Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you very much, Professor Roy. I will ask two or three opening questions.

In broad terms, the reports examine how effective your forecasting has been to date and look forward to how it could be done in the longer term. With that in mind, and given that we know from your previous reports that there is potentially a significant gap in social security funding—a gap of around £700 million, as I recall—will you elaborate on the data requirements and the issues that you pointed out in the reports and in your opening remarks?

You touch on a really important facet, which the committee has had a real interest in when we have looked at the reports of the past year.

I have a brief follow-up—I am mindful of the time, colleagues. To what extent does the long-term fiscal sustainability report seek to understand and explain some of those long-term trends? It is one thing to observe and forecast them correctly, but as policymakers, we want to understand why they are happening, so that we can make policy decisions to address them. To what extent will the report seek to explain the sort of differences that you have just outlined?

Thank you. I will leave it there.

I will follow on from the point that the convener just hinted at with regard to how the methodology was arrived at, its impact and, latterly, its impact on the sector more generally.

The 1,140 hours entitlement has been implemented on the basis of 2014 legislation. There was survey work in 2016, which was part of a technical assessment, and we then had methodology in 2020. Given that the expansion to 1,140 hours will cost around £1 billion a year, what are the Government’s reflections about how we arrived at that, bit by bit, over a four-year period instead of having it all clearly set out in a financial memorandum? Would it not have been better to have done the 2016 exercise, which gives a relatively clear cost stack—there is a neat pie chart in there—at the beginning, so that we would have had clearer sight of the cost implications?

Is that a yes?

I will come on to the 2020 framework and the four methodologies. You have neatly prefigured what I was going to say next.

First, I would like you to clarify one point. It sounds very much as though you are saying that, in the sequence of events, that granular view was arrived at only after the decision to move to 1,140 hours. Would that be a fair reflection?

The fact that we still see £5.31 being used by so many local authorities seems to indicate that perhaps there has not been as much updating or reflection of local circumstances as we might have expected.

Alison Cumming indicated agreement.

Last week, we heard from representatives of the private, voluntary and independent sector, who feel that there is a lack of transparency in how local authorities are arriving at their rates. Looking at the methodology that is set out in the 2020 paper, I am left wondering why that is. I would like clarification on two points.

First, with regard to the four methodologies, my reading of the paper is not that any local authority should necessarily be using one methodology or another exclusively; it appears that a combination of methodologies would be the best way forward. However, that does not seem to be what is happening. Is that a fair assessment of how the framework was intended to be used?

Secondly, how is it being used? The paper that summarises the approaches that are being taken by local authorities shows that a number of local authorities are taking a survey-based approach, but they seem to have done so as a one-off, whereas the guidance says that surveys should be repeated regularly. It says that a survey of costs should be done multiple times a year. I am thinking of local authorities that have done a survey once a year or two years ago.

What work is the Scottish Government undertaking to ensure that those methodologies are being pursued as they ought to be?

Indeed. I heard that loud and clear.

Finally—and again expanding on what the convener was asking about childminders—if we look at the overall number of providers that we have, based on what the Care Inspectorate has said, we see that there has been an increase in the number of places but a net decrease in the number of providers. That is not just the number of childminders; that is across all providers. Given the fact that the bulk of the expansion has occurred within local authorities, that means that there has been a reduction well in excess of 5 per cent in the number of all types of non-local authority providers.

When the Scottish Government reflected on the impacts of the policy, that is not what was anticipated. What lessons should be drawn about the impact that the policy has had on implementation, both in the diversity of providers and in the flexibility of provision, given that most local authority settings do not provide childcare beyond school hours?

Terrific!

I want to follow on from some of the comments that have already been made, and primarily the point that Richard Leonard made about delays. Your annual report states that around 36 per cent of your audits are not meeting expected standards. I understand that you target 80 per cent. Will you provide an explanation as to why the figure is 36 per cent and say how and when you expect to meet the 80 per cent standard?