Early Education and Child Care
We will now move on to the main item of business, which is the debate on motion S1M-1007, in the name of Sam Galbraith, on early education and child care, and amendments to that motion.
Before we begin the debate, I bring members' attention to a typographical error in Brian Monteith's amendment S1M-1007.2 as it appears in the business bulletin. The references in the sixth and last lines of the amendment to "patients" should read "parents".
Last November, the Parliament held a debate on child care strategy. The Parliament confirmed its support for the strategy and the substantial funding package that accompanies it. The strategy was devised to meet the needs of all Scotland's children. It commits the Executive to improve availability, accessibility and quality of child care and pre-school education.
The challenges are real and testing, but the prize is great. If we succeed we will, first, be giving our children the best possible start in life. We will also be helping families at risk of social exclusion. We will be helping parents to balance home and work life, which will ease the pressure on families. Very importantly, we will be smoothing the path for children in their transition into primary school. We are in this for the long term.
Today, I am pleased to announce that 68 per cent of Scotland's three-year olds are now in free pre-school education. That exceeds the milestone that we set ourselves in the programme for government. Only three years ago, under 20 per cent of three-year-olds had access to pre-school education. Now nearly 70 per cent benefit from high-quality play-based learning. We shall continue to invest in that expansion until parental demand is satisfied.
That is a considerable achievement, credit for which goes to local authorities and their partners in the private and voluntary sectors all over Scotland, and to staff and workers in early education and child care, on whose effort and dedication the whole service depends. On behalf of the Executive, I thank all of them.
There is also welcome news in the figures for partnership. Private and voluntary centres working in partnership with local authorities are educating 38 per cent of the three-year-olds in provision. That is a substantial share, and I am delighted that authorities are enjoying the real benefits of developing quality provision in partner centres to meet the preferences of parents and children.
The figures also show that the expansion of pre-school education is vigorous in both rural and urban areas. In fact, of the 12 authorities that receive the rural pre-school grant supplement, seven have a proportion of three-year-olds enjoying access to pre-school education that is at or above the all-Scotland level of 68 per cent. Given the challenges that are involved in developing centres in remoter areas, those authorities and their partners have done extremely well and are to be congratulated.
The expansion of pre-school education is only part of the story. We have also improved the availability of pre-school education and child care. Through sure start Scotland and the investment of £42 million over three years that we are making in targeted support for children and families, local authorities and their health service partners are creating new child care places for nought to three-year-olds and providing outreach services to disadvantaged families. There is also growth in out-of-school care. More than 5,600 new out-of-school child care places have been created through the new opportunities fund, which support at least 10,000 children.
We have also significantly improved access to pre-school education and child care. In January, I officially launched ChildcareLink, the national child care information line for parents, which is a sister service to the website, which was launched in November. Response to the national service so far has been encouraging; there have been more than 1,400 calls to the line and almost 400,000 people have visited the Scottish pages of the GB website.
By improving child care information services, we have helped parents to access places that are right for their children. Access is also being improved by on-going efforts to make child care more affordable. The working families tax credit can meet up to 70 per cent of child care costs and offers a way into affordable child care for many parents. It is a valuable resource and it is important that all those who are eligible to access it do so. We understand that around 10,000 families in Scotland are receiving child care tax credit.
Work has continued to improve the quality of provision in the sector. In February, the Executive published the self-evaluation guide for early years centres, "The Child at the Centre", which helps centres to take a considered look at the services that they provide and decide how they can improve them in the future. The early years best practice initiative continues to bring professionals together to share knowledge and good practice through a range of national and local seminars and a dedicated website, confirming yet again that quality grows from within.
The Executive, working with the national training organisations, the Scottish Qualifications Authority and others, is continuing to promote the development of the early years work force. On 18 May, I made an important announcement on the regulation of early education and child care. The new Scottish commission for the regulation of care will ensure a consistency of approach in the quality of care across Scotland. It will also ensure that children receive enjoyable, stimulating and safe care through focusing on care standards that deal with real outcomes and not just inputs. We will extend regulation to local authorities' provision for nought to five-year-olds and to out-of-school clubs for older children as well as the under-eights.
On the commission and the proposals for regulation that are out for consultation, will the minister go into detail about the outcomes? There is concern in different parts of Scotland that outcomes must be relevant to them.
We will consult widely on the outcomes. It is important that we concentrate on outcomes. Too much attention has been paid to physical inputs—the number of people, spaces and so on. Although the physical inputs are important, it is the experience and the outcomes that are important. We want to agree a broad list of outcomes, which will be available to Her Majesty's inspectorate and to the commission, so that they both examine the same areas. Work is being done on that. I will be grateful for any thoughts that the member has in that area.
I have outlined the valuable work that has been done to implement our child care strategy, but despite that, real challenges remain. We must continue to expand the service, improve access and ensure quality.
Last November, I highlighted significant increases in the funding available to local authorities to implement the strategy this year and next year. However, we recognise that the challenges are enormous and undoubtedly put heavy pressure on local authority resources. Over the past few months, therefore, I have considered carefully how further resources can best be allocated to meet the remaining challenges of the child care strategy. I have identified three priorities for immediate assistance: providing child care support for students; improving the infrastructure of the child care sector; and addressing the sector's training and qualification needs.
We believe that those initiatives will reinforce one another and will produce real long-term gains. Of course, they require funding, and some £14 million in total will be available over two years. The Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, Henry McLeish, has already announced child care support for students as part of the infrastructure initiative. I can announce that I am making a further £6 million available over two years in additional allocations, mainly to local authorities.
On 24 May, the Executive's full response to the Cubie recommendations was published in the consultation document, "Scotland the Learning Nation: Helping Students". Launching the document at Anniesland College, my colleague, the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, announced an £8 million package focusing on child care for students. Part of the package committed £6 million over two years to help students in further education with child care costs. The result will be significant improvements in student parents' ability to access child care.
However, it is not as straightforward as that. If we give students the means to take up child care places, we must ensure that the places exist, which is why, as outlined by the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning on 24 May, £2 million of the £8 million package will be committed to local authorities to fund improvements in the child care infrastructure for student parents. That £2 million is part of the overall commitment to the child care strategy until 2002, but is additional to the allocations made to date to local authorities.
The rate at which the early education and child care sector has expanded in the past three years is remarkable, but while we are busy expanding the sector to meet the challenge of universal pre-school provision and to address the wider child care needs of families for wraparound care, we must continue to invest in the infrastructure of the existing system.
We recognise that the long-term health of the pre-school and child care sector depends on the quality and quantity of its physical infrastructure and equipment. We also recognise the need to address the shortage of properly equipped provision to cater for children with special educational needs and physical disabilities. I am therefore pleased to announce that a further £2 million, of the £49 million total for the child care strategy, will be made available to local authorities this year and next year, to improve the child care infrastructure in their area. Taken with the extra support for student child care, that makes a total of £4 million over this and next year. That £4 million is additional funding, which will go direct to local authorities to supplement the funds that they already receive to implement the child care strategy.
As I have said several times, the child care strategy commits the Executive to the expansion of high-quality, affordable child care. However, we will never achieve that goal without a flexible, well-trained work force. The Executive is not blind to the existing strains on the early years work force. Therefore, our plans will be accompanied by funding worth around £4 million over two years. We will expect authorities to involve partners in decisions on the use of those resources at local level.
Overall, therefore, I am making available £8 million over two years in additional allocations to local authorities. That is a sizeable injection of funds, which shows the Executive's commitment to continuing its investment in child care and to producing a system that is available to those who require it, at levels that they can afford. I commend the motion to Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament supports the progress that the Executive has made towards the twin goals of free pre-school education and affordable, accessible, quality childcare in every locality and welcomes the additional resources allocated to local authorities and other bodies in order to make further progress with these objectives.
I was somewhat confused when I saw from the business bulletin that we were having this debate today. It was not immediately obvious why we were having the debate, given that we had a debate on child care last November and that Sam Galbraith made a ministerial statement on the subject in May.
I was glad to hear the funding announcements that the minister made in his opening remarks, although I am sure that he will forgive me for reserving judgment until I get the opportunity to check whether they were announcements of new money or of recycled money. As members will know, recycled money, rather like recycled debates, seems to be the stuff of the Executive.
I cannot always say this about Conservative motions, but I am sorry that I missed this morning's debate on recycled spending announcements. I am sure that Sam Galbraith—if he can stop yawning for a moment—would be glad to hear me say that I think that he should be high up the list of people who deserve the reward for recycled spending announcements. On 21 September 1998, in a press release, Sam Galbraith announced £91 million for child care. On 7 December 1998, Sam Galbraith announced an additional £15 million for child care, even though that £15 million was part of the original £91 million. On 17 November 1999, Sam Galbraith—by then in his new role as Minister for Children and Education—announced a cash boost for child care, which was followed up by a press release. However, the press release went on to say that the resources were part of a total package of £91 million allocated to child care. That is the same spending announcement, three times over. Although I welcome the announcements made by the minister today, it is fair for MSPs to take the opportunity to check whether it is new money.
Child care is one of the most important issues in the minister's portfolio. However, today's debate seems to be an opportunity for the Executive to indulge in the kind of self-congratulation that drives the women's institute crazy. Before the minister gets upset, let me make it clear—as I did in the debate last November—that I think that the Executive deserves credit for the priority that it has given to child care and the development of a national strategy and for the progress towards the provision of child care and nursery places for three and four-year-olds. However, people do not want to hear simply about what has been done, particularly as most of that is down to the hard work of local authorities and child care partnerships, as the SNP amendment reflects. People also want to know what will be done further to improve provision and to address the many problems that have been identified.
Many issues were raised in the debate last November and again in the statement last month. I make no apologies for raising them again today, because we are still awaiting a reasonable response from the Executive on many of those issues. They are issues of quality, about affordability, sustainability and the particular problems of rural communities.
Last month, the Daycare Trust published a survey that showed that, even taking account of the child care strategy and the working families tax credit, three out of four parents believed that working parents do not have access to enough affordable child care. When I raised that issue before, the minister put on his best Victor Meldrew scowl and said that the working families tax credit was a "highly significant start". I agree that the working families tax credit is a good start, but does the minister agree that it has its limitations?
Parents in receipt of the child care credit still have to pay at least 30 per cent of the costs of child care. For those on tight budgets, even that amount would put quality child care out of reach. Some people who previously, on specific initiatives, would have been receiving 100 per cent subsidised child care, will now have to pay a proportion of the costs. Students and those who are out of work are not helped at all by the working families tax credit, and there is evidence that child care providers are increasing fees because of the availability of the tax credit, adversely affecting those who do not qualify for child care credit.
Although I accept that working families tax credit is a significant start—or as the minister said today, is making child care affordable for many parents—can he or the deputy minister outline what further measures the Executive is putting in place to make child care genuinely affordable for all parents?
We move on to the issue of sustainability. As we know, new opportunities funding is being used to stimulate the supply of out-of-school places. However, that is funding for one year only and there are huge concerns about what will happen to many of those places when the funding runs out.
When I last raised that issue, the minister said that sustainability would be provided through the working families tax credit, but there are real doubts among child care providers about whether the working families tax credit, on its own, can sustain the new places that are being created. Do not just take my word for that; let me quote Children in Scotland, which said of the new opportunities funding that the
"limit of one year is too short . . . there is some apprehension about what happens when NOF money runs out. There is genuine concern about local authorities being left to pick up the tab."
Children in Scotland also made the important point that that problem has a disproportionate impact on rural communities, because child care projects in those areas generally take longer to become established.
Capability Scotland, which has a particular interest in child care from the point of view of children with special educational needs, said at yesterday's meeting of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee that it welcomed new opportunities funding but had real concerns about sustainability.
Those are real concerns, held by real people who provide and use child care. Will the minister listen to those concerns? Can he guarantee sustainability beyond one year, without projects requiring to look to local authorities for support? If not, what further support can he put in place to ensure the sustainability of those child care places?
I will deal briefly with issues that have been raised by people in rural communities in particular. I welcome the fact that there is weighting of funding towards rural communities, and the comments that the minister made today. However, there are problems that are particular to rural communities. I mentioned new opportunities funding; let me give another example. In Highland, it is estimated by Children in Scotland and others that 75 per cent of three-year-olds will have a child care place by autumn 2000, but the other 25 per cent will be the hardest to reach because they live in remote areas and will be unable to travel. How does the Executive propose to reach those children, and what alternative methods of provision will it put in place?
Quality child care depends on the availability of appropriately qualified child care workers. Again, I welcome the minister's comments on that, but last month I asked him for an update on how many of the 5,000 new deal opportunities that he promised back in 1998 had been taken up. He could not give me that update, but he has had a few weeks to find the answer, and I trust that the Deputy Minister for Children and Education will be able to give it when he winds up today.
Quality for all is also important. It is important that children with special needs have access, like other children, to quality child care. I would like to hear further comments from the deputy minister about the steps that are being taken to ensure integration through links with educational psychological services, speech therapists and so on.
Those are just some of the issues that are being raised out there in the real world, by real parents and real child care providers. I make no apology for raising those issues; people out there want to hear the answers. The Executive should not be defensive on the subject; after all, the Tories left a woeful legacy on child care. Nobody expects things to be perfect overnight, but there are real issues to be addressed. Instead of the Executive patting itself on the head, perhaps the minister, in his winding-up speech, could answer some of those questions.
I move amendment S1M-1007.1, to leave out from "supports" to end and insert:
"congratulates local authorities and childcare partnerships on the progress made by them in providing more nursery places to three and four year olds and increasing provision of affordable, accessible, quality childcare in every locality; welcomes the resources already allocated for the furtherance of these objectives: and calls upon the Scottish Executive to ensure that its future policies and spending plans will enable local authorities to make continued progress towards the achievement of universal access to free pre-school education and affordable, accessible, quality childcare."
I was interested to hear Nicola Sturgeon's remark about woeful provision. That certainly does not fit with the reality or the history, but I will leave Nicola Sturgeon to make her disparaging and inaccurate remarks.
I have pleasure in moving the amendment and in opening for the Conservatives today. It will not have escaped the notice of the Minister for Children and Education and the Deputy Minister for Children and Education that our amendment does not seek to delete words from their motion. Instead, we seek to congratulate them on the work that they are doing. We do that in a friendly spirit; after all, it was the action of the Conservative Government, in introducing nursery vouchers for four-year-olds, which stimulated—that is an important word—child care provision and the child care debate in Scotland. Vouchers not only increased provision and gave parents greater access to voluntary and private provision, but, more important, increased choice.
Will the member give way?
No. I am just starting; I will get into my stride before I consider taking interventions.
That choice increased parental expectations and led to more flexible child care provision and better quality child care. I say that because it was clear that, although many local authorities had good provision, it was not consistent throughout Scotland and vouchers sought to raise levels across the country.
Will the member give way?
No; I am carrying on.
By allowing parents a direct choice through vouchers, we gave them a stake and control in their child's education that they did not have before and do not have now. Such direct parental involvement brought the greatest revolution in child care that this country has seen, and the Executive's child care strategy is built upon the good work that the vouchers started and is intended to meet the expectations of parents that vouchers raised. Those expectations have meant that some local authorities such as Edinburgh are now trying to compete directly with the private sector, by starting wraparound care and extending nursery hours. The stimulus has come because working parents with the ability to choose have chosen private care because of flexibility, which is one of the key aspects of private sector provision.
Of course, the irony about the debate is that the strategy is not needed to achieve the child care strategy's aims of more flexible, better quality and increased provision. They would be more quickly and simply achieved if nursery vouchers were reintroduced, as we proposed in our manifesto.
I must confess that I think that Mr Monteith is speaking the biggest load of rubbish I have ever heard about nursery education. Nursery vouchers were an unmitigated disaster and caused complete chaos in certain rural areas. He simply does not know what he is talking about. He should ask some rural authorities in the Highlands, Orkney or Shetland what happened when the Conservative Government tried to introduce that policy. What he is saying is nonsense.
As someone who not only has visited many establishments, institutions, nurseries and playgroups but has brought up children of my own, I can testify that vouchers were highly popular. Indeed, when I visited a number of areas such as some parts of north Lanarkshire not noted for their Tory support, people were supporting the Tory party because of the voucher scheme.
Labour claims that its child care policies are improving choice for parents. That is simply not the case. The Government's own figures show that the majority of four-year-olds are in local authority places: that figure, which was 80 per cent in 1997, has now risen to about 86 per cent. Choice is clearly being eroded. Labour's decision to abolish the nursery voucher scheme took choice away from parents and concentrated it in the hands of local authorities that decide on their own child care partners. Administration costs also vary considerably. It is clear that top-slicing continues and that nurseries receive very little from it. In Falkirk, the charge is £295. In Highland Council, it is £245 for the voluntary sector and £105 for the private sector. North Lanarkshire Council charges £240 and Western Isles Council £35. Local authorities impose those charges and private nurseries have to pass them on to parents as an extra charge.
Parents and nurseries usually receive little or nothing from that charge, and the fact that it varies so much shows that there is no consistent view about what could or should be provided by way of training or other support. I am sure that most nurseries would say that little or nothing is provided, which is what I am told when I visit them.
The Scottish Pre-School Play Association is also extremely concerned about the future of the partnerships, and believes that the situation will worsen for partner providers in the future through the funding of places for three-year-olds as local authorities deliberately build up their own provision over time. The association believes that the Government's proposal to remove the ring fence and put resources into councils' general funds will mean that resources will be even more tightly restricted to council places.
The fact is that only the Conservatives have a genuine policy to assist parents and improve choice and provision of child care in Scotland. Unlike the Executive, we trust parents to make choices and to determine what is best for their children. Under the Executive, child care is about "nanny knows best". We must provide a future with improved, flexible vouchers that genuinely allow parents to meet their own child care needs in a way that suits their family circumstances and with a child care ethos that meets their views. If we want true partnership, let the customers find the appropriate partners for their child care.
I move amendment S1M-1007.2, to insert at end:
"; recognises that this progress has built upon the achievements of the last UK Conservative Government in increasing demand for high quality pre-school education and childcare and in increasing choice for parents through the nursery voucher scheme, and looks forward to the reintroduction of vouchers as a means to further extend provision of childcare and increase choice for parents."
What can I say? Beam me up, Scotty. Strike me blue, I have heard it all. We all know of the Japanese soldiers that they would find in the 1970s on wee islands in the Pacific who were fighting on for decades after the war had ended. I must tell Mr Monteith that Thatcherism is dead, my friend. It is dead and buried and will not resurrect itself.
It is easy to see that Brian was never a councillor. As Tavish Scott said, the Conservative's voucher scheme was chaos. Peter Peacock and I know that only too well.
Mr Stone may remember that, although I was not a councillor, he was my client. I have worked in local authorities.
Our association was the kiss of death for the campaign for smaller local authorities in the Highlands, as Mr Peacock knows. He was seen popping champagne corks when Mr Monteith became a consultant.
Mr Monteith's speech made me think that I had stepped into a time machine. Did I get into the lift at parliamentary headquarters or did I get into the TARDIS? The speech was full of backward-looking stuff. It is not on, and Brian knows it.
This is a good-news story. The minister has come today with money in his pocket. As Nicola Sturgeon said, the Executive should not be on the defensive today. I support the minister and everything that has been delivered.
Shock, horror.
Oh, shock, horror, drama. Nicola Sturgeon supported the Executive in her speech as well. Although she spent time going through the figures, she could not deny that it was a good-news story. The money is on the table.
Nicola Sturgeon mentioned the transport problem. With a story such as this comes a challenge. The solution on the transport issue is the idea of community transport, which Sarah Boyack has been working on. There is a link between the provision of transport for small children and the provision of transport for the elderly. Both groups have the same requirement in terms of safety. The Highlands and Islands integrated transport authority, when it comes about, can tackle the challenge of community transport head on.
Quality training is an issue for the Highlands. We mentioned in November that, for reasons of distance and rurality, it is sometimes difficult to get a trained person into the job. Physical accommodation brings challenges. Many Highland schools are small, Victorian buildings. They were fine for their time, but work will have to be done on safety if nursery units are to be put in.
From my own experience, I know what a difference that type of provision can make. When I left Aberdeenshire in 1986 and came to live in Tain, my daughter was four years old. In Aberdeenshire, there was no provision of nursery units, but there was in Tain. Engaged, as I was—dare I say it in this chamber—in cheese making, and with my wife working as well, the provision was a godsend. That was an example of early intervention by Highland Council and it—as well as similar adventurous work across other councils—did more to set the agenda than anything that Mrs Thatcher, Mr Forsyth or any of their cohorts did with pieces of paper. Their vouchers scheme was more akin to lining up at the cold-meat counter in Safeway than delivering nursery education.
This speech, like all of my speeches, contains a challenge for the minister. It is linked to the debate that we had last week on the subject of Gaelic. Jean Brodie said:
"Give me a girl at an impressionable age, and she is mine for life."
It strikes me that, in the nursery system, we have an opportunity. In those areas that require Gaelic, we could increase the Gaelic teaching. Academic evidence shows that considerably fewer man-hours are involved in launching a child aged three or four on the road to learning a language than in doing so with an older child.
I would be grateful if the minister would consider my suggestion as his work progresses. I believe that such a move would go some way towards addressing the will in the Gaelic communities to underpin the language. The minister has put more money on the table today. Let us not muck about: this is a good day for our children. We should all take pride in this motion, and I have great pleasure in supporting it.
We now move to open debate. Many members want to speak, and the time is limited; therefore, I would be grateful if members could keep their speeches to four minutes.
I welcome today's debate on early education and child care. As Nicola Sturgeon said, we have debated young people's issues on many occasions, and I welcome the fact that we are once again debating them. I could debate them every week if members wanted to do so.
As Jamie Stone said, today we heard some good news. We are not just having a debate for its own sake, and the money that the minister has announced will be welcomed by all local authorities. If Brian Monteith had taken my intervention at the beginning of his speech, it would have clarified some of what he went on to say. I was going to make the point that it did not take Tory vouchers to achieve almost universal nursery education in our local authorities: Labour-controlled Fife Council had achieved that long before the vouchers were announced. In addition, the advent of a Labour Government has meant that there are almost as many places for three-year-olds in Fife. That situation was replicated in several authorities, and it is erroneous in the extreme to suggest that only Tory education vouchers spurred on pre-school education in Scotland.
I hope that progress will be made on some of the points that are included in the document that has been issued by the Executive, entitled "Regulation of Early Education and Childcare: The Way Ahead". It was recently brought to my attention that neither the current legislation nor the guidance that is available from the Scottish Executive prescribes staff-pupil ratios or the size of groups of pre-school children for outings. That is a serious omission. Staff-pupil ratios in nurseries are clearly defined, but those ratios are not specified for outings. I am conscious of the fact that the Executive document discusses those issues; however, I would like clarification from the minister that it will specify the exact figures for such a vulnerable age group.
I am also conscious of the fact that the Executive document talks about the importance of outputs. Currently, day care guidance requires attention to the quality of experience, but deals in more detail with the inputs, such as staff numbers and the suitability of premises. Although those requirements will remain and act as a basic safeguard, they cannot ensure quality provision. I am therefore pleased that the Executive document makes it clear that the quality of the output of day care and education provision for pre-school children will be measured. It is not enough just to accommodate children. There must be some added value to their experience.
I am interested in the number of letters that I am receiving from parents in my constituency about deferred entry to primary school for children whose birthdays fall in the early months of the calendar year and the late months of the school year. I raise this as a general point, not as a major issue. In Britain, the compulsory school starting age is five years, but in other European countries it is six years. Has the Scottish Executive considered studying any of the evidence from countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark, to find out whether there is anything to learn from their experience of starting children in compulsory education later and achieving greater educational outputs as a result?
Nicola Sturgeon—and Brian Monteith, to an extent—complimented the Executive on the strides forward that it has made in implementing a child care strategy. As Jamie Stone said, we should welcome what has happened today. All power to the Executive's elbow.
We welcome the fact that all staff are eventually to have qualifications in child care, either through on-the-job training, by seeking accreditation of their skills and experience or by formal training. We recognise that many people are informally involved in child care and childminding; those people have to be encouraged into the educational process.
I hope that members will bear with me for the next part. The national certificate of child care exists as a one-year course, which is succeeded by a year's higher national certificate course, leading to a qualification equivalent to the old nursery nurse certificate. For people between the age of 17 and 20, entry requires just three S grades. Over-21s gain entry by interview. Other avenues of entry, such as the Scottish vocational qualification in child care, are available to people who are currently practising child care without formal qualifications. People who want to enhance their qualifications can take the professional development award. I gleaned most of that information from a phone call to the James Watt College, and I also received an interesting wiring diagram from Lauder College in Dunfermline, which gives the whole process by which people can become qualified in child care.
It has been suggested to me that, to encourage more participation in formal qualifications, more status must be given to SVQ2 and the national certificate, which concentrate on the practical side, and are less deterring to people with no formal qualifications. Most courses are available on a full-time or a part-time basis. In-service courses are available for people who are working, and there are distance-learning facilities for people who are not in the immediate vicinity of a college. There are also on-site child care, nursery and after-school care facilities for participants' children, all of which are designed to make access to courses as easy as possible. Those should be preconditions of every course that is available in the child care field. Sufficient funding must be provided to enable people to participate in courses. How far the additional funding that has been announced today will go, I do not know. I understand that people who are just outwith benefit are having difficulty with funding. That has to be looked into.
All those courses are an improvement on the status quo in after-school care. I phoned an excellent carer yesterday, who reported: "They have some courses, and you can go if you like. I try to go once in a while; otherwise they get nippy." That is not the way in which to arrive at an efficient child care system. There appears to be a gap in the training pattern in after-school care, which covers a wider age group than pre-school care. That gap should be filled.
There should be sufficient flexibility in the system to accommodate the experienced parents and grandparents who are currently doing good work in child care. If they are in any sort of organisation at all, they must not be frightened off by talk of formal qualifications. The interim solution may be a blend of informal and formal qualifications. Nor should there be an overemphasis on the need to have management training that may frighten off some voluntary providers.
Whatever benefits accrue to the children as a result of planned improvements in child care—and we welcome those—the education of the carers will enrich the carers, will build their own self-esteem and confidence, and will possibly lead to further education for themselves. All those things would be beneficial to their children, to themselves and to the people of Scotland.
I would like to speak about child care and early learning from the Gaelic angle, which was mentioned by Jamie Stone. Many of the 6,000 languages that are spoken worldwide are in danger of disappearing. Incredibly, we are losing one every two weeks, on average. Gaelic, our historic Scottish tongue, is also under threat. The problem is that, although the language is taught in schools, most children revert to English in the playground, and not many homes now converse in Gaelic. The television is also mainly in English so, not surprisingly, English is predominant.
Latin, a dead language, is a gateway to western European literature, history, art and culture. In the same way, Gaelic is a key to a glorious Scottish heritage of history, literature, poetry and song, which is priceless. The best way in which to teach children is from as early an age as possible. Parents should be able to choose such education for their children, and the Government must give its support to that.
It is reckoned that to bring a child to fluency in Gaelic takes an average of some 2,000 hours of learning from the ages of two to five. A new fast-track method is being developed by the Gaelic playgroups association. That method is undergoing sea trials at the moment and could bring the time needed to achieve fluency down to 1,000 or even 500 hours. The details of the scheme will be announced soon. I urge the Executive to put its weight behind such an exciting development.
Funding is desperately needed to develop the fast-track system, which will have a big social inclusion aspect. The time taken to become fluent in Gaelic could be cut to perhaps even a quarter of the time now taken and the method could be used by children to learn other languages as well. Importantly, it will enable Scotland to become a leader in the field and to export the system to other countries, but funding is the key.
The lack of teaching and nursery staff holds everything back. There is a shortage of nursery nurses and pre-school staff and too few development staff to cater for groups that want to set up in Scotland. In some local authorities such as Argyll and Bute, funding is very low and existing primary schools are already under threat of closure. The fast-track system would enable children to enter school already fluent in Gaelic at the age of five, whereas at the moment their first year at school is often spent learning the language.
In New Zealand, where the Maori population is under 10 per cent of the total population, all children learn Maori at school. In the Basque country, 500 new teachers a year are being trained in the language and teachers are being taken out of school to learn Basque, for 40 hours a week for one or two years, until they are fluent in it. That allows the new system to develop more quickly. The Basque Government provides a lot of funding for that. The benefits to children of becoming bilingual at a very early age are well known. They are far more able to learn other languages.
An announcement will be made later this year on the fast-track solution for Gaelic. I urge the Executive to back it to the hilt. If the scheme is successful, it will lead to a generation of children being proud of and confident in Gaelic. They will never lose it and will ensure an expansion of the Gaelic language and culture that will greatly enrich our Scottish heritage worldwide.
I notice from the daily bulletin that the amendment in the name of Brian Monteith talks about patients rather than parents. That may be a mistake, although I imagine the whole Tory group will agree with me that it is time that he spent more time in the "institutions" he mentioned earlier.
I express a personal interest in child care. As a councillor, I spent some considerable time arguing at local government level for the expansion of nursery education, long before it became a glint in Michael Forsyth's eye. We had some success in that in Shetland, as did Mr Peacock and Mr Stone in the Highlands.
I think the member will find that Michael Forsyth not only was a parent but was also a councillor sooner than he was and had that glint before he did.
I would not dispute that, but we will leave glints for another day.
I want to praise the Executive for bringing forward the motion and, more to the point, the funding that Mr Galbraith announced earlier. I have a couple of points on the consultation paper "Regulation of Early Education and Childcare: The Way Ahead"—which I believe Colin Campbell also mentioned—arising from my meeting with the Shetland child care partnership in my constituency on Monday of this week, after, I may say, I had dropped my kids off at school.
The premise of the consultation paper is that the current system is in need of reform. Some professionals and parent providers particularly are concerned about that suggestion. They are also concerned about the ethos of the consultation paper. Does it suggest that there is a need to move towards a more educational type of provision rather than emphasising child care? It is important that the Executive's response to the consultation includes the question of ethos—the balance between education and child care.
What, too, is the role for local authorities to be in the regulation of early education and child care? In my constituency one local authority inspector currently has a very central role not only in inspecting providers but in working constructively on development and co-ordination of the service. In reading the consultation paper, I can find no relationship or relevance to that role. It would appear sensible not to dismiss that role, especially when considering the size of the authorities in the cases concerned. The role may differ according to the size of authority.
Mr Monteith mentioned this in his speech: would the minister accept that not all local authorities are top-slicing the £1,200 per place? Some are passing on all the money to the partner providers. I am concerned, however, about the regulation of early education child care. Were that child care simply to be introduced, some money might have to be top-sliced—because that is the system—in order to find mechanisms to fulfil the requirements of the regulation proposals.
There is concern that playgroups are going through considerable change. There has been something of a rolling programme, and the proportionate aspect especially needs to be considered with regard to people who give up much voluntary time because they care about providing that service in small communities.
I would like briefly to mention staff-pupil ratios, which Scott Barrie mentioned. Surely there should not be a blanket ratio, as the consultation paper suggests. I would be grateful if the minister could consider that in the context of the consultation period. The ratio should reflect different circumstances and different need. In Shetland, for example, the current ratio for teachers to three to five-year-old pupils is 1:6. I would not want to see that diminished because of a national regulation.
We need quality care, standards and best value, but that must go hand in hand with appropriate training, budgets and support. I support the motion in Sam Galbraith's name.
I am glad that we have the opportunity today to discuss early years education and child care. We in the Scottish Parliament can be proud of what we are helping to achieve in those fields. Pre-school and nursery education, even five or 10 ten years ago, was relatively thin on the ground, or was limited to the fortunate or privileged few. I make the exception for areas such as Labour-controlled Fife, mentioned by Scott Barrie a few minutes ago, where substantial progress had been made.
Now, everywhere we look, in every constituency, nurseries are springing up. Whereas the past three or four decades were marked by the expansion of higher education and the huge number of new and ever-larger colleges and universities, the defining feature of this era is the phenomenal growth of nursery provision. There are still some prejudices to overcome. It is still assumed by some that early years education is there just to replace working mothers, or to make up for something missing in children's lives, and not there as an inherently valuable service in its own right.
For the most part, the benefits for children and their families are there for all to see. The advantages in promoting social inclusion are now accepted. I am glad that we have put child care and education in the motion, because they are closely linked. It is recognised that good teaching is best provided in a safe, caring, stable environment, and that carers, whether trained or untrained, have a role to play in educating our youngest children.
The process benefits us all, not just the individual, but our schools, our community and our society. The process has been achieved through partnership working, which has been supported by the Executive and supplied and regulated by local authorities. It has often also been delivered by the private or voluntary sector.
There are other hurdles to overcome. In many ways, policy is still being developed and good practice is being built on. Questions are still being asked about the structure of the pre-school and early primary curriculum: for example, whether the formal teaching process for boys should be delayed until they are five, six or seven.
The importance of learning through play is now appreciated, and there are lessons to be learned for older children. In the past, those working on nursery education just thought of children enjoying themselves, but it is now recognised that good communication, mobility and social skills, among many others, can be developed when the child is under appropriate supervision. I hesitate to speak as a father, but many of us are aware of the differences between a young child on the rampage and one learning through a stimulating, hands-on environment.
I want to express my reservations over baseline assessment. For the most part, baseline assessment in primary 1 is a useful tool in identifying the needs of children and families, and in helping teachers to evaluate best practice and to raise standards. However, there is the odd horror story of children treating early assessment like secondary school exams or finals. There is a line to be drawn between assessment and testing. We should not be asking our youngest children to prove their competence. Instead, we should be concentrating our efforts on building their self-confidence and letting them express themselves. We must ensure that teachers spend the bulk of their time teaching pupils, not measuring them.
One of the largest strides forward has been made in providing reliable information for parents. Where standards once varied widely, now the inspection regime and our proposed new measures on the regulation of care give parents the reassurance of quality that money could not buy. When parents are asked what they want from pre-school provision or nursery care—and I speak as a parent myself—the answer is invariably a safe environment where children can learn, run by well-trained staff. We will continue to question the methods of delivering pre-school education, but I hope that we can all accept that we have made huge strides in providing that education.
The transition from one stage of the education process to another can be one of the most difficult times for all children. It is a measure of how far we have come that the first day at school is no longer quite the momentous occasion that it once was in a child's or parent's life, nor so traumatic for all concerned. By the time our children reach school, we have given them the start that they deserve: the chance to make the most of their abilities, and to go on and make the most of their opportunities to contribute to future generations.
The key to this debate is affordability. Although that is an extensive subject and could easily consume the whole debate, I would like to use the short time that I have to highlight my particular concern: that of the working families tax credit.
Since its introduction last October, WFTC has attracted considerable attention. Only last month there was a seminar in Glasgow with the theme: "Is the new working families tax credit working for you?" Introduced to replace family credit, it is widely accepted that the WFTC is an improvement on its predecessor. However, while we recognise those benefits, there are many areas of concern that must be addressed. It is a means-tested credit, so applicants must apply for it. Despite the Government's £12 million advertising campaign, there is still a generally low awareness which, together with complicated forms, has resulted in a smaller take-up than was hoped for.
I am pleased that Angus Council has led the way in addressing that problem. The council has devised a programme which calculates eligibility for WFTC. When the benefit was introduced, the council began a campaign to maximise take-up in which 5,400 staff were contacted with information. Forms were returned, a simple eligibility check was carried out and a telephone information line established. Thanks to Angus Council's actions, employees are now better off to the tune of £300,000. The success of that initiative has resulted in other local authorities pursuing Angus Council's initiative, to the extent that, in two weeks' time, there will be a national launch of the scheme by the Scottish Low Pay Unit to attract wider use and wider benefit.
I am concerned with a number of other aspects of the working families tax credit. Any award granted is eroded through the loss of housing benefit and other council tax benefits. Glasgow City Council research shows that, on average, families that appear to gain £110 in WFTC in effect gain only £25 per week because of the loss of housing benefit and council tax benefit allied to the cost of travel, school meals and child care. At the WFTC seminar in Glasgow, there was grave concern that many parents, after commencing work and receiving benefit, gave up work because they were no better off. In some cases, they were worse off.
It is clear that the Government's underlying policy purpose is not working in those cases. Parents have raised concerns that awards are made for a period of 26 weeks. That has created difficulty for parents facing increased child care charges, with the parent having to bear the increase until the next review date. The fact that the system does not allow for changing circumstances is a particular problem which I hope that the minister will address.
The council tax credit covers a maximum of 70 per cent of child care. Parents must therefore find 30 per cent of costs. Council tax credit does not help students, or those not working. Some people who previously received 100 per cent subsidised child care under specific labour market initiatives now must find 30 per cent of the cost of their child care from what is, usually, a very low wage. Free school meals and the automatic rights to passported benefits are lost when income reaches £11,250, which simply increases in-work costs for many who claim WFTC. Once again, Angus Council must be congratulated for addressing that problem by spending extra money on subsidising school meals for those who, under the scheme, are no longer eligible.
Child care providers have raised concerns about the provision of child care tax credit, as part of the WFTC, for six months after applicants have signed for a place, even if the applicants do not intend to use that place. Feedback from child care providers indicates that some parents may claim child care tax credit without intending to use the child care service provided. That could cause problems for nurseries, out-of-school care, childminders, those who provide child care services and parents who may find that child care providers introduce a system of refundable deposits or contracts that stipulate advance notice requirements before children are withdrawn.
I want the Executive to consider those problems, and I also want to take this opportunity of saying that I appreciate this debate on these important issues. I hope that the measures taken will produce real and lasting benefits for communities throughout Scotland.
As we are short of time, I will leave out my preamble.
I commend the Executive for the policies that it is pursuing on early education and child care, and I am pleased to learn that 68 per cent of three-year-olds are now in nursery education. Early education and child care are important in providing children with an enjoyable and stimulating experience, which can help their personal and social development. However, good quality and affordable child care can also enable parents who wish to work to do so by supporting them. Part of achieving that objective is the promotion of the vision of family-friendly employment practices to businesses and employers in Scotland. I know that the Executive is committed to promoting that.
However, MSPs should also pursue that vision in our working environment. In my first speech in the chamber, I said that if Safeway could provide crèche services for its shoppers, surely Scotland's Parliament could do likewise so that parents can access the Government. I am well aware of the space restrictions in our temporary accommodation and I do not doubt that other employers have the same problem, but it is about time Parliament showed commitment and set an example for others to follow.
How can we expect business and employers to adopt family-friendly policies when we do nothing, in a practical sense, in our own workplace to promote such an ethos? A nursery is required for everyone who works in the Parliament and we should provide a drop-in crèche for visitors and for people in emergencies.
It is not acceptable to wait for the new accommodation, although—while I am on that subject—I hate to think that we will have three or four restaurants while being given the excuse that there is not enough space for a crèche and a nursery. Frankly, every MSP must take responsibility for that.
The present members' lounge lies empty most of the time. Occasionally, it is used for lunches or receptions. If we got our priorities right, that space could become a drop-in crèche. We do not want it to become a smoking room instead.
I have no doubt that the Executive is determined to provide support for children and families, and I fully support Sam Galbraith's motion. In that sense, the Parliament is family friendly. However, alongside the Executive's policies, we must get our own house in order, and we must start right now. If not, the message that we will send to employers is, "Do as we say, not as we do."
Fine words and rhetoric in debates are worth nothing unless they are accompanied by action. I urge every MSP to demand action now, to prove that we can lead by example.
We have time for two more speakers, if they keep their speeches to about three minutes.
I would welcome an indication from the minister about the extent to which he believes accessibility in child care has been achieved, as distinct from reiterating the funding that he has targeted at the child care strategy.
In rural areas, accessibility is still some way from realisation. Nicola Sturgeon gave an example from the Highlands, where different methods of providing such a service should be considered and promoted. However, that would require additional support. Distance is the overwhelming factor in the Highlands and in other regions.
Transport has been mentioned, but unless such considerations are made integral to all rural child care developments, the true cost of providing those facilities will be underestimated and projects will struggle to be viable almost from day one. Amazingly, some bids from rural groups for new opportunities fund money have been turned down on the ground that their unit costs are too high. Perhaps that is because they submitted realistic transport costs. That has happened despite the Scottish Executive's acknowledgement of the higher cost of child care in rural areas, as evidenced in the welcome supplement that was made available to rural local authorities.
It has never been satisfactorily explained why the new opportunities fund is restricted to funding new places, rather than existing ones. All too commonly, child care groups experience problems of sustainability. The new opportunities funding limit of one year for most projects is too short. What happens when the money runs out? Most local authorities are unable to provide continuation funding. The policy does not even begin to take into account the devastating effect on families who have come to rely on a service that is suddenly withdrawn after one year. Surely accessibility should last longer than that. A sample of child care partnerships in predominantly rural areas were asked what they needed to help support their work and methods of sustaining services. Transport solutions were top of their lists.
The document "Regulation of Early Education and Childcare: The Way Ahead" refers to the development of innovative solutions to cater for local circumstances, which sounds very good. I hope that it will apply in rural areas, where it might be difficult for local groups to access the involvement of teachers in the delivery of pre-school education.
Quality will be the key test, but I am concerned that we might allow the perception that there is a two-tier system of child care and education—that in rural areas the standard might be lower. I urge the Executive to clarify what is meant by flexible arrangements, to ensure that such a perception does not persist.
I would like to focus on an area that I believe is missing from the Executive's strategy and from most debates about pre-school and early-years provision: the issues that surround gender and work with young children.
In Scotland, 98 per cent of the workers who provide child care to young children up to five years of age are women. Out of 3,245 students who are currently studying for a child care qualification, only 25 are men. That is worrying, but it is probably not surprising, given that research shows that women are seen as better carers and teachers of young children than men. Career advisers, teachers and employment agencies rarely suggest child care as a career to boys. What is most worrying—and this is what rules out child care as a choice for most men—is the reaction of a boy's or man's friends and family when he says that he is interested in working with young children. There is an underlying suspicion of men who want to work with children.
I realise that some people, like me, will be in favour of encouraging more men into child care and early-years education, whereas others will not. However, we should at least debate the advantages and disadvantages of a mixed-sex team delivering child care and early-years education. Although I am not comfortable with the assumption that men might provide substitute father figures—particularly for boys from families whose sole parent is a mother—there is evidence that men who work in child care can provide positive role models for boys. If they see men working in a caring profession, that might shape their future career choices. It would be interesting to do more research into the benefits for boys and girls of spending time in mixed-sex environments in their early years—not forgetting the benefits of mixed-sex workplaces to the employees and to the services that are delivered.
I do not expect any commitment from the minister when he sums up at the end of the debate, but I hope that in his summing up he can at least say whether the Executive is prepared to examine the issue. There are some current initiatives that the Executive could consider. In Scotland, the Pilton Partnership is seeking to increase the number of men who work in child care. The Government of Norway has recognised the problem and has set a five-year target to have 20 per cent of child carers being men.
Although it looks unlikely that the Norwegian Government will be able to meet that target, there has been a significant increase in the number of men who work in child care. I will give a plug to a book that was discussed at a conference on Monday, which was organised by Children in Scotland, called "Men in the Nursery". That book would be a good place to start, because it explores and researches the issues in depth.
Now is as good a time as any to make sure that the environment in which children are being looked after in their early years is the proper environment for them. I would be interested to hear what other members have to say, especially the minister.
We move now to winding-up speeches. I call Ian Jenkins for the Liberal Democrats, who has up to four minutes.
I welcome the debate and its constructive tone and the announcement that 68 per cent of three-year-olds are in free pre-school education. That is a great success story. I welcome also the special help for students. This afternoon has been positive in every way.
We must remember that we are trying to help children. We are giving youngsters massive opportunities, access to facilities, personal and social development and stimulation. In every way, this is a success story for the Government and Parliament. It is also good for parents, because they can get access to advice and expanded opportunities that will help to educate their children.
As far as the amendments are concerned, Jamie Stone said that Brian Monteith must have been in a TARDIS. In the Education, Culture and Sport Committee we are used to Brian Monteith's probing amendments. It is clear that he is really a lunar probe, because there is something of the moon about many of his amendments. That is Brian dealt with.
Nicola Sturgeon's amendment would be perfectly acceptable to everybody if it was an add-on amendment, but it seeks not to give any credit to the Executive. She did that in her speech, but not in the wording of the amendment.
Read the amendment.
The amendment acknowledges local authorities, but not the Executive.
I worry still whether all the money that has been announced will go where it is supposed to go. There is tension over ring-fencing and top-slicing. We need to consider that. There is a need for training. I am worried about the danger of having too much bureaucracy. I hope that there will still be flexibility, because we do not wish to put people off by making it too difficult for them to provide help, although of course we want to maintain standards.
I ask the minister to remember what Scott Barrie said in the Education, Culture and Sport Committee about deferred entry and what was said about clearing up the difficulty when youngsters who are born with a February birthday start school.
Scott Barrie and Ken Macintosh alluded to the fact that the system is starting to take off. However, once the system is better established we need to take a step back to examine what we are doing with three to five-year-olds and to consider whether we need to examine the starting point for formal education. We need to consider not testing pupils and not making formal education about results, results, results. We need to think about whether results are the be-all and end-all. We want to allow children to be three, four and five-year-olds and to develop as individuals before we start taking them into the test, test, test regime.
Before I concentrate on what was covered in today's debate, I would like to take the minister back to the dyspraxia debate that we had in Glasgow and reiterate the points that were raised about how important nursery and pre-school education are for children who have disorders such as dyspraxia and other special needs. The nursery can be a more appropriate environment for support to take place because—unlike in school—there is no need to take children out of the classroom. We need to reiterate that important role. I hope that the minister will confirm that the funding that he promised in that debate will continue to be spent. Children in Scotland raised an important point about linking pre-school provision with educational psychology, speech therapy and other services. There is more work to be done.
My second point ties in with Elaine Smith's comments, with which I agreed 100 per cent. Many members with children can still remember the almost farcical arrangements on the Parliament's opening day. That is not on. A great deal more has to be done—not only in the Parliament, but in workplaces across Scotland—through encouragement of workplace development. There are difficulties for parents who are required to take their children in one direction when their workplace is in another. We need more co-ordination.
Another factor that interests me is the concept of making child support relevant to homeworking. Homeworking is developing enormously and we must understand that although people might wish to work at home, they do not necessarily wish to have their children with them constantly. My son thought it would be useful to fax a leaf to one of his friends and brought my homeworking mechanism to an end.
I hope that the minister will take on board the important rural issues that Nicola Sturgeon and Irene McGugan touched on, and the issues in the document called "The long and winding road—transport and child care in rural Scotland" that has been produced by Children in Scotland. It highlights something that we do not often pick up on, which is the negative impact on a young child's life of excessive travel. That can be a detriment to social activity and physical fitness. As other members have said, many positive things go on in rural areas. However, the minister must demonstrate greater support for that and must not always make cost a determinant. There is a great deal more scope for multi-functional use of facilities.
I hope that the minister will take on board my colleague Jamie McGrigor's point on the Gaelic fast track and will consider the sea trials that we were all fascinated to hear are under way.
Tavish Scott made an important point about the ethos of child care and whether it constitutes education or merely the care of children. By not deleting anything in the Executive motion, we have indicated that there is much to be welcomed in the work that has been done so far.
Scott Barrie said that he could talk about child care on a weekly basis—I am sure that many members do that informally. Members are always talking to people who provide child care.
The debate has provided an opportunity to acknowledge all the work that has been done and the Scottish National Party recognises the work that has been done by the Executive. However, the intention of the SNP's amendment is to bring into focus the fact that the work that has been done on child care often raises as many questions as it answers. The idea behind the amendment is to ensure that any future funding and policy by the Government is directed at addressing the problems that were raised in the debates in November and today and that are raised when we discuss child care in our constituencies.
I would like to touch briefly on a few points that have been raised and pose questions on them for the Deputy Minister for Children and Education to answer in his response.
Children with special educational needs cost more in terms of out-of-school care and pre-school care—that is a simple fact of life. Capability Scotland ran a two-week summer scheme last year for 20 children, which cost £20,000. By my reckoning, the £2 million that the minister mentioned at the beginning of the debate for special educational needs requirements means that we can provide facilities for 80 children with special needs for one year. That would not go anywhere near addressing the problems that are faced by those children. There is similarly patchy provision for children with special needs in pre-school, so we must consider the matter seriously.
Transport has been mentioned more than once. Peter Peacock has been more closely involved in the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill than I have, but I do not remember anything in the bill that says that now we have to provide pre-school places for three and four-year-olds, we must also provide them with transport to pre-school. Can he confirm how local authorities, especially in rural areas, will meet the transport needs of the 68 per cent of three-year-olds who attend pre-school facilities?
Funding was mentioned in the November debate and again today. I do not want to keep asking the same question, so I hope that we will get some answers today. The sustainability of funding concerns pre-school providers and especially those who provide after-school care. One-year funding is insufficient to set up a service and ensure its continuity. I have direct experience of that in my constituency. A parent planned to set up after-school care provision, but when she told people that she could apply for only one year's funding, 20 or so parents said that they would look elsewhere because they did not want to make annual arrangements for out-of-school care for their children.
Qualifications have been mentioned. Nicola Sturgeon has already asked twice about the update on the 5,000 new deal training opportunities. This is an appropriate moment for the Executive to answer those questions. When will the Executive respond to the SPRITO Scotland and Play Scotland joint initiative to set up a play-work, education and training unit? Those organisations had hoped to do that by April this year, but they have still not been given the go-ahead or any advice from the Executive.
Sam Galbraith announced a total of £8 million today. Am I correct in thinking that £2 million of that sum had already been announced as part of the £49 million? I thought that he said that £2 million would be allocated to local authorities from the existing £49 million. If that is right, today's announcement is of £6 million, not £8 million. I ask the minister to answer some of the questions and to stick to the facts.
Although this has been a short debate, many important points have been made and I shall try to address as many of them as I can.
In contrast to the positive speech that Sam Galbraith made, which detailed the Executive's progress in expanding provision, we heard a sadly mean-spirited speech from Nicola Sturgeon, who failed to acknowledge what the Executive has managed to achieve in a very short period of time. Her contribution was confused and contradictory. On the one hand, she said that she was pleased to hear about the funding announcements, but on the other she tried to accuse us of reannouncing money. Throughout his speech, Sam Galbraith made it quite clear that what he announced today were additions to the allocations that were already announced to individual local authorities. It was clear that those sums were within the totals that had previously been announced.
As Nicola Sturgeon said, she missed this morning's debate. That is unfortunate, because her speech was simply a recycling of her prejudices on the matter, which were all well rehearsed this morning. She accused us of self-congratulation and then gave us credit for the priority that we attached to the subject. She said that we do not recognise the fact that students have specific needs, but then said that part of our announcement addressed that matter.
She asked us what else we were doing, when Sam Galbraith had just announced £6 million more for students, £2 million more to support the infrastructure of care facilities for students with young children, £2 million for the infrastructure generally and £4 million for training. That is in addition to all that has been done in the past couple of years to take the matter forward.
Nicola Sturgeon, Jamie Stone, Irene McGugan, David Mundell and others mentioned transport in rural communities. I make it clear that we already take account of the additional spending requirements in rural areas through the funds that we make available. We do that by skewing the allocations towards rural areas and our more deprived communities. That is partly to take account of the fact that there are extra transport needs and partly to take account of the fact that more units of provision are required per head of population. We are trying to give that proper recognition.
It is interesting that some rural areas—specifically Argyll and the Borders—are further ahead than many urban areas in making available more comprehensive provision than would otherwise be available.
Fiona McLeod raised the point about whether the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill covers transport for pre-school education. It covers it to the extent that it empowers local authorities to make provision for transport—a power that local authorities sought.
I had an interesting meeting earlier this week in Lochaber, which is one of the more remote areas in the Highlands. I met a child care partnership and explored with it a range of things it could do to address transport needs within the framework of a range of the Executive's policies. There is, for example, the rural transport fund. There is the funding that we already give to local authorities for their mainstream school provision and for transport costs that might arise in social inclusion partnership areas. We have told local authorities that they should use the flexibility that is available to them to make the right provision for their area and to amalgamate funds where that is appropriate. Local authorities should not feel that there are barriers to making local provision.
I am glad to say that new facilities are being successfully provided throughout rural Scotland. If we can go further in examining best practice in relation to that, we will be happy to do so.
The minister says that the bill empowers local authorities to provide transport. Will he confirm that when the grant for pre-school provision comes to an end and is incorporated into grant-aided expenditure, he will ensure that GAE takes into account increased transport costs for pre-school provision?
There is a loud buzz of private conversation around the chamber. Members could perhaps do the minister the courtesy of not talking during his speech.
As I have said, the existing funding arrangements are skewed towards rural areas. That will continue as part of the funding process for that type of provision.
Brian Monteith made the most bizarre speech that I have heard in the chamber for a long time. I was glad to see that David Mundell did not, in his summing up, support a word of what Mr Monteith said. He made a most unusual speech that contrasted with David Mundell's speech, which was—as usual—constructive. David Mundell made a point about special educational needs and the importance of ensuring that pre-school provision or child care provision helps to contribute to the diagnosis of the difficulties that children might experience. We want to bring early intervention to bear to help improve children's skills at the earliest possible opportunity and to join up all the services that are required to support them.
Brian Monteith's only policy suggestion today was to reintroduce vouchers—one of the most discredited policies in a bag of discredited policies that the Tories tried to push through in the 1980s. That policy does not add anything to the debate and I do not intend to dwell on the matter. He also alleged that choice had been restricted in the present set up, but that is not the case. There is possibly more choice than ever for parents, because there is more provision. That is taking place within a mixed economy of provision; the voluntary sector, the private sector and the local authority sector are all making a contribution.
Jamie Stone, in a well structured speech, made all the right points. He referred to the chaos of the voucher system, which Brian Monteith seeks to reintroduce. He talked about this being a good- news story, which, essentially, it is. There has been a massive expansion of provision. He raised the matter of qualifications, as did Colin Campbell. We take that matter seriously and we want a structure that attracts and retains people who have good qualifications and the required expertise.
Jamie Stone also mentioned Gaelic. We support Gaelic—as Jamie McGrigor said that we should—and we will continue to support Gaelic pre-school provision and see an expansion of it in line with other areas of Gaelic education provision.
I will try to pick up quickly on some other points. If Scott Barrie cares to write to me—
There is still far too much private conversation. I will identify some of the miscreants if they continue their private confabs.
If Scott Barrie cares to write to me about the ratio between staff and school pupils, I will be happy to set out the position and investigate the matter further.
During the progress of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill we have given assurances that we will examine deferred entry much more closely. We think that we can address Scott Barrie's point about the least mature children having the least time in pre-school education and, therefore, having difficulties throughout their school careers.
I also ask Tavish Scott to write to me setting out his concerns more fully. We will certainly address them and consider the role of local authority inspection. We want the inspection process to be consistent across all sectors, but that is not to say that local authorities will not continue to have an important role in quality improvements of the sort that he described.
Andrew Welsh raised a valid point about take-up of the working families tax credit. He highlighted good practice in one local authority, but that can be found much more widely. We need to keep our eye on that and address it. It is in everybody's interests to improve take-up of the WFTC.
Kate MacLean talked about the gender balance in the pre-school sector, but her point extends into the primary school sector. She is right to raise that matter, which the Executive is concerned about. There is a complete imbalance in the employment of women and men in the sector. It is very difficult to get men into the jobs that are becoming available. If we want to do that, we must create a proper career structure. It is important that children experience the right balance in their learning. The action plan on training and qualifications that will be developed will address specifically how we bring more men into the sector. We share Kate MacLean's view and agree that we need to address this issue.
The Executive has already made a huge difference to the provision of child care and pre-school facilities. A massive expansion has taken place. We are providing a more coherent approach—we are joining up our approach in a way that has not been done before. We are in this for the long term. The contribution to combating social exclusion that can be made by the pre-school and child care sector is crucial. We will make a difference. I commend the motion to the Parliament.