Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE2112, which was lodged by Carole Erskine on behalf of Pregnant Then Screwed, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to commission an independent review of publicly funded early learning and childcare in Scotland, in order to better understand and address the challenges that families face when trying to secure and afford childcare.

The background to the petition provides details of the petitioner’s survey that looked at childcare in Scotland, in which 83.7 per cent of parents said that their childcare costs are the same or more than their income, with 70 per cent of mothers and 50 per cent of fathers responding to say that it does not make financial sense for them to work. The SPICe briefing notes that, although data from surveys conducted by Coram Family and Childcare shows that childcare costs in Scotland are rising, they remain lower than the average prices that have been reported for England and Wales.

In its response to the petition, which is similar to the response that we received on the previous petition, the Scottish Government states that it is investing nearly £1 billion in high-quality early learning and childcare in 2024-25. The response goes on to highlight the funding follows the child approach for the delivery of the 1,140 hours ELC offer, which allows parents and carers to

“access their child’s entitlement from any setting in the public, private or third sector ... who meets the National Standard, has a place available, and is willing to enter into a contract with their local authority. ”

The Scottish Government’s response also refers to independent research that suggests that

“97% of parents with a three- to five-year-old were satisfied that they could access funded ELC in a way that meets their needs.”

It notes that an evaluation of the 1,140 hours entitlement is due to report in 2025.

We have also received two submissions from the petitioner, the first of which comments on the Scottish Government’s response and draws our attention to a review of the early years sector in England, which was commissioned by the UK Labour Party before it entered government. The petitioner has called for a similar review to take place in Scotland. The second submission highlights the mostly negative experiences of the childcare system that parents have encountered, including issues around availability, council boundary changes, and the inflexibility of the current system to meet families’ needs.

Submissions have also been received from the University of the West of Scotland, drawing our attention to research that it has undertaken on the challenges that are faced by mothers who are working in the performance arts and entertainment industry, and from our MSP colleague Tim Eagle in support of the petition’s aim.

In the light of the information that we have received from the Scottish Government and SPICe, do colleagues have any suggestions on how we might proceed?

Thank you. Our second theme is the drivers for designating more national parks. I invite David Torrance to take the lead on the questioning.

The NFUS and NatureScot have commented on the impacts in relation to things such as housing, water and transport infrastructure. However, we get conflicting views—NatureScot is obviously taking a slightly different perspective. Is that a consequence of NatureScot’s being an advocating proponent of the parks and looking to find what it wants to find? Why do those different views exist?

That brings us to the call for an independent review. I assume that among all of you here this morning there is a sense that an investigation or consultation led by NatureScot would already be compromised in the minds of the groups that you represent, because it would appear that NatureScot is there to act as a proponent for the parks and not necessarily to question whether the evidence supports the development of further parks. Is that correct?

We move to PE1988, which was lodged by Sue Wallis. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the process for allowing raw sewage discharge from homes into Scottish coastal waters, to provide additional funding to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency for enforcement, and to introduce legislation to ban households from discharging raw sewage.

We last considered the petition in December 2023, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. Its response to the committee reiterates SEPA’s approach to regulation. The submission highlights two consultations, the first of which relates to proposals for an integrated environmental authorisation framework. The second consultation sought views on the regulation of private wastewater treatment systems to protect the environment.

The petitioner’s written submission states that the response from the Scottish Government provides a circular argument and does not provide more insight on regulation, as requested by the committee. She notes SEPA’s requirement to contribute to improving the health and wellbeing of people in Scotland and argues that the responses to the petition from both SEPA and the Scottish Government have not addressed that point. The petitioner states that all responses and strategies have focused entirely on environmental issues, to the exclusion of other linked duties.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Mr Torrance has made a couple of suggestions. Do we agree to keep the petition open and to pursue the suggested course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

Please be brief.

There is a moral there in many different ways.

Mr Carson, you have been listening patiently to the evidence. Before I draw this witness panel’s consideration to an end, I wonder whether you would like to say anything.

We will move on to our fourth theme, which is forthcoming legislation on national parks and a potential national parks statement, including the implications of pursuing reform and designation on a twin track.

Mhairi Dawson, the NFUS has said that

“existing national parks have failed to make a positive contribution to farming and crofting.”

What made you draw that conclusion?