Seòmar agus comataidhean

Therefore, it is a presumptive approach. It is presumed that the park will exist and then you can make contributions on that.

Before we move on, I welcome Finlay Carson, who has joined us while we consider the petition. Finlay, it is not normally the case that colleagues can participate in the questioning of witnesses, but should you wish to ask something, I am happy for you to indicate that to me and we will seek to bring you in, if that would be helpful.

We can note that, rather than pursue it. I was already struck by the fierce note of controversy that Mr Mayhew introduced by suggesting that Governments should do what they say that they are going to do.

With that, I thank Mr Lucas and Mr Mayhew for their evidence this morning. It is very much appreciated, and it will help us as we consider and develop the petition.

After all that I have said, we will be hearing from our friends at NatureScot at our next meeting, so I hope that they have been listening carefully to our deliberations today. Following that, we will hear from the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and the Islands. Members, are you content to consider the petition at a future meeting after we have had the opportunity to hear from NatureScot and the cabinet secretary?

Members indicated agreement.

As we are slightly behind time, I will suspend very briefly. I therefore ask those who are departing to do so quietly and that we change the scenery and personnel very quickly so that we can proceed without much delay.

We will keep the petition open and look forward to hearing from Police Scotland in due course.

Mr Carson just made a point about that in his submission. Yes, it seems like an extraordinarily long time for a delay and for nothing to be forthcoming. Those suggestions seems entirely reasonable. Are colleagues content that we keep the petition open and that we pursue those two suggestions and try to get some definition as to what is happening?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2111, which was lodged by Julie Fraser, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide families with financial support for early learning and childcare when their child reaches nine months of age. The SPICe briefing notes:

“Funded ELC is available to all three- and four-year-olds and some two- and five-year-olds. Eligibility for children under three is not currently universal, but is based on parents/carers being in receipt of certain benefits or the child or parent/carer having experience of care.”

It also notes that, in the programme for government in 2023-24, the Government said that the expansion of childcare support would cover children from nine months old when it stated that it would

“Work with Local Government and other partners to develop the local infrastructure and services needed to provide childcare from nine months to the end of primary school in specific communities in six local authority areas.”

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that it is

“working on the initial stages of an expanded national offer for more families with two-year-olds, focusing first on those who will benefit most.”

It explains that expansion work is currently focused on “insights and engagement”, including

“piloting new approaches through the Whole Family Wellbeing Fund and learning from the six early adopter communities.”

Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

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?