Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is great. Thank you very much, Elaine. Aoife Deery had her hand up, so I will go to her next.

I certainly will.

I realise that I had my housing hat on—I referred to the private rented sector when I meant the private, voluntary and independent sector.

I did not believe that I would make it to the session this morning; I am delighted that I have been able to do so. Thank you for giving me a moment to speak.

This is a really important petition, which has been lodged by Pregnant Then Screwed, on the overall childcare provision offering. I respect the response that the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise gave, but the sad reality is that many parents across Scotland are not receiving the provision that 1,140 hours is deemed to include. For example, in my local authority area—North Lanarkshire—children do not usually receive the 1,140-hour provision until the term after the one in which they turned three. That goes against the principle of there being free childcare provision from when a child turns three years old.

There are also issues in relation to capacity. Sometimes, parents are not able to receive childcare close to home. They do not receive their first, second or third option and are sent to other nurseries that might not be suitable for their needs or their working hours.

There are issues with the childcare provision roll-out as a whole. There are issues with the private rented sector, which does not feel like an equal partner when councils decide what is best to do with childcare provision funding. That is why we need a review. We cannot wait until the Parliament rises in March; something needs to be brought forward now.

I am delighted that groups such as Pregnant Then Screwed are working hard to press the Government to better childcare provision in Scotland. However, until the review is started, there is a need to keep holding the Government’s feet to the fire. I do not believe that the Government should be able to get away with this. We have had free childcare provision in Scotland for some time. It is the right moment to find out whether that is working for parents or whether substantial changes need to be made to make the childcare provision better.

I am very grateful, convener. I just want to convey my thanks to the committee for its work on this particular petition. I know from working with the families, and certainly from being part of the debates on the issue, how sensitive it is. However, that being said, there are still some real concerns that have not been addressed by the minister or by the Scottish Government. Some of those concerns have already been touched on, but I stress the concern about the number of beds, because that is a really important point and I have been trying to pursue it with the minister. At present, in neonatal wards, there is, for every 10 babies born, only one bed for parents to stay over. If the centralisation or downgrading—however you want to term it—takes place, there is a risk that parents will not be able to stay close by their babies, who are very vulnerable and very sick. That is not the right care or the way in which we should be treating families who are in that difficult position. I ask the committee, please, to continue with the petition—for the sake of the families and of any families who need to use these vital services in the future.

11:15

The report also said that there could be between three and five specialised units. It is for the Scottish Government to explain why there are three, not five. If there were five, it would give families more reassurance about where they could go, should their babies need that specialised care.

I appreciate having the time for a short contribution.

The Scottish Association of Landlords is in favour of retaining the 10-year period, arguing that increased regulation incurs costs, which can then be passed on to tenants. I am trying to gain more understanding as to why the Government has decided to reduce the validity period from 10 years to five years, and, in particular, what impact that might have on private landlords.

That is helpful. Convener, I do not have any further questions on that.

I am sorry, but I had—

Finally, you have used the term “significant increase”? Could you give us an indication of what “significant” means in that context? “Significant” could mean different things to different people, so it would be helpful to get clarity on that.

Finally, on statutory services, there is a growing concern that funding for areas that are not directly protected in one way or another will go back to statutory services in local authority areas. You have seen that. You have seen tensions between communities and local government councillors who are trying to balance the needs of their communities with the budgets that they have been given. You will of course be aware that roughly 80 to 85 per cent of funding is given to councils directly by the Scottish Government as opposed to being what they can generate from council tax increases. Are you concerned about that? Do you understand that it could generate an increase in complaints to councils in future years if local government is not given a fair funding settlement?

Thank you, convener, and good morning to our witnesses. I am very interested to hear the witnesses’ views on the ability of local authorities to increase council tax next year as they see fit. Certainly, in the 2025-26 budget for local government, we saw some stark increases; one example is Falkirk Council, which increased its council tax by 15.6 per cent. I am interested to hear views on council tax increases but also on the impact that such increases will have on hard-working taxpayers—both individuals and families. What could be the consequences of increasing council tax, and what impact could that have on individuals in the community?