Nursery Nurses (Pay and Conditions)
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-977, in the name of Elaine Smith, on nursery nurses' pay and conditions. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises that the job of nursery nurse represents one of the remaining professions characterised by both an almost exclusively female workforce and an overarching legacy of low pay; notes however, that the increased academic and professional demands upon nursery nurses have been consistently recognised by both the Parliament and wider society in recent months; expresses concern that this consensual public recognition has not been reflected in the form of an adequate and timely settlement for those nursery nurses currently jeopardising their own financial security in an attempt to obtain a remuneration package that fairly represents their job and responsibilities; conveys regret that nursery nurses have now voted overwhelmingly for indefinite strike action to begin on 1 March 2004 that will result in widespread disruption to children's education and massive inconvenience for parents; acknowledges that this dispute represents a potential watershed not only for the future of the nursery service and early years education but also for the issue of equal pay in Scotland, and suggests that a possible route to a satisfactory settlement would be a national review of the nursery service followed by a Scotland-wide regrading of the role of nursery nurses.
I am pleased that my motion was chosen for debate this evening at this critical stage in the dispute and I thank the members who signed the motion and those who have stayed for the debate. I also want to thank the nursery nurses who have made the journey to Edinburgh today, including a party from my constituency. I welcome them to Parliament this evening. [Applause.]
Given that the most recent debate on the subject, which was initiated by the Scottish Socialist Party, did not provide back-bench MSPs with an opportunity to speak because of the short time that was allocated for debate, I hope that tonight's debate will help to redress that by providing members with an opportunity to express their views. It also gives me and my Labour comrades an opportunity to register our continuing support for the nursery nurses and to dispel the myth that we are somehow unsympathetic to their cause. Although it is arguably acceptable to view the nursery nurses' dispute in simple terms as a pay dispute between employers and employees—third-party political interference can often prove unhelpful and counterproductive in such situations—I am convinced that the dispute represents an issue that is of great significance and one that we must address with the powers that we have in this Parliament through a national review.
During a members' business debate in September last year, I asked why, as a society, we have allowed the job of nursery nurse—a job that ensures the delivery of a valuable pre-five curriculum to our children—to be overlooked and undervalued for so long. Sadly, I do not think that it is a coincidence that that is the experience of a profession that, according to Unison, comprises almost entirely women. The job of nursery nurse undoubtedly represents one of the few remaining professions in Scotland that are characterised both by an almost exclusively female work force and by an overarching legacy of low pay.
As a young Parliament with an increasingly impressive record in championing equality issues, we have a responsibility to recognise the potential opportunity that the dispute creates—the opportunity to strike a real blow against a legacy of low pay for women in this country. [Applause.]
Order. Before the member continues, I must make something clear. I really do not believe that anyone in the gallery is unaware of this, but if they are I shall make it clear now. This is a meeting of Parliament; it is not a campaign rally or a public meeting and we cannot have speeches punctuated by applause. The gallery must respect the rules of the Parliament—if it does not, I will have to clear it. I would be grateful if the rest of the debate could be listened to. I invite Elaine Smith to continue her speech.
By ensuring that the nursery nurses' professional responsibilities and value to our society are properly recognised and remunerated, Parliament can send a strong message that it will no longer tolerate the marginalisation of women in the labour market.
The gender issues that are at play here cannot be ignored. I note that Edinburgh's nursery nurses left their picket lines yesterday to join arms in Charlotte Square to mark the 90th anniversary of the first force-feeding in Scotland of hunger-striking suffragettes. From an equalities perspective, one of the few positive aspects of this protracted dispute has been the consistent public support that the nursery nurses have received. There has been little argument about their professionalism and the value of their role in the early-years education of our children and in our society. I have received several letters from constituents about the industrial action; none has disputed the nursery nurses' claim.
In recent months, Parliament has seen the First Minister and other members of the Executive acknowledge the additional academic and professional demands that have been placed on nursery nurses since devolution. Scottish Executive policies on curriculum development and social inclusion, as well as funding initiatives such as sure start Scotland, the child care strategy, and education funding for three and four-year-olds—which are aimed at securing the best possible start in life for our children—have increased responsibilities. They have also increased class and group sizes and they have initiated major changes in the work load and role of nursery nurses.
Does Elaine Smith agree that the alterations that Scottish ministers made last year to the school code, when they removed the requirement to have primary teachers in each pre-five establishment, is recognition of the qualifications that are now available in the pre-five sector, particularly the BA in childhood studies?
I thank the member for that helpful intervention. As I recall, that happened last year in acknowledgement of the first graduates, and it confirmed the Executive's commitment to recognising the professional status of nursery nurses. Unfortunately, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities does not seem to have acknowledged that yet.
The Scottish Executive should be congratulated on its willingness to effect change in the early-years service and I am pleased that many of our children are now benefiting as a result of the improvements that have been initiated. However, with the power to make such changes comes the inevitable responsibility to ensure that the appropriate structures are in place to recognise, absorb and implement those developments. I am therefore pleased to note that since my motion was lodged in February, the First Minister has agreed that those factors comprise a case for a national review and I welcome the fact that the issues of
"pay grading, career progression, conditions of service and the status that is given to that particular job"
will form part of that review.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry that I do not have time; I am sure everyone will get to speak if we rush on.
In order to ensure that nursery nurses receive a fair remuneration package that recognises factors such as the level of qualification that is required, national registration, national development within the curriculum for children aged zero to five, and a large number of national initiatives that impact upon the nursery service, any review must give due consideration to the establishment of a standardised national scale for nursery-nurse grades. Throughout the country, the nursery service is subject to national guidelines, a national curriculum and national care standards—surely a national pay scale would represent positive progress.
I hope that the review will also consider the creation of a career structure for nursery nurses and the clarification and standardisation of the relevant qualifications in the sector. In short, I hope that there will be a review that will establish the early-years sector as a recognised profession that will deliver clear job roles that are linked to appropriate qualifications and identified career progression.
Will the member give way?
I do not have time. In initiating such a review, we must remember that those women have been undervalued for decades. They have been driven to jeopardising their financial security in an attempt to secure a package of pay and conditions that adequately reflects the job that they do. A review must not let them down. In the meantime, nursery nurses are still on all-out strike, and COSLA must meet Unison to agree a fair national settlement and an end to the disruption that the dispute is causing for the workers and for those who rely on the services, the majority of whom are also women. I understand that COSLA has—in an e-mail today—offered to have a meeting and that Unison has agreed to meet at the earliest opportunity. I am pleased to be able to welcome that announcement.
The level of pay for nursery nurses is a national disgrace and has been for too long. If we value our children and their education and welfare, that must be reflected in the value that we place on nursery nurses: they must be paid what they deserve. I say to the minister that we must have a national review, it must be soon and it must be adequately resourced.
I advise members that there is a very long list of names on my screen. We will look at an extension, but I am not sure that even that will resolve the situation. I will restrict speeches to three minutes.
I congratulate Elaine Smith on securing this important debate.
I will strike one note of discord. Elaine Smith referred in glowing terms to the role of Labour members. Her comment elicited a sharp intake of breath from somewhere in the chamber. I do not think that any more has to be said on that matter.
I welcome the nursery nurses who are in the public gallery, particularly the ones who have come all the way from Dundee and Angus. To put the record straight, I should point out that dressing in Victorian clothes is not some strange Dundonian tradition: they are dressed like that to mark the 90th anniversary of the first force-feeding of a hunger-striking suffragette in Scotland.
The link with the suffragette movement, and with international women's day, which was a few weeks ago, is important, because it shows that equality for women is still some way off, particularly on equal pay. The figures speak for themselves. Women are still earning far less than men and they are likely to be in low-paid, undervalued work. Even if the nursery nurses get their full settlement, it will still be around £7,000 less than the average male wage.
The nursery nurses are chronically low paid and undervalued. Their work is not given the recognition it deserves. They do a crucial job that has been transformed by the additional responsibilities and duties that have been given to them by the Scottish Executive. Today, with the passing of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill, yet more responsibilities will be given to nursery nurses. The question for the Executive is, will it pay them for those additional responsibilities? If it does not, we will continue to see disputes such as the current one.
There is no point in members tutting: if the nursery nurses are not paid for the work they do, how will the dispute be resolved? It is not good enough to give nursery nurses more responsibility and not pay them, and it is not good enough for the Scottish Executive to wash its hands of the matter and try to pass the buck to COSLA. Yes, COSLA is culpable and irresponsible for refusing to engage in national talks, but members should not try to squeeze out of their responsibility. There is a Labour-led Executive and a Labour-led COSLA. Why do members not use their influence to try to settle the dispute? No amount of sabre rattling by the First Minister on this issue, and no amount of saying that people should get round the table, is good enough. It is not enough. He should have used his influence long before now to bring the dispute to a conclusion.
While we support a national review, a national review does not equate to a national settlement. We need a national settlement, because only that will end the dispute. I hope that the talks that are beginning today will lead to a national settlement, for the sake of the nursery nurses and the children. We all hope that the dispute will be brought to a speedy conclusion.
I am grateful for being called early in the debate. I apologise that I will have to leave early. I hope that people will not see that as a discourtesy, but will recognise that my pressing child care responsibilities were not helped by the last vote being taken later than we expected.
I congratulate Elaine Smith on securing the debate, on the thoughtful motion that she lodged and on her thoughtful speech. I have been disappointed by the tone of some of the Opposition's contributions. I hope that it will be possible to have a debate that is as measured and dignified as the nursery nurses have been in conducting their dispute.
There have already been a number of debates on the nursery nurses' dispute. As we have progressed, things have become more rather than less difficult. Nursery nurses have taken the difficult decision to go on an all-out strike. Once again I acknowledge the dignified way in which they have conducted their dispute. I regret that the media have not covered their dispute in the way that they cover what they obviously consider to be more glamorous disputes.
I have always resisted the pressure to debate matters over which we do not have an influence, but I genuinely believe that the Scottish Executive can play a central role in the dispute. The Scottish Executive has the option of securing a settlement in the dispute and it has shifted on the issue over time. Jack McConnell's statement that he recognises the benefits of a national review is a reflection of that shift. We must continue in that vein.
The dispute is about women workers and women's jobs. It is about a service that is particularly important to women and that supports women who seek to work. The dispute impacts disproportionately on those who manage child care in communities. It is underpinned by women's inequality in pay and employment opportunities.
I understand that all disputes are difficult—I have been involved in an industrial dispute. At some point, it will have to end. I am concerned by the reports that I have received from local nursery nurses about damage being done to their cars as they are on the picket line. Those of us who are not involved in the dispute must be careful about the language we use, because those who are in dispute will have to go back to work at some point. We must do everything possible to ensure that they go back with dignity and that they are not driven back when they do not want to do so because they have not reached a fair settlement.
Serious discussions are taking place about an independent review of the sector. However, that cannot be seen as an escape clause for the Scottish Executive. There must be a real offer. If we ask nursery nurses to settle so that a review can begin, we must ensure that the review is a real one. It will have to be immediate and thorough and the trade unions and employers must have a key role in defining its terms. The fundamental point is that resources must be made available so that if the review recognises the changing nature of the service, better pay and conditions can be delivered for those who provide the service in our communities.
I am happy to follow Johann Lamont, who was the only Labour member who voted against the Executive in the debate on my motion on the subject.
The suffragettes demanded deeds, not words. It is fitting that nursery nurses in the public gallery are celebrating an anniversary in the suffragette movement and remembering the suffering that suffragettes endured during hunger strikes. They were force-fed; like them, the nursery nurses are being force-fed low pay. There have been campaigns for pardons for suffragettes; the present campaign is for pounds for nursery nurses. They demand deeds, not words.
Any review should be part of a national settlement that is acceptable to Unison and the nursery nurses. The key point is that there will be no resolution to the dispute unless the deal is acceptable to them. There is no achievement in ending disputes by manipulation or sleight of hand. If that were to happen, not only the nursery nurses would lose. Children, parents and society would also lose, as would the Executive ministers who sat on their hands while the women who have an obviously just case and who are struggling for recognition, an end to low pay and an attempt at equality began six weeks of all-out national action—the first such action since the miners' strike. History will judge not what we have said, but what we have done. Platitudes are cheap.
It disappoints me that more Labour MSPs saw fit to defend the power base of Labour councillors than voted to support a nationally negotiated settlement for nursery nurses. Those councillors demand national pay of £25,000 but deny nursery nurses a top-level national pay of only £18,000. Are councillors worth more than nursery nurses? I do not think so. If national pay is okay for councillors, teachers and MSPs, it is okay for nursery nurses.
What is hard about agreeing that nursery nurses have a just claim? Given the Executive's national expectations of nursery nurses, what is hard about acceding to the national expectations of nursery nurses? That is a simple quid pro quo. Even if the national claim were met, the Executive would still get far more from the nursery nurses than the nursery nurses would get in their pay packets. What is hard about delivering a national agreement?
On a political point—this is a political issue—I would be absolutely delighted if the Labour Party pulled a rabbit out of the hat and secured a settlement for the nursery nurses. If it does not, it will suffer political consequences.
I stand firmly on the side of the nursery nurses. The Executive needs to deliver.
I congratulate Elaine Smith on securing this debate on the final day before the Easter recess. It is a measure of our support for this campaign that we are in the chamber tonight.
I am a bit concerned about the tone of the debate: I do not think that it has been conducted in the spirit of other members' business debates. It would be wrong for any of us to be clambering over one another to say who is more supportive of the nursery nurses. We all have different views about how a settlement can be reached and we should at least respect one other's views. There can be no denying the importance that every party in this Parliament attaches to the education and learning programme of young children. There can be no question but that there is widespread, cross-party support for a settlement and a review of the arrangements covering pay, conditions, qualifications and status in the public and private sectors—I recognise that there are complications in this dispute because we want to raise standards in the private sector as well as in the public sector.
Unison is one of the unions that is involved in this campaign to increase substantially the role and status of nursery nurses; the GMB—of which I now declare that I am a member—is another. As a natural consequence of the Government's policy that the education of pre-five-year-olds is central to what we want to achieve, the status of the profession of nursery nurses will be uplifted. Elaine Smith's point is absolutely crucial: the status of the profession must be raised permanently in the long term. If we do so, the settlement that I hope will be arrived at will have benefits in the future.
Margaret Jamieson, who has made excellent speeches on this subject, has said that the education sector is fundamental to the issue. If we believe that nursery nurses are an important profession, they must be able to move from further education to university, which is why the new degree is crucial in relation to the development of the profession.
I want to place on record my support for a national settlement and a review to ensure that we also consider the complexities of bringing about a change across the public and private sectors that has some permanency.
We must be sensible. If we want to make progress in relation to this dispute, we must find the common ground between the parties.
I congratulate Elaine Smith on her success in obtaining this debate and on her excellent presentation of what is an extremely important case. Although the Conservatives advocate local settlements as the way forward, it is our belief that nursery nurses deserve a substantial pay rise and a more structured career path due to the extra duties and responsibilities that they have taken on over the years.
I note that some 12 authorities have now settled and that more are in discussions. I would be most grateful if the minister could enlighten the Parliament this evening by explaining the Executive's position. The First Minister said that a national review will take place if the strike is ended and local deals are accepted. The First Minister has indicated that a national deal might be the result of a national review. However, the Executive appears to advocate local negotiations. It would be helpful if the minister could explain the nature of his policy and confirm that there is a thread of consistency in the Executive's thinking. We very much hope that there is.
I join other members in congratulating Elaine Smith on securing the debate. I also declare an interest as a member of Unison.
It is worth while reflecting on how we got where we are. The dispute started as a regrading claim—not this year, but prior to local government reorganisation in 1995. I think that we can all acknowledge the patience of the nursery nurses. COSLA agreed to a regrading and to a job-evaluation scheme. Regrettably, none of that has happened.
I agree with Johann Lamont. Although individual local authorities are the employers, much wider issues are at stake. I therefore have considerable sympathy with the view that there should be a national settlement. To be frank, it is nonsensical that a nursery nurse in Aberdeenshire is paid differently from a nursery nurse in Dunbartonshire; the same national curriculum and the same national qualifications apply, and one has to assume that the children are not too different in the two areas.
Pre-school education has been a significant priority for the Executive. We have invested considerably; that is not in any doubt. Equally, however, the quality and the professionalism of the staff are not in any doubt. If we value pre-five education, which I believe we all do, that should be reflected in the salaries that are paid to the staff, who are central to the provision of that education. I do not think that a starting salary of £10,000, with an upper limit of £13,800, signals the true worth of nursery nurses.
It has not escaped the notice of members that the profession is dominated by women. Equally, it has not escaped their notice that it is predominantly women who experience low pay. Yes, the problem is structural, but we should not ignore it simply because it is difficult to deal with. If we truly want a society that is characterised by equality and justice, we will have to address such critical problems.
For all those reasons, I support the calls for a national review and a national settlement to cover not only those in the public sector, but those in the private sector and the voluntary sector. I welcome the First Minister's commitment to have a review that will consider the roles and responsibilities of staff, early-years child care, qualifications, and career progression—and yes, a review that will address the question of better pay and conditions. However, our aims should be one framework for salaries, one structure for career progression, and a clear recognition of the responsibilities of nursery nurses so that, throughout Scotland, they are valued properly and equally.
This debate is extremely important. It is not just about the nursery nurses fighting for a decent wage; it is also about the scandal of low pay and the scandal of unequal pay in Scotland. The nursery nurses are to be congratulated on taking a firm stand in that fight.
The nursery nurses' dispute crystallises just how far to the right on the political spectrum new Labour has placed itself. The nursery nurses' dispute has exposed just how Thatcherite the Labour Party has become. If we think back to the dark days of the Thatcher and Major Governments of the 1980s and 1990s, a central plank of Tory policy was to destroy the power of organised labour by refusing to negotiate national deals. The policy of the Tory party was to impose local deals on the work force to split the power of the unions. Imagine the Labour Party now supporting local deals to split organised labour and to pit worker against worker, instead of recognising the job that the nursery workers do—
Will the member give way?
No thank you. It is time that Labour started listening—you have a wee seat.
What we have now is the reality of that Tory policy being back on the agenda. What we have now is the leader of COSLA mouthing those Thatcherite words to put down the democratic rights of the nursery nurses. We have new Labour councillors arguing for local deals instead of national deals. They want to impose local deals to divide and rule a national work force. That is the situation that the nursery nurses face. We have a Labour-dominated Executive—there are no Liberal Democrats here, apart from one who has to be here because he is a minister—that is pointing the finger of blame at everyone else but is not taking responsibility for sorting out the deal that needs to be done—
Will the member give way?
You have a wee seat. As I said, it is time that Labour listened.
The Executive will not take responsibility for resolving the dispute and letting our nursery nurses go back to where they want to be—in nurseries throughout Scotland, looking after this country's children of nursery age. Labour members should not come to the debate and say that they support the nursery nurses because, when they had a chance to support them two weeks ago, they voted against them. [Interruption.]
Order. I am mindful of the fact that people in the gallery have sat responsibly for half an hour and that there has not been an interruption but, if that happens again, I will clear the gallery.
I begin by declaring my interests—as my entry in the register of members' interests shows, I am a member of Unison; I have an additional interest as the mother of two young boys, one of whom has just started nursery.
I congratulate Elaine Smith on securing the debate and pay tribute to those nursery nurses who have been in dispute, as they have conducted themselves with great dignity. From day one, my impression of the dispute is that it has been led by those nursery nurses. Carol Ball is not some daft wee lassie who has been led by the hand by some bad person in Unison headquarters. For months, Unison nursery nurses tried to secure a settlement; they did not want to enter a dispute or to go on strike. They tried to make their voice heard, but no one listened.
In part, we as a Parliament are as guilty as anyone else for not listening to those pleas from nursery nurses, which have taken the form of petitions to the Parliament and other means. I believe that COSLA fundamentally underestimated the strength of feeling that existed among nursery nurses and their desire for a fair, negotiated pay settlement.
I recognise that, in some areas, nursery nurses reached a settlement early on in the dispute—that is the case in my local authority area of South Lanarkshire—and I fully respect the right of those nursery nurses to reach that settlement. I appreciate that, in other areas, settlement has been reached more recently. There are those who say that a settlement will be reached in all areas, but I have concerns about that. I am worried that nursery nurses might be forced back to work, having accepted settlements that are not as good as those that they should have got, simply because they cannot afford to remain on strike. That goes against everything that I believe in and I hope that a resolution can be achieved before that happens.
One of my difficulties with local negotiations is that the generosity of any deal depends on the financial wealth of the council. Different councils are differently well-off and have different demands placed on them. City councils such as Glasgow City Council have complex demands placed on their resources; the difficulty with local negotiations is that that is what happens. Rightly or wrongly, our unions accepted single status and local negotiations for nursery nurses are part of that. That is where we are at.
I welcome the moves that have been made towards a national review, for which I have called since September. I believe that any national review of nursery nurses must involve the unions and the employers and that its scope must be agreed by all those parties. The Scottish Executive, too, must be involved, because the national review must be fully funded; it cannot be a soft soap or an excuse. It must be a real tool for achieving genuine change in the status of nursery nurses here in Scotland.
We have now done our calculations and the minister has agreed to an extension of the debate, so I am willing to accept a motion without notice to extend the debate by 15 minutes. Is it agreed that a motion without notice be moved?
Members indicated agreement.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by 15 minutes.—[Euan Robson.]
I saw Mr Robson and I heard Mr Ewing—as happens often. We will accord the moving of the motion to Mr Robson.
Motion agreed to.
I apologise for the fact that I may have to leave the debate early, because I am helping to officiate at a young people's debating competition this evening. I congratulate Elaine Smith on securing the debate and I offer my commitment to a national pay scale and a national settlement for nursery nurses.
As a teacher, I have absolute empathy with the position of the nursery nurses. As an active member of the Educational Institute of Scotland in the 1960s, the 1970s and the 1980s, I helped to organise strikes, because—like the nursery nurses—I was in a profession that was undervalued, under-recognised and underpaid.
For 100 years, there was some kind of mechanism by which to obtain national pay scales and conditions for teachers. There is plenty of experience of doing that for teachers, so there is no reason why we should not, in the same way, have a national pay scale for nursery nurses and why we should not have it within a matter of months. As members have pointed out in the debate, there is an element of urgency to the situation. Many nursery nurses might well decide to settle for less than they should get.
The debate is not just about pay; it is about society's values, women's self-esteem and their position in our society and education and development. My personal commitment and belief is that we should invest far more in the development of children at an early age than we do at present. I believe that early-years education is as important as university education. We have endless debates on university education and further education, yet we do not debate the most important element of education, which is early-years and primary education. We should devote more attention and money to that. Above all, we should respect the nursery nurses and pay them the rates that they should get for a job that is essential to the development of young people. I congratulate Elaine Smith on lodging the motion.
I, too, congratulate Elaine Smith on securing the debate. I also acknowledge the tenacity with which she has pursued the cause of the nursery nurses. She might not have been as strident as some people in doing so, but she has been just as dogged in her support of the nursery nurses. I am pleased that that is being recognised tonight.
I was pleased to support Elaine Smith's motion, despite the fact that nursery nurses in Dumfries and Galloway went back to work two weeks ago. I do not criticise them for making that local arrangement, as it enabled them to return to work. However, I hope that that is not the end of the story; indeed, it must not be the end, because there is a lot of unfinished business that needs to be resolved. As other members have said, it is necessary that a national review of pre-five education takes place. The review must encompass training, professional development, progression and, indeed, the relationships between the public, private and voluntary sectors.
During the dispute in my area, someone from the voluntary sector said to one of my colleagues, "I do not know what the nursery nurses are complaining about; we are even worse paid." It is a scandal that some workers are even more badly paid than local authority nursery nurses. That issue needs to be addressed.
Importantly, the motion calls for
"a Scotland-wide regrading of the role of nursery nurses"
after the structural review. There is a very strong case for a national review and a national pay structure.
Mr Campbell Martin spoke about nursery nurses "looking after" children, which was a typical man's remark. Nursery nurses do not look after children; they educate children. During the demonstration a few weeks ago, a lady called out to me and asked how my daughter was getting on. I realised that she was the nursery nurse who looked after my daughter when she was three and a half. I never thought of her as "looking after" my daughter, or as a "nursery nurse". I thought of her as a person who was educating my daughter. She is responsible at least in part for the transformation of a shy, quiet three-and-a-half-year-old into the bright, self-confident young woman of 16 that my daughter is today.
It is important to recognise that we now consider education from three to 18. Later in the session, we will discuss a three-to-18 curriculum, which is a national curriculum that will require national standards. Nursery nurses—although perhaps we should not use the term "nursery nurses", as it does not in any way describe their role—will play a vital role in the initial stage of delivering that curriculum.
Nursery nurses' salaries are inadequate, as is acknowledgement of the contribution that they make to the education of the young people on whom Scotland's future depends. We must make amends: we must recognise the tremendously important work that is done by this group of women workers and the huge contribution that they make to the future of our young people and of our nation.
I congratulate Elaine Smith on securing the debate. Members' business debates are quite important for the Parliament, and there is one thing that distinguishes them from other sorts of debate: at the end of this debate, there will be no vote. That means that Labour members in particular can come into the chamber and say exactly what they feel. I congratulate them on doing so. However, if push came to shove and there was a debate that was followed by a vote, the Labour Party would vote against the nursery nurses, as was the case a few weeks ago.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry—I cannot.
I apologise on behalf of Fiona Hyslop, who has had to leave the debate because of her child care situation. I also remark on the fact that, with the exception of the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People, not one Liberal Democrat member is in the chamber.
The issue of nursery nurses' pay is not new. As Jackie Baillie said, it has been an issue since 1995. For more than three and a half years, members of the Parliament have been raising questions and asking for a national review of nurses' wages and conditions. For more than three and a half years, we have been getting parliamentary answers from Executive ministers, saying that the matter is one not for them but for COSLA and the employees. There have been three and a half years when the Executive could have averted the situation that we are in now if, at any point during those three and a half years, it had taken steps and banged together some heads in COSLA, but the Executive refused to do that. Frankly, the Executive has been culpable.
There is no doubt on the part of anybody in the chamber tonight that we need a national review of the pay and conditions of nursery teachers. However, the Executive continues to maintain that it is a matter for COSLA and the employees. That has allowed local authorities to put in place local agreements. However, the Executive does have a locus to get involved. It has a locus today, and it had one three and a half years ago. It cannot expect the nursery nurses to deliver the national pre-five programme, yet at the same time say that it has no responsibility for national pay and conditions. If the Executive can commission Professor McCrone to carry out a national review of teachers' pay and conditions, it can commission a national review of nursery nurses' terms and conditions.
The issue is about women and low pay. Nobody in the chamber believes that if the dispute had involved predominantly men, it would not have been solved three and a half years ago. Women get the double whammy: those who are on low pay and those who need the nursery care and teaching that the nursery nurses provide. It is women and young children who are suffering because of the dispute, and I urge the Executive to get its finger out and get it settled soon.
I am grateful to Karen Whitefield for agreeing that I can call Susan Deacon before her.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in the debate. Like other members, I apologise for needing to leave early—I have a constituency commitment. I join other members in congratulating Elaine Smith on securing tonight's debate. Like other members, I wish that it was not necessary, but it is important that we have the chance to debate the issue fully.
Like other members, I am saddened and frustrated because the dispute has happened at all, because it has gone on for so long and because of its impact on nursery nurses, their colleagues, parents and young children. I am also saddened and frustrated by those politicians who have sought to over-simplify, and often distort, the debate. Furthermore, I am saddened and frustrated by those who suggest that they somehow have a monopoly of support on the issue, or a simplistic solution to it.
Despite all that, I am hopeful, because the motion in front of us sets out part of a way forward and a lasting solution for the future. I am hopeful because of what we have heard in the debate about the prospect of Unison and COSLA coming together to move forward on the issues. I am hopeful also because of the comments that ministers have made in recent weeks, and I hope that those will be strengthened and underlined again tonight.
I hope that the minister's comments, both tonight and in future debates, will place the dispute, the experience that we have gained from it and the lessons that we will learn from it, as well as any future debate or discussion about a national review, in a much wider context.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry—I do not have time.
I want all of us, in the chamber and beyond, to place a far greater emphasis on the early years. I agree with those who have said that the reason why this dispute has not been treated by some, including the media, as seriously as others is perhaps the extent to which it affects women and young children, many of whom live in our poorest communities. We must work to address that situation and a far greater value must be placed on early years.
Early on in the Parliament's existence we made big commitments to give all our children the best possible start in life. A prerequisite to making that a reality must be achieving a resolution to the dispute and thereafter giving nursery nurses and others who work in the sector a fairer deal, within the context of placing a higher value on our youngest and most vulnerable citizens. That means that we must place a higher value on parenting, and support that job better, and on the professionals who care for our youngest children, and support their jobs better. If we get that right, we will be able to spend a lot less time than we do at the moment picking up the pieces when our younger citizens' lives go off the rails.
I strongly support the motion and the call to see a fair deal for our nursery nurses and an early resolution to the dispute. Most of all, I strongly support our children and I want to see us all get on with the important job of supporting the youngest members of our society and working for the betterment of the next generation, which our nursery nurses do tirelessly.
I, too, congratulate Elaine Smith on securing the debate. I welcome the opportunity to make clear my views on the current dispute. I say to those who have called for action that action is indeed what is required, but there is no point in our voting on the matter, because we cannot take the actions that people have called for; it is unfortunate that local authorities make the decisions in this case.
Will the member give way?
No. I am sorry, but I am not going to take an intervention. Local authorities will have to get round the table with the trade unions and listen to their legitimate concerns and requests.
There is no doubt in my mind that the role of the nursery nurse has increased in importance in the past few years. Thanks to Labour policies, more children enjoy free nursery care now than ever before. That early educational experience provides an invaluable link to primary education and an equally invaluable child-care service for many working parents—a fact that has become painfully apparent during the current strike. Nursery nurses are at the centre of the service. They create a caring and stimulating learning and recreational environment, which is the hallmark of nursery provision in the 21st century. Their commitment to and enthusiasm for working with young children ensures that pre-fives in Scotland are given every possible opportunity at the start of their education.
I accept fully nursery nurses' claim that their role has changed over the past few years and I support their claim for a fair pay rise. I agree with the comments that the First Minister made yesterday: both the employers and Unison must get back round the table and make serious attempts to resolve the dispute. I also agree that there should be a national review of nursery nurses' position. At the centre of such a review must be a consideration of issues of pay, grading, career progression and conditions of service. Only with a national review will we ensure that we end up with a national framework for pay. A consistent approach to the issue should be taken throughout Scotland.
I spoke recently to striking nursery nurses in my constituency and I know that they do not want to be out on strike and that it pains them to think of the damage that the strike is causing the children with whom they work, but they feel that they have no choice.
I am pleased to learn that COSLA has agreed finally to get round the table with the trade unions. It is essential that they work for an immediate resolution to the dispute. Nursery nurses deserve that, parents deserve it and, most important, the children of Scotland deserve it.
I add my congratulations to Elaine Smith on securing this important debate. The key point is that no party has a monopoly on concerns about our nursery workers across the land. In recent weeks and months, many of my colleagues—Cathy Peattie and others—who have not been mentioned have convened meetings behind the scenes and have worked hard alongside other colleagues whom I will not mention for fear of embarrassing them. Only last week or the week before, we had one of the ministers cornered in a room with a number of women. Members can imagine the pained expression on that minister's face when that happened.
Labour members have ways of getting their points across; we need no lectures from Shona Robison or her colleagues about whether the Labour party is attending to the issue. The specific issue is clearly laid out in Unison's documents. Unison is after a new job description with a clear career path. Fundamentally, it is after a national review. I pledge my support to Unison, along with the support of other members who have attended this debate. We need no lectures from SNP colleagues sitting at the back of the chamber on trade union issues. Where were the SNP members when it came to voting through the minimum pay legislation at Westminster? They were not in the chamber. If they want to talk to me about this, I will talk to them about that. The SNP has nothing to teach us when it comes to supporting the trade unions.
Like no other Government, Labour has invested massively in child care. We must value and give credit to the nursery workers—they deserve that. We have always said, as Robin Harper noted at the beginning of the debate, that we must value children and treat them as we should. A Jesuit priest once said, "Give me a child till the age of seven and I'll give you the man." We need to value the nursery workers and the children. Society wins through that and so do we.
Many members, including many of my sisters on the Labour benches, have campaigned long and hard for good child care. It is, therefore, of real concern that the nursery nurses' dispute is still under way.
I understand the issues around the single status agreement, but I do not understand or agree with the need for local bargaining. To me, as a trade unionist, local bargaining means divide and rule. I do not understand why a body such as COSLA, which is an umbrella organisation for local authorities, should work in that way. It should work collectively. I welcome the fact that COSLA and Unison are going to work together to try to find a resolution. It is clear to me that local bargaining would be quite unacceptable for teachers, firefighters and other professions.
However, we are where we are. I welcome the move towards a full national review involving trade unions, nursery nurses, local authorities and parents. I hope that it will achieve real recognition for nursery nurses, facilitate training and personal development and recognise nursery nurses as educators. They are not just folk who mind the bairns and wipe backsides; they are there to educate our children. I hope that the national review will provide a clear career path for nursery nurses.
As Elaine Smith said, we must also challenge the notion that women workers should be low paid and the notion that only women can work with bairns. We need to think about career paths not only for young women, but for young men, in working with children. Therefore, as I said earlier, I welcome the First Minister's intervention. I would have liked it to come earlier, but it is a positive step and it is positive that Unison and COSLA are getting around the table.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I will not.
I thank Elaine Smith for securing the debate and I thank all members who have participated in it.
I welcome the chance to respond to the debate that Elaine Smith has sponsored and, like other members, I congratulate her on securing it. The measured tones and constructive way in which she tackled the matter were in stark contrast to speeches by other members. What she said also reflected her long-abiding commitment to the early-years sector—not only to nursery nurses, but to child-care workers and play workers. It also reflected her commitment to women's causes and equality issues, which are part of the issue that we are debating.
She rightly pointed out that women make up the predominant part of the early-years sector's work force. As Cathy Peattie said, that is one issue that we want to tackle in our agenda. I hope to lay out that agenda for members in reasonable depth. Obviously, it will not be possible for me to address all the points that have been made in such a long debate; however, unlike some members who have contributed to the debate, I will try to respond in measured tones.
We have had several debates on the subject in the past few weeks; Elaine Smith was right that she has provided a much longer period for debate by the mechanism that she has used than was possible in the other debates. It is rather sad that we have had three big debates—to the extent that they have been big debates—about the sector only as a result of an industrial dispute.
Will the minister give way?
No, I will not.
We must ensure that we debate early-years provision in the round once we are beyond the current situation so that we can ensure that we make a full contribution through parliamentary debate in the future. That reflects what other members have said. I say that because there is much to be positive about in the early-years sector. Since 1997 when the Executive came to power, there has been massive investment in the early-years sector of close to £1 billion.
Will the minister give way?
No.
I say to Campbell Martin that that is nowhere near a Thatcherite policy. I do not want to be discordant, but the Tories' education legacy was shameful. We did four things when we came to power: we wanted to ensure, with our Liberal Democrat colleagues in Scotland, that we would sort out the legislative base for education, the school estate and the remuneration of teachers because those matters had not received attention, and we wanted to ensure that the nursery sector and the early-years sector would expand dramatically because they are one of the foundations for creating success in Scotland's future. That was a clear commitment from the Executive and it is one in which we will continue to invest in the future.
As a consequence of such investment, there has been a huge expansion in the number of nursery places in Scotland—some 26,000 people now work in the sector. I suspect that it has been the single biggest growth area in the Scottish economy in the period. We should be proud of what has been achieved and of what early-years workers have achieved on our behalf. Their professionalism and dedication to the tasks that they undertake are widely admired and they will have much more to offer in the coming years. As I said, they work with our children at a crucial stage in their development and help them to get the best possible start in life and to get the foundations of their learning right. From there, our children can prosper for the rest of their lives. The nursery sector is therefore fundamental to our objectives. What members from all parties have said demonstrates the widespread recognition of the sector's role.
We face many challenges relating to consolidating the sector and investing more in infrastructure. That will bring increasing professional recognition and all that flows from it—which members have hinted at—precisely because the sector has grown so quickly and so much, with the diversity of early-years workers working in the public sector, through local authorities, in the private sector and in the voluntary sector. Like all members, I want to see our early-years work force being paid fair salaries in the future, and at sustainable levels.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No—I will not give way.
It frustrates me deeply that the dispute has gone on for so long but, like others, I welcome the fact that progress seems to have been made today and that COSLA and Unison have agreed to sit down next week for discussions. I hope that that will result in the quick resolution of the outstanding issues by those organisations through discussions and negotiations with member councils.
It should be clear to members that the Executive wants to do much more to support and develop the sector. We have been clear that we want to get on with the national level—I stress: the national level—review of the sector that is needed to underpin the long-term success of the sector and the rewards that it offers its workers. It is sad that events over recent months have not created the climate for that work to proceed.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I have said that I will not give way. We have had a long debate and I am trying to respond to the points that have been made.
As members mentioned, we need all the parties who are involved to sit around the same table to address the current and future needs of the sector—that includes trade unions and employers.
Some elements of our programme of improvement are already in place, which is why we have allocated £13 million of work force development funding. We will allocate £12 million more during the next two years to help workers to access qualifications. They will need to register with the Scottish Social Services Council. I am clear that the status of the sector should be higher than it is at present. As members mentioned in previous debates, registration with the Scottish Social Services Council will go some way towards helping with that, as will the fair pay settlements that we want to see.
Nursery nurses and the rest of the early-years work force need a proper career structure—as members mentioned tonight—including the possibility of promotion and the opportunity to move into related work areas. They need a proper career structure and they need career pathways to be opened up for them and secured for the future. For example, we need to create the option for a nursery nurse to become a play worker without having to completely retrain and start again. There are other examples, such as the move to becoming a classroom assistant and moves into teaching or social work. We need to create a structure that allows progression, latitude and scope for people to move through different aspects of early-years work and beyond, without having to start again at the bottom of the ladder.
They—the workers—and we need better national work force planning. To pick up points that Cathy Peattie and others made, we need to ensure that more men go into the profession, and that we have better representation of ethnic minority groups and other groups in society that are under-represented in the work force. The national exercise that we want to get on with will need to examine current and future roles and responsibilities in the sector, along with the knowledge, skills and competencies that are required to deliver those roles. That work will inform the examination of the qualifications framework that we also need to get on with, which will consider the content of qualifications and will build on the developments that Margaret Jamieson referred to tonight and in the previous debates.
Will the minister give way?
The minister has made it clear that he is not giving way.
We need to consider the level of qualifications, the need for new qualifications, and the need for articulation with the qualifications framework for related children's services—I stress again that that includes teachers, classroom assistants, care assistants and so on. As I said, we also want to look at ways to establish clear career structures for workers in the sector; other professions provide opportunities for career progression and lateral movement.
Will the minister give way?
Order.
I have made it perfectly clear that I am not going to take interventions.
Other professions provide scope to develop in different directions within broad professional groupings: a career in early education and child care should be no different. To achieve that, we need the rationalised and modernised qualifications framework that I touched on, which will take proper account of the integrated children's services agenda that we in the Executive are working to achieve. The review that we want also needs to clarify the required size and characteristics of the work force, to enable us to determine the future demand for training providers, recruitment levels and associated financial issues.
The members in the chamber should be clear that the implications of all the work that I have set out tonight—there is much more to set out—will draw into focus at national level the key issues about pay and conditions that the First Minister outlined and which Elaine Smith referred to in her speech. That will serve our communities and the people who work in the sector well as we develop that strand of work. As soon as the dispute concludes, I stand ready to trigger the work that I set out tonight, to take forward our review.
Ultimately, all industrial action is ended through negotiation between representatives of the work force and employers, and the current dispute, too, needs to end through that process. I welcome the progress that was reported today and I wish next week's talks well. I do not care at what level the talks proceed; we need to find a solution, and that is what we want. We can then get on with all the work that I outlined tonight and move the sector decisively into the future with much greater stability, much greater professional recognition and all the rewards that go with that. That is the route to the stronger sector that we want, with fitting rewards for the professionalism and dedication of those who work in it. I look forward to getting on with that work as quickly as possible.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. What we heard from the minister tonight was, in effect, a ministerial statement about the nursery nurses, the sector and what the Executive intends to do in the future. Not only has the minister not taken any interventions—
I am sorry, but that is not a point of order. It is another speech, and there is no basis for it.
It is not a speech. It is a serious point of order, Presiding Officer, because in effect we heard a ministerial statement on which we have not been allowed to ask any questions.
I am not prepared to have this. The member must resume her seat. The minister responded to the points that were made in the debate. He spoke entirely properly and I will not prolong the debate further.
That concludes today's business. I thank the public in the gallery for their co-operation during the debate.
Meeting closed at 18:40.