³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Good morning to the witnesses. The danger of going last is that a lot of what you want to discuss has already been discussed. However, I have not heard from David Jenkins and Gillian Campbell specifically on the EPC validity time period being reduced from 10 years to five years. It would be helpful to hear their views on the reduction in the timeframe.

My final point does not relate directly to the EPC, but it forms part of the wider discussion. At some point, a heat in buildings bill should come through the Scottish Parliament. We do not have much time left between now and the end of this parliamentary session, but there should be a discussion of the issue, as the Government has outlined. I seek your views on how the regulations fit in with the forthcoming heat in buildings bill, from what you know or are aware of.

In relation to legislation in general, the Parliament will be debating the Housing (Scotland) Bill later today, there will then be the heat in buildings bill, and there is EPC reform. Do you think that we are overlegislating? Are we trying to do too much at the one time?

I know that that is a huge question. I do not know who wants to pick that up.

That is helpful. Thank you all very much.

That is helpful. I raised issues with the previous witnesses regarding rural properties and the significant challenges—bespoke challenges, in some instances—that they pose, given the type and structure of housing and the age of the properties that are involved. It is usually very challenging for home owners to get those properties up to current EPC standards without substantial additional costs. We have discussed a great deal how the initial costs might yield a benefit in future years, but there is a question whether the up-front cost is affordable for people. How challenging do you think that EPC reform and any other pieces of legislation that are coming down the track will be for the rural landscape?

That is helpful.

John Blackwood, to go back to Scottish-UK Government workings, would a more aligned approach to EPC reform make things easier for landlords who work across the country?

That is helpful.

Good morning. The Accounts Commission recently reported on Glasgow City Council’s early retirement and redundancy payouts. I was staggered to find out from the report that there was no independent scrutiny of the early retirement and redundancy payouts from restructuring and that the financial terms for the departures of five officials cost more than £1 million. Given that those payouts have come as the council is grappling, as are many others, with on-going budget cuts, that is embarrassing for the council—in particular for councillors, who are having to face up to the scenarios that can occur. However, there is also anger from communities, who see that the cuts always trickle down into communities while, on the other hand, there are big payouts for council officials.

Collectively, how can we look at that better? How can councillors be involved in the processes so that they are always sighted on them, whether in their audit or scrutiny committees or through any other mechanism that could be available to them to prevent such scenarios as I have described from happening in future?

That is helpful.

You referenced whistleblowing. Are the whistleblowing procedures in councils robust enough, or should councils be mindful of them to ensure that people feel confident to raise such matters through the correct processes?

Thank you.

Thank you, convener, and good morning, committee. Before I make my opening remarks, I declare an interest as I sit on the advisory board for Pregnant Then Screwed. It will therefore come as no surprise that I am here to support the petition in the name of Carole Erskine and the fantastic work that Pregnant Then Screwed does to highlight the challenges that many families right across Scotland face with childcare.

The challenges are very evident from the petition that has been submitted and the 2,600 submissions from parents who are struggling to grapple with the current 1,140 hours offering. If I may, I will use my personal experience of applying for childcare for my daughter, who is three. I have just embarked on the application process for the 1,140 hours of childcare, and even filling out the forms is not an easy process.

The process is usually quite lengthy. You have to number the nursery or childcare provision that you wish your child to undertake 1, 2, 3 and so on, and then you are beholden to local government as to whether you obtain one of those nursery slots or are directed to other nursery provision elsewhere. When the latter ends up being the case, parents have to travel considerable distances just to drop their child off at their childcare provision.

We have not even begun to look at the costs associated with the 1,140 hours provision. The hours will cover roughly two full days and another half-day; if you are a full-time working parent, you will have to cough up the costs for another two full days of provision. That shows the significant financial challenges of not only trying to access a nursery close to home, but the additional costs associated with the current funding model that we have in Scotland.

In the Pregnant Then Screwed survey of 2,600 parents whose submissions I have just mentioned, 83.7 per cent of parents said that their childcare costs were the same as or more than their income. Moreover, anyone listening to the radio this morning will have heard a parent explaining that their childcare costs could amount to £1,600 a month. That shows the stark costs of childcare in Scotland.

You have received useful responses from the SPNA and the NDNA about the petition’s request, setting out their concerns about local government, which has overall control of the budgets, and the requirement to provide funded hours. The fact is that nurseries in local authority areas cannot normally accommodate working parents who, for example, have 9-to-5 jobs. They might have to drop their child off at about 8 o’clock in the morning and might not be able to pick them up until 6 o’clock, and not all local authorities are able to provide that offering. As a result, those parents have to rely on the private sector, which is usually the poor man in the relationship with local authorities when it comes to the 1,140 hours provision.

I believe that it is time for an independent review, because we need to fully understand the costs facing parents and what they are having to front up in addition to the 1,140 hours. In other areas of the United Kingdom, the free funded childcare offering has been expanded from nine months to three years old, and I believe that that should be considered, too. We should be putting childcare back at the top of the Government’s agenda.

My request to the committee, therefore, is not to close the petition, but to look at referring it to another committee. I understand that we have roughly 20 weeks left before the end of the parliamentary session, but I would suggest that there are legacy reports. Even if the committee in question could not find time to consider the petition between now and the end of the parliamentary session, the matter could be covered in a legacy report, and it would show that the Parliament is taking seriously the issues that parents across the country are experiencing daily when it comes to providing their children with the best possible start in life.