Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you, Lee. I want to turn to Priyanaz Chatterji, as she is in a more female environment with her team mates.

I declare that I am a mental health nurse and am currently registered with the Nursing and Midwifery Council.

Thank you, convener, and good morning to the committee. The amending order will increase from 1 April the income thresholds for families with a two-year-old who is eligible for funded early learning and childcare because a parent receives a joint working tax credit and child tax credit or a universal credit award.

The Provision of Early Learning and Childcare (Specified Children) (Scotland) Order 2014 specifies that a two-year-old is eligible for funded ELC if their parent is in receipt of child tax credit and working tax credit with an annual income that does not exceed £7,920 or if their parent is in receipt of universal credit with a monthly income that does not exceed £660 per month. The amending order increases from 1 April the income threshold to £8,717 per year for households that are in receipt of child tax credit and working tax credit, and the universal credit income threshold will increase to £726 per month, which is the equivalent of £8,717 per year.

We are making this change to reflect changes at a United Kingdom level. From April, the UK Government will increase the national living wage from £9.50 to £10.42 per hour, so household income would exceed the current thresholds if they remained the same. The order’s purpose is to protect eligibility for two-year-olds whom we would expect to be eligible for funded ELC as a result of their parents or carers being in receipt of the affected qualifying benefits. If we chose to make no changes to the income thresholds, we estimate that about 1,000 eligible two-year-olds would no longer be eligible, despite there being no significant difference in their families’ household circumstances.

It is important to be clear that no two-year-old who currently receives funded ELC will be affected by the changes. Once a child has met the eligibility criteria, they will remain eligible, despite any subsequent change in circumstances.

As the amendment’s purpose is to maintain eligibility, we do not expect a significant increase in the number of two-year-olds who become newly eligible for provision. We do not expect a significant impact on local authorities’ ability to fund such provision within the current financial settlement. As such, there is no evidence that additional funding will be required to support implementation of the amendment.

The impact on uptake will be closely monitored by the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities through the appropriate mechanism, which is the ELC finance working group. Appropriate arrangements will be made if uptake is significantly above the expected level and if local authorities’ costs increase as a result.

As I said on my previous visits to the committee to discuss amending the thresholds, we will continue to monitor future increases to the national living wage, and we will uprate thresholds when that is required to keep pace with changes. COSLA agrees with that approach and agrees that it is necessary in order to maintain a similar profile of eligible children.

I am happy to respond to any specific questions from the committee.

Certainly. I can write to the committee with that information, if that would be helpful, so that all committee members can access that.

The data sharing arrangements are not yet in place, so they have not had an impact that would show a change. We still expect those arrangements to be in place for the end of this financial year and we are on track for that. We have been progressing work on the data sharing arrangements with the DWP, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and local authorities. As soon as we have all those data sharing agreements in place, the information will then be able to be shared with local authorities, so that they can access it and write to the parents of eligible children. With COSLA and local authorities, we will look at how that uptake goes. On current figures, we anticipate that around 25 per cent of children in Scotland will be eligible. We have to remember that England and Wales already have those data sharing arrangements, but Scotland does not.

We will monitor that, and I am sure that the committee will be interested in the figures. I can commit to writing to the committee to let you know when the data sharing arrangements are in place and how many families we anticipate are eligible. However, we need to remember that families have choice and that not every parent of an eligible child will decide that they want to access that provision.

I will pass over to Kirstie McKerron, the lawyer, who I hope can answer that.

Yes.

No.

The bill has certainly highlighted to the committee and wider stakeholders that we need to improve transitions but, as I said, we have already committed to doing that. Obviously, we would look to see whether the bill would add value to that.

Good morning, convener and committee, and thank you for your invitation to Ms McKelvie and me today.

I will start by recognising and thanking Pam Duncan-Glancy for the attention that she has drawn to the important topic of transitions for disabled young people through the bill. We know about the importance of good transitions planning in preparing children and young people for life beyond school. However, we also know that, for many disabled young people, the transition to young adult life still presents challenges.

We recognise that disabled young people leaving school and transitioning to young adult life is a complex area and that multi-agency collaboration and co-operation and a person-centred approach are required. We therefore whole-heartedly share the member’s ambition to improve the experiences and outcomes for disabled young people as they make the transition to young adult life.

However, we also share some of the questions that were raised by those who responded to the committee’s call for views and those who have already given evidence to the committee. The issues include the potential duplication or overlap of provisions in the bill with existing policy and legislation; considerations around implementation and the proposed duties on local authorities; clarity around definitions, data sharing, eligibility and resources; and, fundamentally, whether the bill as drafted could have its intended impact.

I therefore welcome the committee evidence sessions to consider the details of the bill’s provisions. It is essential that we consider all the evidence and options to ensure that we meet our shared aspiration of improving transitions for disabled children and young people.

As I set out in the Scottish Government response to the committee’s call for views, there is already a range of legislation, plans and policies in place that support the objective of improving transitions to adulthood, and we are committed to doing more.

We have already given non-statutory effect to two of the main provisions in the bill. We have done that through the joint ministerial leadership for transitions, which Ms McKelvie and I are taking forward, and through our programme for government commitment to introduce in this parliamentary term the first national transitions to adulthood strategy for disabled young people.

There are other important developments across the Scottish Government that support our shared outcome of improving transitions for disabled children and young people. Those include refreshing the planning guidance under getting it right for every child; developing a new approach to getting it right for everyone; continued support to the ARC Scotland principles into practice trial and to the Independent Living Fund Scotland’s transition fund; continued investment in employment support, including through the young persons guarantee; and important legislative developments, which include the incorporation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and, of course, the national care service.

Ms McKelvie and I would be happy to provide more details on any of those things today. I look forward to any questions that members might have.