SWBG blog

Recognising the needs of parents of multiples in the upcoming Programme for Government

Joint blog by Carmen Martinez, SWBG's Coordinator, and Carole Erskine, Head of Policy & Campaigns at Pregnant then Screwed Scotland.

The last couple of weeks have seen Scotland gripped by political turmoil, and for the second time in just over a year, the country has a new First Minister. The Scottish Women’s Budget Group and Pregnant then Screwed Scotland would like to congratulate Mr Swinney on his appointment and take this opportunity to highlight one of our shared asks for the upcoming Programme for Government: extending the funded Early Learning and Childcare (ELC) offer (1140 hours) to children of multiple births at the earlier age of 2, alongside children from the vulnerable category group.

Current context 

In August 2021, the Scottish Government introduced a new funded ELC offer, which provides all families with up to 1140 hours per year funded childcare for all three- and four-year-olds. Two-year-olds from households facing the most socio-economic disadvantage also qualify, with the Scottish Government using this investment to improve outcomes for children. 

While our organisations recognise that targeted support is needed for low-income families, the reality is that with the average cost of a full-time nursery place for an under three being £13,861.12¹ per year, more and faster action is required to improve affordability and accessibility of childcare in Scotland. We are campaigning for universal childcare offered to families from the end of maternity, though we recognise  this is something that might take a bit longer to achieve. In the meantime  it is crucial that the upcoming Programme for Government takes into account the particular circumstances that parents of multiples find themselves in.

A's story 

Perhaps no one can illustrate this issue better than ‘A’, a mother we have been in touch with for the last few months. Here is her story:

“I am a teacher, and my salary is £53,000 as I have a promoted post. My local nursery has put fees up from £56-£73 over the past year and a half, this will only continue to rise. I know that this increase has a huge impact on many families, but can you imagine having 2 or more children to pay childcare for when you have a multiple birth. As a family we have a mortgage which is cheaper than rent at £870, and we own one car, we have no credit cards or overdrafts and carefully planned our second pregnancy. My childcare costs per week will be £700, £600 for the twins’ nursery fees and £100 for my child’s morning and after school club. For a four-week month, this will equate to £2800 and for a five-week month this will be £3500. You get no discounts for twins attending nursery and I have had to take two years off work as the waiting list for twins has been longer and the earliest I could get a place was August 2025 (the nursery stated that as I have twins this adds to the pressures of them finding me a place earlier ). My take home salary after pension and student loan fees is roughly £2700 so ultimately, I cannot afford to go back to work. This will mean that when the mortgage renewal is up next year, we face the possibility of having to sell our home as both incomes are needed. It truly is working poverty. No matter how many times I think this can’t be, the truth is that this is now our reality.

In Scotland in 2022, there were 622 twin births and 9 triplet births. This was 1.36% of all maternities or 1 in 74. Currently unless you are on benefits there is no support for parents of multiples towards childcare costs or anything which you need times 2 or 3.

At a recent conference which I attended based on childcare provisions in Scotland all the organisations present stated that little to no consideration had been given to the extra financial burden which parents of multiples face. I am worried that the voices of those with multiples are not being considered and it must be as we suffer more so than any other parents due to increasing childcare costs.

I think everyone in society would agree that those with multiples need extra support, everyone who I meet asks how will I be able to afford childcare as it’s bad enough paying for one , my answer is always ‘ I don’t know ‘ , for the first time in my life I do not know whether I can afford to go back to work to a job I love and that I have worked so hard to achieve and I face the prospect of losing our home.  We cannot be forgotten when making family and childhood policies, we deserve better, and we need support”.

What we are asking for

The lack of consideration of the unique position of parents of multiples in the ELC policy is likely to have been an oversight. 

That’s why we ask the First Minister to recognise the needs of parents of multiples, and to include them within the policy guidelines as part of any changes to the ELC offer in his upcoming Programme for Government 2024/2025.

 

Footnotes

1. Childcare costs: How much do you pay in Scotland?

Flexible childcare, an ideal or a necessity? A summary

The Scottish Women’s Budget Group (SWBG) is hosting a series of events focusing on the need to further invest in childcare in Scotland. To mark International Women’s Day, we delivered the second webinar of this series, Flexible childcare, an ideal or a necessity?

Our Childcare Survey 2023 found that women on low incomes, such as those working in the hospitality and retail sector, were less able to access the 30 hours funded Early Learning and Childcare (ELC) offer in Scotland, currently available to children aged 3 or 4, and some eligible 2-year-olds, due to a lack of flexibility in service provision.

This webinar sought to discuss this issue and explore alternative childcare models and other solutions, such as flexible working, so services can better respond to the needs of families in a modern Scotland. The webinar featured:

• Dr Aleksandra Webb’s research, supported by the UWS-Oxfam Partnership, on the childcare challenges faced by mothers in Scotland's performing arts sector.
• Perspectives from childcare providers offering flexible services via Flexible Childcare Services Scotland.
• Other solutions, such as the role that flexible working policies can play in supporting families, discussed by Lisa Gallagher, Co-Founder and Director at Flexibility Works.

 

Why do we need flexible childcare services?

Dr Aleksandra Webb’s research helps show us.

Focusing on mothers whose job (fully or partially) involves performing on stages, on radio or similar, it provides a glimpse into the difficulties experienced by women whose work does not adhere to the traditional 9-5 schedule.  

It’s clear that managing work and childcare is difficult for mother-performers. Their work conflicts with existing childcare provision, as nurseries tend to be inflexible and incompatible with work patterns in the performing arts and entertainment sector, which can mean mothers often lose out on the statutory state-funded ‘free’ hours.  This problem continues for school age children, with a lack of suitable ‘wrap-around’ childcare outside of normal school hours, such as breakfast or after-school clubs.

Mother-performers also struggle to find suitable childcare solutions particularly when they lack personal networks through which unpaid childcare can be provided. Finally, Aleksandra drew attention to what’s called the ‘double pay’ penalty, which happens when mother-performers pay for regular childcare fees as well as any childcare costs during periods when artists perform away from home.

Two key policy learnings emerge from these findings:  

• Firstly, greater recognition of the needs of parents working in non-standard forms of paid employment is crucial. This means increasing funding for and improving access to flexible childcare services, including wraparound childcare.
• Secondly, childcare solutions should be co-designed with parents, including those working out with standard forms of paid employment. 

Is it possible to deliver childcare flexibly?

In short, yes.

While Aleksandra’s presentation centered around the reasons why the availability of flexible childcare services is crucial for gender equality, Susan McGhee, CEO at Flexible Childcare Services Scotland  (FCSS), put the focus on ‘how’ to make this possible from a provider’s perspective, and the difference it makes for families.  

Flexible Childcare Services Scotland was created in response to parents being unable to take up employment or education offers due to lack of high quality, flexible, accessible and affordable childcare services. Starting as a pilot project in Dundee, it scaled up to its current form, with seven settings across Scotland.

Amongst its different features, this service offers the possibility of making bookings (and payments) by the hour, changing booking patterns week to week, requiring no deposits or holiday retainers, and can cater for children and young people, from birth to 16 years.

The results speak for themselves, boosting incomes and improving parents’ mental health:  

• 77% of parents using the service said that flexible childcare options helped them work more.
• 48% said that their household income had increased by 0-£2,000 per year.
• 12% it increased by £2,000 - £5,000 per year.
• 21% said their household income had increased by £5,000 + per year.

The survey also showed that more than half of the families using the service fall within the ‘priority groups’ identified by the Scottish Government as part of their efforts to deliver Scotland’s legal child poverty targets, including that fewer than 10% of children live in relative poverty by 2030.

Of course, there are difficulties running a service where there are no set bookings, but it’s still based on occupancy levels that guarantee business sustainability.

To help achieve this, Susan explained that FCSS uses Caerus, a ground-breaking childcare management software designed to help providers advertise and manage their services to offer a flexible model. She believes this software will allow FCSS to increase the scale of flexible childcare in Scotland.

While achieving maximum occupancy is harder using this type of model, delivering childcare flexibly is also more expensive due to higher labour hourly rates and other additional costs linked to providing wraparound care. However, Susan highlighted that this investment also puts money directly back into families’ pockets, further reducing poverty and boosting the local economy.

What other solutions exist?

Our final speaker, Lisa Gallagher, from Co-Founder and Director at Flexibility Works, got us thinking about how childcare and flexible working complement each other when it comes to helping parents (particularly mothers) balance their life and work commitments. Additionally, flexible working can also help businesses, the wider society and the economy by making it easier for employees to stay in work.

Flexible working can be about where someone works, when someone works and how much someone works. In other words, flexible working ensures workers have more autonomy over working patterns, which in turn can help with saving on costs, including childcare (i.e. breakfast clubs). Unsurprisingly, at 25%, the top reason why people work or want to work flexibly is due to childcare needs, according to Flexibility Works’ own research, followed by wellbeing (17%) and mental health (10%).

Flexible working is not just for office workers. While it might be difficult for those in frontline services to fully work flexibly, Lisa says there is still a degree of flexibility that can be applied to all professions. In relation to this point, she shared 10 practical actions which frontline workers say make a difference to their work/life balance, such as working compressed hours or being given time to pop out for small amounts of time during working time.

The benefits of flexible working:

• 66% of women looking to get back into work say being able to work flexibly was ‘essential’ for them to take up employment.
• 76% of unemployed adults looking for work have turned down a job because it wasn’t flexible.
• 35% of working women said that flexible working supports them to stay employed and support themselves and their families.
• 71% of employers said flexible working has been good for them; reducing sickness or increase the quantity and quality of candidates during recruitment while maintaining productivity.

While the focus of the webinar was about the role of ‘flex’ in supporting families to balance work and caring commitments, the benefits of flexible working go beyond this, and as such, Lisa called for all public bodies to lead by example with good working practices. In relation to its links with childcare, Lisa recommended that flexible working and flexible childcare is championed as part of the economic argument within the Scottish Government’s “New Deal for Business Group” and advocated for continued support for programmes that support women to return to work, should they choose to do so.

Increasing flexible childcare offer in Scotland

The availability of a wide range of childcare services is an important part of the puzzle to support families enter, stay or improve their employment prospects. Equally, ensuring flexible working is available to parents is another crucial solution to help families balance work and life commitments, including childcare. And for women, such measures can help to close the gender gap in the labour market, improving their economic prospects.

Making care visible and recognising the economic contributions that investing in childcare, and flexible childcare, has on the wider economy will be two of the key themes that we will discuss in the third webinar of this series. Keep an eye on our socials LinkedIn, X (Twitter), Facebook and Instagram 

 

 

This webinar series is supported by Oxfam Scotland

 

Equalities, women and cuts to public services

Our Coordinator, Carmen Martinez, reflects on the way in which Aberdeenshire Council justified its decision to close their out-of-school-hours care service and the language used by the Glasgow HSCP in their EQIA Budget Report, and questions whether these are examples of a broader trend.  

A few weeks ago, Angela O’Hagan published her latest article ‘Gender Budgeting in Scotland since Devolution’ (O'Hagan, 2024), which reflects on how gender budgeting was introduced in Scotland, and its progress ever since. One of Angela’s points was about the “evaporation of gender in the framing of equalities" (O'Hagan, 2024), and the challenges that this has posed for advancing gender equality. She explains that this lack of focus has meant that the systemic issues that rely on women providing care, including unpaid care, are still to be tackled by the very economic strategies designed to transform or develop the economy (the Scottish Government’s National Strategy for Economic Transformation being a clear example of this) (O'Hagan, 2024). As a result, so much needed (and promised) change is still to materialize, at least to the extent of making a difference to women’s lives.  

The arguments and overall challenge described in the article certainly felt familiar. There is a lack of consistency in the way gender analysis is used in policymaking in Scotland, an issue that we (and other organisations across the women’s sector) often highlight through our work. Over the last few months, however, we have noticed what seems to be the beginning of a new trend which poses a further barrier to achieving the change that we want to see. I am referring to the way in which cuts to public services and/or policy programmes have been explained as a means to drive ‘equalities’ or how the co-option of language can hide the lack of public investment in services.    

A case on point is how Aberdeenshire Council has justified its decision to close their out of school care (OOSC) provision. A report written for the Council’s Education and Children’s Services Committee (Aberdeenshire Council, 2024) provides background information in relation to this service, which includes eight settings serving 15 of the 146 primary schools in Aberdeenshire and is used by 349 children (2% of primary school pupils). Current provision is down from the original 15 Council-run OOSC services set up in 2019. This is due to challenges with recruitment and retention of staff and to changing demand from parents/carers, partly explained by the impact of the pandemic and the cost-of-living crisis. The report also highlights that while the service was originally set up to recoup costs, this never happened, and with increasing budget pressures, it recommends that the remaining open settings close from July 2024, solving an expected overspend of £700,000 (Aberdeenshire Council, 2024). From this perspective, the closure of this service is explained as a cost-management exercise. However, the report goes beyond this, citing inequities in service provision (both in terms of location of settings and the children the service is provided to), as another reason for stopping the council’s OOSC service:

“82% of children accessing local authority provision coming from Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) Deciles 8, 9 and 10 (least deprived) and no children from Deciles 1, 2 and 3 (most deprived)” (Aberdeenshire Council, 2024). 

Additionally, the report refers to other issues with the current model, particularly how it "is limiting the scope of opportunity for developing the wider childcare sector", which involves private, voluntary, and independent (PVI) settings (Aberdeenshire Council, 2024). The key message is as follows. The Council are subsidising a small number of children in the least deprived areas, which isn't fair or equitable, while delivery is limiting the development of the wider sector. Thus, provision of such a costly service must come to an end, particularly at a time of tight budgets.  

There are several issues in relation to how the Committee’s report presents the information leading to the recommendation on the closure of the Council’s service. For example, the use of the SIMD, while helpful, does not tell us anything about ‘who’ will be directly affected and in what ways. The report’s impact assessment shows that some consideration has been given to the impact on women and low-income groups. While this is slightly at odds with the argument about ‘inequities in service provision’, the main issue here is the use of ‘equalities’ as a reason to close the service. Why? Because it detracts attention from the consequences that the lack of wraparound care will have on women, their ability to seek or retain paid work, and the repercussions of this for gender equality. In other words, the Council’s decision seems to miss sight of the systemic barriers that ultimately create the conditions for women’s inequality and poverty.  

The danger is that, with increasingly challenging budgets, this type of reasoning becomes the norm, resulting in more gender-blind approaches to policymaking and budget setting processes.  

Another case is the language used by the Glasgow Health and Social Care Partnership in their Strategic Plan for 2023-26 (Glasgow IJB, 2023) and EQIA Budget Report 2024-2025 (Glasgow HSCP, 2024). "Maximising people’s independence" is the foundation of this HSCP’s Strategic Plan, which also acknowledges that "this doesn’t mean asking people to live without any support at all" (Glasgow IJB, 2023). However, the EQIA Budget Report concedes that 

“efficiencies have been identified through the implementation of the Maximising Independence Programme (…) This option includes a reduction of 20 FTE. As a result of work to minimise the need for escalation to higher levels of formal care, there is scope for a reduction in staff in line with demand” (Glasgow HSCP, 2024). 

This puts into question whether behind the Glasgow City HSCP’s objective of "maximising people’s independence" there was an intention to provide support only when strictly necessary, contravening one of the aims of the strategic plan to "deliver services within a human-rights based approach" (Glasgow IJB, 2023).. It also lends weight to our theory about this being a case where the co-option of language hides decreases in public service provision. As a result, the ‘status quo’ prevails, and with it, the challenges faced by disabled women as highlighted in our recent work with the Glasgow Disability Alliance (GDA, SWBG, 2023).

What now? 

The Scottish Women’s Budget Group will continue questioning how public bodies make budget decisions and the impact of these. At a time when women are disproportionally being affected by the cost-of-living crisis, using gender budgeting tools to scrutinise policy interventions and budget decisions is as important as ever.  

 

References

1. O'Hagan, A. (2024) 'Gender Budgeting in Scotland since Devolution', in Scottish Affairs 33.1: 72–84 . Link: Scottish-Affairs-Gender-Budgeting-2024-AOH-aeab676f04b2b794.pdf (bpb-eu-w2.wpmucdn.com)
2. Aberdeenshire Council, (2024) 'Report to Education and Children's Services Committee. Aberdeenshire Out-of-School Care (OOSC) Provision'. Link: 07 Aberdeenshire Out of School Care OOSC Provision.pdf (moderngov.co.uk)
   FEBRUARY 2024 07 Aberdeenshire Out of School Care OOSC Provision.pdf (moderngov.co.uk)
3. Glasgow City Integration  Joint Board (2023), "Strategic Plan for Health and Social Care 2023-2026". Link: https://glasgowcity.hscp.scot/sites/default/files/publications/IJB%20Financial%20Allocations%20and%20Budgets%202024-2025.pdf 
4. Glasgow City Health and Social Care Partnership (2024), "Outcome of Preliminary Equality Impact Assessments", Budget Financial Allocations. Link: IJB Financial Allocations and Budgets 2024-2025.pdf (hscp.scot) 
5. Glasgow Disability Alliance and Scottish Women's Budget Group (2023) Policy Briefing. Link: SWBG-GDA-BriefingPaper.pdf 

What’s wrong with childcare in Scotland? A summary

The Scottish Women’s Budget Group (SWBG) is hosting a series of events focusing on the need to further invest in childcare in Scotland. Last month, we hosted the first webinar, ‘What’s wrong with childcare In Scotland? Perspectives ahead of the Scottish Budget 2024/2025’.

Aimed at policymakers and other stakeholders with an interest in improving the current system in Scotland, as well as the public, the webinar explored issues such as the affordability of childcare, availability, and the impact of the cost-of-living crisis on service providers. The webinar featured:

• Insights from SWBG’s 2023 Childcare Survey and Pregnant then Screwed Scotland’s survey data;
• Perspectives from childcare providers via the National Day Nurseries Association;
• Evidence on links between childcare, poverty and work from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation

The webinar also presented an opportunity to discuss recommendations ahead of the publication of the Scottish Budget 2024/2025, and generated a wave of debate amongst those in attendance. Participants contributed their own views and experiences as users and providers of childcare services.

Below we capture the key insights from the webinar.

Looking at childcare through a gendered lens.

SWBG Coordinator, Carmen Martinez, kicked off the webinar with a summary of the SWBG’s ‘2023 Childcare Survey’  findings, drawing attention to the cost of childcare and the impact that the current inflationary period is having on women’s ability to manage this expense. For example, 54% of women told us that they had to make changes to other areas of household spending to manage childcare costs while 30% were struggling with costs. Regarding availability, 38% of all survey respondents found accessing childcare difficult, and 22% found it very difficult (both during the school term and holidays). Those who struggle due to accessibility issues include respondents with school-age children who are unable to find wraparound care which fits around their working hours. SWBG also highlighted some of the issues with the existing 1,140 hours of funded childcare offer, this mainly focused on the lack of flexibility in provision, as only 14% of respondents who qualified for funded hours noted that the scheme fully meets their needs.

We also looked at the impacts that managing childcare have on women. According to our survey, 55% of women said that this has impacted on paid work they could do, with 66% reporting that the cost of childcare has impacted their financial wellbeing, and 48% stating that managing childcare has influenced their decision NOT to have another child. Finally, SWBG brought to the fore the economic impacts of childcare costs on women. Almost 33% of our survey respondents had to reduce their working hours to be able to manage childcare costs (while only 8% of respondents told us that their partners had to reduce their hours). In addition, 20.5% women said they were using compressed hours, arranged informally with their employer to manage childcare. This figure was 14.8% for their partners. This highlights the extent to which the lack of social infrastructure (i.e. affordable and accessible childcare) penalises women, contributing to gender inequality.  

Carole Erskine, from Pregnant then Screwed, shared similar findings. According to their survey data, 65% of Scottish parents are leaving the workforce or reducing their hours due to the cost and/or lack of availability of childcare. In addition, 43% of parents who have seen childcare costs increase in the last 10 months say they cannot afford to have any more children, and 65% of mothers with a child under 12 months say that they either have or will have to cut their maternity leave short due to the cost-of-living crisis. These percentages contribute to the increasing body of evidence linking the cost and/or lack of adequate childcare services to women’s inequality.

The providers’ perspective

An interesting perspective, and one that the SWBG was keen to explore following our Childcare Survey 2023, was the implementation of the funded ELC offer in Scotland. Jonathan Broadbery, Director of Policy and Communications at the National Day Nurseries Association (NDNA), a representative body for private and voluntary day nurseries that are involved in delivering childcare, provided a very informative assessment. He started by pointing out what’s right with childcare in Scotland, recognising where the country sits compared to other UK nations. He highlighted the ambition of the 1,140 hours policy, which center on facilitating parents’ return to the labour market and, very importantly, improving the quality of childcare at a crucial time for children and their development. Other laudable policy principles are affordability and accessibility for 3- and 4-year-olds, parental choice, and its focus on children’s rights.

Jonathan also discussed the differential funding approaches to ELC as well as the impact that inflation is having on providers’ cost-of-operating crisis. For example, whilst 30% of funded hours are delivered by private nurseries, the funding received is not proportional to this, which is exacerbating the recruitment crisis in the sector, but also impacts on parent’s choice and the overall costs of childcare. For instance, parents of younger children face higher costs as providers try to ensure the sustainability of their service. Given these challenges, NDNA calls for increasing investment to pay ‘genuinely’ sustainable rates, improving providers’ business sustainability, and pay for the workforce. Additionally, it would like to see supported employment programmes into ELC and a single ELC account for families to make the system less complex and increase take-up.

Pre-school childcare as an effective tool to reduce poverty

The webinar also discussed other approaches to ELC. Jack Evans, Senior Policy Adviser at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, spoke about their current project, which focuses on meeting one of the Scottish Government’s three strategic objectives for ELC: poverty reduction. Before delving into the project’s details (literature review, polling with families, public and sector consultations and modelling), Jack noted some key aspects that interact with ELC policy such as the value that parents place on their childcare, the risks of ignoring inequalities in unpaid work, and issues affecting the workforce and providers, which are crucial to finding solutions that can work in the ‘real world’.

More specifically, the project’s context considers work intensity trends (number of working hours that people do) for all families, and for those living in poverty. For example, while the most common working set-up for families is both parents in full-time work, families in poverty are more likely to include one parent working full time, and one parent not working (93% of those not in work being women). Regarding people trapped in persistent low paid work (11% of Scotland’s population), 72% of them are women. Therefore, to avoid exacerbating gender inequalities in the labour market, Jack highlighted that having an ELC offer that moves parents into work is not enough. Instead, parents need to move to jobs that pay at least the Real Living Wage or above, and argued that ELC has a role to play in supporting parents to find better work.

Within this context, the project’s literature review captures previous research on ELC, and it includes a summary of 47 recommendations related to the interaction of work and ELC, such as data collection, parent’s lack of choice, the financialisation of childcare or interactions between ELC and the child benefit payment. This literature review found large gaps about what hasn’t been properly evaluated, for example, the variation in delivery and strategy between local authorities. While this does not mean that there are 32 different ELC strategies in Scotland, there is a certain degree of variation, and knowing ‘what works’ would be key to improve good practice. The project’s literature review also focuses on contradictory findings. For example, while quantitative research shows that families are generally happy with the quality and flexibility of ELC, parents may report a different experience via qualitative research. In this regard, the project’s commissioned polling has revealed that the policy aims of the existing offer match with parents’ needs and what parents want from a new offer is not widely different, with the majority indicating a preference for a funded ELC of between 35 and 40 hours per week. This new offer would increase family resilience. In terms of what this new offer would mean for parents’ work, it would allow parents to increase their work hours (from no work to work, or from part-time work to full-time), to access better paid work (overcoming the pay gap that exists from part-time to full-time work) and more secure work.

While there is more data to analyse, some early conclusions from this project point out that the interaction between childcare and increasing income is not straightforward, and that any considerations about ELC policy must include labour market dynamics. In addition, changes to existing offers must be targeted, for example, to close the dissatisfaction gap between rural and urban settings. Finally, Jack noted that new funding models must be on the table, including the review of the existent universal offer to ease the burden on services and to ensure that people on the lowest income get the necessary support, so Scotland can meet its poverty targets.

Scotland’s incomplete journey on childcare

The webinar made it clear that the issue of childcare in Scotland is far from being resolved. While the Scottish Government’s funded ELC offer has been welcomed by families, its implementation has caused challenges to private and third sector providers, particularly as the cost-of-living crisis has increased their operating costs. This, in turn, is impacting on childcare affordability as providers have no other choice but to increase their fees for 1- and 2-year-olds to ensure the financial sustainability of their service.

Inevitably, existing gender inequality in the labour market and/or persisting gender stereotypes over who does care mean that women are increasingly affected by childcare costs, as evidenced by SWBG’s and Pregnant then Screwed Scotland. What’s the way forward? While increasing the scope of the existing offer was in the mix of solutions discussed, speakers agreed that the Government’s priority should be to improve the implementation of the current funded ELC. But how long will parents need to wait for key improvements to be made? And what will delays mean for them, their children, those working in the sector and the wider Scottish economy?

What's next in the series?

Our second webinar will take place (online) on Tuesday 5th March. Further details will be shared early next week via our socials, so please keep an eye out!

 

This webinar series is supported by Oxfam Scotland