Childcare
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S4M-02338, in the name of Liam McArthur, on childcare.
09:15
As Liberal Democrat education spokesman since last May, I have had the chance to participate in debates that have covered most aspects of how our education system is performing, and its strengths and weaknesses. The debates have been useful, productive and—in the main—consensual. However, I am conscious that we have not, as yet, brought the same attention to bear in scrutinising how childcare is provided. I am pleased that Scottish Liberal Democrats are this morning helping Parliament to atone for that sin of omission.
The debate could not be more timely. It follows the recent publication by Children in Scotland and the Daycare Trust of their report “The Scottish Childcare Lottery”. That detailed comparative assessment of provision of childcare across the United Kingdom provides plenty of food for thought. It also delivers a stark message—despite the First Minister’s pledge, which he gave again at the weekend—that we are some way short of being able to claim to be matching the best anywhere in Europe. The findings underline various issues that appear to be specific to Scotland and confirm that, in a number of respects, we lag behind the rest of the UK.
That is worrying. High-quality childcare—including nursery, childminding and out-of-school care—can play a key role in supporting our children’s learning and development. Especially in the early years, as Children 1st reminds us in its briefing for today’s debate, that can be pivotal in determining a child’s life chances. Meanwhile, for parents, access to affordable high-quality childcare is often crucial to enabling them to return to, or to remain in, work.
What are some of the key findings from the report? Children in Scotland and the Daycare Trust have established that there are significant gaps in the availability of childcare in Scotland. According to their report, only one fifth of Scottish local authorities indicate that they have enough childcare for working parents. The feedback also suggests that there are specific problems in relation to provision for older children—another point that Children 1st raised—as well as for families in rural areas and those with disabled children.
Where provision is available, childcare costs to parents are among the highest in the UK. Although average nursery costs are slightly lower in Scotland, the average cost for childminders and after-school childcare is higher. In England and Wales, childcare fees in local authority nurseries have largely converged with those in the private and non-profit sectors, but that is not true in Scotland: fees in private and non-profit sector nurseries have been found to be nearly £25 per week more than in nurseries in the maintained sector. It is difficult to understand why that discrepancy exists or why it is so pronounced in Scotland.
There are also geographic variations in childcare costs across Scotland, which are far larger than the variations that are found elsewhere in the UK. For example, out-of-school clubs in the most expensive areas of Scotland charge almost twice as much as those in the lowest-cost areas, while for childminders the difference is more than 70 per cent.
In the light of those findings, I do not suppose that Children in Scotland and the Daycare Trust had to work terribly hard to come up with a title for their report—to all intents and purposes, there is a postcode lottery. The high cost of childcare in some areas, the big variations in costs between private or non-profit providers and local authority controlled ones, and the significant gaps in supply testify to failures in managing the childcare market.
Taking all that into consideration, how will the move by Mr McArthur’s party, as part of the UK Government, to withdraw tax credits from 73,300 Scottish families, help to make childcare more affordable for them?
I am grateful to Mark McDonald for again coming up with the standard stump speech from Scottish National Party members about things for which they do not have responsibility, but I will return to my point, because it is about a concern that has been expressed.
For the reasons that I set out, the authors of the report conclude that the Scottish Government and many local authorities are failing to meet the objectives that are set out in the early years framework. Even the First Minister has been forced to acknowledge the problems. On 1 March, he declared that
“We should determine, unitedly, to address”
the
“wide divergence in the cost and availability of childcare in various parts of Scotland.”—[Official Report, 1 March 2012; c 6834.]
Absolutely, we should. However, the sentiment is hardly honoured by the Minister for Children and Young People’s amendment this morning, which cannot even bring itself to note “with concern” the report’s findings.
The Minister for Children and Young People (Aileen Campbell) rose—
I am not sure what message that sends to the authors of the report or to those who are struggling day and daily with the problems that the report clearly identifies. Perhaps the minister would like to suggest what the message is.
With all this negativity, will the member not at least try to concede that we should welcome the bold and ambitious target that the First Minister has set for the wellbeing of the children of our country?
I am being accused of negativity by an SNP minister. Now, there’s a thing.
If we are to answer the First Minister’s plea for this united front to be successful, surely we need to recognise where others are leading the way, be prepared to learn lessons and be willing to follow suit. I fully accept the Government’s view that there will be places across Europe where such good or better practice can be identified, but Ms Campbell must not allow nationalistic myopia to blind her to what is on our doorstep. I have lost track of the number of times when I have urged Scottish ministers to look at the benefits that are being delivered through the pupil premium, which is targeting resources at the children who most need them and is enabling schools to put in the additional tailored support that is most appropriate in each instance. Save the Children, among others, points to what a similar system in Scotland might achieve. However, the mere fact that the pupil premium is being taken forward by the coalition Government south of the border means that it is dogmatically rejected by Scottish ministers.
Even when it admits to supporting a UK initiative—for example, the youth contract—the SNP Government seems to be reluctant to advertise the fact. In the case of the youth contract, which can make a real difference by creating meaningful opportunities for young people to access the work or training that they need, such muted support from the Scottish Government is totally counterproductive, but it is part of a pattern. The nationalist narrative simply cannot tolerate the suggestion that the approach that the UK coalition Government is taking might be more generous or more effective.
In England and Wales, duties are outlined in the Childcare Act 2006 that require local authorities to secure sufficient childcare for working parents and those who are studying with the intention of returning to work. In Scotland, no such legislative requirement exists. “The Scottish Childcare Lottery” reports that, while local authorities in England are undertaking three-yearly assessments of childcare supply and demand with annual updates, the picture in Scotland is mixed. Some councils are carrying out detailed studies, but in the case of at least eight, there appears to be no collection of data on childcare supply.
The minister states in her amendment that the Government will work with the early years task force, local authorities and others to deliver improvements. That is a sensible approach, but we need to acknowledge the extent to which there are still serious blind spots in our understanding of the problems that exist. A failure to understand even basic childcare supply and demand means that local authorities are not able to intervene effectively in childcare markets in order to address gaps, which is a key component of the framework.
The Scottish Government will point to steps that it is taking, and that is fair.
I accept that there are issues for the Scottish Government to look at in the forthcoming legislation, including Liam McArthur’s suggestions about what is happening in England. However, does he accept that the biggest issue of affordability relates not just to the number of parents who are losing tax credits but to the reduction of the cap on childcare costs from 80 to 70 per cent?
I am well aware of the concern that Mr Chisholm reiterates. However, the £300 million that has been invested in the childcare support element of universal credit will extend access to childcare support to a further 80,000 families. There is a mixed picture. I certainly hope that UK ministers will keep that under review.
At the weekend, perhaps in anticipation of this morning’s Liberal Democrat debate, we heard the First Minister promise
“the best package of free nursery education on offer anywhere in the UK”.
It is to be delivered through legislation that will entitle every three-year-old and four-year-old to 600 hours of pre-school nursery provision a year. Although that might be welcome, it follows a similar promise by Mr Swinney in 2007, that the SNP Government would deliver 570 hours of nursery provision to the same group by 2010. While those 570 hours are currently enjoyed by three-year-olds and four-year-olds in England, in all but two council areas in Scotland, the figure is 100 hours less than that.
Interestingly, Bronwen Cohen, the chief executive of Children in Scotland, has warned that even the new commitment from the First Minister might do little to help working parents who are trying to negotiate between childcare and pre-school providers. In The Scotsman yesterday, Ms Cohen stressed:
“In the early years, care and education are indivisible. Treating them separately has led to considerable inequality in accessing services, contributes to high costs to parents for childcare and means that some families cannot make use of their child’s entitlement to pre-school education.”
In essence, those are precisely the symptoms that are exposed in the Children in Scotland and Daycare Trust report.
The First Minister has also pledged additional support for looked-after two-year-olds and children who are in foster care. Again, Ms Cohen highlights that, although that is undoubtedly valuable,
“it is markedly less generous than what is being offered in England and Wales.”
In England, investment is being made in 260,000 childcare places for 40 per cent of two-year-olds from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. That entitlement to 15 hours a week of free early education represents a £380 million commitment by the UK Government. In Wales, the flying start programme is making similar headway. Those programmes offer examples of where lessons could be learned and of approaches that could be adopted here. Sadly, when the SNP casts its eyes south, it is invariably to condemn, as its amendment does this morning.
I recognise that concerns have been expressed by Malcolm Chisholm, in Neil Bibby’s amendment and elsewhere about the impact that changes to the childcare element of working tax credit might have on low-income families. That should be kept under review, but it is clear that the changes that are being introduced under universal credits will see 80,000 families in the UK, including many in Scotland, receiving more support with childcare. The removal of the requirement that recipients work a minimum of 16 hours per week, as well as the £300 million investment, will be welcomed.
Children in Scotland and the Daycare Trust have provided invaluable insight into the challenges that we face in ensuring that access to affordable high-quality childcare in this country matches the best in Europe. In addition, their report identifies a number of areas in which we lag behind the rest of the UK. That may offend nationalist sensibilities to such an extent that the Scottish Government cannot bring itself to express concern about the report’s findings, but I hope that, in working through the early years task force, SNP ministers will be prepared to learn lessons from what is happening elsewhere in the UK, and that we will start to see the more joined-up approach to education and care that parents, children and those who are involved in the sectors wish to see.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises that access to affordable, high-quality childcare supports children’s learning and development and enables parents to return to, or remain in, work; notes with concern the recent report, The Scottish Childcare Lottery, which found that there are very significant gaps in the availability of childcare in Scotland, childcare costs are among the highest in Britain and that there is greater geographic variation in childcare costs in Scotland than in any other part of the UK; believes that, while some local authorities have worked hard to ensure sufficient childcare in their areas, much more work is needed from the Scottish Government and local authorities to ensure that families have access to affordable, integrated pre-school and childcare services in every community matched to an assessment of local demand, as is required by the Early Years Framework; is also concerned that Scotland is lagging behind England on entitlement to free pre-school education, and calls on the Scottish Government to respond to the concerns about availability and costs raised in The Scottish Childcare Lottery report, to ensure that the objectives of the Early Years Framework are met and to set out the steps that it will take to increase childcare support in Scotland in order to match the best elsewhere in Europe.
09:25
I am proud to open the debate for the Government, because it comes after the First Minister’s hugely important announcement on childcare at the weekend. The children’s bill that will be introduced to Parliament next year will contain a statutory guarantee on provision of more than 600 hours of funded early learning and childcare for every three and four-year-old and for every looked-after two-year-old in our land. Make no mistake—that is a highly significant step. It represents the best package of free early learning and childcare anywhere in the UK. As the Minister for Children and Young People, it is for me an honour to demonstrate this Government’s firm commitment to our nation’s future. It represents another step forward in our aim of making Scotland the best place for children and young people to grow up in.
The early years are a key priority for this Government. We know that, for parents and carers who are juggling work and parenthood, the availability of high-quality, flexible and affordable early learning and childcare is vital, and is essential to improving the life chances of Scotland’s children.
Given the commitments that were made in 2007, and to which Mr McArthur referred, why has it taken so long to get to this stage? When will the Government’s package be implemented?
We are committed to making improvements to the life chances of children across Scotland and to introducing potential legislation next year. We will work with local government to ensure that all people across the country get the level of provision that we aspire to provide.
The fact that more than 600 hours of funded early learning and childcare will be provided is great news in itself, but the First Minister’s announcement was about more than hours and numbers. Key to our ambition of implementing a transformational change in Scotland’s delivery of early learning and childcare is flexibility. We want to ensure that provision can be accessed in ways that meet the needs of parents and families. We are heading on an ambitious and bold journey, and local government and other partners will have important parts to play as we work together to deliver our vision for high-quality, flexible and affordable childcare across the nation.
In addition to the offer of extended early learning and childcare provision, we will work with the early years task force and we will use its wisdom and expert knowledge to build a clear picture of current provision and to identify any gaps. I am happy to confirm that we will go further: in June 2012, we will convene a national business summit to explore new ways, including the promotion of childcare vouchers, of incentivising and encouraging more flexible working in the private sector to make it easier for parents with young children. We will develop a series of public-social partnerships, or PSPs, which will cover a range of specific childcare issues on which I believe more action is required. Those issues include parents who are on low incomes and/or in poverty; parents and carers who work shifts; out-of-school care, including holiday clubs; families who live in rural areas; and outdoor and nature kindergartens. PSPs represent a partnership approach to service development once an issue, such as childcare for shift workers, has been identified. PSPs will give all partners an opportunity to test new services and to evaluate them before tendering for delivery. The Scottish Government is promoting the PSP approach through the sector generally and we will, in the coming weeks, discuss with our local partners the best way to progress PSPs. I am sure that that approach will bring huge benefits to design and planning of local childcare provision in the specific areas that I have mentioned.
The Daycare Trust and Children in Scotland report “The Scottish Childcare Lottery” has made a significant contribution to the childcare debate. Although the report highlights that costs in Scotland are high, I emphasise that they are not the highest in the UK and that, in many cases, increases in costs in Scotland have been smaller than those south of the border. I also acknowledge the report’s raising of issues to do with the sufficiency of childcare and variation in costs across Scotland. I will ensure that those issues are investigated by our early years task force and local partners.
The Government will not rest on its laurels when it comes to taking action to improve the lives of Scotland’s children and families, and we are setting out the steps and actions that we need to take to improve early learning and childcare provision in Scotland in order that we match the best in Europe. High-quality early learning and childcare are vital for parents and children. For parents, they can provide a route out of worklessness and an opportunity for increased access to rewarding careers, and there is a wealth of evidence relating to babies and young children, perhaps most notably the effective provision of pre-school education—or EPPE—study to tell us about the benefits of high-quality early learning experiences. That is why the Government is committed to increasing the range of flexible and affordable high-quality early learning and childcare provision.
We have already announced an additional £4.5 million to provide early learning and childcare for all looked-after two-year-olds in Scotland, and a further £4.5 million to promote community-based solutions to family support and childcare from April this year.
I have outlined the range of work that we are undertaking to develop flexible and affordable childcare provision, but there are limits to what we can achieve to support parents with the costs of childcare while most of the levers for doing so remain reserved. We should contrast the Scottish Government’s actions and aspiration for a Scotland that is the best place to grow up in with the regressive welfare reforms by the coalition in London. I have huge concerns about the impacts that those reforms will have on our children and families.
We think that it is right that people should be supported into work, but the coalition’s welfare reform agenda is leading to a number of arbitrary budget cuts that will have damaging impacts on individuals and families in Scotland. As Malcolm Chisholm mentioned, the UK coalition Government reduced the cap for the childcare element of the working tax credit from 80 to 70 per cent in April last year. “The Scottish Childcare Lottery” report cites Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs data that estimate that that represents an average cut of £531 per year for families in Scotland.
Would the minister be interested to hear that, at the Welfare Reform Committee meeting the other day, not one of the groups that represented civic Scotland had a good word to say about the Tory-Liberal Welfare Reform Act 2012?
Annabelle Ewing raises a very good point, to which Liam McArthur should pay close attention.
We have committed to increasing early learning and childcare provision by more than 125 hours per year, but the coalition Government is, in effect, cutting working tax credit provision for the most vulnerable people by 80 hours. There will also be changes to child tax credit from April this year: the income threshold will be lower for most people. The changes mean that 84,900 families with children in Scotland will no longer be eligible for child tax credit. That will affect 118,700 children across Scotland. We are taking action to benefit 120,000 children across Scotland, but the Tory Government, supported by its Lib Dem coalition partners, is introducing cuts that will impact negatively on 120,000 children across Scotland.
Ordinarily, I would welcome the fact that the Lib Dems’ motion suggests that they are concerned about childcare, but unfortunately I cannot forget their failure to stand up for children and families in Scotland. We all know that the Lib Dems are in a coalition Government at Westminster, but they must not shirk their responsibilities. They will not pull the wool over the eyes of ordinary Scottish families, whose household budgets are being plundered by the coalition.
It is plain that having control of tax and welfare systems could help us to deliver real changes to early learning and childcare provision in Scotland. I joined the SNP in order to create the country that I want my child to grow up in—a country that has social democracy at its core, and fairness and equality as its hallmark. I am glad that we are taking decisive action now to improve the life chances of children in Scotland before the referendum.
I move amendment S4M-02338.2, to leave out from “with concern” to end and insert:
“the issues raised in the recent report, The Scottish Childcare Lottery, regarding cost, sufficiency and variation of early learning and childcare in Scotland; welcomes steps by the Scottish Government to address these issues, including the commitment to legislate to increase the amount of free nursery provision from 475 hours to a minimum of 600 hours for all 3 and 4-year-olds and all looked-after 2-year-olds; further welcomes the Scottish Government’s commitment to work with the Early Years Task Force, local authorities, parents’ representatives and childcare providers to consider how best to deliver increased and flexible provision, identify more clearly provision across Scotland and to learn from the best provision elsewhere in Europe, and condemns the UK Government’s proposed welfare reforms that will have a detrimental effect on thousands of families across Scotland and have a negative impact on their access to childcare.”
09:33
I thank Liam McArthur for introducing the debate, and pay tribute to childcare providers in Scotland, such as North Edinburgh Childcare, which I visited last week, and which does excellent work.
Childcare is close to the Labour Party’s heart. One of the first acts of the 1997 Labour Government was to establish a childcare strategy; that was closely followed by a Scottish childcare strategy. There were three aims: to expand early education, to improve the quality of services through regulation and inspection, and to ensure accessible and affordable childcare for parents who need it. We did that through effective legislation, co-ordinated and joint working with colleagues in local authorities and Westminster, and targeted funding.
However, it is clear that there is more to do. “The Scottish Childcare Lottery”, which has been published by the Daycare Trust and Children in Scotland, should be a wake-up call to all of us on the demands that face working parents. It is obvious that the cost of childcare is a major issue for Scotland. We have charges that are the highest in the UK: in three of the five categories of childcare costs, the Scottish average is more expensive than the cost in England and in four of the five categories, the Scottish average is more expensive than the cost in Wales.
We will work with other parties to deal with the issues but, in doing our job, we must express concerns about the lack of action from, and the actions of, the Scottish and UK Governments.
Will Neil Bibby welcome the commitment that the First Minister made at the weekend to 600 hours of free early education and childcare?
I thank the minister for raising that issue, to which I will come shortly.
Parents in Scotland are being hit by a double whammy. They are, first, being hit by the Conservative-Lib Dem UK Government cuts to working tax credits, as we have heard. The cut in the maximum support that is available through the childcare element of the working tax credit from 80 to 70 per cent of costs means that the average claim has fallen by £10 per week, which is costing low-income working families who receive the credit more than £500 a year. That is affecting more than 1,000 children and parents in my area—Renfrewshire—and thousands more across Scotland.
Parents are also being hit by the SNP Government’s failure to live up to its promises. I welcome the announcement that the First Minister made to his party on Saturday about increasing free nursery hours for three and four-year-olds, just as my colleagues welcomed it five years ago, in 2007. The lack of progress since 2007 is simply not good enough. For the hard-pressed families of Scotland, I hope that he means it this time and that we can reach the levels of childcare and nursery provision that are available in England and Wales.
The First Minister likes to give speeches about the Scottish Government being a progressive beacon for the rest of the UK, but that is clearly not the case on early education and childcare. A number of questions need to be answered. How much will the policy cost? What resources will be given to local authorities? What rights will parents have to flexibility? Will there be consistent teacher-led input, which is currently unavailable? I hope that the Minister for Children and Young People can give us more details on those matters.
As children’s charities tell us, one rehashed or recycled policy—no matter how good—will not deal with the problems that parents face with childcare. We need a more integrated pre-school education and care system. I am pleased that our childcare providers and national organisations are learning from childcare regimes elsewhere in order to invigorate the sector in Scotland.
We need a Scottish model of childcare, for which my colleague Hugh Henry and other members called in the members’ business debate on childcare in September. We need to move that forward; we need a Scottish model that recognises that families and children have different needs and that different services are best placed to meet those needs. We need to find a way to support people in the voluntary and private sectors to meet local people’s needs, to identify gaps and to provide services. We need a system that supports mixed-economy providers but does not nurture gaps in their funding.
I remind Neil Bibby of my announcement about engaging with the third sector to identify gaps. Will he welcome that move, if not the 600 hours?
Absolutely, I will. As I said, we need to engage with children’s charities and national organisations, so of course we welcome that.
We need a model in which every child has access to childcare, regardless of where they live or who is in power. We need adequately funded out-of-school services that provide good-quality activities for children and young people, and which are led by well qualified and committed staff. We need to ensure a Scottish model of childcare in which costs are reasonable and under which parents know that their children are well cared for, staff are reasonably rewarded for their work and high level of knowledge, and children receive high-quality care.
Most of all, we need a Scottish model that is supported by a Scottish Government that sees childcare as important and as an issue of equality and fairness, and which funds childcare adequately and delivers it promptly. We need a Scottish Government that keeps its promises.
I move amendment S4M-02338.1, to insert at end:
“, and regrets that the UK Government’s changes to Working Tax Credit will impact on low-income families’ ability to pay for childcare costs.”
I call Liz Smith.
09:39
Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.
Presiding Officer.
I apologise, Presiding Officer.
I thank the Liberals for bringing the debate to Parliament. Nobody in any political party in Parliament doubts how important the subject is. The evidence is overwhelming about early intervention of whatever sort for the health and social wellbeing and the educational achievement of any child. It is important that we debate the matter and take it extremely seriously.
The Liberal motion rightly points to regional variations in supply and costs of childcare. We agree that that is a very difficult situation that needs to be addressed. Childcare costs in Scotland are not only among the highest in the United Kingdom, but are the most variable. The recent Daycare Trust and Children in Scotland report that has been referred to stresses how difficult that is, and that we are at the high end of cost and variability.
It is equally unacceptable that there is not so much flexibility in the system, so there is not enough choice available to parents in how they spend their entitlements. Why do I say that? If it is correct that only a fifth of local authorities have adequate facilities for parents who work full time, that is a serious hindrance. Instead of choice being about when and how to spend entitlements, it becomes about whether to work or have childcare. Naturally, that has serious consequences for some parents, especially lone parents.
It is too often the most disadvantaged children who do not get what they are entitled to. That can put untold pressures on the family budgets of the very poorest families in our society, which is why it is so important that we target early education support and care at those who stand most to benefit.
“Making Work Pay—The Childcare Trap” outlines the problems in the starkest detail. It says that 59 per cent of parents who are living in poverty said that they are no better off working and paying for childcare, compared with only 19 per cent of those with incomes over £30,000; that parents in poverty almost always have to go without buying some essentials to pay for their childcare; and that a quarter of parents in poverty have had to give up work, a third have had to turn down a job and a quarter have not been able to take up education or training because of the difficulties in accessing childcare.
I do not think that anyone could argue that this is not an important time to be discussing the current childcare arrangements, particularly against the backdrop of so many other changes to social and welfare policy. The traditional structure of family life has changed beyond all recognition in recent decades, not least in respect of the fact that far fewer people are working in conventional 9-to-5 jobs. As a result, it is important to ensure that those who work unconventional hours are not disadvantaged.
I am extremely conscious of the extensive criticisms of some aspects of the Westminster Government’s welfare reform, including the child benefit part of the proposals, which I am on record as having expressed reservations about in the chamber. The concerns are sufficient for the coalition to review some of the details, but the principle of universal credit—which is to ensure that people are better off in work than they are on benefits—is the right one. Nonetheless, in conjunction with that, there is a need to reform the childcare entitlement to provide additional support.
Liz Smith uses the phrase that the solution “is the right one”. Can she equate that with the report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies that shows that the coalition’s changes to the welfare system will increase the number of children in the UK who are in absolute poverty by 500,000 by 2015 and by 800,000 by 2020? How can that be the right solution?
What is right is the principle that it is better to be in work than on benefits. I fully accept that the coalition needs to revise details of its policy and I think that it has admitted that there are aspects that it must revise.
That is why we are interested in the ideas that are being promoted by lain Duncan Smith south of the border about the possibility of charging for childcare services by the hour rather than by the block. That makes it much easier for childcare to be more flexible and more affordable, in the sense that parents would not have to pay for care when they do not need it. It is about flexibility as well as about the number of hours; that is the important thing that can drive forward the policy. I hope that we can engage with the Scottish Government on that principle as well as we can on the others.
09:44
I think that we all agree that supporting children in their earliest years gives them opportunities for learning and development that make a huge difference for the rest of their lives, and the SNP recognises that that needs to be integrated with good quality, flexible and affordable childcare in order to enable parents to work.
We are here for families: that is the SNP’s clear message to parents. The First Minister’s announcement of 600 hours per year of funded early learning should have been welcomed with a bit more enthusiasm by the Opposition parties. The increased provision will be flexible, and will help to support parents who are seeking employment, while giving children the best start in life through increased learning opportunities. It is important that it will be enshrined in legislation, which indicates—in my view—the Scottish Government’s commitment to the future of Scotland’s children and their families.
We know, however, that more needs to be done. Childcare provision is not uniform, and it is not affordable in many parts of Scotland. “The Scottish Childcare Lottery” says that, but while the Scottish Government is trying to address the issue, we have the UK Government—of which the Lib Dems are part—ploughing ahead with welfare reforms, thereby increasing pressure on families and raising the cost of childcare. I really cannot understand why the Liberal Democrats chose to lodge the motion.
Does Margaret Burgess accept that the extra £300 million that we are putting in through universal credit for childcare support is a positive thing?
What I accept is that through the Con-Dem Government people have lost out. Last year in North Ayrshire, 1,200 families lost an average of £450 a year. Incidentally, the cost of nursery provision there is 63 per cent of the average cost in England.
Child benefit has been frozen, and increases in other work-related costs—for example, for travel—have meant that many people have had to give up work. The Con Dems have not finished yet, because—as we have seen in the Save the Children report—the impact of universal credit will be that many of our poorest families will lose up to £68 a week. Again, it is mainly women who will be affected. In addition, in Save the Children’s online poll 56 per cent of mums said that the main thing that is preventing them from working is the cost of childcare.
The report that the Liberal Democrats refer to in their motion came out of the wider “Childcare Costs Survey 2012”, one of the key recommendations of which was to increase
“the proportion of costs which can be claimed under the childcare element of Working Tax Credit ... to 80 per cent, with a higher rate of 100 per cent for families on the lowest incomes and those with disabled children.”
The survey warns the UK Government that the decision to cut tax credits will mean that some families are no longer better off going to work, once they have paid for childcare. The survey’s authors state that
“it is sheer folly that any parent has to leave work because they cannot afford to pay for childcare.”
It is amazing that the Liberal Democrats have picked out some of the details, but not the bits that they do not like. They have a bit of neck asking for more affordable childcare here when their colleagues in Westminster are driving up the cost of childcare in Scotland and the rest of the UK.
When the Scottish Parliament has control of the tax and benefit systems, we will be able fully to realise our ambitious vision for children and parents. We will be able to provide the wraparound service that is needed, by integrating early years education with affordable childcare, thereby ensuring the very best for our children and supporting parents by guaranteeing that work pays.
09:48
Today’s debate is timely. We have spent a lot of time talking about the impact on families, but I believe that the debate is clearly about the economy: it is about the impact of the lack of flexible working and of childcare opportunities on families’ ability to engage economically. I think that all of us here in the Scottish Parliament aspire to see families do that.
In the past couple of weeks, we have had debates on the living wage and on in-work poverty, and in almost every contribution in those debates affordable childcare, flexible working or high-quality employment came to the fore. The debate today is one of many that we need to have about the type of work and employment opportunities that we want, so that our young people and their families are given the best possible chances.
I declare an interest as someone who has been a working parent, and I remember some of the real challenges that I faced. When my first daughter was born I was not able to drive, which is an indication of how many times I have failed my driving test rather than how young I was at that time. Finding suitable childcare when I had a very rigid working pattern was a real issue. I know that that is a challenge that a number of people face, particularly those who are in blue-collar employment who go into the workplace at a set time and are expected to perform until a set time while trying to balance all the other things that go on in their lives.
It is not just people in blue-collar employment who face difficulties. A constituent of mine in west Fife, Alison Johnstone, sent me an e-mail in October. She is a working mum with a six-year-old son. She has a masters degree in chemical engineering and is studying part time for a masters degree in managerial leadership, and she works in the public sector. Along with her husband, she wants to put in place flexible arrangements so that they can jointly bring up their kids and spend valuable and meaningful time with them, while also keeping their careers going. That is difficult, and involves negotiation and discussion that even someone on that career path with those qualifications is finding very difficult. Childcare is a key issue that affects every part of the economy. It affects those who are trying to get into work, and it affects blue-collar workers and professionals. We must bear that in mind.
I am sure that other MSPs received yesterday a copy of a Joseph Rowntree Foundation report that clarifies some of the issues in a sophisticated way. Flexible working is an issue for employers because of the wider economic pressures that they face. The reality of flexible working for smaller businesses in Scotland—95 per cent are small or micro—can be difficult if they do not have the capacity to deal with it, so that is another challenge.
I was pleased to hear the minister say that she is intending to bring people together to talk about childcare opportunities, particularly in the private sector. I believe that there is a role for the public sector in that regard: the Scottish Government, the national health service and other public bodies must take the lead by saying, “Here’s how we’d like to do things with our employees”. It is important that the private sector follows that lead.
I reiterate that childcare is a key economic issue, and I am pleased that we are debating it today. I hope that we get a positive outcome.
09:52
It takes a brass neck for the Lib Dems to come to the chamber to complain about the affordability of childcare while they vote in coalition with the Tories at Westminster to remove tax credits from more than 73,000 families in Scotland and, as Malcolm Chisholm rightly pointed out, to decrease the amount that can be received for childcare costs from 80 to 70 per cent. That will have a detrimental impact on working families and single-parent families in Scotland.
Liz Smith said in reply to the cabinet secretary’s intervention that it is better to be in work than on benefits. These people are in work: they receive tax credits because they are in work. The policy that is being pursued by Liz Smith’s party—the Conservative Party—and the Liberal Democrats in government at Westminster is harming working families. These are not well-off working families; there is often a misconception that only the well-off will be affected by the changes. We are talking about any lone-parent family that earns more than £26,000 per year, and any two-parent family that earns more than £32,000 per year, which would be two people earning around £16,500 each—that is well below the national average. Those are the people who will be harmed by that policy and who will find it all the more difficult to afford childcare as a result.
I class myself as a parent first and a politician second, and the issue of affordable childcare is close to my heart. I have often spoken to other parents about it when I have been picking my son up from nursery or playgroup. I am well aware of the pressures that people face in finding affordable childcare. The difficulty is often not with the childcare that councils provide but with private sector childcare, and I think that the Government recognises that that must be addressed. We have to try to work with private sector partners wherever possible to ensure that they are delivering affordable and accessible childcare.
Although no one will deny that we need to consider such issues, I think that it is excellent news that the Scottish Government is increasing funded nursery provision for three and four-year olds and looked-after two-year-olds to 600 hours per week. I am pleased that Mr Bibby welcomed the announcement in his usual charitable fashion, neglecting to mention that, in the previous session, this Government increased provision 20 per cent and in doing so benefited 100,000 children in Scotland.
That is not the only area in which we have a positive story to tell. We have not only delivered increased provision in free nursery education but invested £10 million in the early years early action fund and the child poverty strategy, which sets out how we will tackle child poverty; developed the BA course in childhood practice, which 1,000 students are taking; and supported local implementation of the early years framework. In my home city of Aberdeen, through the 3Rs—or reorganise, renovate, rebuild—schools project, we have developed state-of-the-art facilities, including the fantastic developmental nursery at Seaton, which is delivering for some of the most vulnerable youngsters in our city. That is a positive story that we can tell.
Mr McArthur should not stand up and say, “All you get from the SNP is negative, negative, negative.” We have an extremely positive story to tell and we will continue to tell it to the people of Scotland, who have recognised as much. After all, we have 68 MSPs and the Liberal Democrats five—or should I say four? Clearly, having to stay for the entire debate and hear exactly what his party is delivering was just a little bit too much for Mr Scott.
We have a positive story to tell, which we will continue to tell, and the people of Scotland will respect that.
09:56
All I can say is that the SNP has had a long time to tell that story. We are still waiting and, given what its partners in England are doing, we will still be behind.
As a working mother with three children, I sincerely welcome the debate. I know all too well how difficult it is to find high-quality, affordable childcare and certainly realise how important it is not just for the kids but for their parents. Our children benefit from the early socialisation and learning that often come from being in childcare, as they can start to form relationships and have new experiences there. Parents, too, benefit from being able to allocate time for work or education.
I am pleased that Liam McArthur’s motion calls on both the Scottish Government and local authorities to work to provide more access to affordable childcare. In Glasgow, where the Labour council was the first in Scotland to provide funded childcare for three-year-olds, work on that can already be seen. At the moment, children get 15 hours of such childcare a week, starting at the beginning of the term after their third birthday, and the city’s Labour council has pledged that, if—I mean, when—re-elected in May, it will expand provision to ensure a funded childcare place for every child at the start of the term in which they turn three. That move will benefit an additional 7,000 children.
Such positive and progressive policies are needed more than ever, given that the cuts that are being pushed through by the coalition Government at Westminster will take thousands of pounds from working families. We are moving closer to the changes in working tax credits, and I am sure that we will all have heard the concerns that were expressed this week by Save the Children about the effect of the changes on working parents. There is no doubt that, for those families, the already difficult task of securing quality childcare will be all the more challenging. I was concerned by the comment of one Glasgow parent, who said that, as a result of the changes,
“It’s a case of either heating or food—one or the other”.
I find that worrying, because it shows that some families are being squeezed so much that childcare does not even feature among their priorities. Worse still, it is not only one Glasgow parent who should be concerned about these changes; in that city alone, they will directly impact on almost 4,500 children. The changes might leave working families with only two options—work more or incur debt—and I fail to see how either will help them to deal with the childcare situation.
I am glad that Liam McArthur’s motion recognises a number of the issues that working families in Scotland face when it comes to childcare acquisition. Those issues need to be addressed now. However, we also need to realise the impact that benefit changes will have on our hard-working families, so I ask members to support the amendment in the name of Neil Bibby.
10:00
In welcoming today’s debate, I declare an interest, in that I am a father of a pre-school-age daughter.
I thank the Liberal Democrats for bringing the debate to the chamber. I can tell them that ensuring more affordable childcare is an issue of cross-party concern. I secured a members’ business debate on the subject last year, to which Neil Bibby referred earlier. It would be churlish of me to begin my speech by pointing out that no Liberal Democrat members took the time to take part in that debate. People might conclude from that that their interest is not as sincere as they claim. However, in the interests of consensus, I will not make that point.
Mark McDonald made a point that I want to reiterate. The record of the SNP Administration is a good one. We heard the announcement at the weekend about the increase in nursery provision for three and four-year-olds and looked-after two-year-olds. That builds on the increases that there have been in free nursery provision over the past few years. We have an Administration that is determined to focus on the very early years. Through the early years change fund, which is overseen by the early years task force, the Scottish Government will contribute £50 million to a total fund of £270 million over the next four years, which will strengthen support for children and their families. The record of the SNP in government is a good one.
Will Jamie Hepburn acknowledge that I have welcomed the announcement that the First Minister made at the weekend? Will he also acknowledge that there is concern in the chamber that a similar announcement and pledge was made by John Swinney in 2007—it concerned a rise to 570 hours of nursery provision—but there has been no progress on that over the past four years?
That is not the case. There has been an increase in nursery provision over the past four years of this SNP Government. Free nursery provision has risen by 20 per cent, benefiting 100,000 children. Perhaps Mr McArthur would like to get his facts correct.
I welcome the publication of “The Scottish Childcare Lottery”, to which the motion refers. It is always useful to have that type of inquiry casting more light on to the circumstances around childcare. I know that some concern has been expressed about the higher cost of childcare in Scotland, and I accept that there is legitimate concern. I know the difficulties that many families face when trying to bear the burden of childcare—I can speak to that from my own experience, and I can only imagine the difficulty that some other families have. However, saying that childcare costs are higher in Scotland than they are elsewhere in the UK is not telling the whole story. I am sure that Liam McArthur has read “The Scottish Childcare Lottery” carefully and has noticed that table 1 says that nursery costs are lower in Scotland than they are in England. Table 2 shows that, in the past year, the average cost of nursery provision for under-twos in England went up by 6.7 per cent while, in Scotland, it went up by only 1.9 per cent and that the average cost for nursery care for over-twos went down in Scotland while it rose 5.1 per cent in England. It is important to put that on the record, as that tells more of the story about childcare costs.
Will the member give way?
Do I have time to give way, Presiding Officer?
You do not.
I would have gladly done so otherwise.
It is a bit rich of the Liberal Democrats to bring this debate to the chamber. I am glad that they have done so, as it enables us to put some facts on the record. However, in my constituency, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, which is in North Lanarkshire, HM Revenue and Customs has sent out notices informing 6,000 families that they are losing child tax credits. How will that make childcare more affordable?
10:04
This has been a helpful—if rather short—debate because it is perhaps more focused than our debate on early years last September, not least because each party is beginning to put more beef on the bones of its policies and, no doubt, because the debate down south about the discrepancies between north and south of the border, whether or not that is controversial, has sharpened our awareness of exactly what needs to be done in other policy areas as well as in this one.
Liam McArthur was right to refer to the interesting contribution by Bronwen Cohen, the chief executive of Children in Scotland, in The Scotsman yesterday, in which she argued for a more articulated approach to be taken to care services and education, as keeping them separate, she believed, has been one reason for inequalities developing in access to care. In turn, she argued, that has led to increased costs and to more parents opting out.
Bronwen Cohen had the interesting and perhaps challenging message for the Scottish Government that its current policy is not sufficiently ambitious when it comes to the overall perspective. I am sure that the minister would be interested in pursuing further discussions on that.
Most important, Bronwen Cohen argued that the promise of 600 hours a year—which, obviously, is more than the 570 hours in England—is all well and good but does not do as much as it should to provide greater choice for parents. That is why we, the Conservatives, are arguing strongly that the choice factor is just as important as the number of hours.
On that point, I made it clear in my opening remarks that we recognise that this is not just about numbers and hours but is about transforming the provision of childcare services and offering flexibility to parents. That is why we want to think carefully about how we approach the delivery of 600 hours.
That is good to hear. However, I return to what Bronwen Cohen and others are saying. It is not so much about the quantity of care as it is about its quality and flexibility.
Like all the other parties, Conservatives believe that investing in a child’s early years is pivotal. It is beneficial for their future emotional, intellectual and social development. We look forward to hearing many more details from the Scottish Government about the timing and content of the legislative process and about how it will engage with local authorities, private providers and the stakeholders who use childcare services. It is good to hear that the minister will soon convene a conference with business about some of that provision.
I am more than happy to welcome the 600 hours, even if it is a recycled manifesto commitment. Some would say that it did not succeed the first time because of costs within local authorities. Some uncharitable commentators would even say that it was because of the cost of class size policy. Notwithstanding that, I welcome it. Again, though, I come back to the fact that it is about not just the quantity but the quality. Such is the overwhelming evidence of the benefits of a good start in life that we probably all agree about the priority that should be afforded to this policy area. Again, that is why we welcome the Liberals’ decision to use their business time to debate the issue.
10:08
As I said in my opening remarks, Labour is committed to high-quality childcare and early education. That was evident in our expansion and development of nursery education and childcare, in our introduction of a robust regulation and inspection regime, in our support for workforce development, in our introduction of a graduate level profession and in our initiatives of the working families tax credit and the minimum wage.
Scottish Labour saw and continues to see childcare as a major priority policy area because we believe that it is a major issue of equality and fairness—equality and fairness for hard-pressed families and for women who want to or need to work but who rely on the support of good-quality childcare to do so. John Park made a number of good points about that.
For parents who need assistance in caring for children, some with additional needs, and for children themselves, it is important to provide a safe place and a stimulating environment in which children can grow and learn and experience opportunities and events that they otherwise might not have.
As Anne McTaggart said, Labour-led Glasgow City Council is already showing the way on this by offering 15 hours a week of nursery provision and pledging to expand its provision to children before they turn three. That will benefit thousands of young children in Glasgow. Glasgow City Council is showing what can be done and should be commended for doing so.
We recognise—as many members have done this morning—that early education and care are inseparable. That is why we moved to give pre-school education grants to childcare services providing early education and care as part of our commitment to children and families. It is not just in the early years that childcare has expanded; out-of-school care for older children is essential for working parents. That, too, grew under Labour but, as the Daycare Trust and Children in Scotland highlight in their recent report, we need to do more to increase the availability of that care, particularly for children with additional needs.
We need action that will support children and their families, not make it harder for them. I therefore hope that the Conservative-Lib Dem UK Government will reverse its cuts to working tax credits, which are wrong and shameful, as they will have a devastating effect on thousands of low-income families. I also hope that the SNP will meet its pledge to increase nursery provision to 600 hours.
The SNP stated:
“We will increase the provision of free nursery education for 3 and 4 year olds by 50 per cent. That means increasing the entitlement from 400 hours a year to 600 hours a year.”
That is on page 51 of the 2007 SNP manifesto. Despite Mark McDonald’s suggestion that a 20 per cent increase is a great achievement, what the SNP promised was a 50 per cent increase. I hope that we have a 100 per cent implementation of the SNP’s latest announcement and do not deem a 20 per cent increase to be acceptable. I also hope that we receive more details from the minister about how the SNP will deliver on its pledge, how much resource will be given to local authorities and whether there will be consistent, teacher-led input across the country.
I hope that the Government will look again at childcare and nursery provision for babies and children under the age of three. Under Labour, the surestart scheme provided nursery places for vulnerable two-year-olds, but the SNP scrapped that in 2007 and has taken five years to announce a new initiative. We welcome the support for places for looked-after two-year-olds, but we also need support for other vulnerable two-year-olds who are not looked after and support for vulnerable children under the age of two.
As I said earlier, I welcome children’s charities and childcare providers looking to innovations in childcare regimes elsewhere to see how we can further improve childcare provision in Scotland. We need a Scottish model of childcare that supports the different needs of children and families and which ensures that every child has access to care, no matter where they live. We need a Scottish model in which parents will know that their child is receiving care of a high quality. We also need a Scottish model that celebrates and learns from the excellent work that is done in our childcare centres and which learns from other countries but does not follow slavishly practice in countries and contexts that are far removed from the reality in Scotland.
The member must close, please.
We need a Scottish model of continued regulation of services and staff. Urgent action is needed to help families by providing childcare across Scotland for children of all ages.
10:12
I welcome the overall tenor of the debate, even if parts of it have been disappointing. I got a slight shock when I turned round in my seat and saw the four Liberal Democrats present. I was reminded of the remark by Donnie Stewart about the Tories in Scotland. He compared them to the buffalo—gone are the days when they roamed the landscape in great herds, but there will always be one or two dotted about. There the Liberal Democrats were—four of them together. Tavish Scott could not stay, however. He had to go away and tweet about the debate from outside the chamber, which seems a strange way of contributing to the Liberal Democrats’ business, but there we are. I am sorry that we are down to a single Tory. The buffalo analogy applies again, although I would never be so ungallant as to refer to Liz Smith in that way.
I will inject a sense of reality into the debate and ask one or two questions that need to be answered. When the SNP came to office in 2007, only 400 hours of childcare a year per child was being delivered in Scotland. Who had been in government at that time? It had been the Lib Dems and Labour. Who then increased the number of hours from 402.5 to 475 almost immediately? It was the incoming Government, the SNP. Who has been faced with unprecedented cuts from Westminster, first from Labour and then from the Tories and Liberals? It is again the SNP Government. But who still has the ambition to go further? Who, despite those difficulties, is planning ahead and is going to put it in legislation? It is the SNP Government.
No one could doubt that we need to do more; no member has disputed that. However, I have listened to the debate for the past hour and a half and have heard only one set of proposals or costed plan, and that has come from the SNP. Therefore, I hope that, when people listen to this debate, they realise that the people who have the commitment, the intention and the purpose, and who are in government, are the people who are serious about the issue.
Other members are concerned, and I respect that. Liz Smith’s contribution was important; we should absolutely deliver the flexibility that she asked for. John Park also made a good contribution. It is not just about flexibility in terms of the delivery of a number of hours in blocks; it is about responding in a transformational way to changes in the world of work and to the differences in the ways that families live their lives, and ensuring that we underpin that. We will certainly do so. I say to John Park that Aileen Campbell’s announcement about PSP trialling is an important one. It will look at, for example, rurality and shift work and develop a pattern of activity that will suit Scotland.
I welcome that approach, which is the right one to take. The experts on the ground should give us ideas on how to proceed. Will the trial results be published? Will there be an opportunity to debate them in the Scottish Parliament?
Absolutely. Mr Park knows that I am a great fan of transparency. There is a need to publish the trial and to involve others. I say, quite genuinely, that we need to engage others who have an interest in the subject. Mr Chisholm is serving on the early years task force, and I thank him for that. I would genuinely welcome the constructive input of others.
I do not welcome the type of contribution that we had at the beginning of the debate from Liam McArthur. He started off by making some assumptions about what everyone was going to say and then said that all the problems were due to the evil SNP. We will not get progress that way. We will make progress if we accept that, at a time of extraordinary financial difficulty, which has been made considerably worse by the Westminster Government’s actions, we can still have aspirations, intentions and plans to deliver.
I will finish by talking about the brass-neck award. It has already been given but I want to endorse my colleagues’ view that it should go to the Liberal Democrats, particularly to Liam McArthur. On 22 December 2011, Liam McArthur said of welfare reform:
“the notion that we can simplify without creating winners and losers is ridiculous.”—[Official Report, 22 December 2011; c 4955.]
He comes here today and argues that we should simply carry on as if nothing that the coalition has done has happened. I will tell him the truth. The proposed changes to child tax credits mean that 84,900 families with children in Scotland will no longer be eligible for child tax credit as of 6 April 2012. That is happening because the Liberal Democrats are supporting the Tories at Westminster. Those are the families who are claiming at or below the family element of the child tax credit, which is worth £545 per family. That will affect 118,700 children across Scotland.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
I ask—and I will be happy if he answers in a single word—whether Mr McArthur is happy that 118,700 children will be among the losers.
I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for taking an intervention. It might well be that I can make a further nomination for the brass-neck award. We have heard that all SNP ministers are in favour of reform, but they have never set out the detail of the reforms that they wish to see. Perhaps, in his closing minute, the cabinet secretary could articulate that.
Answer came there none, so let me give the answer. Mr McArthur is happy that 118,700 children will be among the losers. It takes a brass neck to come to the chamber and lecture another party that is delivering on childcare and then fail to recognise the damage that he and his party are doing. That is a brass neck; everyone heard it here today.
10:19
That was a bit of exercise for Mike Russell.
The debate has been a bit disappointing. We tried to focus on a serious report that the Daycare Trust and Children in Scotland have produced. The report is very authoritative and it looked at the contrasts between parts of the UK as well as within Scotland. I was disappointed that the debate turned into a bit of a partisan rammy.
Will the member give way?
No, I have only just started.
John Park made a good speech. He said that this is an economic issue and talked about it from a personal perspective by considering the costs and the rigid work schedules that he has had to endure while trying to meet the childcare needs of his family. I have a similar personal experience, because I, too, have had difficulties finding flexible, integrated childcare through the hours provided by the state, supplemented by those available elsewhere. John Park’s contribution was significant.
By contrast, others sought to focus on Westminster. I understand that there are anxieties about the tax credit system. Liam McArthur and Liz Smith alerted us to that and said that we need to review the reduction in the UK’s contribution to childcare costs from 80 to 70 per cent. I am not sure what else we can say—we are prepared to consider the issue.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I must make progress.
The SNP is encouraging us to look at some of the good things that it is doing, but it would serve SNP members well if they also considered some of the good things that the UK Government is doing. It is disappointing that not one SNP member mentioned the extra £300 million for childcare support under universal credit. The UK Government is also delivering 15 hours of care a week for three and four-year-olds down south, compared with the 12.5 hours delivered in Scotland. It is also providing for 40 per cent of the most disadvantaged two-year-olds, rather than just looked-after children, as is the case here. We are doing good things, such as developing shared parental leave throughout the UK. Moreover, the duty of sufficiency down south means that local authorities have a better understanding of the childcare needs in their areas, but that is not happening in Scotland. Those are good things, but not one SNP member mentioned them. They would be well advised to follow the John Park route and consider the issues in detail and how they affect people on the ground, rather than fire bullets at people.
On the 2007 and 2012 commitments, I welcome the commitment that the First Minister gave over the weekend for 2014. It would be good to provide more than 600 hours, which would be even better than the position in the rest of the UK. That would be progress and we should all welcome that. However, he also said that the SNP would not rest on its laurels, but there are no laurels to rest on. There has not been great progress. The promise was 570 hours, but Scotland has 100 hours fewer than that at present.
The SNP has power but, too often, it seems ready to criticise Westminster rather than scrutinise its own Government. Its back benchers have a responsibility to scrutinise their ministers on their delivery, but they rarely do that. They blame everybody else and look at faults in other parts of the UK. They would be well served to do their duty and scrutinise their ministers.
Will the member give way?
Talking of scrutinising ministers, let us hear what the minister has to say.
Does Willie Rennie propose to do more than just suggest a review of the UK Government’s proposals for welfare reform? He should do more than just sit back and accept blindly that 118,000 children will be losers as a result of his Government’s reforms.
I gave the minister the opportunity to set out what she would like to do, but all she has done is follow the example of her back benchers and criticise Westminster.
Will the member give way?
No, I am trying to answer the minister’s question. Our ministers down south are making the case and we constantly challenge them, unlike the minister’s back benchers, who are just toadies for her Government. That is the problem. [Interruption.]
Order.
One of the serious issues that we need to consider relates to the integration and flexibility to which Liz Smith referred. How can working parents get fully comprehensive care? We should not think of childcare as just looking after kids; it is about education as well. How can we integrate those two aspects so that we have a comprehensive system that meets not only the needs of the kids but, as John Park has said, those of the parents.
Those are the things that we need to look at. There is also the issue of our knowledge of the provision of care in local authorities, because there are huge variations. I am not saying that all local authorities should provide the same type of care, but we need to find out what is happening and the local authorities themselves need a greater understanding of what is happening in their areas. That is why a duty of sufficiency would be helpful. Local authorities in England have a much better understanding of their needs and their provision, which is what we should look to have here.
It is disappointing that the Government was not able even to note “with concern” the report from the Daycare Trust and Children in Scotland. That smacks of complacency, which is something that the Government should be aware of.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. On behalf of SNP back benchers, will you reflect on parliamentary language and the use of the word “toady”? I think that that has been commented on before in the chamber and I am sure that, on reflection, Mr Rennie would not like that word to go down on the record.
I will reflect on your point of order. You have made your point.