Plenary,

Meeting date: Thursday, May 18, 2000

Official Report 637KB pdf

---

Early Education and Child Care

We move now to a ministerial statement from Mr Sam Galbraith, who I know is always brief.

I wish to make a statement on the regulation of early education and child care. In our programme for government, we committed ourselves to promoting a substantial expansion of child care. That is not just a matter of increasing the number of places that are available; we also committed ourselves to high-quality pre-school provision. In our child care strategy, there are therefore three key words: accessibility, affordability and quality.

How do we ensure quality provision? Regulation has played a key role, and we believe that it must continue to play a key role. Children are vulnerable: we need to ensure their safety and to ensure that they are not just minded, but receive enjoyable and stimulating care.

When we regulate, we must keep to two principles. First, regulation must treat similar services in similar ways. That is fair to providers; it is also fair to families. A level playing field will help to ensure that providers respond to families' needs. Secondly, regulation must also be proportionate to risk. Too much regulation will discourage provision and discourage innovation.

In March 1999, the then Scottish Office issued a consultation paper on early education and child care. We have considered the responses carefully. We have also looked at how provision and demand are changing, and we have tried to anticipate future developments. We must put in place a regulatory system that is adaptable and that does not quickly become out of date.

Today, we are issuing a paper that sets out the way ahead. These are complex issues, which I cannot consider fully in this statement. However, I will highlight a few key conclusions. All child care services that are currently subject to regulation—that is, nurseries, out-of-school clubs, and childminders who provide for children under the age of eight—will remain subject to regulation. At the moment, that regulation is limited to private and voluntary sector provision. In future, a local authority's provision for children from the age of nought to five will be regulated too. That is about ensuring safety and quality care; it is also about creating a level playing field.

We will extend protection to older children—an idea that was supported by most respondents to the consultation. At the moment, care for the under-eights is regulated. Generally, because eight to 11-year-olds attend out-of-school clubs where younger children are also present, they, too, are in regulated care. However, we do not want there to be any loopholes. We therefore intend that regulation should apply to care for all children of primary school age.

We have also considered the regulation of care for children of secondary school age. Our child care strategy for Scotland recognises that facilities might be needed for children up to the age of 14, and for children older than that who have special needs. At the moment, facilities are limited, but demand—especially for holiday schemes—might grow. We intend to require that fit person checks be made of all staff. We believe that that limited form of regulation is in keeping with the level of risk.

Many people have had concerns about nannies. When parents choose to employ a nanny, we intend that they will benefit from a range of safeguards. Regulation of nanny agencies is being strengthened as part of the Government's approach to employment agencies more generally. A code of practice that is specifically for nanny agencies will be part of that.

For parents who engage a nanny directly, we have issued a booklet of guidance that deals with matters such as checking experience and references. However, we do not believe that restricting parents to employing registered nannies is a practical option. A register could not be based on qualification; many parents opt for an older person with experience, but not qualifications. Nor is there a clear dividing line between nannies and baby-sitters. We believe that, as part of checking suitability of a nanny, checking against criminal records should be available. The introduction of part V of the Police Act 1997 will enable a nanny to obtain a criminal conviction certificate. We also aim to make enhanced checks available. Our aim is to assist parents in making a fully informed decision.

For regulated services, the role of regulator will pass from local authorities to the proposed Scottish commission for the regulation of care. That will ensure consistency of approach across Scotland. The commission will regulate care services more generally; its operation has been the subject of a separate consultation.

Two issues must be mentioned. First, the commission will place a new emphasis on inspection of outputs—by that I mean the experience offered to children. We must advance from the current focus on input measures such as staff numbers and suitability of premises. Input measures will remain—and I will mention them briefly in a moment—but they are not enough by themselves.

We have also addressed regulation of services for the three to five-year-old age group. Private and voluntary sector providers of child care may be commissioned to provide pre-school education. As such, they are subject to the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and HMI inspection. Local authority nursery schools may provide wraparound care, but are inspected only as education providers. Many have suggested that the setting up of the commission gives us an opportunity for co-ordination or integration of inspection.

We recognise that good-quality care involves learning opportunities and that good-quality education includes attention to social, emotional and physical development. I intend that the commission will inspect all provision for nought to five-year-olds, including local authority nursery schools and classes. HMI will continue to make a periodic inspection of centres that deliver pre-school education. Both will base their inspection on common performance indicators, but adapted to different services or age groups. For those providing publicly funded pre-school education, we will require delivery against the full range of indicators, including those dealing with the curriculum. We will require very high quality.

Providers will be clear about what they are expected to deliver. An individual provider will have to meet one set of standards, not two as at present. HMI's continued involvement with pre-school providers will maintain an overview of quality and ensure appropriate links to primary education. In the year that HMI inspects, the commission will not need to make its regular inspection—that will keep the inspection burden at an appropriate level.

Those proposals recognise the related nature of child care and pre-school education and will encourage a culture of continuous improvement. They confirm our commitment to high-quality pre-school provision.

I said that input requirements will remain—dealing with staff numbers and qualifications. However, unlike at present, those will be the same for providers of a similar service. Regulations must be consistent. For example, we will move to a minimum adult:child ratio of 1:10 for three-year-olds and over, whether for provision in the private, voluntary or local authority sector. I believe that that minimum is appropriate as a safeguard. As I have noted, in future the focus of regulation will be on outputs—in other words, on the quality of care.

We will also align the position on teacher involvement in pre-school education for all centres in the private, voluntary and local authority sectors. We intend to move to a system of guidance that will recommend teacher involvement in pre-school education for all centres.

Teacher involvement is a crucial component of quality, but we take the view of many consultees that the full-time presence of a qualified teacher is not necessarily a prerequisite of quality. The focus should be on ensuring the employment of suitably qualified teams of staff with an appropriate mix of skills. Guidance will offer flexibility and allow innovative solutions to meet local circumstances.

Our proposals for regulation will secure a system that treats providers consistently, meets the needs of parents and, most of all, protects the interests of children. I commend them to the chamber.

The minister will now take questions on issues arising from his statement. I will allow approximately 20 minutes for questions. It will be helpful if any member wishing to ask a question presses their request-to-speak button now.

I thank the minister for his statement and the usual courtesy of providing an advance copy. There is a great deal in the statement that the SNP welcomes. Indeed, the SNP's submission to the consultation exercise stressed the need for consistency of regulation across the range of providers and for the extension of the age range for regulation, and the importance of appropriate input from qualified teachers. We welcome the fact that the Executive has listened to our pleas and those of many other people.

I have two specific questions. First, the minister will be aware that there is a shortage of suitably qualified child care workers in Scotland. In "Meeting the Childcare Challenge: A Childcare Strategy for Scotland", which was published in May 1998, the Government promised to provide 5,000 training opportunities in child care through the new deal—we have not heard much about that in recent debates on child care. How many of those opportunities have been created and how many have been taken up?

Secondly, although the SNP welcomes the statement and the increased regulation of child care to ensure the protection of children, the minister will be aware that regulation comes at a price. For example, child care providers will be able to attract well-qualified child care workers only if they are able to pay suitable salaries. Research that was published on Monday by the Daycare Trust shows that, in spite of the working families tax credit, three out of four parents think that child care costs are too high, and two thirds cite child care costs as the main factor hindering mothers who want to return to work. Will the minister guarantee that the costs of regulation will not be passed on to parents? Will he outline what additional steps the Executive is taking to ensure that child care is affordable, which the minister said at the outset of his statement was one of the principles of the child care strategy?

I am grateful to Ms Sturgeon for her overwhelming welcome of the Executive's statement. She asked about the number of qualified workers. She would be the first to complain if every week I came out with an update of the numbers. When we have achieved that target, I will let her know and will expect her welcome. We are well on the way to reaching that through the additional funds and the systems that we have put in place.

I will talk about the cost of regulation. Most of the cost will be absorbed in current budgets, because there is a change in the numbers that are involved. It is a bit disingenuous for Ms Sturgeon to ask us what we are doing about the cost of child care, given that we introduced the working families tax credit.

Answer the question.

I know that sometimes Nicola Sturgeon does not like the answers that I give, but she should have the courtesy to allow me to give them to her.

The working families tax credit provides 70 per cent of the cost of child care for the first child, and 30 per cent of the cost for the rest, and is available to people on salaries of up to £30,000. That is a highly significant start.

Answer the question.

As I listened to Ms Sturgeon without interrupting, she should afford me the courtesy of doing the same.

From a standing start, in a country in which there had never been a child care strategy and no money had been invested in child care, we have introduced a national helpline, a child care strategy and the working families tax credit. That is a credit to everyone who is involved. Rather than adopting the SNP position of constantly running down everyone involved in that strategy, I compliment every nursery care worker and provider throughout the country.

I congratulate the minister on his statement. I welcome the level playing field, which puts local authority child care under the same regulation as for other providers. I am glad that there is to be only limited regulation of the care of older children, because more regulation would discourage provision in an area in which more and more diverse provision is required.

I ask the minister to clarify the roles of HMI and the proposed commission for the regulation of care. Some providers are already concerned about inspection by multiple agencies. It is not clear from the minister's statement how he will prevent that overlap from becoming excessively bureaucratic.

I am pleased that the minister has not given in to demands to nanny the nannying profession. Parental choice and judgment are surely most important in that respect and should never be undermined.

I am grateful for those comments. As the member will appreciate, if anything should be free from party political values, it is this issue. Striving to reach the right solution took me considerably longer than I expected, but we made judgments based on everyone's views, including those of Nicola Sturgeon's party, which has made a significant contribution.

The role of HMI and the commission for the regulation of care was a difficult matter. I was faced with a range of options, such as fully to integrate the commission and to remove HMI from the inspection system altogether. That would mean that nursery education would come under the social care commission. I was very dubious about that, because there is an important educational link between nursery education and the preparation for primary school. Therefore, on balance, I decided that, although it made it slightly more complicated, it would be preferable to retain HMI's presence.

All pre-school education in the local authority, voluntary and private sectors will be inspected each year—at present, that happens only in the private and voluntary sector—by the care commission. HMI inspections currently take place periodically, within every seven years, although that may alter. In the years in which HMI inspections take place, the care commission will not inspect organisations. There will be only one inspection a year. The inspections will be carried out against standard performance indicators. That means that the inspections will be similar each year, although the performance indicators that are used may vary. That is how I tried to square the circle.

The question of nannies raises another difficult issue. However, parents have to take some responsibility. It was very difficult, because everyone said that we should regulate nannies, but not one person was able to tell us how to do it. There are several problems, such as where baby-sitters fit in, whether we should regulate those who are qualified and how we deal with the matter of parents who just want someone with experience of looking after their own family. We have taken steps on the regulation of employment agencies, the code of practice and fit person checks. We also produced the "Need a Nanny?" guide for parents. If Karen Gillon is here, I will give her my copy.

I welcome the minister's statement. For several years, I have been involved in medical approval of childminders and I wonder whether the extension of the regulations that we have been discussing will include childminders. Could the minister say a little more about how any charges that might be made in respect of fit person and criminal checks might be levied? Who would be responsible for those costs?

As Richard Simpson probably knows, childminders are already regulated and there will be no change in the current position. The question of fit person checks is difficult, particularly in relation to voluntary organisations such as the scouts. That issue is still under discussion. For example, under part V of the Police Act 1997, a nanny could get a Scottish Criminal Record Office check, and so provide a certificate that stated that she had no convictions; that would be her responsibility. However, in other areas, such checks would be the responsibility of the organisations involved. That issue needs to be tightened up before we make final decisions. Further decisions on the consultancy index are being pulled together.

It is difficult to make the right judgment on costs and to find a balance between over-regulating and securing protection for all those involved. That is a matter that I will be considering further.

I, too, welcome the extension of protection and quality assurance in this area of child care. There is a nice balance between a laissez-faire attitude, which would not have done at all, and a nanny state—if members will forgive the pun—which we must avoid.

I am interested in the minister's thoughts on inputs, and on teacher involvement and adult:child ratios. He suggests that statutory provisions will still be there, but he is downgrading their importance a little.

I wish to ask about the progress of the working party on the issue of criminal checks and about bureaucracy. As the minister will know, something that upsets teachers is additional bureaucracy. I hope that there will not be too much bureaucracy, and regulations and rules, in an area of child care that has traditionally been less formal.

Having considered the bureaucracy, I cannot help but agree with Ian Jenkins that we must stop the overload of initiatives.

I thank the member for his comments. I am trying to achieve a non-political balance. We are all interested in the outputs. Until now, all regulations have been about inputs: the teachers, the numbers, the ratios, the class sizes and so on. We must change the whole attitude—the political debate that is obsessed with the amount of money that goes in. We need to get away from the input model that we are obsessed with, to the output model and what it does for those who are involved. Let us not forget that input measures are just proxies for output. It is much better if we can measure output.

If the performance indicators and output are right, the structures we use to deliver them are less important. We are not downgrading anything. The ratios are still there and there will still be the various inputs. The question is whether we only have teacher involvement—as members will appreciate, that leads to inflexibility. In the Highlands and Islands, for example, a teacher might not be there every day, because they might be needed in a series of schools. We want flexibility there.

I am sure that the member, when he mentioned the working party, was referring to the consultancy index. Various checks are available under part V of the Police Act 1997; those are the Scottish Criminal Record Office checks on convictions. Enhanced checks are also becoming available, and there is non-conviction material, which we are considering.

There is a consultancy index of people who are unsuitable to work with children in England, but not in Scotland. However, there is no index of people with criminal convictions—that has huge implications for human rights. That issue has been on-going since I picked up my job in 1997. We are almost ready to make some final decisions on that—I will ensure that everyone knows about it.

The minister said that the second guiding principle behind his statement today was that regulation must be proportionate to risk. However, in his statement he is not meeting the Cullen recommendations that all young people up to the age of 16 should be encompassed in any regulatory framework. I should like to hear the reason for stopping at 14.

I press the minister further on the opportunity to update Parliament on his fellow minister Jackie Baillie's working group on investigating the costing and charges for SCRO checks—another item mentioned in the Cullen report. The working party was set up last October to consider, for example, who would bear the costs and charges of SCRO checks and the level that the checks would come in at. Can the minister update us on when we can expect to hear about that?

I am sorry, but I cannot update Fiona McLeod on that last point. However, I shall make it clear to Jackie Baillie that she should let the member know about that. It is important to get those things right, rather than to produce results early.

Cullen made a number of recommendations in his report, the most significant of which relates to Ian Jenkins's point on fit person checks, which involve a large number of complex issues. I am not trying to dodge the difficult issues that I have been wrestling with since I took over this matter in 1997. There are huge implications for human rights and in regard to the age at which regulations should apply to children. We must strike a balance and have decided that 14 is the best age. As Jamie McGrigor pointed out, we must ensure that the child is secure, without over-regulating. However, others might disagree with that judgment.

Before calling the next member, I ask the minister not to turn away from the microphone when he responds. I know that it is tempting not to speak with one's back turned to a member, but turning round makes it very difficult for people to hear the minister.

I am very sorry.

I also want to ask the minister about SCRO checks. I have received representations from the organisation Homestart, which is part of the social inclusion partnership in Easter Ross and is responsible for delivering the SureStart programme. The 20 volunteers who start on the programme every year do not stay very long because Homestart's training is so good that they often get full-time jobs quickly. As a result, the organisation is worried about the possible costs of SCRO checks.

Although I have written to Jackie Baillie on that issue, I thought that I would take the opportunity to mention it to the minister. Is it possible to have a portable SCRO check? As some volunteers might have been childminders, for example, before they came to Homestart and so have already been through the process, it seems a waste of time and money for the organisation to go through the process again.

In deference to you, Presiding Officer, I will not turn round to answer the question.

I am grateful for that suggestion, as these issues are important. There is no need for people who have certificates from the SCRO saying that they are conviction-free to repeat the process every six months. I will certainly consider Maureen Macmillan's point about flexibility.

The minister talked about

"ensuring the employment of suitably qualified teams of staff with an appropriate mix of skills."

Will he clarify what he means by "suitably qualified" and define the phrase:

"an appropriate mix of skills"?

Perhaps he could also take this opportunity to give us a progress report on the new SVQ level 4 award in early education and child care.

Progress has been made on the SVQ award and other measures, to produce the so-called ladder of qualifications. If we are to meet the 5,000 training opportunities that Nicola Sturgeon mentioned, it is important that we make teaching a worthwhile career. The member will know more than me about the mix of skills that is needed for these forms of education; however, there will have to be a range of qualifications that will involve teaching skills, the ability to relate to and handle children and so on. As I said, the member could provide a better list of such skills than I can.

I thank the minister for his statement and particularly welcome the extension of regulation to all children of primary school age.

In the code of practice that will be developed for school inspections, will the minister consider the possibility of establishing a proper link between pre-school and primary school education? Furthermore, what will be the role of the inspector in such links?

Those links are very important. One of the great advantages of pre-school education—with every four-year-old and 60 per cent of three-year-olds whose parents want a place able to have it—is that it prepares children to make the natural steps within such areas. Those steps are greatly enhanced if the information and the skills developed in pre-school education are transmitted to make the transfer simple, effective and to the child's benefit as they move forward to secondary education. I can reassure Karen Gillon that we intend to enhance and develop such areas.

How will the proposals affect the current regulations for foster carers?

The situation regarding foster carers is slightly different. Although we will soon be considering consultations on the regulation of foster carers, the current system of registration and regulation will remain.

That concludes questions on the minister's statement.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. This point of order is genuine, as I am very concerned by the way in which statements are brought to the chamber and how they are dealt with. I fully understand that members of the Executive must make statements in the chamber so that they can explain the Executive's direction. Is it possible for you or for Sir David to give some protection to this Parliament, so that, when ministers make statements, they are actually prepared or able to answer questions? Frankly, it has been a travesty this afternoon.

We will consider that point, and it would be very helpful if the member could drop me a note about it.