���˿���

I think you addressed that in your previous reply.

That is always the way.

Good morning, everyone. To give some brief context to my question, there is consensus that, during Covid, great opportunities have been taken to improve equality, but every measure that is taken can inadvertently create some form of inequality. We have heard that remote participation is great unless a person’s device or broadband connection is not as good as someone else’s. Have there been any equalities issues that specifically relate to the change to online? Things can get better, but inequalities between different groups can still increase.

Do you want me to roll my second question together with this one, convener?

Rather than just putting on record what those inequalities might be, do the witnesses have any thoughts about how to address them? On broadband, for example, could the Parliament book a specific suite where there is good internet connectivity close to where the person lives, to ensure that there are no issues with connectivity or house space?

I have one final question, in case I do not come back in on this topic. As Artemis Pana and Bill Scott both mentioned, if someone has caring responsibilities or lives in a remote or rural area, it is great that they can contribute from home, but that should not cut them off from being able to come to Parliament. Might there be some inequalities in that regard? If we say to people, “Well, it’s difficult to get you to Parliament, so just go remote,” an inequality emerges. How can we address that sort of stuff?

I name-checked Artemis and Bill, so I should give them the opportunity to come in. Perhaps Bill can go first.

This is important, convener, and others on the committee are allowed to give a context to what they say.

The stability index shows that 78.9 per cent of staff in the sector are there at the start of the following year—they are retained for a year—and that is up by 2.5 per cent.

The reason why I put that on the record is that it is exactly the same as the level of retention across the wider social services sector, so it might be that there is an issue across that wider sector.

I am now going to ask a question, convener.

I want to look at the people who are in the sector, because recruitment and retention remain a challenge. They tend to be female and lower paid. We are not doing very well at attracting men into the sector, and that is an opportunity for recruitment and retention.

That was the context, convener. Would any of the witnesses like to pick up the cudgels? I know that, previously, there was a men in early years challenge fund of £50,000 to get men into the sector. What work is being done to achieve that and what success has there been? Clearly, if we are ignoring 48 per cent of the population for careers in early learning and childcare, we are letting down 100 per cent of the children. We need a diverse workforce—not just men, but black and minority ethnic individuals as well.

That all sounds great, but is there a disconnect between all of that and what happens locally on the ground? Is there a best-practice template that every local authority should use? There should, absolutely, be flexibility, but surely there are certain key things that every local authority should do in relation to the matter. We heard from witnesses that not every local authority is doing that, but they did not take up Mr Dey’s offer to name and shame or to put on the record the local authorities that have not stepped up to the plate. This is not about naming and shaming; it is about improving practice across the 32 local authorities and having an open, transparent and structured approach to engagement.

I ask Matthew Sweeney, then Adam Hall, to respond. I want to know how we can say, “Tick—that local authority is doing what we anticipated,” or, “That one has some work to do.” Unless we know what is happening on the ground, we will not drive up improvement. It is not about naming and shaming; it is about identifying who has to do a lot better.

Thank you. I had another question on diversity in the workforce, but I am looking at the convener. Do I have time to ask it just now, convener?

I am concerned about the word “patchy”, because the point of the recommendation in August last year was, kind of, that the situation was patchy and that the Government, COSLA and the Improvement Service should stop it being patchy.

I understand that having a strong process through which local authorities engage with the third and private sectors does not mean that providers will necessarily get the rates that they would like—although we hope that the output will be good news for the sector—but there must still be a strong, robust and engaged set of practices across the 32 local authorities. We understand that everyone is under financial pressure, but that is not an excuse not to have strong processes.

Matthew Sweeney, has the process been strengthened? How can we measure that across 32 local authorities, instead of just asserting that we have engaged? That is not, in the slightest, a dig at COSLA. How can we measure whether a robust process has been put in place for engagement?