Early Years Framework
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-3385, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on the early years framework.
I am pleased to open the debate. Alongside "Equally Well: Report of the Ministerial Task Force on Health Equalities" and "Achieving Our Potential: A Framework to tackle poverty and income inequality in Scotland", "The Early Years Framework" represents a new dawn in social policy.
There is a wealth of evidence to suggest that children's experiences in their earliest years are key to their future outcomes. Parents' interaction with children in the first years of their lives is critical in developing relationships and in laying the foundations for positive physical and mental health development.
The early years are also a period when stark inequalities in cognitive and social development start to emerge. The fact that those often persist into later life has serious consequences not just for individuals but for communities and society as a whole. Many of our most pernicious social problems—violent crime, substance misuse and antisocial behaviour—grow from the seeds of disadvantage that are sown in the early years.
In such challenging economic times, some may question whether early years should be a priority. The Government is of course taking immediate action to help individuals through the economic downturn, but we will secure a radical improvement in Scotland's long-term economic prospects and achieve our purpose of sustainable economic growth only if we concentrate on the factors that hold us back: ill health, poverty and wasted potential. All those have their roots in the early years and can be addressed by giving all children the best possible start in life.
For that reason, I find it disappointing that the Labour amendment focuses on such a narrow—although not unimportant—issue. Let me address that point straight away so that we can get on with the real business in hand. In the census for 2008, pre-school centres were asked for the first time to report the number of peripatetic teachers, who work across more than one centre, separately from the number of teachers who are employed in their centre only. In 2008, the head count of teachers who are employed in only one centre was approximately the same as the head count of all teachers in 2007. In addition, a head count of 600 was reported for peripatetic teachers, equating to 204 whole-time equivalent staff. By anyone's logic, that means that there must have been an increase in the number of teachers of at least 200 in 2008. I hope that Labour members will now accept that point—which Adam Ingram brought to their attention on 5 December—so that we can move on to the substance of the debate.
The substance of the debate is our children and our vision for them. A philosophy of early intervention is at the heart of our vision for a better and a fairer Scotland and at the heart of the early years framework. We must move from treating the symptoms of an unfair society to treating the causes.
For too long, Governments have used money as almost the sole mechanism of change. As we move into an era of restricted spending growth, when so much public sector resource will need to be directed towards supporting economic recovery, such a position is no longer sustainable. We already spend £1.5 billion on the early years. We must align those resources to areas that make the most significant contribution to outcomes, and move away from intervening only when there is a crisis in prevention and early intervention.
The early years framework was produced through the work of 100 people and 50 organisations, a quarter of which were voluntary. It establishes a new vision for the early years, based on consideration of the whole child in the context of parents, families and communities. It gives us the opportunity to look at how a range of influences can come together to shape positive experiences in the early years.
A central message of the new framework is about the importance of parenting. I look forward to hearing the Conservative members' perspective on that. Relationships are key to a child's development and the home learning environment in the early years has a huge influence on educational outcomes. For a variety of reasons, some parents will struggle to provide a nurturing environment and will need support to do that.
Will the minister take an intervention?
Will the minister give way?
Presiding Officer, I am spoiled for choice. I will take Robert Brown.
I appreciate that this is not the cabinet secretary's immediate departmental responsibility, but could she expand on the role of the health visitor in relation to the nurse-family partnership pilot to which the framework refers? Many of us feel that there is a gap there, which the framework perhaps identifies.
That is central to the issue of universal access to services, and I know that pilots are on-going. However, it is recognised that having access to the support of health visitors in the early years provides an immediate supportive environment. I hope that the member will find that the early years framework will help to drive forward that approach and recognise the importance of midwives, health visitors and community nursing teams, who support parents during pregnancy and early parenthood and who are known, valued and trusted. We want to build on that by focusing on parenting skills and capacity, and by developing care pathways to ensure that parents with different types and levels of need are given the right kind of support.
The long-term aim will be to support parents to build the confidence and skills that will help their children to go on to achieve positive outcomes.
I do not dispute the need to support parents, and some of the work that was done recently focuses on that. The sure start initiative made a significant contribution. Will the minister provide me with a copy of the result of the review of the sure start initiative that was requested in late 2006 or early 2007?
I am more than happy to provide the member with any evidence. Indeed, he will be aware that a preliminary review was also carried out in England, which raised concerns about the middle classes in particular benefiting more than others. I think that the recent review may be more rounded. However, the important point is about support in the early years.
A good example of support is provided by East Ayrshire Council, which is working to support parents in its area by means of the Solihull approach, which is a highly practical way of working with parents and supporting them creatively and consistently to work with their child's behaviour issues in particular. I want that sort of structured approach to move into the main stream of post-natal support.
Alongside parents' central role, communities can play an important role in supporting children and families, seeing them as key assets and not just as a problem to be tackled. In the strongest communities, there is a great deal of mutual support among parents and families. I want to encourage that informal support as a means of helping parents and developing community cohesion. I also want to ensure that the community planning process takes full account of children and families, with their priorities shaping local action.
Play of all kinds is central to how children learn, in terms of both physical health and the development of social skills, resilience and wellbeing.
Will the minister give way?
If the member does not mind, I would like to move on. I have taken a number of interventions already
The framework highlights the example of the Secret Garden outdoor nursery in Fife, which has put adventurous play and active learning at the heart of the experience for children. For some children, access to the adventurous play that enriches childhood is restricted due to a range of barriers such as lack of suitable green spaces and play facilities, as well as wider factors such as parental perceptions of risk. The framework therefore proposes measures to support play infrastructure and a debate on the benefits of play and understanding risk. Our long-term aim is for every child in every community in Scotland to be able to enjoy high-quality play opportunities and to have an understanding of risk and boundaries.
Our ambition is for a Scotland in which families and communities are empowered to take responsibility for their lives. Services such as world-class education and health care services and high-quality flexible child care clearly have a role to play in supporting that.
The commitments that are set out in the concordat with local government will help to deliver and ensure that there is capacity in the early years. That additional capacity should be used to improve identification and assessment of risks in families, and to make effective interventions in the context of universal services wherever possible, while acknowledging the role of specialist services for those children and families with higher levels of need.
The getting it right for every child pathfinder in Highland, which the Parliament has debated in the past, places great emphasis on strengthening the capability of universal services to meet the needs of children and families, and to improve the processes and bring specialist support to children and families where it is needed. It also highlights the crucial role that adult services must play in recognising the impact of parental problems and stresses on outcomes for children, and knowing what to do to help the child as well as the parent. We must build on that learning and put it at the heart of our approach.
As a working mother, I am acutely aware of the importance of high-quality, flexible child care. A major issue in the research that we conducted with parents was the way in which pre-school, school and child care services must connect to provide flexible support for parents. Although many such services already exist, we need to expand their reach among middle and lower-income families, as an important element in making work pay and reducing child poverty.
The United Kingdom Government controls the current mechanisms for supporting parents to meet the costs of child care and is driving a set of welfare reforms that is placing higher expectations on parents, particularly lone parents, to engage in work and activities leading towards employment. Although improving employment levels among lone parents can play an important role in reducing child poverty, as it stands, the UK schemes for supporting child care costs are too complex and do not allow real progress to be made. That is an area on which we can have constructive dialogue with our colleagues at Westminster.
In order to deliver high-quality services, it is vital that we have a highly skilled and well-trained workforce that is well supported, valued and rewarded. Those elements are very much at the heart of the new workforce developments, such as the new Scottish credit and qualifications framework level 9 qualification in childhood practice.
We are under no illusion that there is one single programme or action that will achieve our aims, or that transformational change can happen overnight—hence the 10-year timescale. I firmly believe that the early years must be at the heart of building a more successful Scotland, and that the new framework represents a significant leap forward in how we improve outcomes in and through the early years. I look forward to contributions from all sides to this important debate.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises that getting the early years right is key to delivering improved outcomes for children and young people and a key opportunity to shape a more successful Scotland; notes the publication of The Early Years Framework and the vision it sets out for giving children the best start in life, including a focus on parenting, early intervention, meeting the needs of children and parents and play; further recognises the challenges in shifting to prevention and early intervention while also supporting children who need help now, and calls on national and local government to work together to address these challenges in partnership during the implementation of the framework.
I very much welcome the opportunity to participate in today's debate on the early years framework. It is a document that owes much to the success of the previous, Labour-led Administration at Holyrood and that of the UK Labour Government in the past 12 years.
During that time, we delivered real change for children and families, putting the early years at the top of the political agenda where they belong. We extended free nursery places to all three and four-year-olds. We introduced sure start schemes in our communities to bring together early education, child care, health and family support in one place. We provided better financial support to parents through tax credits, increased child benefit and child care vouchers. We placed the needs of our youngest children at the heart of Government policy. We aimed to ensure that every child has the best start in life, that every parent and carer is fully supported and that all young people, whatever their background, can reach their potential and play a full part in shaping our nation's success.
In that context, the Government's early years framework for Scotland is a welcome step forward. We all agree that providing the right start for our children shapes not only their future but the future of our society. The Government's early years framework rightly highlights how intervention in the early years can improve children's life chances, reducing and redressing the inequality that continues to dampen the aspirations of too many of our young people.
The framework considers the different types of support that children need in the early years and rightly aspires to ensure that every child is valued equally. I welcome that aspiration. However, although everyone in the chamber would support the framework's aspirations, increasingly with this Government, policies come with a catch. In fact, a catch is about all that this policy comes with, as it certainly does not come with any resources. To quote the framework,
"there will be no new money available for implementation."
Instead, local authorities will need to "realign" and "prioritise" from their already tight budgets.
Once more—we have already seen it with the SNP's school meals, class sizes and school building policies—the Government is attempting to deliver on a manifesto pledge without providing the resources to make it a reality. Already cash-strapped local authorities are now under even more pressure, and it is evident that there is a huge and increasing gap between the SNP's rhetoric in this place and the reality on the ground.
I appreciate that the Labour Party is not in government, but it would help me to make up my mind whether the claims that are made by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning are reasonable if I could hear the alternative. What would the Labour Party spend money on and how much would it spend?
I am going to get to that. I hope that Ms MacDonald will be interested in what I have to say on that.
Labour's amendment focuses on the decline in the number of qualified nursery teachers. It is of great concern to the parents of young children up and down the country that, according to the Scottish Government's "Pre-school and Childcare Statistics 2008", the number of qualified nursery teachers who are employed in Scotland has declined under the current Administration. The figures are for whole-time equivalent posts and show a clear decline from the previous year, despite the claim by the First Minister, at First Minister's question time on 25 September, that the number of nursery teachers is "substantially increasing" under the Scottish National Party Government.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I will not take an intervention from you, Mr Ingram. During education questions, following First Minister's question time, you yourself conceded that that was not the case and that the latest figure showed a decline.
Sit down. I have got a lot to get through. If I have time, I will allow another intervention.
We need look only at SNP-led Renfrewshire Council's record in removing all teachers from nursery classes, closing its nursery schools and replacing 25 nursery teachers with less-qualified staff to realise that, yet again, what the SNP says that it will deliver and what it delivers in reality are very different.
The SNP promised to provide every pre-school child with access to a fully qualified nursery teacher. That is clearly going the same way as the SNP's promise to ensure that no primary 1 to 3 child will be taught in a class of more than 18 pupils and its promise to match the previous Administration's school building programme brick for brick. The SNP's broken promises are damaging the education and life chances of our youngest children.
Qualified nursery teachers should be an essential feature of children's early years education and should be available to all children, wherever they live. All the evidence suggests that access to qualified teachers provides children with the best start to their school career, yet the framework fails to acknowledge that. Ronnie Smith, the general secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland, has said that the SNP is
"presiding over the dilution—in some areas the dismantling—of one of the most valuable and successful strands of Scottish education."
That is why Scottish Labour committed to the retention of 53,000 fully qualified teachers in our schools. If we were still in government, we would have continued to do that. That would have ensured that every child in Scotland had access to the teaching that they need to reach their full potential throughout their school career. I therefore ask all members to support Labour's amendment.
If the Labour Party is so convinced of the importance of nursery teachers, why did it amend the school code to allow the removal of nursery teachers? Does the member not recognise that the double-counting of teachers in 2007 does not alter the fact that 200 more nursery teachers are providing support to our children? That is the reality.
I do not remember you voting against that, Ms Hyslop. The Labour Party is committed to the expansion of nursery education, and that is what I turn to now.
I am concerned that, despite the Government's rhetoric that it will invest in and commit to services for zero to three-year-olds, it is refusing to extend nursery places to vulnerable two-year-olds. While vulnerable two-year-olds in Scotland are to be short-changed, the same children in England and Wales will receive free early years education from September 2009. All the evidence shows that good-quality child care from the age of two can make a massive difference to a child's development, particularly for children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I will not take an intervention. I have got other things that I must say.
I ask the Government to reconsider this issue and give vulnerable two-year-olds in Scotland the same entitlement as those south of the border.
I fully support the framework's goal of ensuring that every child has the best start in life, and I welcome the emphasis on early intervention to better support children and their families. However, there is a huge gap between what is being said by the Government and what is being delivered in our communities. The SNP is backtracking on promise after promise, undermining not only people's faith in politics but our children's life chances and the future of our country.
The early years framework offers us a valuable opportunity to make progress. However, words and commitment must be backed up by funding and resources. If we are to deliver the radical changes that are needed to ensure that all Scotland's young people, including the most vulnerable, are given the best start in life, we need a strategy that is far more ambitious than this one. We need a strategy that delivers not only for the children who are already involved in the strategy but for two-year-olds; recognises the contributions of the voluntary sector and works with it to deliver better services; ensures that flexible and affordable child care is available to all; meets the needs of every child in Scotland; and ensures that our country is seen as one of the best places in the world for a child to grow up—a place in which every child has the opportunity to succeed and the encouragement and support that they need to take advantage of that opportunity.
I hope that the early years framework is not another addition to the Government's catalogue of broken promises. Failure in this area is not an option. Every child matters, so let us ensure that every child has the best chance. Let the Government actually provide the additional nursery teachers that it promised in its manifesto. I urge people to support the Labour Party's amendment, and the amendments in the names of Elizabeth Smith and Hugh O'Donnell.
I move amendment S3M-3385.3, to insert after "now":
"notes with concern that, according to the Scottish Government Pre-School and Childcare Statistics 2008, the number of qualified nursery teachers employed in Scotland has declined under the current administration despite the claim of the First Minister on 25 September 2008 at First Minister's Question Time (Official Report c. 11215) that the numbers under his government are substantially increasing".
I remind members not to refer to other members in the second person.
This is not only an important debate but a highly topical one, given the extensive and sometimes controversial coverage that the issue has generated in recent weeks. No one disputes the need to get the approach right in children's very early years but, on this side of the chamber, we believe that there is an important debate to be had about exactly where the main focus should be, and for us that concerns support for parents, which is reflected in our amendment.
It is a given assumption that children will invariably fare better when they grow up in a loving, caring and well-balanced environment in which family life is the centrepiece. The problem is that there is no ready-mix version of those factors. It is important to recognise that success can never be prescribed merely by the actions of any Government. Of course, a Government can put in place a raft of policies that can help to create a more conducive environment in which parents and their children can thrive, but there must also be greater support for parents to recognise and adopt their full responsibilities when it comes to fulfilling their challenging role.
As has been identified in many reports, the growing number of negative statistics on childhood is worrying. For example, family breakdown now costs the United Kingdom more than £22 billion a year, and one in four children is being raised in a household without a resident father. A particularly sad statistic is that one in five young Scots believes that they cannot and will not make a success of their life.
What needs to be done? First, parents need to be able to enjoy and feel inspired by the experience of being a parent. Two reports that were published in the past week expressed grave concern that, for too many parents, that is not the case, and although I appreciate that some of the more controversial aspects of the Children's Society report raised the hackles of some people, I share that organisation's basic concern that the modern pace of life and the obsession with economic materialism and individualism are part of the root cause of the high levels of family break-up. Too often, there is an unwritten expectation that the modern way of life, with all its slick technology, allows parents to access more diverse social and economic opportunities than ever before. That might be true for some, but I suspect that it is not true for many. Being a parent is not easy, and it is inevitable that there will be stresses and strains if both parents feel the need to work long and tiring hours as well as providing the necessary good management in the home. We need to recognise those strains and alleviate that pressure.
I have been criticised in the chamber before for stating that reform of the UK benefits system can help to address the issue, but I strongly believe that it can and should. Whether we like it or not, financial resources are important. There is no reason why we cannot change the focus of child benefit to greater assist those with particularly young children. Nor is there any reason why we should ignore the warning of the Civitas report of last month, which identified that married couples can be up to 20 per cent worse off than parents who live apart.
Secondly, to take up Robert Brown's point, it is essential that we extend health visits to all families with young children so that we are more responsive to the needs of individual families. It is interesting that that view is increasingly supported by general practitioners. Very early advice on health and lifestyle is usually the single biggest factor when it comes to giving a child the best start.
If there is a second given, it is the strength of the correlation between those who have poor prospects and live in deprived areas, and children who do not make progress. Many children who live in difficult economic circumstances feel disengaged from school, their families and their community. Indeed, I am amazed by the amount of public money that is spent on telling us that well-known, long-established fact. In my book, it would be far better for that money to be put directly into supporting the excellent voluntary sector groups throughout Scotland that do so much to help disadvantaged groups. Often, they are prepared to take on work that is difficult for local authorities to do within their limited scope and resources.
The voluntary sector is a gold nugget when it comes to the services that it provides. I know that every party in the chamber shares that view, but I have a specific request for the cabinet secretary. The Scottish Government should fulfil its responsibility to help local communities to harness and better co-ordinate the available voluntary sector resources, especially when it comes to help with parenting skills.
Has the member given any thought to the apparent contradiction in the experience here in Edinburgh, although I think that it is the same in all cities? There is a much higher expectation of employment for young people when they leave school than there was 20 years ago, but that correlates with a much higher level of violence in schools and a higher incidence of disintegration in the family.
That is an excellent point. I have given a lot of thought to that. As well as discussing the issues to do with children and improving parenting skills, we need to debate how we can improve educational opportunities and ensure that young people in schools have self-esteem and confidence. That is a matter to be addressed in other aspects of education policy.
I hope that the Scottish Government will urgently open discussions with the Westminster Government about the tax legislation that affects philanthropic and charitable trusts. Following the abolition of advance corporation tax and its replacement with a tax that is imposed on the income revenue of the trusts, many potential charitable donors are facing the loss of much-needed financial resources that would otherwise be available for good causes. In Perthshire, for example, a large, experienced and long-established trust is facing a drain on its resources of up to £600,000 a year. That is a not inconsiderable sum, and the state of affairs does not help to persuade more benefactors to come forward.
Finally, I come to the most sensitive part of the debate, which concerns the attempt to change attitudes. I agree with the Children's Society that we need a significant change at the heart of society so that adults, be they parents or teachers, are less embarrassed to stand up for the values without which a society cannot flourish, and that includes standing up for the family. Children need and want stability, and it is what happens in a child's earliest years that provides the biggest influence on their life.
There is a fine balancing act between, on the one hand, the Government standing aside to allow society to place its full trust and faith in parents and the family and, on the other, its legislating, when it has to, to provide better welfare. Like many other social debates of the modern era, the debate is highly emotive and complex, but it is one from which we must not shy away. If we do not get parenting right, we will not get the future right.
I move amendment S3M-3385.1, to insert at end:
"which should include greater emphasis on the development of parenting skills and harnessing the excellent work of voluntary sector groups that provide these services."
I was interested to hear the exchange at the beginning of the debate about different interpretations of the statistics on teacher numbers and so on. Perhaps the Government could find a unified way of gathering the statistics that we can all agree on at a fundamental level, because I do not think that it is valuable to make party-political points on such matters. That does not add to the debate.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I am afraid not. I have just started.
If we could resolve that, that would be helpful.
No member will be surprised that the Liberal Democrats agree that the framework provides an objective that we sympathise with. We look forward to developing a strategy across the country that places our children at the heart of things.
A substantial body of evidence shows that if we get our approach right to the formative and early years, the life chances of our young people will be enhanced and we may begin to address cycles or generations of poverty, inequality and exclusion. I make no apologies for stating the obvious. If we fail to support children and families in the early stages, all too often the children will go on to leave our schools with no qualifications, to become involved in the criminal justice system, to die prematurely, or to live a restricted life because of an avoidable long-term ailment or condition. We owe it to every child to give them the best possible start, and the Liberal Democrats think that the framework takes us some way along that road.
The moral imperative should be uppermost in the debate, but we must not ignore the fact that, in the longer term, there is also an economic imperative. I refer to the illustrations that I have highlighted. There will be a long-term economic impact if young people are going to prison and people are dying prematurely. Research indicates that there can be a return of as high as 7:1 on investment at the early stages, although the numbers vary. Even the bean counters must recognise that that is a decent return on investment in the long term.
I would be greatly disappointed if the Government, in its response to the debate, supported any diminution of the independent role of Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People that has been proposed by any body, corporate or otherwise. That would not send the right message. Perhaps we should reflect on how that would impact on our overall approach to children.
The framework document makes a lot of the right noises about what we should be doing and progresses some getting it right for every child work, but there are a number of areas in which we need greater detail and clarification, which I hope the minister will provide in responding to the debate. Not least, I want to hear about how transformation will happen with no new money and about what guidelines the Government will issue to ensure that transformation happens.
The framework rightly makes a commitment to the right to play. My colleague Robert Brown will talk about that in more detail, as that right has been a long-standing part of Liberal Democrat early years policy. However, all agencies across the board must recognise that not all children start from the same place, and that should be reflected in our focus and in how we allocate resources. We take a fire-fighting approach too often—there is crisis intervention.
One thing that we could do to help families at the beginning would be to follow the pathfinder models. We could consider a single gateway for services so that people are not bounced from one agency to another to get access to the services that they require. No new money is no excuse for taking no action.
As I said, intervention must go beyond taking a fire-fighting approach. Action must be joined up. Elizabeth Smith fulsomely praised the role of the voluntary sector, which our amendment was intended to highlight.
Leaving aside financial issues, multiprofessional and multi-agency working may be one of the biggest challenges. Mr Ingram will be familiar with my litany on that. It is critical that all the professionals who are involved recognise and value the input and expertise of others who are involved at every stage. It is a truism in pre-school education that, notwithstanding the value of primary teachers, most of the education is delivered by nursery nurses; we do the nursery nursing profession a disservice if we do not take their valuable role into account. I must declare an interest, because that is what my daughter does for a living.
We need to be wary of the silo approach and protectionist culture, which still exist. We must find mechanisms for challenging those wherever they surface, whether in professional bodies, local authorities or central Government. Fundamentally, that must be achieved at the outset as part of training. There must be a relationship between professionals. In their training, they must be given an understanding of the role and contribution of the other professionals who are involved.
My final point, although it is certainly not the least important, is that we must recognise that parents and children have valuable contributions to make. Their experience must be taken into account when issues are brought to the table. The days of case conferences between professionals discussing what will happen to children without consideration of their views must be put aside. That is beginning to happen, but that approach must be put aside much more firmly. To an extent, the 10-year roll-out of the framework will address that. The framework document is a useful start, but let us see, within that timeframe, what happens on the ground.
I move amendment S3M-3385.2, to insert after "together":
"with external agencies and the voluntary sector".
Unsurprisingly, I welcome the SNP Government's commitment to preparing and implementing a proper early years framework. That has been welcomed by professionals throughout the sector, who are delighted at last to have the chance of some resolution to the succession of issues that they have faced. It is regrettable that we had to wait for so long after devolution to get the commitment, but at least we have it now and we can get on with doing the business.
The amendment in the name of Karen Whitefield is based on false information. It alleges that teacher numbers in pre-school are declining, in spite of assurances by the First Minister that they are increasing. The First Minister's answer in September last year was clear that the SNP Government had demanded clarity in the figures and ensured that that was delivered.
Will the member take an intervention?
Under the previous Administration, teachers who taught in more than one centre were counted in each centre in which they worked, resulting in about 200 ghost teachers—there in spirit, but not in body; there in statistics, but not in the classroom. I hope that that cold splash of reality will not induce a depression on the Labour benches.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will not take any interventions, because the misinformation that the Labour Party has doled out today in the Parliament should not be continued.
The figures that have been released under the SNP have removed those 200 ghosts, because peripatetic teachers are now counted separately from teachers who are based in one centre. Not only is that approach far more honest, open and transparent than Labour's system, it helps professionals who work in early years education to gain a clear understanding of the situation, and it helps local authorities and partner organisations with workforce planning. I hope that Labour members have the good grace to accept that.
Before Karen Whitefield lodged her amendment, if she had just asked her colleague Ken Macintosh—who is sitting right next to her—about the issue, he could have told her that he had asked a parliamentary question on the subject, which was answered at the beginning of December. For ease of reference, I inform members that the question number is S3W-18040 and that it was answered by the Minister for Children and Early Years, Adam Ingram. In fact, to save members the effort of looking up the answer, I will quote it. It states:
"In the census for 2008, pre-school centres were asked for the first time to report numbers of peripatetic teachers, who work across more than one centre, separately from teachers employed in their centre only. In 2008, the headcount figures for teachers employed in only one centre was approximately the same as that for all teachers in 2007. In addition, a head count of 600 was reported for peripatetic teachers, equating to 204"—
yes, 204—
"whole-time-equivalent staff."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 5 December 2008; S3W-18040.]
There are now 600 more teachers than there were under Labour, and 204 more full-time equivalents under the SNP than under Labour. That increase in qualified staff is allowing the SNP Government to move towards fulfilling our election commitment to give all pre-school children access to a teacher. That commitment was, of course, included in the historic concordat between the SNP Government and local authorities—which is an example of central Government trusting local government to do what it was elected to do, rather than an example of central Government micromanaging and mismanaging.
Will the member take an intervention?
Presiding Officer, I have already said that I will not take any interventions from members on the Labour benches. Their negative scaremongering and their use of figures are a disgrace to this chamber.
A total of 66 per cent of all pre-school children now have access to a teacher registered with the General Teaching Council for Scotland, and that figure increases—yes, increases—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it not normal practice in the chamber that, when a member mentions another member, the other member is allowed to intervene? Is that not chamber etiquette, if nothing else?
It is up to the member who is speaking to decide whether to take interventions.
Thank you for that clarification, Presiding Officer.
In local authority centres, 81 per cent of pre-school children have access to a GTCS-registered teacher. That is another SNP election promise being fulfilled, and it is good progress for Scotland's children. We still do not think that it is enough and we will continue to push to make it better, but it is good news for Scotland's children.
There may be even better news coming up. If members have a spare few minutes, they might like to read "Pre-school and Childcare Statistics 2008", to which Labour's amendment refers, including the footnotes. For example, table 22 has a footnote that reads:
"The number of pre-school children who had access to a GTCS teacher during census week may be an undercount as 159 centres using teachers did not provide this information."
I hope that Karen Whitefield will have the good grace to withdraw her amendment and let the Parliament continue to make progress on this issue in the spirit of consensus that was shown so clearly on the budget yesterday.
In that spirit, I am sure that we can agree with the Aberlour Child Care Trust that
"the Framework sets the right aspirational tone",
and with Children in Scotland that
"this Framework provides a 10-year vision for achieving a coherent and community-based approach to supporting families with young children throughout Scotland."
Play Scotland says that it is looking for a statutory duty for play, while welcoming the inclusion of play as one of the eight priorities and looking forward to the inspiring Scotland play fund.
Getting it right for Scotland's children is important not because they are the adults of the future, but because they are the children of today. Having said that, the on-going social and economic benefits to society of giving children a decent start in life are well documented. They have been well described by my colleague Liz Smith.
I support the Government and the early years framework. I am confident that we are providing a decent future for Scotland, as well as moving to improve the life experiences of today's children.
Unsurprisingly, I support the motion.
The early years framework is undoubtedly full of warm words and good intentions. No one in this chamber or beyond could dispute the necessity of giving children the best possible start in life. We would all agree that, if we fail to address problems early in children's lives, they can be left disadvantaged for the rest of their lives.
It is right to acknowledge the point that this is not only about education. We need to reinforce the value that parents bring to a child's development. What goes on in the home can be as important as what is taught in the school or in an early years establishment. We must acknowledge that parents sometimes need help and support in basic parenting skills, and I support the amendment that the Conservatives have lodged.
Labour's sure start initiative was important, but it is right that we acknowledge that improvements can be made to such initiatives. We should not simply accept that, because the initiative is there and money is being spent, everything is as effective as it could be. That is why I asked the cabinet secretary whether I could have a copy of the results of the work that has been done in reviewing sure start, which the minister has promised. I look forward to that information being made available.
The research evidence from the review has been published on the Scottish Government website. It comes under the early years framework research that was done for the task group. If Mr Henry cares to look on the website, he will find the information there.
I will have a look at that.
However, we should recognise that the early years framework represents a missed opportunity to put early years services on a proper footing. Although it contains warm words, it is bland, it lacks originality and it takes ideas from others. Worst of all, because of the failure, as Hugh O'Donnell and Karen Whitefield pointed out, to accept any responsibility for funding, it marks an acceptance of lower standards across Scotland.
There are no new ideas in the framework document and, as I am sure the officials supporting the ministers are aware, any good ideas that there are can be traced back as far as the 1981 and 1985 Strathclyde officer/member group reports. Credit needs to be given to the Labour-controlled regions that drove forward the early years agenda; the people who were involved in that work were visionary. The strategy also takes ideas on accessibility and affordability that were promoted by Labour in 1998 before this institution was even established.
So, as I say, we have no new ideas and a bringing together of what has already been done. Worst of all, as a result of the failure—not just the failure, but the refusal—to invest the money that is needed to make the strategy work, problems will develop across Scotland.
Karen Whitefield highlighted what the document says about funding. In a PowerPoint presentation that he gave in November to the Learning and Teaching Scotland conference, Don McGillivray, one of the officials who is present in the chamber this afternoon, reinforced the fact that the strategy and the supposedly new ideas that, as I said, it does not contain will attract
"No new resources from central Government".
He went on to say that Government wanted a
"resource transfer from crisis management to prevention and early intervention".
If money is being transferred away from crisis management, will the minister explain what will happen while new ways of working are being developed?
Because of the Administration's refusal to guarantee the availability of funding, the money for early years staff development is not guaranteed; it is simply not there. Is it true that in some parts of Scotland students are dropping out of university courses because local authorities are pulling funding? As Hugh O'Donnell made clear, we are talking about the training and development of nursery nurses, who are among some of the lowest paid staff in local government.
In my area, Renfrewshire, which was mentioned by Karen Whitefield, every nursery school is to be closed; teachers are to be transferred to a peripatetic unit, visiting children once every few months. Indeed, in some cases, children who start at nurseries will see Santa before they see a teacher. It is disgraceful that the headteachers—the highest qualified early years staff in the authority—will no longer be required. Because there are no longer any jobs to move on to, there are no incentives for teachers either in Renfrewshire or in some other local authority areas to take additional qualifications.
The Government has taken good ideas from elsewhere and has substituted glib and patronising words for action. It is offering nothing new and is refusing not only to provide extra resources but to guarantee that existing resources will be spent on early years. This document is a missed opportunity and lacks the vision and determination to take early years to the next level.
I think that that was perhaps a little harsh.
The early years framework, which is potentially one of the most important documents to come out of the Government, continues and builds on the previous Government's work, in which Hugh Henry played a significant part, on improving early years learning and child care practice in Scotland; on nursery provision for three and four-year-olds; on better child protection; on investment in schools; on expansion of child care facilities; and on a range of innovative projects including nurture classes, the sure start initiative that Mr Henry mentioned and healthy living initiatives.
However, at the time of the election, there was a wide recognition by parties across the chamber of the need to review progress and, in the very apposite words of the document, to develop "a coherent approach" to the whole sector that built on the achievements to date. I welcome that. In many ways, the framework pushes all the right buttons. I am not particularly bothered whether the ideas are new, provided that they are the right ideas. It is important that the document recognises the centrality of universal services and of having short, medium and long-term actions and objectives. In that regard, the document is much superior to many others from the Scottish National Party Government—I think back to the skills strategy that was produced early in the Government's term.
I will make some specific observations. One theme of the framework is that, at the age of three, children who are at higher risk of poor outcomes can be identified by their chaotic home circumstances, emotional behaviour, negativity and poor development. That is right, but many would say that the battle is lost by then and that such conditions are evident much earlier. As the previous Prime Minister said, the children who will face such challenges can be identified when they are in the womb. I therefore support entirely moves to increase parents' capacity by providing appropriate support.
However, the stark reality is that some parents—because of heavy drug or alcohol addictions or whatever—cannot offer their children a safe existence or even minimal positive life experiences. I understand that, in other countries, more such children are removed from their homes and families. I have held the view for a while that a major campaign should be undertaken to recruit more foster parents, as they often provide better life chances for such children. David's story on page 13 of the framework is a stark reminder of the horrendous price that a child and others can pay if we do not act soon enough.
I will say a word or two about play, on which Hugh O'Donnell presaged my remarks. I have long thought that play opportunities are vital. I urge on the minister the view that play and communication are closely linked. In some areas, half of all children who start school have communication difficulties, which sometimes result from a lack of nurturing or a lack of play and engagement with other people and often result from the poverty of their family experience. Given that, I strongly welcome the only funding commitment in the framework—the £4 million venture philanthropy fund to support play. I would appreciate information from the minister about what exactly a venture philanthropy fund is; I hope that he has not let Jim Mather loose on the early years framework—the fund has the sound of that. I note that £235 million over three years is attached to the English play strategy, although that strategy was produced slightly earlier, when the financial circumstances were more auspicious.
Play does not just involve outdoor play areas. It involves parents knowing how to stimulate and play positively with their babies and toddlers. It concerns playgroups and play leaders, which are not mentioned much in the document, and staffed play centres such as that in Reidvale in Glasgow's east end, which I think that the minister has visited. Play can be used to overcome communication issues before they become a school-long and lifelong impediment; the negative impact of such issues develops if they are not tackled. The use of play-based learning in early primary school is a concept that Liberal Democrats have long fostered and which I am pleased to see in the paper.
More work is needed on play. I hope that the Government will commit to producing a dedicated national play strategy, which Aberlour Child Care Trust, Play Scotland and other organisations have urged it to develop, or at least to developing the play part of the early years framework through a body such as a national forum on play. Play Scotland makes the valid point that play does not stop being important at the age of eight, but I appreciate that documents and strategies must be divided into manageable sections.
As Hugh Henry said, the framework's weakest part is chapter 4, which is entitled "The Context". It lists the current commitments to cut class sizes, increase pre-school entitlements, provide free school meals and improve early years provision. Whether or not those measures are committed to in the concordat, many of them simply will not happen, because the resources do not match the commitments. That is reflected in the current school issues in Glasgow and in other situations.
The situation is echoed in the framework's chapter on resources, which expresses the hope that money will be diverted from crisis intervention to preventive work but acknowledges that the demand for crisis intervention exceeds supply and that such intervention is not always good enough, anyway. I support the Government's concept of a dynamic virtuous circle, but ministers need to spell out the drivers to achieve that and where resources will be freed up for transfer. The document contains stressful challenges of priority and I am not sure whether ministers have grappled with them as fully as they need to if the policy is to succeed as it must.
I agree with much of what Robert Brown says. Does he take the point that we have a set envelope of resources and that, in diverting from crisis intervention to early intervention and prevention, we need to redesign and reorient services—particularly universal services, which need to address issues much earlier?
I accept that, which is why I accept the virtuous circle argument. Nevertheless, there are issues with how that is all done—how it works through and how the end result is achieved. If the framework is not to remain purely a paper document, those things must be tackled.
I will touch briefly on people. The previous Government put in place the process to ensure that early years staff development developed appropriate skills. That is a central need, but I am intrigued by the difference between the commitment in the concordat to
"access to a teacher for every pre-school child",
whatever precisely that meant, and the rather vaguer commitment in the longer-term objectives in the framework to
"having every early years and childcare centre led at graduate level or equivalent."
That sounds rather different. I do not necessarily disagree with it, because it recognises the point that Hugh O'Donnell made about the contribution of the child care workforce as well as that of the teaching workforce, but the minister ought to clarify exactly what his Government is committed to and what it means to do in practice.
There is a fair degree of unanimity in the Parliament about the direction of travel, but there is still work to do on the framework. I hope that, in his closing speech, the minister will reassure us on the matters on which, as I and others have mentioned, there is still a considerable amount of work to do.
We have never before understood more clearly the difference that early support and intervention can make in the lives of children, especially—but not only—those who are born into poverty. Families and communities have known for generations that breast is best, that an apple a day keeps the doctor away and that there is nothing quite like a breath of fresh air but, in the modern world, we have the evidence to prove it. There are countless studies—some have already been mentioned and, no doubt, will be later—that demonstrate exactly those points. As a member of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, I have heard evidence to that effect from many witnesses.
It is not only ironic but worrying that, despite all the knowledge and research, one child in four in Scotland is born into poverty. The Children's Society has just published a report claiming that the lives of children throughout the United Kingdom may be more difficult than they ever were before. The scandal of child poverty and the chances that too many of our young people miss are among the major motivating factors that got me involved in the campaign for Scotland's independence and brought me to Parliament.
In welcoming the Government's early years framework, I add my voice to those of many civil society organisations, local authorities, individuals and families throughout Scotland. No one disagrees that we need to ensure that the most vulnerable children in Scotland have the best possible start in life, so I am glad that political parties are, for the most part, willing to work together and to find consensus.
I am also glad that yesterday's passing of the budget will release the funding that is needed to allow Scotland's local authorities to implement some of the key elements of the framework. Much of the framework's focus is on the SNP Government's ambitions to introduce free school meals, to reduce class sizes and to increase nursery provision. I have said before in Parliament that provision of free school meals is one of the most socially progressive policies that Parliament has the power to introduce.
How would the introduction of universal free school meals help children in poverty?
Anti-poverty groups have shown that it is the best way to catch them all. The fact that major anti-poverty groups throughout Scotland support universal provision of free school meals shows how effective it will be in reducing poverty. I am glad that Parliament has continued to support the policy, despite the best efforts of some members to undermine it. Free healthy school meals will improve classroom concentration, reduce playground stigma, and can improve the health of each child who receives them.
In the same way, increased contact time with a teacher through smaller class sizes also helps to build confidence, knowledge and understanding among children, even at a young age. Like the free school meals policy, the class size policy prepares our youngsters for the future by instilling good behaviour and positive life skills.
Although those policies are vital, they are but the headlines of the framework: much else in the document stands to make a real difference to the younger generations. I particularly welcome the commitment to protect rural schools and safeguard the role that they can play in offering wider services to the local community. Having attended a rural school myself and now representing many areas that depend on such schools throughout the South of Scotland, I know how important local schools can be to our rural communities and how special an education in such an environment can be.
In a similar vein, the commitments to protect open space and plan for future needs are also welcome features of the document. South Lanarkshire Council, part of whose area is in my region, and North Lanarkshire Council have been chosen to host the international youth games in 2011, which will be an important staging post to the 2014 Commonwealth games. It is important that today's young children, who we hope will be the athletes and medal winners of tomorrow, have access to the open space and fresh air that will allow them to train most effectively for the games. Many briefings have noted the importance of play and expressed pleasure that it is mentioned in the framework; indeed, the Scottish centre for intergenerational practice highlighted the need to provide something to do for more than just younger people. I think Robert Brown made that point earlier.
Outdoor education is hugely important, so I was interested to read in the excellent briefing from Children in Scotland about nature kindergarten initiatives, which are commonplace in Scandinavian countries. I know that there are one or two such initiatives in Scotland—Fiona Hyslop mentioned them—which are the kind of exciting and different approach to learning and child care that is often stifled in Scotland by the restrictions and constraints of our budgetary process and Parliament's limited powers.
I have said previously in the chamber that research from the Work Foundation estimates that, for every pound that is spent on helping families and young people at risk, up to £17 of public expenditure can be saved. That kind of evidence, which some people might seek, demonstrates starkly the business case for investing in our youngsters. However, I believe that the debate is not only about financial worth. It is also a moral debate about the obligations that we as citizens have to those around us, especially the poorest and most vulnerable people.
The theme throughout the framework document—as, indeed, it has been throughout this debate—is that the early years is the key opportunity that society and the family have to influence the future life chances of children. A good childhood means a much greater likelihood of a healthy, active and positive future that contributes to the wellbeing of society as a whole. We in modern Scotland have far too often ignored, or forgotten, the basic steps and simple common sense that should extend opportunities to all our children. As I have said, it is a scandal and a disgrace that so many of our children are born into poverty. That not only shames our society, but actively damages it, because it will cost us more in the later lives of such children through the health service, the justice system and the need for other specialist interventions.
I believe that what the Government outlines in the framework maximises Parliament's powers to give our children the best possible start in life. However, Parliament is also in its early years and will continue to grow and develop to the point where it assumes all the powers of a normal independent Parliament. At that point, we will truly be in a position to build the future that our children deserve.
Like others, I welcome this vital debate. As others have said, many parts of the early years framework should be welcomed; they reflect the progress that has been made in recent years.
I will use my few minutes to raise three issues. First, the early years framework promises a renewed focus on the time from zero to three as the period of a child's development that shapes future outcomes. Like others, I welcome that recognition, but I want to press ministers on what they see as being the way forward for the zero-to-three age group because–as other members have pointed out—in the months since publication of the framework, we have seen the evaluation of the vulnerable two-year-olds pilot. Its main findings are that parents in the programme showed improved parenting capacity; children in the pilot showed improved developmental outcomes; and staff gained new learning that would inform future practice with pre-schoolers.
I acknowledge Wendy Alexander's continued interest in the pilot, but I need to correct her. It is clear that the research findings from the pilot showed no discernible difference in terms of improving development for vulnerable two-year-olds. What the pilot did was to support and prompt better parenting. It is clear that an area base of vulnerable two-year-olds may not have produced the results that the member may have wished. What we should do, as the research document identifies, is focus on improving parenting, which is exactly what is in the framework.
That is a helpful clarification. Today is probably not the time to debate the detail, but it appears that we are discovering that the Government's position is not to have a national policy for vulnerable two-year-olds. It appears that parenting is the priority, which is an appropriate choice. However, clarity on that is important, given that we have had the pilot's evaluation and findings. People in other parts of the country think that provision for vulnerable two-year-olds is the way forward. As the debate progresses, I hope that we will get clarity on the matter.
The second issue has dominated much of the debate thus far. I refer to the meaning of the commitment to provide pre-five children with access to teachers. No one would disagree that all children should have some access to teachers during their pre-five years. As ministers know, that commitment is being achieved in Renfrewshire by downgrading all nursery schools. As of August, no nursery school will be left in Renfrewshire. We will also see the development—or continued development—of a peripatetic team.
Wendy Alexander says that
"no nursery school will be left in Renfrewshire".
Is the reality not that nursery schools in Renfrewshire will continue with their nursery classes and nursery teachers? Surely we are talking about primary school headteachers taking over the running of adjacent nursery schools.
I will come to the issue that I hope the minister will clarify in his summation.
In Renfrewshire, 39 teachers work with the under-fives at the moment. The teachers are split into a peripatetic team that serves everybody and teachers who work in nursery schools—I think that latter number is about 25. As of August, Renfrewshire Council will achieve the commitment to give access to all children by cutting the number of those teachers to 20, all of whom will be in a peripatetic team. I am greatly concerned about a cut of almost 50 per cent in the total number of teachers who work with the under-fives. I seek ministerial direction on whether it is appropriate for councils to seek to achieve access by halving the number of teachers who work with children of that age group.
I call Bob Doris.
I am giving way to Margo MacDonald, Presiding Officer.
I am sorry. I did not see you, Ms MacDonald.
Has the member any notion of the situation with pre-school rolls in Renfrewshire? Like her, I would be very disturbed about a 50 per cent reduction in teaching numbers being made without a corresponding reduction in pupil numbers.
There is a slight decline in pre-five numbers, but nothing that remotely correlates to the fall in teacher numbers from 39 to 20.
I turn to my third point. As I am, ministers will be aware that the court of the University of the West of Scotland decided this week to end its on-site nursery provision. Despite many pleas, the court did not rethink how a relatively small deficit could be met.
I will summarise my questions. Although the framework is welcome, did ministers set in the concordat a bottom line of any sort for early years provision at local authority level? Is it acceptable under the framework for an authority to close all the nursery schools in its area? Also, is it acceptable for an authority to halve the number of teachers who work with the under-fives in its area? Lastly, are ministers concerned that some of our larger universities can make no on-site nursery provision?
I fully accept that, under the concordat, local authorities can take the decisions on those matters, as can the court of an autonomous university. That said, we need a steer from ministers on whether, in policy terms, they regard those developments as desirable or not. If we regard those developments as desirable and proffer no view on them, we risk creating a permissive environment. However admirable many aspects of the early years framework are, I am concerned that, in such an environment, we would move backwards, not forwards.
I congratulate the Government on the progress that it has made. It will be glad to hear that I take the glass-half-full approach of Robert Brown, rather than the glass-half-empty approach of Hugh Henry.
The pre-school and child care figures have been a matter of some contention. They are a disgrace and I cannot work out from them what the truth is. The education department should never have accepted them. All the entries should have been sent back to local authorities, which should have been told to do their homework property. Eight hundred and ninety-two centres did not even provide information on whole-time equivalent staff. WTE used to be FTE; I do not know why the term has been changed. In 2007, 124 centres did not report at all; in 2008, 420 centres did not report, so the figures are incomplete. Gaps have been filled by creating medians to make up figures. The whole exercise is a disgrace. I will vote for the Labour amendment not because I think that it is right but because the Government should never have presented us with such figures as the basis for a serious debate in Parliament.
I turn to the real content of the debate.
Will the member give way?
No. If the minister wants to respond on the figures, he can do so when he sums up. I have more important things to talk about than the misdeeds of statisticians.
I was very glad to see that there is a commitment to play. I agree with everything that Robert Brown said on that. We do not need experiments in play—from Froebel and Montessori to the present day, many people have carried out research that shows how beneficial it is to young people. However, I would like to expand on what has been said on the subject. Play Scotland is concerned by the fact that 500,000 children have been left out and by the lack of a statutory responsibility on local authorities to provide play facilities. The organisation would like to know
"how Local Authorities can be encouraged to prioritise and resource play in their Single Outcome Agreements."
I congratulate Aileen Campbell on her references to active play outdoor kindergartens. A really good example of such a kindergarten is Hilton nursery school in Aberdeen, which is beautiful and has fantastic facilities. Unfortunately, it has been closed, but one can look at it from outside.
A few issues that have not been touched on have been brought to my attention. Elizabeth Smith spoke about positive parenting. Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People is concerned that so far there has been no reference to positive non-violent parenting, and is seeking the inclusion in guidance of a strong statement in favour of that. I strongly support SCCYP's position and invite the minister to respond on the issue when he sums up.
Another issue is the need for greater focus on the needs of young children and families in planning of services, housing and transport. I know that that issue is not within the remits of the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning or other education ministers, but it should be a central component of all planning decisions. When we consider proposals for new developments in Edinburgh or Glasgow, we should ask which elements are specifically designed for children and young people. If such facilities are left out, they cannot be put in later.
Children in Scotland has drawn my attention to some of the advantages of early years services. I am sure that we are all aware of those, but it is nice to have a summary of previous experience.
Sweden began a long-term study in the 1990s, which concluded that children who enter good-quality day care at an early stage show improved academic performance at the age of 13. There is a long follow-through—if we do something good for children between the ages of nought and three, we see the results when they are 13. Such research is a reminder that Scotland needs not only to meet the European Union's Barcelona targets for more child care, but to ensure the availability of high-quality early years services.
There are many examples of good and effective practice in Scotland. I am going to have to move fast now, as there are a couple of other things that I wish to mention in my limited time. I was very glad to hear Robert Brown and Hugh O'Donnell mention health visitors. That has been a matter of concern to me, to the children's commissioner and to Children 1st, as it made clear in its briefing to us. It says that, if we wish
"to enhance child wellbeing … In practice, this means strengthening, not reducing, universal Health Visitor provision. Health Visitors are a non-stigmatising, expert service who can directly provide emotional and practical support to parents and carers."
One of the most important things is that a health visitor is always welcome in the home—they are not seen as intrusive. I urge the Government to strengthen the health visitor role as a key element in supporting parents and carers in the early years. I have spoken to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing about the subject on several occasions and I have asked the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning to discuss the subject with her colleague.
I see that I have gone beyond my time. Thank you for your patience, Presiding Officer.
Hugh Henry, who is no longer in the chamber, spoke about the need for vision and originality without giving us any of either. This is not about reinventing the wheel; it is about learning from experience and successes elsewhere.
Early years provision has, in the past, often been seen as almost a side issue in the push for increased labour-market participation. Early years education has been treated to mean expanding schooling to younger children through a formal curriculum that supports later learning. To begin education in a less formal sense, at a younger age, through creative play, is also vital. I am heartened by the number of members, including Robert Brown and Robin Harper, who touched on that point, as did the cabinet secretary.
Unfortunately, the debate has been taken up by issues concerning Renfrewshire Council. I wonder whether the cabinet secretary can confirm whether what is being planned for Renfrewshire is similar to what already exists in North Ayrshire. The Minister for Children and Early Years has mentioned this, but I will reinforce the point: according to those plans, a headteacher of a primary school is also the headteacher of a nursery school.
Fiona Hyslop indicated agreement.
I see the ministers nodding in assent. That policy is being delivered by Labour-controlled North Ayrshire Council, an area that I represent. I do not know why there is so much humbug on the issue.
At the heart of the framework is a desire for investment in early years to be focused on building success and reducing failure. That means a shift from intervening only when a crisis happens, to a policy of prevention and early intervention. Furthermore, it means providing a supportive environment for children and families and the earliest possible identification of any additional support that might be required. The framework empowers children and parents to succeed by building relationships between Government community groups to break the cycle of poverty.
I was heartened to hear the cabinet secretary's remarks about maternal and foetal health during pregnancy, which we must also focus on. Last week, I attended the launch of a new breastfeeding initiative in Kilbirnie in my constituency, where only 7 per cent of mothers breastfeed. Any support that we can give to expectant mothers and women who have just had children is welcome.
The early years framework provides an action plan for helping each child so that, as he or she grows, they can contribute back to the community. The chief executive of Children in Scotland, Dr Bronwen Cohen, supports the framework. She said:
"Scotland's youngest citizens require everyone's support. With reprioritisation of resources, this new framework will offer an important opportunity to offer more effective help to Scotland's often hard pressed families and ensure we get it right for every child."
Parents' interaction with children in the first year of life is critical in developing relationships and in laying the foundations for positive physical and mental health development. Effective engagement with parents is an important first step in addressing problems, but the parents who are most in need are often the least likely to access services.
Children in homes with high levels of parental stress, neglect or abuse are more likely to have poor health outcomes, to be unemployed, to have criminal convictions and to have substance misuse problems by the time they reach adulthood. Improvement of the early years experiences of such children is crucial for improving child protection and reducing risks. Therefore, the early years must be a central element of the Scottish Government's strategy for regenerating communities, reducing crime, tackling substance misuse and improving employability. Investment in early years education has a positive impact on the entire community.
The Nobel prize-winning economist James Heckman has set out an economic case showing that the rate of economic return on early years investment is significantly higher than that relating to any other stage of the education system. That point was touched on by my colleague, Aileen Campbell. Indeed, I recall attending a crime prevention seminar in Edinburgh back in 1995—it was the day after Roseanna Cunningham was elected to Parliament for the first time—on a 25-year study of 30,000 children in Chicago that showed that, for every $1 spent on child care, $7 was saved subsequently on criminal justice matters.
A successful school, pre-school and home environment is critical to enabling young people to reach their full potential. Key elements in delivering an economically successful, socially cohesive and—I dare say—happier Scotland are learning skills, wellbeing and equality.
On that point, we have heard a lot from Labour members about what they allegedly achieved during all the years in which they were in power. However, I seem to recall that a United Nations report on children's wellbeing stated that, of the 21 countries that were examined, the quality of life that was enjoyed by Scotland's children came 21st. That was after more than a decade of the Labour Party being in power, so Labour members seem to have been struck with a bit of selective amnesia.
If children are educated in a way that empowers them to succeed, they will have a greater sense of wellbeing. Scotland's first skills strategy highlights that the early years of a child's life lay the foundations of skills for learning, life and work. Our investment in young people shows that the Government's true priorities are to improve the standard of living and quality of life for all.
We have also heard talk about a reduction in the number of nursery schools. However, as I have mentioned on previous occasions—I should say that my wife is a teacher and a Glasgow City Council councillor—between 2004 and 2007, with Labour in power in Glasgow, Holyrood and Westminster, Glasgow City Council cut 64 teachers. Therefore, the Labour amendment is nothing but hypocrisy.
Many actions have a local and national component for which input is required from a range of partners, including the Scottish Government, local authorities and community planning partners. The purpose must be to provide elements whereby communities can change deeply rooted philosophies rather than merely implement superficial programmes. Co-operation between Government and communities allows goals to be reached and success to be attained.
The historic concordat enables the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to work together with a variety of partners to develop the framework. That represents a new approach to developing policy in partnership and recognises that different areas have different needs. That approach moves away from the previous centrally driven and inflexible approach, which did not deliver what was required. Local partners now have a great deal of flexibility in implementing the framework. The removal of ring-fenced budgets allows them to spend funds in ways that are more effective for individual communities.
Expenditure on early years services is already significant: £300 million is spent on pre-primary education and child care, £700 million is spent on the early stages of primary education, and £350 million is spent on maternity services. When we add in all the other expenditure on health and social work services, at least £1.5 billion is currently being spent. It is important that that focus is maintained—
Mr Gibson, you must finish there.
I very much welcome the opportunity to take part in today's debate. It is absolutely the case that how children are treated in their early years—including pre-birth—does much to condition their future. However, the danger in today's debate is that we play into the hands of the cynics, who will say that this is just a filler debate in which there will be lots of warm words—the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning and the Minister for Children and Early Years are good at those—but no substance or action. Given that cynics will say that nothing will change after today's debate and there will be no improvements in children's lives, I welcome those speakers who have sought action.
Clearly, one of the most difficult circumstances for a child is to be born into poverty. That is why, in Government, the Labour-led Scottish Executive put in place measures to reduce child poverty. Our target was to abolish child poverty by 2020. The report "Scottish Households Below Average Income, 2006/07" shows that, between 1999 and 2007, there was a 28 per cent decrease in relative child poverty and a 61 per cent decrease in absolute child poverty. The previous Administration's target to halve absolute child poverty by 2010 was being met ahead of schedule.
At yesterday's meeting of the Local Government and Communities Committee, we heard that tackling poverty is a complex issue that involves a number of factors, of which perhaps the main one is whether people are in work. A key issue that keeps adults with children out of work is the lack of child care. Issues were raised about the availability, flexibility and cost of child care. I completely accept that many parents will want to stay at home to care for their children themselves, particularly when the children are very young, but eventually parents want and need to return to work, which can be very difficult because of a lack of child care. The cabinet secretary referred to that in her opening statement. What is the Scottish Government doing about providing child care? What measures is the Scottish Government taking on poverty more generally?
I say to Aileen Campbell that providing free school meals to all children might have nutritional benefits, but it is not an anti-poverty measure, particularly if it results in the removal of breakfast clubs.
Why then did anti-poverty groups whole-heartedly welcome the measure? Why were children in poverty not being caught by the system and not taking up their entitlement to free school meals?
Children in the poorer groups were receiving free school meals and we should continue that.
I am not aware of whether the Scottish Government has targets to reduce child poverty, but such targets would help to show whether any measures were being effective.
Will the member take an intervention?
I want to move on.
Other children who face challenges in their early years are those who have a disability. I recognise that all disabilities can be a challenge, but I will use deaf children as an example. I said earlier that action is important, and the Labour-led Scottish Executive introduced universal new-born hearing screening in Scotland in 2005. However, the value of early identification could be lost if no co-ordinated follow-up support services are in place to progress the infant's language and communication development.
I thank the National Deaf Children's Society of Scotland for its briefing for today's debate, and I hope that the cabinet secretary will respond to its request and my motion of May 2008 and publish best practice guidance on effective, multi-agency, early intervention mechanisms for deaf children. I also hope that the Scottish Government is considering a positive response to NDCS's campaign for a national register of deaf children, so that early years support can be targeted.
NDCS's briefing highlighted the variation in support that is offered to the parents of deaf children. In particular, it said that 90 per cent of parents have no previous experience of deafness and no awareness of what to expect from statutory services. I am sure that that is equally true of many other parents, particularly those who have children with additional needs.
That brings me on to how parents should be supported, and I am pleased to be able to support the Conservative amendment. Again, the Labour-led Scottish Executive led the way with its support for programmes such as sure start. Are we making progress on that? Are we learning the lessons to which Hugh Henry referred?
In its briefing to MSPs, Aberlour Child Care Trust referred to the national parenting development project. I had the pleasure of visiting the project at Aberlour's Edinburgh base last summer, and I was very impressed with the work. Members will have read of Aberlour's aims, but I was particularly impressed that its work to support parents is just that. Parents are the primary carers of our children. Perhaps because I am a parent of teenagers, I appreciated the support that Aberlour offers to such parents; sometimes that area is forgotten. How will the Scottish Government build on that innovative work and support parents to do the job that they really want to do?
At the beginning of my speech, I said that there needs to be action, not just warm words. Previous Administrations made progress on early years provision but, as the Labour amendment shows, even the specific promises made by the SNP Government have not yet been delivered. Today is an opportunity for the Scottish Government to convince not just those of us in Parliament, but parents and children in our communities that they really want the early years to be a priority. If that means—
You should be finished now, Ms Mulligan.
I let the Presiding Officer know before the start of the debate that I would not be here for the opening speeches. I apologise to the chamber; no discourtesy was meant to any member.
Play is a significant aspect of the early years framework. I am afraid that I missed what Hugh O'Donnell said about it, but I heard what Robin Harper, Robert Brown and others had to say. Active and structured play not only makes for positive health outcomes for our children, but has a far wider social and educational benefit.
Removing barriers to healthy play is important. One such barrier was highlighted just yesterday by Keith Hayton in his evidence to the Local Government and Communities Committee, on which I sit. Mr Hayton has carried out research as part of our child poverty inquiry. On page 37 of his draft report, he mentions
"The difficulties of bringing up children in multi-storey blocks and low rise flats. This was seen as a particular issue with play as it was felt that young children could not be let out on their own. Even if they could be seen from a flat, should anything occur, then it would not be possible to get there quickly."
He went on to quote some parents whom he had met, and I would like to share some of those comments with members. One parent said:
"Families should be in a house with a garden. To put families away at the top of flats with no garden, it's just criminal. My kids are just 1 and 2. They cannot go out to play on their own. They need a garden".
Another said:
"They put me in a top floor flat with just a wee balcony and nowhere for the kids to play".
I raise those points to draw attention to the fact that the early years framework does not exist in isolation from the idea of social regeneration in our communities. Good-quality social rented housing should be a first choice, rather than a last resort, for families in Scotland. The high-rise flats of the past, which we are now demolishing, were mistakes. We must ensure that we not only build houses but foster communities. It is in that context that our early years framework can thrive; I hope that it will thrive by engaging families in our communities.
In addition, we need to challenge, in a constructive fashion, some pre-held conceptions among parents and communities. In doing so, we must raise the capacity and the expectations of families in our most deprived areas. Poverty, poor educational attainment and limited life chances should not be accepted. Our Government and our local authorities must remove the barriers to families leading happy and productive lives, and we must ensure that our most vulnerable families do not view their lot with an air of inevitability. Poverty, ill health, poor educational attainment and antisocial behaviour are not inevitable. They are symptoms of a failure of social policy in Scotland and the UK over many years. In our new Scotland, we must rectify such failings and must do so together, as a Parliament. Whenever possible, we must try our best not to be partisan just for the sake of it. I must hold my hands up and admit that that is a failing from which I sometimes suffer.
No.
I am warmed by the fact that there are two constructive amendments to the motion; I only wish that the Labour Party's amendment was similarly constructive.
Many parents will have had negative experiences of school. Some of them will rationalise that as being the school's fault. When problems arise with their own kids, they will sometimes blame the school. Sometimes parents are in denial or view problems at school as being inevitable. The report by Mr Hayton for the Local Government and Communities Committee contained some comments from parents in situations in which problems had arisen with their children. One parent said:
"If they sneeze they get excluded".
Another said:
"Teachers can exclude you for anything now".
Another comment was:
"Stop banning children for trivial reasons such as having pink hair. It doesn't affect their work and if they're happy inside it will improve their performance".
The stigmatisation of some children is an issue in schools, but when there are genuine problems at school, parents are all too often not willing to accept their role in dealing with them. Such problems can often reinforce the negative experiences that parents had when they were at school. The early years framework must capacity build and reach out to parents so that they trust schools and education.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I do not have time because I want to move on to free school meals; I am sure that Mary Mulligan will listen with interest to my comments on the subject.
I am glad that Unison backs the idea of public services that are universal and not means tested, as does Children in Scotland, which has stated that services should provide the best outcomes for the whole child
"irrespective of parental employment status".
I am a long-time campaigner for universal free school meals. The issue is about the whole child. In our society, there are no rich children and no poor children; there are just children, all of whom need help and assistance. Universal free school meals provide that. Labour members may wish to know that the number of kids who did not take up free school meals, although entitled to them, and who are now taking up that entitlement has increased by 8.5 per cent. That is the effect of a Scottish Government policy—of which I am incredibly proud—on the lives of the poorest and most vulnerable children in our society.
The early years framework should be about consensus politics and almost all of us in the Parliament are on board with that. I commend the early years framework to the chamber.
It is clear, from the speeches that we have heard today and the input from the voluntary sector, the unions and others, that there is a shared goal and a common belief in the importance of early years services and early intervention for the future of Scotland. It is absolutely right that the Parliament should stand up for children and I associate myself with Hugh O'Donnell's comments about the need for an independent children's commissioner to assist us in doing that.
We know that society sees a return of £7 for every £1 that is invested in early years education. That is the direct economic benefit of investment in early years services, but there is also a wider social benefit attached to that: a society with reduced levels of crime, better health, fewer inequalities and greater opportunities for all our children. Good-quality education in a child's early years is a great foundation for all future learning and development, but it is particularly key for those who have to struggle against the most extreme disadvantage.
I am proud of the previous Executive's record on education—particularly early years education—and of my party's long-standing commitment to the benefits of early intervention. However, there is clearly much more to do. Early years provision in Scotland must be improved and the current fragmentation addressed. I welcome the Scottish Government's recognition of that and its commitment that it will build on the progress that has been made. It is crucial that we work to provide the best start in life for each child on a level playing field that gives them a chance of the future that they deserve.
Children must be valued and at the centre of service delivery. There must not be a one-size-fits-all approach, but a focus on what is best for the individual child and their individual circumstances. Robert Brown talked about children who live with parents who have addictions. We are too quick to assume that a child should be kept with their parent at all costs and at all times. Sometimes, that is not the best place for the child to be. The important thing is to centre any decision making on the child.
It is important that we build strong, universal services that are effective for all our families but that are also responsive to those children and families who need extra support. I echo the comments that have been made about the importance of health visitors and the need to make their support available to all families. Problems of abuse and of post-natal depression, as well as a host of other things, are found not only in deprived homes. Health visitors have a crucial part to play in the delivery of a universal service that helps all our children.
As Children 1st has pointed out—echoing one of the concerns that was raised in the report into the Aberdeen services, which we discussed in a previous debate—too often, effective action is not taken until a crisis point has been reached. It is vital that, with early intervention, we prevent that from happening.
Many organisations have also highlighted concerns about the pressure that is being placed on parents and the negative impact that that has on families.
I do not dispute what Margaret Smith says about early intervention. Indeed, I believe that it is critical. Does she share the concerns that I have discussed this afternoon with an ex-employee of one of Scotland's major councils, who told me that many local authorities are diverting money away from initiatives such as sure start and early intervention because of budget cuts? The lack of dedicated funding will surely have an effect. Does she agree with that?
I was going to go on to echo much of what Wendy Alexander said. Although we have the historic concordat, which means that organisations such as universities are able to make their own decisions, it would be unhelpful if a national strategy for early years provision were put at risk because the things were not being done on the ground that the Parliament wanted to be done. I speak as someone whose constituency has been affected by voluntary sector situations that are similar to, although not quite the same as, what Hugh Henry has described.
Will the member give way?
No, sorry. I would like to make some progress.
Liz Smith was right to say that children need stability, love and support. Ideally, that should come from both of their parents. That need does not go away just because there has been a marital break-up, which is why things such as family mediation and contact services are vital, for not only the child but the parents, and for the quality of life of everyone involved, all of whom remain a family of sorts.
Robert Brown and Bob Doris highlighted the importance of play in a child's development. I particularly liked Bob Doris's confessional style—I thought that, at any minute, he was going to tell us that he had been a punk with pink hair in a previous existence. Play is crucial, and I would welcome more information from the minister about the £4 million that is available in that regard.
There has been a great deal of focus on teacher numbers today. The Government has made commitments on class sizes and on access to qualified nursery teachers. Our job in Opposition is to hold the Government to account, so I must say that, frankly, the figures are as clear as mud. Despite what the minister says, there is a need to resolve the matter. I appreciate that there might be an improvement on where we have been before, but the figures that the Scottish Parliament information centre has given us show that the pure number of teachers has reduced—although we accept the problem of double counting. However, the 2008 census also appears to show that there has been a whole-time equivalent reduction of 13 posts. It is also worth noting that teachers may be qualified in other sectors, rather than just having nursery qualifications. Finally, we should also note that 892 centres did not provide information on the number of whole-time equivalent staff. We need to improve those figures.
This has been a largely consensual debate, apart from a rather tedious disagreement between the SNP and Labour over some opaque statistics. Apart from that, we can all agree on the importance of early intervention and can largely support the Government's strategy.
The Conservatives make no apologies for concentrating on parenting skills, not least because we believe that, if we are to have early intervention, it should come at the earliest possible point, which is before the child is born or as early as possible in that child's life.
An excellent report came out at the end of last year. It was called "Getting in Early: Primary Schools and Early Intervention", and was jointly written by Iain Duncan Smith, the former Conservative leader, and Graham Allen, who is a Labour member of Parliament. It said:
"Poor parenting is strongly linked to a multitude of problems for children: delinquency, drug use, school failure, family violence, abuse of children, poor mental and physical health, and continuing social disadvantage for children as they grow up. Good parenting is linked to school success and healthy, positive adjustment."
It is good to see that that message about parenting is accepted across the political spectrum. That issue is central to the debate about how we can give youngsters the best start in life.
I want to put this debate in the wider context of education. Some 30 or 40 years ago, when most of us went to school—I apologise immediately to those members who feel excluded by that statement—there was a sense that schools were about providing basic educational skills, such as reading, writing and arithmetic, and broader social education was regarded as being the parents' responsibility. However, society has changed over a generation, and now, in addition to those basic educational skills, schools are expected to teach youngsters about, for example, healthy eating and living healthily, and to implement initiatives on obesity, social skills, bullying, sectarianism, financial education, international education and so on. Hardly a week goes by without calls being made in this chamber and elsewhere for schools to do more.
There is nothing wrong with any of those initiatives. The problem, which quickly becomes obvious, is that the school day is no longer these days than it was a generation ago. Most youngsters are in school for five hours a day, which is no longer than youngsters were in school 30 years ago. That means that the schools are being asked to do more and more in the same amount of time.
It is now expected that the state, through the education system, will have to deliver the skills that we would once have assumed would have been passed on by parents. Often, that suits parents. They are busy people, and are often happy to let the education system take up the slack. The shame is that the teaching profession has to step in and fill the role that parents would have filled previously. I do not think that that is good for society, and it is not helping education.
As an aside, it is wrong to characterise poor parents as always coming from deprived backgrounds. Often, middle-class parents are just as bad, with both parents rushing out to do busy, responsible jobs and lacking the time to look after their children properly.
Many of those issues were highlighted in the Children's Society report that my colleague Elizabeth Smith mentioned, "The Good Childhood Inquiry", which was published earlier this week. The report's conclusions are challenging and in some cases controversial. Some will take issue with the claim that children are damaged by having mothers who work full time. However, the basic messages are stark: having children is a serious responsibility, parents have to make sacrifices and put their own interests second to those of their children, and parents must give more priority to their relationship with their children. Those important messages must underline the debate. Parents must think about their role and take it more seriously.
Whatever our view on those conclusions, I say in passing that they represent a much more valuable contribution to the debate on parenting than the utterances of Jonathon Porritt, the self-proclaimed guru of the environmental movement, who told us earlier this week that it is irresponsible for people to have more than two children and that the state should enhance contraception and abortion in order to try to enforce that. I do not have a personal interest in those matters, although I know that some other members do. I see Mr Macintosh blushing slightly on the Labour benches opposite.
Not only do Mr Porritt's views ignore the fact that our birth rate in the UK is already lower than our replacement level, they also represent an assault on a basic human right. They are worryingly typical of the sort of Green fascist view that is all about giving the state greater control over people's lives. We should be unequivocal in saying that that sort of swivel-eyed, extremist nonsense should be denounced.
Will the member take an intervention? [Laughter.]
I am terribly sorry, but the Presiding Officer is indicating that I do not have time. I say to Robin Harper that I exclude him from the definition of a swivel-eyed, Green fascist.
We all agree that parenting skills are important, and we acknowledge that many parents across the social spectrum need assistance. Excellent work is done in the voluntary sector by the Aberlour Child Care Trust, Barnardo's, Care for the Family and many others. The state should not reinvent the wheel. Instead, we should have better support and co-ordination of what is on offer in the voluntary sector.
We have reservations about the Labour amendment because of the spat over statistics, but we support the Liberal Democrat amendment and hope that others will support ours.
Many speakers broadly welcomed the publication of the early years framework, and I, too, am pleased to express my support for the general principles that are expressed in the strategy document. As my colleagues have emphasised, there are several areas of concern and a big question mark over how the policies are to be delivered, but it is important that we are agreed on the direction of travel.
The strategy rightly builds on the previous Executive's work on, for example, the sure start programme, the healthy eating initiative, parenting programmes, and nursery education for all three and four-year-olds. I do not think that I take anything away from the framework by saying that much of its thinking was laid out in the work of the Education Committee in the previous session, of which both the cabinet secretary and the minister, Mr Ingram, were members, and its unanimous report on early years.
I will not go through every area or recommendation in the framework, but I will touch on one or two points. Like Elizabeth Smith, Mary Mulligan and others, I highlight the fact that good parenting must be a priority. I particularly welcome Ms Smith's comments on the dangers of materialism and selfishness. I will put this gently: although Ms Smith might not recognise this comment as fair, I hope that she will appreciate that many of my colleagues associate the values of materialism and selfishness with Tory policies of the 1980s and 1990s. However, that makes her comments today all the more welcome.
If we are to expand in the area of early years, I encourage the minister to consider one of the most successful initiatives in recent years, which is the development of home-school links. Many schools have established parent support groups and built positive relationships with vulnerable families that have reaped rewards for their children. Coincidentally, my colleague Karen Whitefield mentioned an example of such a school at question time this afternoon—I think that it was St Serf's in her constituency. I urge the minister to build on what I thought was a constructive reply to her question.
A couple of submissions that MSP colleagues received today ahead of the debate highlight the burden of stress that is laid on some families. It is true that parents sometimes feel under threat. They are blamed for all of society's ills and are rarely praised for getting things right. I assure Murdo Fraser that I feel particularly on the defensive this week following Mr Porritt's comments on large families. I hesitate to think what intervention he would take once the two-kid quota had been fulfilled. However, I hope that all members recognise that most parents do a great job at an undoubtedly stressful time in their lives.
I want to give a special mention to the section on play. As we all know, play was not included in the original consultation, which provoked widespread concern. I am pleased that the ministers have put things right. The framework refers to the centrality of play not only to how children learn but to their mental and physical health and their development as rounded people.
I particularly welcome the comments on risk, which I think the minister repeated in her introductory remarks. The framework refers not to eliminating all dangers but to building children's resilience and confidence so that they can learn to make positive and safe choices for themselves. However, the report is a bit light on detail on how that will be delivered, as it is in other sections that I will deal with. To give one example, no mention is made of placing a statutory duty on local authorities. I hope that we have yet to see a stand-alone play strategy, but I acknowledge that a positive step has been taken in the right direction.
Perhaps the biggest question mark hanging over the early years framework is to do with resources and delivery. Most of the sector and virtually all members have picked up on that. The strategy almost makes a virtue of there being no resources to implement the policies, but it is difficult for many practitioners to see how we can make many of the envisaged changes without funding. We already know from work in the national health service, for example, how difficult it is to shift existing resources away from crisis intervention to preventive work. I think that Robert Brown and Hugh O'Donnell made that point.
Does the member accept that there are significant resources for early years provision now? Around £1.5 billion goes into such provision every year. Does he also accept that we are facing a period of financial restriction? I would be grateful if he told me where I could get my hands on extra resources.
As a colleague of mine has said, finding that out is Mr Ingram's job. I understand the difficulty and I am not unsympathetic.
I agree that early intervention will pay dividends in the long term in improving our children's lives and in economic benefits, but that is a long-term calculation. The services are not exactly well funded at the moment without resources being diverted elsewhere. That there will have to be some sort of dual approach or overlap—I think that Hugh O'Donnell referred to that—in funding both early intervention and crisis management until the economic benefits are seen is almost inescapable.
Of course, the main reason why we lodged an amendment was to highlight the gap between the admirable aspirations in the policy document and the reality of services for our youngest children. We have heard yet again claim followed by counter-claim in respect of nursery teachers. I will try to unpick the arguments. I think that we can agree that there are two sets of figures: whole-time equivalent and head count. We can also agree that the number of whole-time equivalent nursery teachers is, to use the words of the cabinet secretary in her opening speech, "approximately the same"; in plain English, that means that the number is down by 13. The SNP is trying to hide behind the inaccurate head count. However, during First Minister's question time on 25 September, the First Minister was clearly aware of the dangers of double-counting in his typically condescending put-down of Margaret Smith.
The Government's statisticians have said:
"I would recommend using the Whole time Equivalent, which can be compared … for 2007 and 2008. This is because Whole Time Equivalent will not be multiple-counted for peripatetic teachers … Schools statisticians have been using Whole Time Equivalent of teachers exclusively as their measure for several years".
Unfortunately, we have seen again today that the SNP prefers fudge and obfuscation to doing the simple and gracious thing of apologising for the First Minister's blunder.
There is room for all the parties to agree on an early years strategy, but the gap between what Hugh Henry and Mary Mulligan referred to as warm words and the reality of services for our children is worrying.
If the Government declares game, set and match to the Opposition on the figures and agrees that there are 13 fewer nursery teachers, will the Labour Party withdraw its amendment?
If the First Minister would apologise for saying—[Laughter.] Well, we are not going to hold out for that. The point is that the First Minister will not correct himself. The issue is important, because the First Minister should not mislead Parliament. He claimed that the figures show a substantial increase. If the First Minister—or the minister, on the First Minister's behalf—is prepared to say that he was wrong and that the figures do not show a substantial increase, we will withdraw our amendment. There is an offer for the minister.
To conclude, the Parliament and, in particular, the previous Labour-Liberal Executive have a sound track record on early years that is based on results, not rhetoric. The general principles of the early years framework are admirable, but it would be equally admirable if ministers translated some of those aspirations into tangible benefits for Scotland's children.
There is a great deal of commitment in and beyond the Parliament to getting the early years right for all our children, no matter their background or circumstances. The early years framework will take us a good way down the road that we want to travel. I emphasise that the framework is not Government owned; it is jointly owned with and produced by COSLA. It is unfortunate that many members assume that local authorities are more concerned with avoiding their responsibilities than accepting them. I hope that we can be a little more amenable on the subject of our local authority colleagues in future.
I am happy to accept Elizabeth Smith's amendment. We are convinced that helping parents to help their children and giving them confidence in their parenting skills are vital if we are to make progress on the agenda. I noted her interesting comments about extra child benefit for very young children, and I will certainly raise that suggestion when we discuss the issues with UK ministers. I welcome her mention of the voluntary sector, which is also mentioned in Hugh O'Donnell's amendment. The framework was developed in partnership through task groups, which involved more than 100 people from more than 50 organisations, including a large number from different parts of the third sector, so if Hugh Henry cares to reflect on his remarks, he will find that he has insulted rather a lot of people.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No, not at the moment. I do not think that the member can get over the fact that the Government has ditched Labour's rather patronising attitude of, "We know what's best for you," and the use of central diktat, which people have been used to for so long.
As for the Labour amendment, the cabinet secretary laid out the facts, as I have done several times in the Parliament and in written answers. I am disappointed that the Labour Party continues to challenge their veracity. The fact is that Labour's abolition of the school code led to a dramatic reduction in nursery teachers from 2002 onwards. The national statistics—not ones that are produced within the education department—say that the downward decline has bottomed out and that it looks like we are on the rise.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I will not. I want to finish the point, because, to be perfectly honest, it is a bit tiresome to be talking about statistics in this debate.
The fact is that nursery teacher levels will rise, particularly given the 50 per cent extension in pre-school entitlement for three and four-year-olds, which we promised in our manifesto and is due to come on stream in the next couple of years.
I say to Hugh O'Donnell that the methodology changed between 2007 and 2008. The statisticians realised that they had got their methodology wrong. The figures for this year are being collected. The deficiencies having been cleared up, Mr O'Donnell will have a set of figures that are directly comparable with last year's figures. I hope that that will clear up the statistics point.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I really do not want to go into statistics any more, thank you very much.
Will the minister take an intervention?
Okay.
This is a serious issue. None of us particularly likes spending a great deal of time with stats—I certainly do not. However, 892 centres did not even submit information on their number of staff. The Government has made a promise, but what has it done to increase the number of centres that provide information?
I am not an expert in statistics, but I assume that statisticians adopt certain methods for non-statistical returns. I suspect that I can exchange that information with Margaret Smith by letter.
I will now get back to the subject in hand.
From the start, we have recognised that tackling inequalities in the early years has to be a long-term commitment, hence the 10-year timeframe for dealing with the issues that hold our children and our society back. We also recognise that addressing such major challenges over the long term depends on a strong spirit of partnership. I repeat an idea that I suggested earlier: this is no longer about national Government dictating every detail of what should happen locally. That approach has been tried and has been found wanting. The new approach—[Interruption.]
One moment, minister. Far too many conversations are taking place among members in the chamber.
The new approach recognises that the delivery of outcomes lies for the most part in the hands of our local partners—not just our local authority partners but NHS Scotland, the third sector and others. The framework establishes a shared vision and provides a clear lead. There is a strong focus on outcomes and a shared analysis of the steps that will, in time, take us in the right direction. The actions and objectives are not ends in themselves, and ticking them off as if they were a to-do list will not in itself achieve the "transformational change" to which the cabinet secretary referred.
What is most needed is a change in thinking and a change in focus, and ensuring that systems and procedures are better aligned to the needs of the child and his or her family. The framework includes a number of actions that will be taken forward at national level, such as: looking at the options for the development of new workforce roles; launching a campaign to promote the importance of parenting; promoting the uptake of child care vouchers; and promoting changes to the UK tax credits regime. We will also lead a national debate on keeping children as safe as necessary while they play, and on helping them to learn to assess risk. In the near future, I will meet the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care, Play Scotland and the police to start the debate. I know that our local partners are equally committed to the agenda.
Already, some community planning partnerships are beginning to think about how they can improve outcomes in and through the early years, taking account of their local circumstances. That is what the concordat approach is all about—allowing local flexibility, and measuring success in terms of improved outcomes for children, not in terms of the original inputs.
This is not about leaving local partners to sink or swim on their own. I am committed to working alongside our partners over the long term to address the challenge. I intend that, in 10 years' time, the early years framework will be—[Interruption.]
Order. I am sorry to interrupt you, minister, but there is too much noise from around the chamber.
The early years framework will be seen as a success story in 10 years' time—not for the Scottish Government or COSLA, but for Scotland and Scotland's children and young people.