SWBG blog

Beyond Scotland: what does childcare look like elsewhere?

Over the past year, the Scottish Women’s Budget Group has been exploring different aspects of Early Learning and Childcare (ELC) policy in Scotland: from affordability to flexibility (or lack thereof) of services, to the economic impact of investing in childcare (both in the short and long term). While these webinars have touched on some international examples of best practice, the last event of the series sought to address a question left untouched: what does childcare look like elsewhere? The webinar heard from speakers from Canada, France and Estonia.

Third order change. Childcare developments in Canada.

Susan Prentice, Duff Roblin Professor of Government at the University of Manitoba, kicked us off with an overview of the latest developments in Canada’s childcare system. Up until 2021, Canada was one of the lowest spenders on ECL among OECD countries: there was no country-wide programme, no entitlement, no plan for building a system, and limited public funding. High fees and low overall access were two of the most notorious features of the system, which offered no public provision of any kind.

Following decades of advocacy efforts and as a consequence of the pressures created by Covid, in 2021 the Government published its Canada-wide Early Learning and Childcare Plan (CWELCC), alongside its federal budget of 2021. It committed to building a system of affordable, inclusive, high quality “early learning and childcare for all” children below school age, backed by $30 billion to be spent over 5 years. The provinces and territories were responsible for the implementation of CWELCC. While differential approaches were taken, one the plan’s key features – the promotion of affordable childcare at a cost of $10/day to parents – has been delivered across the country. Similarly to what we saw in the previous webinar on ‘Is investing in childcare worth it?’, the economic returns of this investment are clear and quantifiable. For example, studies in Quebec have found returns on investment of more than $3.50 for every $1 spent on childcare.

But the question that Susan really wanted us to reflect on was... is this the type of radical and rare shift in policy (or “third order change”) that Paul Cairney, Professor of Politics and Public Policy at the University of Stirling refers to in his book ‘Understanding Public Policy’? And, in addition, will CWELCC become part of Canada’s social infrastructure?

Susan shared that the rollout of the policy has been messy. While federal conditions were clearly set out to ensure “affordability”, there was less clarity around expansion, inclusion, workforce recruitment and the quality of care available. Parallel to this, there is the paradox that low prices created “induced demand” and, with this, a perception that the policy is failing – this is being exploited by the Government’s opposition. And while limiting childcare costs to $10/day might remain in place under a different Government, other crucial objectives of the policy – such as the expansion of services through non-profits and public delivery, or stabilizing the childcare workforce – will most likely disappear from (a likely) new Government’s list of priorities, and with it, the idea of this policy being an example of ‘third order’ change.

Childcare in France

France’s childcare system is not exempt from challenges. Our second speaker, Nathalie Casso-Vicarini, an early childhood educator and the founder and managing director of the association “Ensemble pour la petite enfance”, stressed that the debate about public versus private childcare provision is a hot topic in the country. The level of public funding provided is 50%, with families contributing an amount depending on their financial circumstances, making the system affordable. Yet only 5% of children living under the poverty line have access to childcare centres. This very low level of access is a problem, as child poverty affects 1 in 5 children in France.

The French system relies on public and private settings, with a market share of 70% and 30% respectively. However, private settings are made up of big companies which sacrifice quality of care in pursuit of profit. In terms of accessibility of childcare, services are available to children from 10 weeks old to three years of age. While this level of access is positive, having the best interest of the child at heart means offering a nurturing environment as well, and for this, the training requirements of the workforce are key. In this regard and following on from the ‘First 1000 Days’ commission set up by President Macron in 2019, France has developed a framework to regulate the quality of care across all social services, including children’s services.

One example of evidence-based best practice in France is the ‘Houses of the first 1000 days’ (the Maisons des 1,000 Premiers Jours), a network of centers that support parents and young children from conception to two years old. 80% of couples join this network, which, among other objectives, aims at reducing mothers’ feelings of isolation which is a risk factor for children’s development.

Despite initiatives such as this and the wider focus on improving quality of care, France’s journey towards a childcare system that delivers more equitable outcomes is an unfinished task. Nathalie’s organisation sees the following five steps as a prerequisite to reach this objective:

• Better maternity and paternity policies (minimum of 6 months at 80% of the salary);
• Building confidence with all families through the ‘Houses of the first 1000 days’ with the aim of tackling poverty;
• Ensuring that the ELC workforce have access to high quality training;
• Providing access to public and affordable childcare for all children from the age of 6 months;
• Ensuring access in both rural and urban areas; and
• Continued evaluation of care quality by analysing data to ensure progress.

Is Estonia’s kindergarten model the way to go?

Ulle Matsin, Head of the Educational Policy Department at the Ministry of Education and Research in Estonia, explored the reasons behind Estonia’s strong performance in the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), pointing towards the country’s quality of preschool education, which is an integral part of the country’s educational system.

Pre-school education is primarily delivered to children between the ages of 18 months to 7 years in specially dedicated educational institutions: mainly kindergartens, but also general education schools with kindergarten groups. However, the country also has childcare service providers (the majority of which are private). Pre-school education involves a learning curriculum and substantive methodological activities. Regarding costs, local government sets the fees for children attending kindergarten, which need to be covered by parents alongside food costs. However, fees cannot exceed 20% of the country’s minimum salary as set out by the Government.

Because not all families are able to get a place in a kindergarten, the Government is working to align the quality of childcare services. A new draft of Estonia’s Early Childhood Education Act has been submitted to the country’s Parliament for this purpose. Once the reviewed Act passes, all childcare services (the majority of which are private providers) will be under the control of the Ministry of Education and Research, meaning that childcare services will need to meet the same quality standards as kindergartens. This piece of legislation also aims to ensure that special support is provided in kindergartens to children with additional support needs, as already happens in school age settings.

Conclusion

This webinar shone a light on the importance placed on the affordability of childcare in the three countries discussed. It reinforced the possibilities that affordable childcare can provide for women’s employment and for the state in the form of additional tax revenues through expanded parental employment. Indeed, Canada’s recent developments should serve as a reminder that investing in social infrastructure pays off. Yet, despite progress being made, most countries are grappling with different issues, the most common of which seems to be ensuring equitable access to childcare and ensuring high quality of care is provided. Estonia’s efforts to ensure both these issues are addressed should serve as an example of what can be achieved when Governments’ determination is put to test.

 

You can review the previous webinars in this series here:

Scottish Women’s Budget Group | SWBG blog | What’s wrong with childcare in Scotland? A summary
Scottish Women’s Budget Group | SWBG blog | Flexible childcare, an ideal or a necessity? A summary
Scottish Women’s Budget Group | SWBG blog | Is investing in childcare worth it? A summary

This webinar series is supported by Oxfam Scotland

Reflecting on the Scottish Draft Budget 2025-2026

While it’ll take some time to go through all the budget documentation, including equality impact assessments, and delve into the detail of the Equality and Fairer Scotland Statement, our first take on the budget is that it offers glimmers of hope for women who are feeling the crunch of years of rising prices. Yet more still needs to be done to invest in care and raise further revenue to support public services. 

The headline grabbing commitment to scrap the 2-child limit is a much needed and welcome decision that cannot come soon enough for families affected by the policy. Ideally this is an action that would change at source with the UK Government scrapping the harmful policy, rather than Scotland’s limited budget envelope being used to mitigate UK actions. Time will tell how the two governments negotiate the delivery of this policy. What must stay front of mind through this process is the families impacted by it and the potential to lift 15,000 children out of poverty. 

Although there’s difficulty comparing information to the current year’s budget due to changes made in reporting, some additional support for public services was announced, including the NHS and social care, and funds for local government. However, the Budget has fallen short of the investment required to make childcare more accessible, and to correct years of underinvestment in care services which are key for women. 

In terms of reporting, it is welcome that the Government has tried to show the 2025-26 Budget against actual spend over the last year. However, there remains room for more transparency behind the figures to support budget scrutiny. We’ll share more on this in our full analysis from a gender budgeting perspective to be published later this month. 

A short breakdown of the high (or low) lights from us: 

On social care 

After decades of underfunding, today’s commitments do not go far enough to meet the needs of this critical sector in the economy. This does a disservice to all those in need of social care support, the workforce (majority of whom are women) and unpaid carers who are picking up the pieces of underfunded services. 

Within this we are disappointed that the government failed to commit funds to end social care charges. A policy the government has committed to by the end of this Parliament in 2026. We know from our work with Glasgow Disability Alliance’s women’s group that these charges are impacting disabled women’s lives and financial and care decisions they are making daily. 

On childcare 

This year’s budget maintained funding to childcare as set out in the 1140hours policy, which will likely see no changes to the way in which this policy is delivered, and no further expansion. Women responding to our childcare survey last year highlighted that a lack of flexibility in delivering early learning and childcare hindered access for some women. We know that the cost of childcare for 1- and 2-year-olds is severely impacting families’ finances, particularly women’s. Research by Pregnant then Screwed Scotland found that 4 in 5 (83.7%) mothers say they often feel childcare costs are the same or more than their income – meaning some parents are in fact, paying to work (1). 

As with social care wages for staff in childcare are set at the real living wage as a minimum. This fails to take into account the need to view care work as skilled work and set wages that reflect this skill. 

On Scottish Social Security 

As mentioned at the top of this blog, the commitment to scrap the two-child limit has been the focus of a lot of attention on social security announcements alongside the changes to reinstate a winter fuel payment to all pensioners after means testing was introduced this year. 

Changes were also made to the earnings threshold for Carers Support Payment, reflecting changes made for England and Wales. These are welcome but as this new payment comes into fully devolved control, further work on its rate and eligibility is necessary to recognise the work of unpaid carers and the levels of poverty they and their families experience. 

The remainder of Scotland’s social security payments are set to rise by inflation rates set in September CPI which was 1.7%. This fails to take into account analysis laid out in the Scottish Fiscal Commission reports of expected inflation rates of 2.6% in 2025-26. This is continuing the UK Government’s failure to provide a genuine safety net to those who need it in our society. 

Standstill funding for the Scottish Welfare Fund is likely to prove problematic as the fund needed topped up this year due to levels of demand. For those facing crisis situations, this is a vital lifeline that needs properly resourced and promoted. 

On violence against women and girls funding 

Commitment to funding the Delivering Equally Safe strategy through 2025-26 is vital for essential violence against women and girls services. While the Budget included resources for the coming financial year, these services need long-term multi-year funding settlements to ensure they can plan and deliver high quality support to women escaping domestic abuse.  

On public sector pay 

It’s good to see the Scottish Government publishing a pay policy alongside the Budget this year to give greater transparency on decision making. Although the Scottish Fiscal Commission have highlighted potential fiscal risks as they did not have workforce information during the forecasting process. 

Women make up a significant proportion of public sector workers, often in lower paid and undervalued roles. The pay policy sets a broad envelope for public bodies but leaves final decisions to the individual bodies. Work to ensure equalities considerations are part of these decisions will be an important measure in tackling Scotland’s gender pay gap, which has risen in the last year. 

On tax 

The Scottish Government missed an opportunity to build more progressive tax actions into this year’s draft budget. 

The end of the Council tax freeze will be welcomed by stretched Local Authorities, as well as the funding settlement from central government. Alongside others in the Tax Justice Scotland coalition, we called for a commitment to the revaluation of Council Tax bands to start the process of developing fairer local tax which supports our public services.  This budget missed the opportunity to kickstart this overdue process, consequently failing to increase much needed extra revenue. 

Small but important income tax changes for those on lower incomes were announced such as the raise of the threshold for basic and intermediate rate taxpayers. This decision will benefit women, who are more likely to be in these bands, and will maintain a progressive income tax policy. 

The Budget was accompanied by the publication of a tax strategy which SWBG will be analyzing to consider how it will work to advance equality and maximise available resources in Scotland. Watch this space for a blog with our reflections. 

While negotiation on Employers’ national insurance contributions between the Scottish and UK Governments will continue over the coming days and weeks, the Scottish Budget was silent on support to commissioned services and the voluntary sector. Care services (both social care and childcare) are likely to be hit hard by the changes, having a disproportionate impact on women who make up the vast majority of the care workforce. 

On equalities analysis 

Alongside the budget documentation is the publication of the Equality and Fairer Scotland Budget Statement. The aim of this document is to bring together how information on equalities has informed budget decision making. This is an important statement of intent by the government. The work put into the development of this publication during the budget process provides an important focus on equality considerations. 

Additionally, multiple equality impact assessments have been published, for example relating to the Tax Strategy. The publication of these documents is a welcome step to increase transparency, and we look forward to reading the details to see how equality considerations have informed policy choices. 

 

SWBG will be publishing our more detailed analysis of the Scottish Budget and how it measures up to the principles of gender budgeting in the New Year.

 

--

(1) 4 in 10 women terminating a pregnancy in Scotland say the cost of childcare influenced their decision - Pregnant Then Screwed

Responding to news of the delay of stage 2 of the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill

The delay announced by the Minister for Social Care may not come as a surprise to anyone. The process for developing the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill has lost sight of the vision shared by those who use care services and carers in the development of the Independent Review on Adult Social Care.  

What cannot be delayed is much needed investment in care services. Cuts to care services are being made, or are on the horizon, across Scotland. These cuts are reducing who is able to access care support services, will increase unmet need, and impact on the amount of unpaid care support that is required, which women deliver the majority of. 

We know that women cannot wait for investment in care services. With the process for the Bill delayed we look to the forthcoming budget to bring much needed additional investment in care. With the focus of this investment seeking to improve outcomes for those who use care support services, reduce unpaid care demands, and deliver fair work for those in the social care workforce. For women receiving care support and as paid and unpaid carers this is a critical time for action. 

For more information, please contact Sara Cowan, sara.cowan@swbg.org.uk 0141 648 7673 

For details about the levels of long-term investment needed to transform social care support services in Scotland see our modelling research here. 

Women and active travel: lessons from our work with Sustrans

Our Training Lead, Heather Williams, discusses why the work we did with Sustrans is key to reducing inequalities in active travel.

Over the last few months, we’ve been working with Sustrans to look at how gender budgeting approaches can be used in the active travel field. Scotland has set out a vision for active travel to be ‘seen as the norm, regardless of gender, ethnicity, age, or background’ [1]. While the Scottish Government has committed to spending 10% of the transport budget on active travel infrastructure, increased investment in active travel alone will not lead to the increased diversity needed to achieve their vision. 

There’s a theory that says we measure what we value. If we look at active travel policy from this perspective, what do we see?  

One of the strategic objectives in the Active Travel Framework [2] is ‘Reduced Inequalities’. Despite this, the outcomes and indicators focus on the need to improve the availability and safety of infrastructure for ‘all’ and on increasing the number of kilometres built.  

This tells us something about where the strategic focus is of those involved in designing the active travel strategy. It also highlights why the work we have carried out with Sustrans is essential.  

Our Women’s Survey [3] which looked at transport and active travel last year showed that: 

• Only 5% of those responding to our survey used cycling as a main mode of transport, this dropped to none for single parents. 

• 17% used walking/wheeling as the main mode of transport, this increased to 23% for single parents 

• 59% of respondents to the survey felt questions on access and safety of cycle routes was not applicable to them, 34% of respondents felt the same for walking and wheeling routes 

Those who completed our survey told us that the reason they didn’t walk, wheel or cycle for journeys is because routes didn't take them to where they needed to go, or they didn’t feel safe on the routes available. Our survey echoed what other research has found, that women are more likely to trip-chain engaging in multi-purpose and multi-stop trips related to caring and other household tasks. Those who completed our survey told us that current infrastructure does not allow them to undertake these journeys in the time available to them:

      ‘There are "nice" cycle routes but a lack of safe practical routes between shops, train stations & home etc.‘ 

      ‘No segregated cycle lanes anywhere I need to go. Nothing that connects me to even simple places like post office, shops, etc. Some cycle lane for leisure, but not far'. 

      ‘Kids go to school in next town to our home and I work in neighbouring local authority area so need to travel quite a bit to do school run and get to work'. 

To help ensure that as many people as possible benefit from spending on active travel, our work with Sustrans has highlighted it’s essential that: 

• We know our local communities and consider the journeys people take and how active travel can support them to do this. This means asking why people travel and where they need to get to and designing routes which support these journeys. 

• We design (and fund) community engagement processes to help hear from a diverse range of people.  

• We collect sex disaggregated data on those who take part in any community consultations or engagement exercises, so we know who we have heard from and who we haven’t.    

• We carry out Equality Impact Assessments in the early stages of any project to ensure that they are as accessible as possible. These should be reviewed and updated as the project progresses. 

• We ensure that active travel projects support people to undertake care related journeys. This means looking at investing in infrastructure to support people walking and wheeling as well as in cycling infrastructure. The design of these need to be based on providing people with as direct access as possible to the places they need to get to. 

• We consider women’s perceptions of safety in the design of active travel schemes using tools such as “safety audits and safety tours” as standard practice.  

• We invest in social infrastructure as well as physical infrastructure in order to grow the numbers from diverse groups who walk, wheel and cycle. Projects such as Women on Wheels are essential if we are to diversify those who benefit from active travel expenditure. We have to recognise that funding these types of programmes is as important as building the physical infrastructure.  

• We ensure there is space for people to stop and sit in the design of active travel infrastructure.  

As Transport Scotland take over some of the work which has been carried out by Sustrans, it is crucial that the learning from our work is taken forward and that those involved at all stages of delivering the active travel strategy are able to apply an intersectional gender perspective to address inequalities in active travel. If we continue to develop and design these projects as if they will benefit everyone without considering the need of specific groups, we will continue to embed inequality. 

 

References

[1] Transport and Travel in Scotland 2014 | Transport Scotland

[2] Key policy approaches to improving the uptake of walking and cycling in Scotland for travel | Transport Scotland

[3] Womens-Survey-2023-Transport-Report.pdf (swbg.org.uk)