The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-13312, in the name of Liz Smith, on nursery vouchers. Unfortunately we have already had to inform a member who wished to speak that there will not be time to call them. I ask members to keep to their time, because we are still short of time.
15:51
On 20 November last year, in her first First Minister’s question time, Nicola Sturgeon gave a very firm commitment that her door would always be “open for sensible discussion”. A month later, on 11 December, at First Minister’s question time, she assured Ruth Davidson that she would listen to sensible suggestions from all Opposition parties. Since then, the Scottish Conservatives have tried on three occasions to ensure that the First Minister keeps that promise and today we will try for the fourth time. We will do so, to use a line from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning’s speech at the University of Glasgow two weeks ago, on the basis of “what works” and not dogma or ideology.
On Thursday last week, Ruth Davidson cited the case of Marisa, a single mother in Glasgow who had turned down three job offers because she could not find a nursery that could take her daughter during the hours that suited. We believe that that situation is not only unacceptable on educational and economic grounds, but is directly contrary to the stated aims of the Scottish Government’s social policy.
Although everyone in this Parliament supports the move from 475 to 600 hours of provision and the additional money that has been put in place to support that policy, we can surely never be content until all parents can access their entitlement. The issue is not so much about the number of hours on offer, but about parents’ access to them and the current inflexibility in when the hours can be taken. The First Minister, although she acknowledges the concerns of some parents about the issue, does not seem to recognise that the situation cannot improve until there is a radically different approach. Additional hours are no use unless they can be properly accessed.
I will spend a little time on the detail of the problem before I set out what we think to be the solution. In the first instance, the problem relates to the fact that neither the Scottish Government nor the local authorities seem able to provide the full facts. That is because data is weak, incomplete or, in some cases, meaningless. For example, the Scottish Government persists in using what is described as the registration figure, which it believes shows a 98.5 per cent uptake. Parents groups, however, struggle to understand that statistic, given that the evidence on the ground shows something entirely different. From the evidence that they have compiled, their opinion is that the uptake figure is closer to 80 per cent, which obviously tells us that the problem is still acute for one in five children.
Fair funding for our kids looked at the 2014 nursery census and found that 2,802 children were registered in partnership providers in Glasgow. However, the number of places was only 2,089. In other words, 713 children are not receiving the funding that had been included in the registration statistics, which incidentally correlates with almost £1.5 million-worth of funding.
The member may be aware that Glasgow City Council runs a nursery application management system, which registers any child at a partnership nursery where there are partnership funding places, irrespective of whether that child is in receipt of a partnership funding place. Glasgow City Council has to get its ship in order so that it counts accurately the number of children in the local authority area.
That is only half the story. Registrations also include children on waiting lists, and they could be on more than one list. Those children do not have the entitlement that they deserve. Registration figures are not an accurate reflection of demand.
Statistics from the fair funding for our kids group, which has spoken to the First Minister about the issue, show that 29 out of 32 local authorities have registrations of three-year-olds that are more than 100 per cent, which tells us that there is a serious problem.
In the 47 partnership nurseries in Glasgow, 873 children out of 1,608 eligible children received their entitlement. In West Lothian, in 23 partnership nurseries only 335 children out of 673 eligible children had their funding. Those statistics, which have been compiled extremely methodically by parents groups, tell quite a lot about the story.
The Scottish Government faces criticism from local authorities, which are clear that they do not have enough money to make the necessary provision for the additional places because the fatal mistake has been made of thinking that costs rise in the same proportion as the additional hours provided. That is incorrect. The local authorities say that the Scottish Government fails to recognise the need for additional staff and infrastructure. They point out that, from August 2015, the definition of a vulnerable two-year-old will change. There is therefore no chance that local authorities will fulfil their statutory duties as set out in paragraph 159 of guidance on the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, which says:
“Annual incremental increases in funding from the Scottish Government will enable education authorities to increase flexibility and choice on an annual basis.”
That is simply not happening. It has an added detrimental effect, which is that, because many providers are not receiving as much money as they need from the local authority, they are pushing up the costs for the privately funded hours, making it more expensive for parents and, in some cases, defeating the purpose of the policy.
While we are on the subject of choice, can we deal with the myth that private nurseries are making a profit? They most certainly are not. What they are in the business of doing is providing the additional flexibility that state nurseries cannot; for example, they are often open for longer hours and they offer holiday cover. Let us also remember that some families using childminders and nannies are unable to access free hours at all.
However, the real issue for parents is the restriction of choice. East Dunbartonshire Council, East Lothian Council and Glasgow City Council have all restricted the number of places that they fund in partnership nurseries, which means that many parents have had to move their children from one nursery to another if they can no longer get a funded place at the existing nursery. That is why many parents believe that thousands of children are missing out on provision because local authority nurseries are unable to provide suitable hours for working parents. This was a flagship policy before the referendum, but it is some flagship if thousands of children are not getting that entitlement.
There is a marked variation throughout Scotland in the allocation process, which means that parents are often open to a lottery. Local authorities purchase partnership places using different procurement processes, set against different criteria. In Glasgow, for example, geographical lots are drawn that give the most places to nurseries that have the highest rating, which is 5. That has the potential to be a good thing if it drives up standards, but it is not a good thing if the same practice is not applied to other nurseries. It could mean that very good nurseries that receive a rating of 4—which is pretty good, but not quite a 5—in an area of the city with a high number of successful nurseries will lose out. That system is unfair. It comes back to the evidence that has been provided by many parents.
Those issues combined make the current funding arrangements restrictive and unfair. They are happening at the same time as the Scottish Government persists in its perverse logic, which denies all children born in the winter months the same nursery provision that is afforded to those born in the summer months. When the First Minister was questioned on that at First Minister’s question time back in November, she said that her commitment to ensuring that level of childcare was “real, genuine and strong”. So far, however, nothing has happened, so that was patently disingenuous. There is absolutely no equitable defence of that birthday discrimination, and I ask the Scottish Government to have a look at it.
Many times, there has been consensual agreement in this Parliament about the importance of the early years and, therefore, of the policies that surround them. However, we need to translate warm words and manifesto commitments into reality. It is patently clear at the moment that we have the warm words, but we are very far away from a workable policy that would allow all children to access their entitlement. Not for the first time in this Parliament, members have rejected a Scottish Conservative policy simply because it contains the word “voucher”, but let us be clear about the motion. It reflects exactly what is happening in the City of Edinburgh Council, whereby activation of a code given to a parent by the council allows the parent to access the necessary care. It is a virtual voucher, if you like, and it works because it allows the money to follow the child. That model has been patented by an SNP/Labour-led council, so I hope that it will not be rejected on the ground of any dogma or ideology.
The Scottish Conservatives see this as a hugely significant issue—indeed, we will make it a priority manifesto commitment for 2016. Parents must have choice and the system must have the flexibility to deliver the entitlement that has been promised by the Scottish Government.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the recent survey by the Family and Childcare Trust, which stated that fewer than one in six councils in Scotland had enough childcare capacity to meet the needs of working parents; recognises that most council-run nurseries do not provide the flexibility needed by working parents; believes that, in order to help more parents remain in, or re-enter, the workforce, parents need to be able to take up their child’s nursery entitlement at an establishment offering hours that fit in with their working patterns; welcomes the Scottish Government’s pledge to give every three and four-year-old 600 hours of government-funded nursery provision, but is concerned that too many parents are unable to access their entitlement due to the hours or location on offer from local authorities, and therefore calls on the Scottish Government to introduce greater flexibility into the system through a virtual childcare voucher to ensure that all children in Scotland are guaranteed their entitlement by allowing parents to use any nursery that meets Education Scotland’s and the Care Inspectorate’s standards.
16:01
I welcome this timely debate, which comes only 10 months after the commencement of the Government’s huge commitment to 600 hours of early learning and childcare, which represents a 45 per cent increase in the number of free hours of early learning and childcare since we came to government in 2007.
The Scottish Government is committed to developing a high-quality, flexible system of early learning and childcare that is affordable and accessible for all but which will, in the first instance, focus on those who are most in need. We know that high-quality early learning and childcare benefits children, especially those who are most in need, and can contribute to narrowing attainment and inequality gaps. We also know that a lack of accessible and affordable childcare is a major concern for families and a barrier to work for many parents. Our aims are to improve the outcomes for all children, especially those who are most disadvantaged, and to support parents to work, train or study, especially if they need those routes into sustainable employment and out of poverty.
The Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 ensured that all three and four-year-olds are now legally entitled to 600 hours a year of funded early learning and childcare. The 2014 act also extended that entitlement to our vulnerable and disadvantaged two-year-olds. The act created, for the first time, a statutory duty on local authorities to introduce flexibility and choice based on local consultation.
I very much welcome the steps that the minister has outlined. She will be aware that, although the Liberal Democrats welcome the move in relation to disadvantaged two-year-olds and its extension this summer to 27 per cent of two-year-olds, we are keen to see that figure rise to around 40 per cent, which is the figure south of the border. Does she have an update on when the Government expects that further extension to be achieved?
Mr McArthur knows, from our debate in committee yesterday, that the extension to 15 per cent of two-year-olds last year targeted the children of parents who were out of work and the extension to 27 per cent of two-year-olds this year is targeting the children of parents who are in low-paid employment to ensure that they get the support that is needed. This is about phased and sustainable support for the most vulnerable children in our society.
I know from going around local authorities and nurseries in the past few months that local authorities are consulting and engaging parents and families to ensure that the design and delivery of provision will be flexible enough to meet local parents’ demands. In fact, I have heard on my travels that some local authorities are providing extended hours following the consultations.
The purpose of the legislation is to set the stage for longer-term expansion and improvement. To that end, the First Minister has announced a commitment to increase further the hours to match those delivered in primary schools by the end of the next session of Parliament.
I have listened carefully to the minister. She recently provided a response to my written question in which she said that the model on which the Government’s spend has been adapted was the same model that it had used to determine the spend for the 475 hours. Where is there sufficient funding to do what she has just outlined?
I refer Liz Smith to that parliamentary answer. She is right that we took our work from last year with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and our providers to upscale the provision to 600 hours. We then used that work to upscale to the further increased hours. All that information is in the parliamentary answer.
We introduced the 600 hours policy last year, and we have extended the hours this year. We understand that the timescales are challenging. We must look at the debate in the context of the additional hours, children and flexibility. In that context, it is reasonable to expect that an increase in flexibility and choice will be achieved on a phased and sustainable basis, with year-on-year growth.
It is also important to say that the Scottish Government fully funded the groundbreaking policy with £329 million committed over the first two years of its implementation. That figure was arrived at with our delivery partners in local government.
We are talking about early learning and childcare, and part of its importance is to support women back into work. We have begun to see results. Recent figures show that Scotland has the lowest rate of female unemployment of any European country, while female employment in Scotland is at a record level. Furthermore, the gap between male and female employment is at a near record low.
The Conservatives have suggested that one way of increasing flexibility would be to let parents have vouchers. However, we need to ensure that any such decision is made so that we can manage our education system to be the best that it can be for our youngest children. We must consider the policy and whether we think that a market-led, consumer approach to purchasing early learning and childcare will guarantee sufficient quality; integration with our education system and the curriculum for excellence; and integration with policy objectives such as getting it right for every child. Education Scotland and the Care Inspectorate are there to inspect and ensure quality in our providers and to help them to improve their provision.
We have committed to extending universal early learning and childcare to 30 hours a week by the end of the next session of Parliament. We believe—I hope that everyone agrees—that we should test the proposals for early learning and childcare against the principle of high-quality support to our youngest children to give them the best start in life.
I move amendment S4M-13312.3, to leave out from “notes” to end and insert:
“welcomes that, under the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, all children aged three and four are now legally entitled to receive 600 hours of free early learning and childcare a year, more than under any previous administration; notes that local authorities have received £329 million in new money to fund implementation of this groundbreaking policy; further notes that local authorities are developing plans to engage with parents and families to ensure that the design and delivery of provision is flexible enough to meet families’ needs; welcomes that this unprecedented investment in early learning and childcare enables more parents, and in particular women, to return to work, as evidenced by Scotland now having the lowest rate of female unemployment of any country in Europe; condemns the UK Government’s proposals to only increase provision in England for parents who work, excluding those who need help most, and supports proposals to extend universal, free early learning and childcare in Scotland to 30 hours per week for the school year by the end of the next parliamentary session.”
16:09
Transforming childcare is certainly one of the most important challenges that we face. As a mum of three young children, it is an issue close to my heart, so I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate.
Last night, along with the minister, I attended the launch of One Parent Families Scotland’s programme for change. At the heart of the priorities identified by single parents is the need to transform childcare not only to ensure that it is high quality, flexible and affordable, but to enable parents to work and study, while also meeting children’s development needs and addressing the inequalities that continue to impact on children’s life chances. Earlier this year, the Family and Childcare Trust revealed that only 15 per cent of councils in Scotland have enough childcare capacity to meet working parents’ needs. That compares with 43 per cent in England.
As Liz Smith has outlined, one of the biggest challenges is the fact that many thousands of children are missing out on the 600 hours of early education that they are entitled to right now. We often hear in the Parliament about the apparent 98.5 per cent take-up of free places, but that does not reflect the reality on the ground. The fair funding for our kids campaign says:
“For many children and working parents ... the system is not delivering a model of childcare that matches the needs of the modern working family ... Right now, thousands of families across Scotland are unable to access their legal entitlement to free childcare because most council nurseries do not offer suitable hours for working parents.”
For parents who work full time, accessing a free space that is available for only three hours and 10 minutes a day, 38 weeks a year, is simply not an option.
How many children across Scotland are offered places that are so inflexible that working parents cannot access them? How many children are unable to access their 600 hours at all because they attend a private nursery and all the funded places have been allocated? How many children attend a nursery that is not a partnership provider, which means that no money is available to fund their place? How many children who attend a pre-school nursery are not benefiting from the full 600 hours to which they are entitled because the provision does not fit in with the school day? That poses a problem for parents with children at school.
I do not deny that we do not yet have full flexibility in the system, but does Ms Hilton agree that we are 10 months into what is a huge programme of improvement that we want to roll over to 2020 and that we are not doing badly?
Yes, but we are talking about a pledge that was made back in 2007, so the Government has had plenty of time to get things right. The reality is that parents are missing out.
The answer to the questions that I asked is that we can only speculate, because no one knows how many parents are missing out on the 600 hours of provision that are a universal right for every child in Scotland, because there is no national oversight or scrutiny of this flagship policy to ensure that it is being delivered and that the spirit of the 2014 act is being fulfilled. That is why Scottish Labour is calling for effective national oversight of the policy. We want to ensure that it works for every child, and we want a full audit to be carried out of how it is being delivered in each local authority area.
Too many parents feel that they are being robbed of their rights. They want action to be taken to ensure that their children receive the free childcare that they have been promised; they do not want a promise of change in the future, when their children will probably be at school.
Although we support much of Liz Smith’s motion, like Fiona McLeod we do not accept that the introduction of a virtual voucher scheme is necessarily the best way forward. We agree with the fair funding for our kids campaign and Reform Scotland that all—
Will the member give way?
Yes.
Does the member accept that that is exactly what is happening in the Labour and Scottish National Party-led City of Edinburgh Council? Does she support that?
You are approaching your final minute, Ms Hilton.
That may well be the case, but the concept of vouchers for public services could be a slippery slope. More discussion is necessary. It is certainly not an idea that we are supporting today.
We will abstain on Fiona McLeod’s amendment on the basis that we do not accept that the 600 hours policy is fully funded. Local authorities tell us that they do not have the resources to deliver it fully, for the reasons that Liz Smith outlined earlier. We are also sceptical about the claim that more women with three and four-year-olds are re-entering the labour market thanks to the policy of providing three hours of childcare a day. I do not know of many jobs that fit around a nursery place of three hours and 10 minutes.
Our amendment highlights the observation in the commission for childcare reform’s interim report that the focus on three and four-year-olds
“has not been matched by coordinated investment in ... the needs of working families for pre-school childcare, out of school care and holiday provision.”
Although we rightly call on the Scottish Government to take steps now to ensure that 600 hours of provision is a reality for every eligible child, we know that that will not fix the childcare challenges that Scotland faces. Those challenges do not begin when a child turns three and they do not end when a child starts school. The spiralling cost of childcare in Scotland is a huge headache for working parents.
Unfortunately, I have run out of time, because of all the interventions that I have taken. I will conclude by citing the view of the fair funding for our kids campaign, which says that no one has a grip on childcare policy. The promise of 30 hours of provision in the future would sound a lot more convincing to parents if they were receiving the 15 hours to which they are entitled now. We must ensure that parents right across Scotland get a better deal.
I move amendment S4M-13312.2, to leave out from “notes” to end and insert:
“welcomes that, under the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, all children aged three and four are now legally entitled to receive 600 hours of free early learning and childcare a year, more than under any previous administration; notes that local authorities have received £329 million in new money to fund implementation of this groundbreaking policy; further notes that local authorities are developing plans to engage with parents and families to ensure that the design and delivery of provision is flexible enough to meet families’ needs; welcomes that this unprecedented investment in early learning and childcare enables more parents, and in particular women, to return to work, as evidenced by Scotland now having the lowest rate of female unemployment of any country in Europe; condemns the UK Government’s proposals to only increase provision in England for parents who work, excluding those who need help most, and supports proposals to extend universal, free early learning and childcare in Scotland to 30 hours per week for the school year by the end of the next parliamentary session.”
We come to the open debate. We are very tight for time, so speeches should be of four minutes.
16:14
First of all, I should say that I have met the fair funding for our kids campaign on a number of occasions and have engaged directly with many of the issues that it has raised.
I think that Cara Hilton and Liz Smith are being a bit churlish in not recognising the huge increases in childcare provision across Scotland. Because of the time constraints, I will not list all the achievements—
Mr Doris, could you move your microphone up? I am having difficulty hearing you.
That is not something that I am usually told, Presiding Officer. I am happy to speak louder.
There have been significant and profound advances in childcare provision right across Scotland, but I concede that we have to go further and provide more choice and flexibility. Nevertheless, it is churlish not to suggest that substantial, significant and sustained improvement has been made across Scotland. That point is certainly not reflected either in the motion or the Labour amendment.
As the fair funding for our kids campaign has made clear, more than 1,000 children in Glasgow have not accessed their entitlement. It has also identified limitations in Glasgow’s childcare structures as well as the need for working parents—not just mothers but fathers, I point out to our front-bench spokespersons—accessing five half-day placements over the course of a week to block those placements together for a solid two and a half days of childcare arrangements with the local authority or partnership nursery. That is not something that Glasgow City Council has been particularly good at. The council also has fewer than 2,000 extended places in the city, and there is a need for more. Things are improving, but there are problems and issues to address in Glasgow.
I should also point out that the old local authority model of using the local school nursery might not fit in with today’s working patterns. Sometimes mothers and fathers need to use the nursery that is close to where Gran stays, close to where their work is, close to where their former partner lives if they are operating a joint parenting strategy or, indeed, close to the primary school that a sibling attends, because they use the breakfast club there. At this point, I should put on record that I am rather worried about Glasgow City Council seeking to close breakfast clubs right across the city, which, as far as my constituents are concerned, will have a direct impact on childcare and the anti-poverty strategy.
There is, of course, guidance on the statutory duty to make a place available for each child, and that provision should be flexible. However, we have to tease out what a reasonable offer should look like. That offer is not always going to be of a nursery place around the corner from a person’s place of employment, Gran, a former partner or whoever, but what should be offered should be reasonable.
You are in your final minute.
There is a concern that local authorities—in this instance, Glasgow—would sometimes rather see a local authority nursery place sit empty in order to save cash instead of funding a partnership nursery place, and we have look at how we scrutinise and put pressure on them.
Speaking of Glasgow City Council, I know that many of the parents in the fair funding for our kids campaign quite deliberately took up places at a partnership nursery for their two-year-olds in the expectation and hope that there would be a place for them there when the child turned three. However, when that happened, the places were withdrawn from the partnership nurseries as part of the council’s procurement strategy and no place could be offered there for those parents’ three-year-olds. That was just wrong, and the council has to get better at doing that sort of thing.
Could you draw to a close, please?
I will, Presiding Officer. My point is that vouchers are not the way to go, because the funding should always follow the child. However, we have to increase the number of partnership nursery places significantly. We do not need legislation for that, because if Labour and the SNP can do it jointly in Edinburgh—
I am sorry, but you must close.
—we can do it right across Scotland.
I am afraid that I will have to cut members off if they do not keep to their four minutes.
16:18
I thank Mary Scanlon for her very generous remarks in the previous debate about Charles Kennedy, following his sudden and untimely death. He was a gifted politician, a Liberal to his core and a Highlander first and last. I had the privilege of being able to call him a friend, but I know that his passing is mourned by those across the political spectrum and far beyond.
The minister is well aware that we share her aspiration for a revolution in childcare; indeed, in consecutive budgets, we have pushed for extended provision for two-year-olds. As a result, 27 per cent of Scotland’s two-year-olds will benefit, as the minister has confirmed. However, although that is good, I am concerned that we are still lagging behind the 40 per cent of those from disadvantaged backgrounds who are benefiting elsewhere in the UK. I hope that the next phase of this revolution will see more of Scotland’s two-year-olds getting access to these opportunities.
There is, after all, overwhelming evidence that investment in the first few years of a child’s life is crucial in shaping their life chances. Investment in childcare later on is welcome, but if the attainment gap is to be addressed and inequality is to be reduced, a ruthless focus is required on investment in quality learning and childcare in the very early years. I have made that argument many times before, and I make no apologies for making it again.
As we look at future provision, we must ensure that what happens now is of high quality and meets the needs of children and their parents, and that it is not simply determined by the constraints of local government. As others have said, increasing flexibility is key to achieving that. By the Government’s own admission, that flexibility is not yet available in the way that we would like it to be.
Across Scotland, delivery of the current childcare offering is sketchy. Some councils offer partnership arrangements to many nurseries that fit parents’ wishes; others are more cautious and severely limit the partnership funding and partnership status. I encourage the minister to consider what more could be done to encourage councils to provide genuine flexibility through an increase in the number of partnership nurseries, taking into account the wishes and needs of parents.
In the time that is available to me, I want to briefly address the issue of the workforce, which is not referred to in the motion or the amendments but which is obviously key to the success of childcare and early learning in Scotland. The pressure on those who work in the sector has inevitably increased through the expansion in entitlement. With further expansions on the horizon, we must ensure that Scotland has the early years workforce that it needs to provide first-class care and education for our children. That means training more specialists as well as ensuring that those who already work in the sector remain content in their careers and are equipped to deal with the new demands that we place on them.
I understand that a review is under way. It would be helpful perhaps if the minister could update members in her closing remarks on the progress with that review and when we might expect recommendations to emerge from it.
Like others, I welcome the fact that we continue to have a focus on early learning and nursery provision. I think that there is cross-party support for more hours of high-quality childcare, but there is a long way to go before the delivery catches up with our aspirations. That is something that we must be aware of and that we must work quickly and creatively to resolve.
16:22
Over the past months, I have seen a considerable number of parents who have been upset and disheartened by the way that Glasgow City Council has dealt with the partnership nurseries in Glasgow. The council must recognise that the needs of many parents and children cannot be met by local authority-run nurseries and that it should be doing much more to ensure a wider availability of nursery provision. There seems to have been an arbitrary dropping of funding from one year to the next for no apparent reason in many of the partnership nurseries in my constituency and, I suspect, across the city.
On the different types of nurseries and nursery provision, I want to talk about the great work that Cassiltoun Stables Nursery in Castlemilk is doing as a community-led nursery. In 2007, Cassiltoun Stables Nursery transferred from council to community ownership, and the facility has since developed into one that hosts community events, offices, training suites and, of course, a nursery.
The nursery, which opens five days a week, from 7.30 am until 6 pm, including on public holidays, is available for all. It is open during the vast majority of people’s working hours, and it solves the problem that a lot of parents have with part-time nurseries that are found to be open for only a section of the day, which, as we have already heard, makes it impossible for parents to drop their child off or pick them up, as those times will likely clash with their working hours.
Any child from just six weeks old up to the age of five can attend the Cassiltoun nursery and enjoy opportunities to develop their social skills and take part in a wide range of activities under the supervision of the excellent, professional and highly qualified staff who run the organisation, ably led by their manager Susan Palmer.
The nursery is the only nursery in Glasgow to provide a forest kindergarten for children aged three and under. That initiative works in partnership with Forestry Commission Scotland, which has helped to train the staff and has participated in activities such as walks in the forest, setting up camp, building dens, balancing on logs and sitting down for a quick drink and a snack if there is time.
Flexibility is one of the key aspects of the nursery. There is flexibility for the parents who use it and an ability to react to local circumstances. I thoroughly believe that it is a great example of a community-led nursery and a model that could be usefully utilised across Glasgow and across the country as a whole.
Unfortunately, the flexibility that is inherent in that nursery is lacking in a lot of the work that Glasgow City Council in particular is doing. Many of the constituents who have contacted me have been turned down for a place in a partnership nursery because the council will not fund that place although, as we have heard, funding is being made available from the Scottish Government. Instead, it is only offering a place in a nursery that might not be suited to the parents and, crucially, the children, for a whole number of reasons.
The services must be run for the benefit of children and parents and not for the convenience of the council. That is why I welcome the provisions of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, which has introduced a statutory responsibility for local authorities to consult parents on the flexibility that they require in nursery provision, as well as the commitment to look further into how we gather data around nursery provision to ensure an increasing level of flexibility and choice. From discussions with parents, it is clear that flexibility is key in nursery provision.
Instead it is only offering a place in a nursery that might not be suited to the parents and, crucially, the children, for a whole number of reasons.
Those services must be run for the benefit of children and parents and not for the convenience of the council. That is why I welcome the provisions of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, which has introduced a statutory responsibility for local authorities to consult parents on the flexibility that they require in nursery provision as well as introduced the commitment to look further into how we gather data around nursery provision to ensure an increasing level of flexibility and choice. From discussions with parents, it is clear that flexibility is key in nursery provision.
You are in your final minute.
We know that there are examples of good practice around the country, such as by the councils in Edinburgh and Dumfries and Galloway. Much like taking lessons from the good practice of Cassiltoun Stables Nursery, I would implore Glasgow City Council in particular to investigate how it tenders for partnership places and the number of those places that it offers to parents.
If Glasgow City Council started looking at its statutory duty to provide nursery places in a different way that was more reflective of the needs of parents and children across the city, I know that it would have a hugely positive impact. The funding is there from the Scottish Government to do so, the want is there from parents to look into it more and the benefits to children across Cathcart, and Glasgow more broadly, are huge.
16:26
I welcome the Government’s 600-hour policy and its on-going work to deliver more flexibility. I also support much of the Conservative motion, although I had a bout of déjà vu when I saw the words “nursery vouchers” at the top of it because, before the 1997 election, they were a major point of controversy. I even managed to find my speech of 29 January 1996 to wind up a Scottish Grand Committee debate that Michael Forsyth introduced. I will spare members the contents of that speech.
However, I am a bit mystified about why the Conservatives want to revisit those words. Clearly a virtual voucher is a bit different from the real thing, but I think that it would have been wise not to use the word “voucher” at all.
In that speech, quality was emphasised. I will talk about what the City of Edinburgh Council does. Edinburgh has been mentioned several times. I do not have a clue whether it uses virtual vouchers, but I rather admire what it is doing. The starting point of its policy is quality. It will accept partnership nurseries only if they meet strict quality criteria, and many do.
The cabinet secretary will expect me to mention North Edinburgh Childcare, because I always do in childcare debates. It is of the highest quality. I declare an interest in that I am on its board. It meets the criteria, as do many other providers.
Forty per cent of the provision in Edinburgh is from partnership nurseries. Parents can generally get a place in such a nursery if it suits them.
I heard recently about a problem with the funding arrangements that surprised me. Apparently, the City of Edinburgh Council also ends up paying for children from West Lothian, East Lothian and Midlothian. I think that there is work on solving that.
The problem with Edinburgh is not too little partnership provision but in some cases too little council provision. I pay tribute to the council, however, because it is on the case. As we speak, it is building a new nursery at Wardie primary school in my constituency, and I know that there are similar building works in other parts of the city with which I am not so familiar.
The council is also working on developing more flexible options. I have heard of one for children to use all their entitlement over two days. That is being piloted, although I do not know how many parents will find that attractive.
Because of the need for more capacity in the council sector, some children are getting only one year in a council nursery. If we think about it, some parents only want that much provision, as they may be working only part time or not at all, and in a partnership nursery it is not possible to get just the 600 hours.
There is a particular problem for children who are born after August. I can think of at least one nursery in my constituency that tends to fill up in August, because that is after everybody has left in the summer, and then getting a place throughout the year is difficult.
That compounds the problem that Liz Smith reminded us of, as she has done before—that anyone who turns three after August does not get two years of nursery education, even in the best of circumstances. A child born in November gets five terms as a best scenario; a child born in January gets four terms as a best scenario. We must also remember that some will get only three terms because of the problem that I described.
I worry that the youngest children going into primary school—who are only four—are those who have had the least nursery education, so there is a double disadvantage. I am not sure what the solution is, but we ought to be aware of the problem.
16:30
My colleague Liz Smith opened the debate by referring to a shocking statistic from the Family and Childcare Trust, whose research showed that just 15 per cent of local authorities in Scotland have enough nursery places for parents who work full time. That is simply not good enough.
The Governments at Westminster and in Edinburgh talk a great deal about the benefits of flexible childcare. We now have record employment levels—something that we should all be proud of—but there are still too many parents who want to work or to work longer hours than they do but who are held back by a lack of childcare places and inflexibility in the system. The Scottish Government has made a welcome promise to increase provision, but those words will appear hollow if the Government cannot sort out the inadequacies in the existing arrangements.
I have experience of the issues as the parent of two young children who are both now in primary school but were recently at nursery. Our experience was positive, because our local council engages with partnership providers, and as a result we were able to choose the nursery that we wanted for our children. We chose one close to where we live that has an excellent reputation, and we were impressed by the staff and the management. Our experience was entirely positive. I say to the minister that there is no evidence of poor standards or inadequate curriculum development and that, if parents choose their nurseries properly, they will not face those problems.
However, I know that too many parents are not as lucky as we were. Rather than have the right to choose and flexibility, they are left having to take their children to the nursery place that the local authority provides. They are left with the inflexible hours that are on offer, which means that trying to fit in childcare with working is virtually impossible.
For us, flexible childcare provision meant that our children could attend nursery three days per week on a full-time basis. However, as Cara Hilton pointed out, too many parents are left in a situation where they are offered a block of three hours each day—either 9 to 12 in the morning or 1 to 4 in the afternoon—five days a week. There are few jobs, if any, that a working parent can do that would fit in with that childcare pattern. If we are to have proper support for working parents and allow parents to take up employment opportunities, we must have flexibility.
Will the member give way?
I will not, if the member will forgive me, because I have only two minutes left.
Liz Smith referred to the fact that at least three local authorities—East Dunbartonshire Council, East Lothian Council and Glasgow City Council—have restrictions on the number of places that are funded in partnership nurseries. That causes headaches for working parents and needs to change. That is precisely why we are calling for more flexible arrangements and virtual vouchers. I say to Malcolm Chisholm that I do not care what we call the vouchers, because the principle of allowing flexibility in the system is what is important. The current piecemeal approach is not working.
Another issue that needs to be addressed—we have raised it consistently—is the birthday discrimination. Again, I can illustrate the issue from personal experience. My daughter was born in late August and was entitled to seven terms of funding for a nursery place, but my son was born in January and was funded for just five terms. On no level does that make any sense.
We know that there are substantial benefits from early childhood education and we know that the Scottish Government promotes the concept of two years of nursery provision for pre-school children, but in reality very few children get the full two years of funding. When Liz Smith attempted to amend the relevant provision in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill, every party in the Parliament, bar the SNP, supported her.
The SNP talks a good game on nursery provision and talks about fairness, but it is defending a system that is inherently unfair and discriminates against children born in the first six months of the year. That costs parents and does nothing to spread the benefit of early years education to those who need it. This is not an area where more powers are needed; it is an area where action could be taken today. We need flexibility for working parents and we need to end the unfair birthday discrimination.
16:34
I welcome the debate, as it gives us an opportunity to discuss the progress that the Scottish Government is making on nursery provision for families across Scotland. We must work with local government to deliver the policy. I come to the debate as a former councillor and as an MSP, so I have seen both sides of the argument when a local council has to deliver Government policy.
We have heard much about councils that can deliver the policy and about councils that do not do so. Surely there is a way in which we can work to ensure that all councils find out what the best practice is so that they can move forward. As a councillor, I was frankly sick of hearing about how we were going to share best practice and ways forward with other local authorities. This is a perfect example of how we should take what is good in certain areas and move it elsewhere. We all want to move towards that.
As the minister said, since the Government came to power, there has been a 45 per cent increase in nursery entitlement for three to four-year-olds, from 412.5 hours in 2007 to 600 hours in 2014. The Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 set out to expand free childcare provision and to increase flexibility year on year. That investment is important for our children’s future, which is why the Scottish Government is looking to expand it further. We must work with our partners in local government to ensure that that expansion can be delivered.
At the same time, we must continue to look to the future. We must develop the provision further and provide further support for Scotland’s families. Childcare is expensive, but what it delivers is priceless. The Scottish Government is looking to the future and has pledged that the SNP’s 2016 manifesto will set out a plan to increase childcare provision by the end of the next session from 16 hours to 30 hours per week. The First Minister described the move to increase free early learning and childcare provision to 30 hours as
“one of the best investments any government can possibly make.”
As I think the minister has mentioned, by 2019-20, annual revenue spend on early learning and childcare will have increased from an anticipated £439 million this year to around £880 million. As I have said, childcare is not cheap, but it is worth making the investment. We all agree that that provision is important to families throughout the country.
There is also the promise of extra capital spending by the Scottish Government. The First Minister made it clear that, if the SNP is re-elected, the great infrastructure project of the next Parliament will be investment in care and learning facilities, to ensure that our early years provision matches our primary school provision. That is ambitious and it shows the way forward.
The big capital spends during the past couple of Administrations have been on big, massive bridges, roads and infrastructure. Childcare may be less visible than the Queensferry crossing, and it might not be as sexy as a nice, shiny new bridge, but what a difference it can make to the start of our young people’s lives, by giving families the support that they need and ensuring that women get the opportunity to go back to work. All those things are priceless, and the proposals will show that Scotland leads the way in childcare.
16:38
Fiona McLeod’s amendment says that we should recognise that the progress that has been made under the present Government is more than was achieved under any previous Administration. We would want to think so, given that the current Government has been in power for more than eight years. I readily acknowledge the progress that has been made during that time.
There are a couple of points to make. First, the brief from the fair funding for our kids campaign group asks for a place at the table. I heard the minister on BBC radio this morning saying that local authorities have got to consult parents. I would very much support a place at the table so that parents have some representatives in every local authority area.
I heard Liz Smith speaking about the Edinburgh example, which I will certainly follow up. I will ask the City of Edinburgh Council about it so that we can consider that example. That ties back to the fact that each local authority should be engaged more.
On the radio, the minister spoke about working alongside the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. COSLA no doubt has a role but, if we are serious about delivering a lot of services, the more localised we can go in working with local authorities, the better. No doubt each local authority will come up with a different solution. If Edinburgh is an example of best practice, we should highlight it to other local authorities so that they can look at it.
Crucially, we should then engage with parents locally. When my granddaughter went to nursery, there was a mix-and-match approach to her care that involved the council nursery, a private nursery and me and her gran. I saw how difficult the situation is and how costly it can be for working parents. That is a barrier.
Earlier, a group of parents from Inverkeithing visited me in Parliament. They talked about the need for more flexibility. In Fife, there was a move to having an extra half hour in the morning—with an 8.30 start—and an extra half hour in the afternoon. That caused some difficulty for parents who have kids at school.
There is no doubt that council provision is not set up to support working parents who work different hours. One of the parents who was in here today pointed out to me that a lot of jobs these days require evening and weekend working. She is a single parent and was talking about the fact that the major barrier to her going into employment is the lack of affordable and accessible childcare. That is a major issue.
We also need to consider capacity, as there must be alternatives. If we had been able to purchase childcare in the local authority system, we would have probably gone for that option. However, there was not enough capacity to do that.
Through a localism agenda and working with local authorities, we can achieve the objectives that I believe that the Scottish Government is trying to achieve.
16:41
A lot of the comments in the debate have focused on the campaign run by fair funding for our kids, which highlights the difficulties that parents are having in accessing their very welcome legal entitlement to 600 hours of free childcare. It also highlights the need for an audit of the spending in this area, which is not insignificant, as George Adam pointed out, to cover the current spend and the projected spend. I think that, when we hear about the problems that some parents are facing and think about the importance of the policy to young families, the Government should listen to that call.
As Liz Smith noted, the campaign has flagged up an issue with registration figures. They are being used to show an overwhelming success story on uptake, but the campaign feels that they mask an underlying issue of children not accessing their legal entitlement. The Scottish Government uses registration statistics from the annual early learning and childcare census to assess the uptake of funded places, but the fair funding for our kids campaign believes that that method is
“grossly over-estimating the number of children in receipt of their entitlement”.
As was pointed out, the Government has suggested that less than 2 per cent of children are not receiving their entitlement, but the campaign believes that the real figure is closer to 20 per cent.
In its briefing for today’s debate, the campaign set out the reasons for that statement. It noted that partner provider registrations include all children attending partner providers, regardless of whether funding has been allocated by the local authority. It gave the example of Glasgow, where, according to the 2014 census, 2,802 children were registered in partner providers, but the number of funded places that were awarded at the time of the census was 2,089, which means that 713 children who were not receiving funding were included in the registration figures in one local authority alone.
I take the point that Bob Doris made in an intervention about local authorities getting their houses in order, but the big question is this: why is the Government using those registration figures to measure the uptake of entitlement when we all accept that the figures do not represent the reality, given that there is a disparity of more than 700 in Glasgow, which calls into question the statistical accuracy of the calculations relating to uptake?
Despite the 600 hours being a right for every child in Scotland, there is no effective oversight at the national level to ensure that it is delivered, as Cara Hilton said. That is why we are calling for such oversight of the policy, to ensure that it works for every child. We support the call from the fair funding for our kids campaign for a full audit of how the policy is being delivered and we want action now to ensure that every child receives the funding to which they are entitled.
16:45
There was quite a lot to cover in the debate, but it was useful. The tone and temper of the debate show that everybody in the chamber, across all the parties, understands how important early learning and childcare is, not only for our young people but for our economy and to support parents, especially women, into work.
I will go through a number of the points that members raised and try to answer them in the short time that I have.
Liz Smith, Cara Hilton, Mark Griffin and almost everybody mentioned data. I will not justify everything that we are doing, but I will answer the question. In September every year, we do a census, which is a well-established method of counting heads in educational establishments. Many of the figures about the 1,000 children here and the 800 there who do not have places are based on results from only two councils, so we have to use our figures carefully. I accept that that is the case on both sides of the argument.
I agree with some of what the minister just said. Notwithstanding that, does she accept that the registration definition is not accurate?
Everybody is clear that our statistics are not robust for either side of the argument and that there is variability across councils, never mind on either side of the argument. The First Minister has charged the chief statistician with considering how we go about making them robust.
On 11 June—how many days away is that?—the statutory guidance group that we set up to develop the statutory guidance to support the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 will talk about the matter at its meeting. That group has been working together to deliver the policy for a long time so, in only a few days, we will start to think about the matter in much greater detail.
Liz Smith and Cara Hilton said that the policy was not fully funded. I say to both of them that, since January 2014, when we set out our ambition to have 600 hours of childcare by August 2014, we have worked closely with COSLA and our delivery partners to ensure that the £329 million funding that we gave was what was agreed was needed. We have continued to work with all our delivery partners until, most recently, I was able to say at the Education and Culture Committee yesterday that we have worked out that it will cost us £600,000 to increase coverage to 27 per cent of two-year-olds and budgeted for that estimate. The funding is well worked out with all our partners.
On timescales, Cara Hilton said that we had had plenty of time to work on the 600 hours, when I said that 10 months was pretty good for where we had got to already. It was in January 2014 that the former First Minister said that he hoped that the 600 hours would be provided by August 2014, so we have made great strides but, as we said at the time, we are also determined to do it in a sustainable and phased way.
Everybody is talking about flexibility. I reiterate what I said in my opening speech: flexibility must never be provided at the expense of quality. We heard from James Dornan about the quality that Cassiltoun Stables Nursery can give, as well as the flexibility of the hours that it can give. We also heard from Murdo Fraser about his exceptionally good experience in relation to his own children. I come back to the point that flexibility must never be at the expense of quality. We can ensure quality because we have regulators in the Care Inspectorate and Education Scotland to ensure that when we go as parents—or when a local authority goes to look for partners—we can look at the registration and regulation experience and know with confidence that those nurseries will provide quality education and childcare for our youngest people.
You are in your final minute.
I will rush through things. In response to Liam McArthur, I point out that on 1 June, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning responded to the Siraj report on development for the childcare workforce. She said that we will answer all the recommendations by autumn this year and she also announced £1 million to put into workforce development for the early years childcare workforce.
Flexibility is not just about nurseries. We are working really hard to talk to employers about being flexible employers. We are funding the family friendly working Scotland partnership to ask employers to think about how to be family friendly. There is much else that I wanted to talk about but I really do not have the time.
I finish by making the same point that I started my speech with: today’s debate has shown that we have a lot in common across the parties with regard to our commitment to early education and childcare in order to ensure that every child in Scotland gets the best start possible.
16:51
I thank all the speakers for their contributions, and I am very pleased that Fiona McLeod talked about what we have in common, because that is exactly the point with which I would like to start my speech. I want to look at what we all agree on. We agree with and welcome the Scottish Government pledge of a legal entitlement to 600 hours of free early learning and childcare.
We all support proposals to extend universal free early learning and childcare to 30 hours a week—for the school year—by the end of the next parliamentary session. We all value highly the work that is done in our nurseries, as Liam McArthur and others mentioned, and we welcome the increased training for staff, as well as the quality-driven Care Inspectorate and Education Scotland regime.
There is the issue of low pay for many staff in the sector—where, historically, low pay has prevailed. That should be changing, given the qualifications and training that are required, as well as the need to meet the high Care Inspectorate standards.
The responsibility of assessing each and every child when they enter nursery, planning how to support and help that child throughout the year, then evaluating the progress that has been made, is an exemplar model of identifying development issues and providing support in preparation for school. We would all commend that model.
We welcome and agree with all of that. We cannot even criticise the Scottish Government for not putting money in. However, what we are focusing on today is how the policy is implemented. Can every child access the 600 hours of free childcare? The answer is no.
For a start, the provision of free childcare is available in many nurseries only during term time, which does not suit most working parents with the normal statutory entitlement of holidays and public holidays and is even more difficult for single parents. Secondly, the 600 hours is not available in every nursery in Scotland, which means that some parents would have to take their child to the nursery—mainly council nurseries offering the free childcare—for three hours a day during term time, then pick them up after three hours and take them to a nursery that offered full day care.
I am sure that all members will understand that that is just not practical from a work point of view and is also likely to be very disruptive for any child. Therefore parents are forced to use full-time nurseries in order to fulfil hours of work. In many cases, such as in SNP/Labour-led Edinburgh, we commend the council for allowing 600 hours of free childcare to be purchased at these independent partnership private nurseries, or whatever we call them, but in other cases that is simply not allowed. If that can be done in Edinburgh by Labour and the SNP, why can it not be done elsewhere in Scotland?
All nurseries must achieve the standards set by the Care Inspectorate and Education Scotland on the environment, staff training and early learning, to ensure that there is no issue about the quality of the provider—public or private—given that they all have to meet the same requirements. I do not often say this—indeed, this is not often said on this side of the chamber—but I commend James Dornan and Bob Doris because I thought that they had a crystal-clear grasp on what is happening in Glasgow. They understood the nurseries and the problems that parents face, and I commend them for that. In Glasgow, hundreds of families are unable to access their legal entitlement to free childcare because most nurseries do not offer suitable hours for working parents. Not all parents of eligible children are able to access their entitlement in partnership nurseries, due to the limited number of funded places.
As I said, the majority of funded places are in council nurseries and are made up of a three-hour session in the morning or afternoon. As Cara Hilton and others have said: try getting a job that fits in with a three-hour stint at the nursery. In those circumstances, a private nursery is a necessity for parents in full-time work, not a parental choice. The fair funding for our kids campaign estimated that around half the children in Glasgow and West Lothian are currently unable to access their entitlement. We cannot ignore that, and it should not be ignored by the SNP after eight years—it seems longer—in government. If a legal entitlement is not available to many children, we should ask the Government to listen to parents and address the issue.
The National Day Nurseries Association in Scotland carried out research on this issue last year. It discovered that average funding per child per hour in Scotland was £3.80, with some local authorities paying as little as £2.80. I hope that the Government will work with local authorities to ensure that every nursery is resourced to provide a quality standard of care, and to ensure that staff are paid a reasonable wage for the responsible work they do—work that we all value.
Even more worrying is a quote from the NDNA, which said that the knock-on effect of low funding was
“a rise in the cost of parent paid for hours as nurseries are forced to make up the losses”.
As the number of funded hours rises from 475 to 600, and to more than 1,000 in the next session, the increased hours of lower-rate funding will mean that more will be required from the parents who pay in order to make up the losses. Given that 87 of the nurseries surveyed stated that the hourly rate from councils did not cover their costs, resulting in an average loss per hour of £1.72, the burden on those other parents will be significant. In other words, the increase in Government funding for increased hours will result in some parents paying more due to the losses in council funding.
When a Government policy with a legal entitlement to 600 hours of free childcare cannot be delivered in a way that is accessible to the many parents who work, the Government must step in. Our answer is that funding should be more flexible and should follow the child; it should be respectful to parental choice and not disruptive to the child.
Previous
UniversitiesNext
Business Motions