government co-ordinated the response that we received. I understood that, although we did not receive separate responses, there was input from both into the Government’s response.

Are colleagues content that we keep the petition open and write to see whether we can expedite some of the information that we are looking to receive?

Members indicated agreement.

Okay. Paul Sweeney, you have been listening quietly. Are there any questions that you would like to put?

What age were you when you sought to pursue these matters through the congregational process?

You met Ruth Maguire a few years ago. I know that you have met many politicians in the period since then, and you will have raised your concerns directly with Scottish Government ministers. Everybody will have been very sympathetic but, of course, you are looking for outcomes as much as anything else. Am I right to say that the key outcome that we can take from our discussion this morning is on the issue of mandatory reporting? Does that sit above or on the same level as your desire for the scope of the current Scottish Government inquiry to be expanded, or are the two things parallel and equally important to you?

Members are content with that, so we will have a short suspension to allow everyone to regroup.

Was that, as far as they were concerned, as much as they were prepared to consider or pursue in relation to the matter?

As we know, the child sex abuse inquiry in England and Wales is going to look at the issue more broadly than the one in Scotland did, which focused just on care homes; they are going to look at religious organisations as well. You made reference to there being 30 documentaries in 15 countries. Have you been able to meet or speak with others who might potentially find that their own circumstances are going to be addressed in the public inquiry in England and Wales, or is that a difficult kind of exchange to have?

I am not sure that it is. It would be for the Government, if it chose to do so, to initiate an inquiry into any change to the electoral system for any form of representation—for example, for local government—and that would be on the basis of a consultation, a convention or whatever. It would be for the Government of the day to bring forward any proposals to change the system. Government legislation would be required.

I am not sure that that cogent summation of the merits of the current system advances the recourse that is open to us as far as the petition is concerned.

PE1907, which was lodged by Claire Beats, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide funded early learning and childcare for all two-year-olds in Scotland and remove the eligibility criteria for access to services. Submissions have been received from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the National Day Nurseries Association and the petitioner, as we requested.

COSLA’s submission references the delay in the implementation of additional funded early learning hours resulting from the pandemic and work to increase capacity in early learning centre settings. It welcomes the increased uptake of places for two-year-olds, but recognises that further work is needed to fully engage the families of eligible children. COSLA stresses the importance of taking

“a planned and considered approach to create additional capacity”.

The NDNA’s submission explains that it is

“the national charity representing private, voluntary and independent ... children’s nurseries across the UK”.

It states that

“Expanding funded ELC to all 2 year olds would be of benefit to children and families”,

and it references recent survey findings that show “significant impacts” on babies born during the lockdowns. The NDNA references the role of early learning in providing

“wide-ranging opportunities for the child to develop their skills and knowledge through activities and interactions”.

However, the NDNA also highlights concerns about the implications for the private, voluntary and independent sector of increasing the funded offer to all two-year-olds. It refers to recent recruitment difficulties and the impact of underfunding on the sustainability of nurseries and the viability of children’s places, and it states that

“any universal funded provision for 2-year-olds must be sufficiently funded at rates that ... reflect the cost of delivery”.

That is something that local nurseries have raised with me.

In her submission, the petitioner states that, as a nursery practitioner and the mother of a baby born in 2020, she sees the challenges arising from the fact that babies who were born during lockdown had little to no socialisation outside of the home because baby groups were closed. The petitioner believes that babies born during lockdown should have the same access to funded learning and childcare, regardless of their parents’ financial situation, adding that research suggests that lockdown-born babies are not at the same developmental levels as non-lockdown-born babies. I find that interesting.

Having considered the representations that we have received, I think that there are a number of actions that we might wish to consider. Would anyone like to offer any suggestions?