Children
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-02430, in the name of Johann Lamont, on children.
I will allow members a moment to find their seats and their notes. Ms Lamont, you have 10 minutes.
10:29
Thank you for your forbearance, Presiding Officer.
In a speech to the Scottish National Party conference in Glasgow, the First Minister said that he would meet his manifesto pledge from 2007 to increase the number of hours of free nursery education for every three and four-year-old to 600 hours at some point after 2014. Given his commitment to that, I am rather surprised that he is not at his place to participate in, or at least listen to, the debate.
In that speech, the First Minister also quoted Nye Bevan. One thing that we will find out today is whether the First Minister fits the description in another quotation from Nye Bevan, in which he said of Harold Macmillan:
“The Prime Minister has an absolute genius for putting flamboyant labels on empty luggage.”
Let us see whether the First Minister has the same genius.
That promise—that reannouncement of a promise—cannot be an empty one. The First Minister has not actually promised to deliver on it in two years’ time. What he has pledged is a bill in two years’ time—a bill that he does not need, because he has the power to deliver today.
I am bemused by the SNP amendment to our motion, because it rolls back on the First Minister’s commitment to 600 hours of free nursery education. It talks broadly about more childcare and more flexibility, but the reality is that the Government could provide that now. SNP ministers are asking SNP back benchers to vote for an amendment that dilutes the First Minister’s position.
The First Minister and his SNP back benchers need to understand that children are not just for conferences. The commitment is critically important. It is bizarre that, in opposing our position, the SNP is denying the commitment that the First Minister made at his own conference.
I do not want to shoot the member’s fox so early on, but I say unequivocally and without fear of contradiction by anybody that the commitment stands as made and will be delivered. We should get on to the substance of the debate rather than the smears of the debate.
In that case, I expect that the education secretary will join me in opposing the SNP amendment and supporting our motion. This is not a smear. Our motion makes it absolutely clear, and the Scottish Parliament information centre agrees with us, that we can do what the First Minister pledged to do right now.
No, we cannot.
Yes, we can. Without getting into pantomime with the education secretary, I say that we can swap advice, but the advice that we have received from SPICe shows clearly that that can be done. One has to ask why the education secretary would be so anxious to prove that he cannot do what the First Minister said he was so keen to do.
To the Government, the seven years between the manifesto pledge and the aspiration of delivery might seem a short space of time. Perhaps that is the fastest that the First Minister can move. After all, the biggest announcement of his Administration so far is that, after its five years in government, we can wait another 1,000 days for his long-promised referendum. The First Minister likes to talk about his positivity and claim that all his opponents are negative. I explain to him that there is nothing so negative in politics as a promise not kept, however many times the promise is remade.
Let me explain why, Scotland having waited five years for the First Minister to fulfil his pledge, to wait another two years at least is not just unnecessary but unacceptable. The reality today is that Scotland lags behind our neighbours in the United Kingdom when it comes to childcare. Scots parents have fewer hours of free childcare each week. They have the 12.5 hours a week that have been delivered by Alex Salmond as opposed to the 15 hours a week that have been delivered by the hapless Nick Clegg in England—not a man known for holding to his word.
When our parents pay for the childcare that they need on top of free nursery education, they pay at rates as high as those in the richest parts of the UK. Scottish parents pay a higher proportion of average earnings than even parents in London. Our aspiration must be free nursery education within flexible and affordable wrap-around childcare. The free 15 hours of nursery education must be the next stage towards that.
I am not sure that the First Minister really understands the pressures that Scottish families are facing. Working mothers and families have busy lives, juggling the demands of work with the nursery timetable, and they face increasing pressures on household budgets by way of increases in fuel, food and energy costs at a time of pay freezes and reduced hours. Making all of that work can be like spinning plates, and it can be achieved only through meticulous planning, careful budgeting and often the good grace of family members—often grandparents—and friends, who get children to and from the nursery gates.
Many people find that they work simply to cover childcare costs, making no significant net gain when those costs are deducted from salaries, but realising the benefits of nursery care for their children and the benefits of work for themselves. Increasingly, many people are not that lucky, and the reality is that it makes financial sense for them no longer to work and fund additional childcare.
Scotland’s unemployment crisis throws up big numbers, but behind those big numbers are thousands of individual stories, each with its own complexities and challenges. The huge drop in female employment tells us that many women are leaving the job market through natural turnover, whether it be through retirement or to start a family, and they are not being replaced because it is no longer affordable for working mothers to go back to work.
Despite the generous advances that were made in the area by the Labour Government in 1997, the flexible and affordable childcare that people require simply does not exist. Here in Scotland, we face some of the highest childcare costs in the United Kingdom and the highest female unemployment rate. That cannot be by accident.
The First Minister spoke to that vulnerability last month when he offered to increase the number of free hours to Scottish families. That seemed to be a welcome gesture to help to mitigate the pressures that childcare costs are placing on Scottish families but, cruelly, the First Minister made it a referendum bribe rather than the immediate help that working mothers need today. He proved once again that he does not care about Scottish families, that he does not understand Scotland’s working mums, and that the challenges that face the Scottish people are simply stepping stones to separation—his one and only obsession.
The First Minister has an opportunity today to prove me wrong, and to work with us and the other parties to tackle an issue that we all agree is a problem facing hard-pressed families. Today is one occasion on which the Administration has the chance to close the gap between rhetoric and reality. I ask all members to take that chance and start delivering for Scottish families now.
Often, it appears that the highest functioning part of the Administration is not the health department or education, and not finance or enterprise. The highest functioning part of the Administration is its public relations department—where the relationship between rhetoric and reality is less like that of distant cousins and more like that of separate species; where the falseness of a claim does not stop it being repeated; where no link can be too tenuous; and where when failure is finally admitted, it is regarded as a shovel-ready subject that can be buried as long as the day is bad enough. The spin doctors are the highest functioning part of a Government that promises a better tomorrow, but fails to deliver today.
We want to help the Administration to stop being a mañana Government. We believe that the Government can and must deliver now on its promise of better childcare, without any further unnecessary delay. According to SPICe, increasing the number of hours of free care for three and four-year-olds could cost as little as £40 million, which is just an eighth of 1 per cent of the Government’s overall budget. We will work with the Government now to find that cash in the budget and start delivering for families today.
The truth is that children who were born in Scotland in the year that the First Minister made his pledge will not benefit from it, and nor will those who were born the year after—or the year after that, or the year after that. Children who were born in the year that the First Minister was elected will be halfway through primary school before he starts to deliver on his nursery care promise, unless we take decisive action today.
The gap between promise and reality need not be like that. In 1997, Labour promised a free nursery place for every four-year-old by 1999 and we delivered. We promised a free place for every three-year-old by 2002, and we delivered and made that a statutory requirement in the same year.
The SNP seems to be keen to match the previous Labour Government’s language of aspiration, but that is just an election campaign con if it does not match the record of delivery. Separating Scotland from the rest of the UK has been the First Minister’s key aim all his political life. I do not agree with him, but I respect his view. However, he cannot put Scotland on pause while he waits for a time when he reckons he might win his referendum. He cannot take promises that he pledged to fulfil by last year, toss them into some date after the referendum, and expect us to put up with it.
Scots families need help now and it is not right to force them to wait for that help, or for the Government to pretend that it cannot do anything about it in the meantime. It is not right for the First Minister to make it a condition of that help that people will get it only if they vote in the way that he wants in the referendum.
The broken promises of today and yesterday will perhaps be made good, but only if the people of Scotland vote in the way that the First Minister wants at some point in the future. Scotland’s families do not deserve to be put at the end of the childcare queue in the United Kingdom and at the end of the First Minister’s list of priorities. We will work with the Scottish Government to put Scotland’s families first and to deliver for Scotland’s children. We will work with the Government to close the gap between its rhetoric and the reality that people in this country face every day. The First Minister has been stating his childcare aspirations for more than five years. If members vote for the Scottish Labour motion, we can turn aspiration into delivery today.
I move,
That the Parliament believes that an extension to available nursery hours for pre-5 children is an important contribution to their educational development; notes the commitment made by the First Minister to extend available hours; further notes that the Scottish Government previously extended hours in 2007 through the use of a statutory instrument, the Provision of School Education for Children under School Age (Prescribed Children) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2007, SSI 2007/396; recognises that there is no need to use primary legislation to increase the number of hours of pre-school education available to pre-5 children, and considers that the Scottish Government should give early effect to the commitment made by the First Minister by introducing a statutory instrument before the end of June 2012.
10:40
I am happy to have another opportunity to set out in more detail what we seek to achieve with our expanded early learning and childcare commitment and why we need primary legislation to do that. I will explain the facts to Labour. It is a pity that Labour has struck such a negative tone in the debate.
First and foremost, with our pledge to increase early learning and childcare provision to 600 hours, we intend to bring about a transformational change in the way in which provision for our youngest children is delivered. Our approach is not simply about increasing the number of hours of pre-school education that children receive; it is far more comprehensive and ambitious than that—it is about taking strides on our journey towards making Scotland the best country to grow up in. Despite the negativity, I remain hopeful that others will work with and support us in achieving that ambition.
I am positive that I can help the First Minister with his commitment, which was:
“Conference, we will place into the new Children’s Bill introduced to Parliament next year a statutory guarantee of over 600 hours of free nursery education for every Scottish 3 and 4 year old and for every looked after 2 year old in our land.”
We can do that now, as a starting point and then build on that. We want to help the Government on the issue, and we can do it now.
The First Minister also said in his conference speech that the system must be “flexible in its delivery”. I will go on to explain why Labour has kind of missed the point in the debate.
The current situation is based on three and four-year-olds being entitled to 475 hours of pre-school education a year. However, as Bronwen Cohen said in an article in The Scotsman last week,
“In the early years, care and education are indivisible.”
She is right, which is why we must legislate to break down the current barriers. We need to ensure that all three and four-year-olds, as well as looked-after two-year-olds, receive flexible, high-quality early learning and childcare that meets their developmental needs and the needs of working parents. We need to move beyond the rigidity of a system that is wholly tied to schooldays and terms. Increased hours are important, but the bigger prize is the flexibility that we can achieve through primary legislation.
Parents and families tell us that they require flexibility. We need to support them if we want Scotland to thrive and grow. We are legislating not to tinker round the edges but to bring about a fundamental and positive shift that delivers for families and for the children of Scotland. As the First Minister said when he announced our intentions, that is
“a statement of faith and commitment to the future.”
Last week, Labour spoke of a need for a Scottish model of childcare, which is what we seek to develop. However, we need to do it properly and we need to get it right. Primary legislation is vital to deal with the fundamental and complex issues of flexibility. By taking forward the issue through the children’s services bill, we will provide the necessary long-term focus that the children of Scotland deserve.
To deliver the fundamental change that is needed, we must engage with the people who will deliver and use the services. We will have a full and proper discussion during the consultation process and will develop our plans accordingly. We will engage with local authorities to develop a system that offers the increased entitlement and, crucially, a system that is more flexible and better integrated across early learning and childcare. At the core of our thinking will be the role of parents and the home environment.
Our proposals to legislate are bold and exciting but, in the here and now, there is much that we are doing and will do to make progress. From April, we will deliver increased early learning and childcare provision for our most vulnerable two-year-olds and their parents and carers. This year, we will deliver community-based early learning and childcare solutions in the shape of the £4.5 million communities and families fund. As I outlined in the debate last week, we will develop a series of public-social partnerships—PSPs—that will cover a range of early learning and childcare issues to meet parents’ needs. Those include the issues of parents who are on low incomes and/or who are in poverty; parents and carers who work shifts; out-of-school care, including holiday clubs; parents and families living in rural areas; and outdoor or nature kindergartens.
I am also aware of the important role for employers in providing flexibility for parents. As John Park highlighted in last week’s debate, a lack of flexible working and childcare opportunities can impact on the ability of families to engage economically—the economic arguments in the debate should not be ignored. That is why, as I also announced last week, we will hold a national business summit in June to explore new ways of incentivising and encouraging more flexible working in the private sector, including the promotion of childcare vouchers. That is action that the Government is taking now to address childcare needs.
Our early years task force will play a critical role in taking forward our aspiration for transformational change in and through the early years. It brings together experts from across civic Scotland, including health professionals, police and our partners in local government. That body disregards political boundaries, and I am pleased that Malcolm Chisholm is a member of it, because the early years are far more important than party politics. The task force has agreed its vision and priorities, which were published on the Scottish Government’s website and issued to key local delivery partners last week. The paper builds on some of the priorities in the early years framework and restates our commitment to key strands of work including the parenting strategy, the play talk read campaign and the further development of family support, early learning and childcare provision.
The task force met on Tuesday to discuss increasing early learning and childcare provision and our commitment to expand that to 600 hours. The task force members were supportive of that, but they were very clear that flexibility in the delivery of additional provision is vital if we are to achieve the impacts that we seek. Julie Wild of the National Parent Forum of Scotland, who is also a member of the early years task force, said:
“We welcome the increase in hours, but we especially welcome the added flexibility that the new proposals will bring for children and their parents. Flexibility is crucial to enabling parents to have a good work/life balance and to ensuring that services can be tailored towards individual circumstances. That is what families in Scotland need.”
Those are words that all members should take notice of.
We have within our grasp the opportunity to make an enormous positive difference for families in Scotland. I hope that, despite some of the comments that have been made so far, we can work together to put the needs of the children and families of our nation to the fore as we continue to strive towards making Scotland the very best place for children to grow up in.
I move amendment S4M-02430.1, to leave out from “there is no need” to end and insert:
“, to provide a statutory right to more flexible early learning, primary legislation is required; welcomes the Scottish Government’s intention to provide this through the Children’s Services Bill to be introduced next year, and further recognises the importance of developing early learning and childcare by working in partnership with local authorities, nursery and childcare providers to ensure that both the developmental needs of Scotland’s children and the varied needs of parents are met.”
10:47
When I was doing my teacher training, which was not exactly yesterday, there was a section about skills to use in the classroom, which included a unit about how to use repetition. We were told that repetition could be both a secret weapon and the cause of our downfall. It could be a secret weapon if we used it effectively in stressing the most important points in our argument, but it could be our downfall if we were merely to repeat the obvious and lose some of the essential facts. That turns out to be true also in politics this morning, notwithstanding the fact that we are all fully agreed about the importance of the topic. We had a good debate the last time that we debated the subject, although there were—as ever—political differences. If we have to repeat ourselves a little just seven days later, perhaps that will focus our minds more carefully on the key themes and the facts.
We are all agreed that early intervention is the crucial component in determining the future health, social wellbeing and educational achievement of any child. Last week, several members pointed to various aspects of the wealth of evidence that supports that view. I reread the Official Report from last week and, although I agree with some of Johann Lamont’s comments, I note that the main themes in that debate were the quantity of the hours on offer, the quality of provision within those hours, the flexibility to allow parents to take up their entitlements and, crucially, the need to ensure that childcare policies articulate with our other social and economic policies. The motion and the amendment both reflect that we probably need to take slightly different approaches to the quantitative and qualitative aspects of that care. I do not see any difficulties in that. They are not mutually exclusive, and the advice that we have been given—both by SPICe and by some of the legal team—is that they can work effectively alongside each other.
However, I hope that we can probe the SNP a little further on exactly what provisions it foresees in the children’s services bill on flexibility in how parents can take up their entitlements and on the use of qualified care staff, which obviously has implications for contracts and so on. Having that information before the division bell rings this evening would be helpful.
It is clear that extending the total number of hours matters not just because it is one way of ensuring that we provide more opportunities for our children but because it will allow us to catch up with and—should the Scottish Government succeed in keeping its manifesto commitment—overtake the progress that has been made south of the border. That is particularly important for parents to whom no partner or relative is immediately available to assist in raising their children.
The Liberals, who are absent today, were right last week to highlight the regional variations that we face in Scotland in the supply and the cost of childcare. We all agree that that is unacceptable.
The solution to the childcare issue will necessarily involve an effective combination of the educational experience that is on offer to the child and the convenience to the parent and the family. That challenge, which—let us be honest—is not easy, should focus our minds.
If there is one driving force, it is the need to ensure that the hours that are on offer are provided by qualified professionals and that, in adjusting the hours and the flexibility within them, we are mindful of the contractual arrangements for care staff and, for children from the age of three, the demands of the curriculum for excellence. Balancing the educational and practical needs is not easy. That is why we need to consider what is and is not helpful in legislative and non-legislative processes.
I think that the desire is felt across the chamber to focus on the most disadvantaged children who do not get what they are entitled to, which can put untold pressures on the budgets of the poorest families in our society. That is why it is important that we provide the extra choice dimension, which we debated at length last week, so that we can support those who stand to benefit most and who are most responsive to the changing focus of Government policy, by which I mean policy in Scotland and south of the border.
I mentioned last week that we should look at ideas from other countries and down south, where greater flexibility is available—not just in how we charge for care—to try to make the situation that little bit better. The debate is important and I will be interested in listening to more comments from the Scottish Government on how we will get such flexibility.
10:52
When I saw that we were to debate childcare again, I was worried that I would have a sense of déjà vu, but this week’s debate is taking place in a different context. It is good to see that the Liberal Democrats have followed up their strongly held commitment to childcare in Scotland by not bothering to turn up for the debate this week.
Johann Lamont said that we need somehow to learn that children are not just for conferences and implied that the SNP does not really care about Scotland’s children. As a father and an uncle, I found those comments rather unnecessary. No party or politician has a monopoly on caring about or wanting the best for Scotland’s children. It ill behoves any politician—particularly a party leader—to try to make such a distinction and create some sort of clear blue water between the political parties.
The minister was right to make it clear that we want a constructive debate. There were at least glimmerings of constructiveness in Johann Lamont’s speech, although there were not quite enough of them.
Was the member similarly concerned when he heard the First Minister, on his platform at the SNP conference, raising childcare very much as a political issue? Did the member decline to applaud then, or does what he said apply only when other party leaders speak on the subject?
Mr Smith has clearly been taking intervention lessons from Mr Findlay. Perhaps he should stop doing so.
It has to be said that at no point in the conference did the First Minister imply that other politicians or political parties did not care about Scotland’s children. That is the distinction that I would draw in that regard. As the person who governs Scotland, the First Minister is perfectly entitled to make commitments to Scotland’s children in a governmental and legislative context.
Urgh.
Mr Findlay might find talking about Scotland’s children tiresome—
No, it is just Mr McDonald I find tiresome.
That is personal taste, and the feeling is mutual.
The key issue, as identified by the minister in her opening remarks, is the need to transform the system. The Children in Scotland briefing, which we all received this morning, highlights examples that illustrate why a commitment to 600 hours of early education is welcome. The message has to be put across that the key consideration is reforming the system and making it work better for parents. That is why there is a legislative context for the commitment to 600 hours. It is all very well for us to increase the hours that are available to children, but we must also ensure that the system works not only for children but for their parents, which means ensuring that flexibility is inherent in the arrangements.
The Children in Scotland briefing welcomes the fact that Scotland is the only United Kingdom nation that is currently represented on the European Commission thematic working group on early childhood education and care. It urges the Government to take inspiration from successful integrated strategies that have been adopted in a number of European countries. Although the commitment to 600 hours puts us at the vanguard in the UK context, we should have wider vision and be looking at strong international examples.
I have a three-year-old son who is currently in the nursery education system. In a selfish capacity, it would be easy for me to come to the chamber and say that we should increase the hours, as that would benefit him. However, I want a holistic system to be developed—something that is meaningful for Scotland’s children. Boosting hours is key and will benefit children, but it is important to consider what lies behind that so that, when my one-year-old daughter goes into the system in two years’ time, we will have put in place legislation to transform the system, to make it work for her and the rest of the children in Scotland who will be entering nursery education at that time, and for the parents of those children. That is why it is important that we get this right, and I hope that we can move forward on a constructive, cross-party basis on that.
10:57
The difficulties that parents face in organising childcare came home to me this morning when I had my own crisis in organising childcare and thought that I might not be able to attend this debate.
I welcome the announcement that the Scottish Government intends to extend early years education to 600 hours a year, even though the Government’s amendment today perhaps weakens that commitment. However, we should be clear about what the commitment means. It is good news in terms of access to good-quality nursery education. It contributes towards breaking the link between poverty and educational underachievement and it contributes to the learning, nurture, care, creativity and health of all children. Labour believes strongly in that agenda, which is why we extended nursery education to three-year-olds and vulnerable two-year-olds.
Although we support moves to extend provision, the question is, why wait? This is a commitment that fell by the wayside in the previous session but, as the Labour motion says, the Government could move much quicker on the policy. Of course there will be issues to overcome—capacity issues to be resolved, funding to be met, political leadership to be shown and priority to be given—but if those issues are all to be addressed in two years’ time, why not get on with it now?
There are a couple of points that I want to make about this policy. We need to be clear about what it will deliver for families. It has been described as a childcare boost but, without proper integration of the childcare system, it does not contribute to the childcare solution for many families. We can value it for what it is. From three years of age, children are brought into the curriculum for excellence. Although delivery is varied, they will have access to qualified nursery teachers. If we value early education for the benefits that it brings to the child, we might ask why it is children of the more advantaged families who get the most benefit from the current system—they are the children who have access to a greater number of pre-school hours, largely through the private sector.
Secondly, although the policy is described as “free nursery hours”, for many working parents who are trying to organise childcare, it certainly does not feel free. Many parents still pay the fees of mainly private nurseries while the child attends the school nursery, because of the lack of wraparound and flexible care. The fees are considerable. They are equivalent to private school fees, and represent a level of fee that parents will never have to pay again for any part of their child’s education in Scotland.
We need to find a way to make the system work for parents as well as children. We need commitment to make the arrangements more flexible, but I recognise the challenges in that. If local authorities introduce more flexibility and approve more private nurseries to deliver provision, will that affect the viability of their own nurseries? How will public sector nurseries that are oversubscribed be able to deliver additional provision? Will the increasing number of private nurseries delivering the curriculum break links with schools?
To make all this happen, the work of the early years task force is important, but the early years change fund must be transparent. Of the £250 million that was announced in the spending review, the Government’s contribution is £50 million over the parliamentary session and the rest is up to local authorities and the national health service. However, at local authority level the contribution is varied. I understand that some authorities are identifying existing work and money as their contribution, while others are identifying new money, but that is money that is contributing to the gap in their budgets. The necessary change cannot be underfunded.
School wraparound care is important and needs to be improved and to be accessible and affordable but, unless we get early years childcare right, we run the risk of excluding mothers from the workplace. It is difficult enough for mothers with one child to work, but if they have more than one, it can be unsustainable, even for well-off families, which means that we are in danger of taking talent out of our economy. As John Park highlighted last week, part of the solution is more flexible workplaces that recognise family responsibilities; other countries do it and evidence suggests that it does not affect productivity but leads to more committed staff.
What are the solutions? We can tinker around the edges of the system that we have, we can extend provision here and there and we can rightly focus on particularly vulnerable groups of children. I was encouraged by the minister’s comments about looking for a more flexible system, but my concern is that a clear commitment has been made to increase the amount of free nursery provision to 600 hours and we need to move forward more quickly on that.
I am afraid that you will have to conclude.
We perhaps need to be more radical. The Scandinavian model is universal early years provision. That is not free, but we should recognise that, for many families in Scotland, the solution that we are working with just now is not free either.
It would be courteous if front-bench members could limit their chats while back benchers are contributing to the debate. [Applause.]
11:01
It is good to get an ovation from Labour members before I have even started.
I hope that this is an important issue for all of us, whether or not we are parents, as I happen to be. Mark McDonald’s comments about the language that we employ when we discuss the issue of children in a political debate were well made. We should not question the genuine interest in the issue of anyone participating in the debate. I use the phrase “participating in the debate” advisedly because, like Mark McDonald, I could not help but be struck by the absence of the Liberal Democrats, who were perfectly entitled to bring forward a debate on this issue last week. When I hosted a members’ business debate on a similar issue in December, not a single Liberal Democrat took part. Without questioning the Liberal Democrats’ genuine interest in the issue, I note that a clear pattern of absence is emerging.
I will place the debate in the context of what the Scottish Government has done on childcare provision. Progress has been made over the past four years, so let us not pretend that it has not. There has been an increase in the amount of free nursery provision of the order of 20 per cent, which has benefited some 100,000 children. The Scottish Government is focusing on preventative spend in the early years to help children and is working on a non-partisan, cross-party basis with the early years task force, as the minister outlined, and with the early years change fund to strengthen support for children and their families.
Of course, there is another context at this time. We can see what the Scottish Government is doing to help families, but we hear a lot about what is emanating from Westminster and about the positive work that is being done south of the border. Let us remind ourselves of what is emerging from Westminster through the welfare reform agenda: 84,900 households in Scotland will no longer be eligible for tax credits from April, which means that 118,700 children in Scotland will be affected, potentially pushing thousands more into living in poverty. Research by Save the Children found that 150,000 of the UK’s poorest working mums could lose up to £68 a week under the UK Government’s new universal tax credit system. I question how that is likely to assist in the affordability of childcare.
Last week, we debated “The Scottish Childcare Lottery”, which was published on 27 February. The First Minister announced the additional support for childcare—which Save the Children welcomed—just a few days later on 10 March, and the minister has said that she is committed to making progress on the issue. It is clear that action has been taken and that the Government is moving quickly to improve the situation.
On the issue of primary legislation, there is a great deal of focus on the commitment to increase the hours of provision. I understand why that is important, but we are perhaps forgetting the other side of the equation, which is the flexibility of childcare provision. That issue was raised by Save the Children, and it featured in the members’ business debate that I brought to the chamber last year. It will take a little longer to get more flexible childcare provision, which is why we need primary legislation.
Members might call me cynical, but I wonder whether, if the commitment was not being put into primary legislation, Johann Lamont would stand up today and say that it was an outrage that it was not and that members were not getting a chance to have their say on the legislation.
Claire Baker rightly raised a number of genuine issues to do with childcare provision, which demonstrate why we must take just a little bit longer to get the legislation right.
11:06
I am pleased that the Labour Party motion acknowledges the need to extend early years education. The SNP does, too, which is why we are committed to delivering the best childcare package in these islands.
The 600-hour commitment for all three and four-year-olds and looked-after two-year-olds is just the latest milestone in a process of real improvement under the SNP Government. The pledge builds on achievements since 2007—as Jamie Hepburn just outlined—when the SNP Government moved to increase free provision by 20 per cent. That is 20 per cent more than the previous Liberal and Labour Administration in Scotland, which could manage only 400 hours, despite having considerably more financial breathing space than the Government does at present.
Joan McAlpine says that progress has been made as there has been a 20 per cent increase in free provision. However, the 2007 SNP manifesto promised a 50 per cent increase. Does she accept that we are simply not doing enough, which is why we must take action today to deliver on the pledge that the SNP made in 2007?
The reason why we are moving to legislate—to which the Labour Party seems to object—is that we are committed to delivering. If Neil Bibby really is concerned about delivery, he should support us in legislating for those 600 hours.
Our approach is about more than simply increasing the hours of provision, although that is vital to working parents. It is part of a strategy that has been developed with some of the leading experts in the field, and which dates back to the early years framework in 2008, which set out 10 elements of transformational change. One of those elements—and, I would argue, the most important—involves using early intervention to break the cycle of poverty and inequality for our young people.
I am very proud that the Government has taken an inclusive approach to such a vital issue by inviting respected individuals such as Malcolm Chisholm and Professor Susan Deacon to help us to find the best solutions together. We must use all the talents to meet the challenge. Professor Deacon’s report, “Joining the dots: A better start for Scotland’s children”, was clear that the time for talking is over and it is now time for delivery. I was encouraged that the Government responded immediately to that report with a £6.8 million investment in an action fund that will support the third sector to deliver the services that parents and children need.
The issue of childcare provision is all about delivery and flexibility. We can promise all the hours we want, but that counts for nothing if the care that we offer is not flexible enough to cater for the real needs of real families. If we are serious about delivering flexible childcare and early years learning, we need legislation.
I agree that “The Scottish Childcare Lottery” demonstrated some shocking gaps and deficiencies in provision in Scotland. That is why the First Minister’s response was so firm and focused: within 10 days of the report’s publication, he promised to legislate for 600 hours a year. Only legislation will provide the assurance that the serious gaps that were highlighted in the report will be closed. We need legislation to ensure access to quality childcare all year round, as the minister said, and not just in the school term. We need it to help specific groups such as parents in rural areas, those who work shifts and those who care for other relatives. We need legislation in the children’s bill to ensure that the needs of every child, however complex, are properly addressed.
The issue is too important for us to cross our fingers and hope for the best. We cannot afford not to deliver, and we must deliver in such a way as to ensure that provision is tailored to individuals and families. I said that I wanted to consider the issue in a wider context, because it is complex and challenging. It requires creative solutions such as the public-social partnerships that the minister has outlined. Such partnerships meet the challenge of delivery and allow the Government to work with its partners to meet specific needs.
It is about more than totting up hours; it is about changing the landscape. We are changing Scotland’s early years landscape and moulding our country into a child-friendly and family-friendly shape, but let us not underestimate the challenge. It requires commitment, co-operation and a change in the law to make it happen.
11:10
I am glad that I have the opportunity to speak in the debate. As I said in the childcare debate last week, I am a working mother of three children and know how essential childcare is to parents and children. The opportunity to discuss its importance again is extremely welcome.
I have spoken to countless parents in Glasgow, which I represent—and, for that matter, to parents throughout the country—and I know that affordable, high-quality childcare is a top priority, especially given the economic strains that are being placed on hard-working families. I have also noticed that, over the past year or two, it is becoming an economic issue for people who were previously able to manage financially. If people who were previously getting by are now struggling, what does that mean for the people who have always needed slightly more support?
Last month, figures were released that showed that, in Scotland, more than 200 women a day were losing their jobs. The knock-on effect that that will have on children cannot be overestimated. In addition to that, Save the Children told us last week about working parents’ mounting concerns about the Welfare Reform Bill, which will affect almost 4,500 children in Glasgow. For any of those women who have lost their jobs and are trying to find other employment, the cost of childcare will be a massive hurdle.
We know that there are worries and that there are issues that must be addressed now. That is why action must be taken straight away, not in two years’ time. Five years ago, the SNP made a similar pledge that it did not keep. That cannot be allowed to happen again so, although I and my Labour colleagues are glad that the Scottish Government intends to increase childcare provision, members will forgive us for being a little concerned about the timeframe.
When I spoke in last week’s debate on childcare, I explained that the Labour-led Glasgow City Council had already introduced a raft of positive and progressive policies on childcare. It has shown the way by offering 15 hours a week of nursery provision and pledging to expand that provision to include children under the age of three. That move could benefit more than 7,000 children in Glasgow, but I do not want Glasgow’s children and parents alone to have that increased provision. Childcare should not be reduced to a postcode lottery. I want every family in Scotland to enjoy equal access to first-rate childcare.
This week, we witnessed an overdue U-turn from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning on curriculum for excellence. Today, the SNP has a chance to follow in Mike Russell’s humble footsteps by addressing the concerns of parents of younger children.
I read last week—this may just be a scurrilous rumour—that the SNP sent out an e-card for mother’s day. I ask it to match its fine words with actions and send a belated present to thousands of hard-working families throughout the country by supporting Scottish Labour’s motion.
11:13
I associate myself with Liz Smith’s comments about how crucial early intervention is. The early years are incredibly important for all our children and the SNP Government is committed to accommodating early intervention for our youngsters.
We need to reassure Labour members that the commitment to deliver 600 hours is a commitment to deliver 600 hours. There is no dispute about that and I find it difficult to understand why they think that there could be any dilution of the commitment.
The Labour benches also assert that nothing is happening at the moment, but that is simply not true. A lot is happening. For example, a lot of engagement is taking place; as the minister made clear, dialogue is on-going with the early years task force. The proposed timeframe for legislation is essential in ensuring that we engage with those who are genuinely interested in giving our children the best possible future—in other words, our local authorities and parents—and that the programme is flexible enough to meet both the framework and the aspirations of all parents of young children.
In areas such as my Aberdeenshire West constituency, a large part of which is rural, these additional hours and the flexibility that the minister referred to are essential. Sometimes I think that good nursery provision is at the heart—indeed, is the lifeblood—of some of the very small rural communities in Aberdeenshire West and I hope that it will help to keep some of our rural schools open. The cabinet secretary knows my views on that matter and I look forward to hearing the results of the commission on rural education later in the summer.
Claire Baker articulated well the fact that this is a very complex issue. That is why we need to take our time. There is no point in rushing through something that is just going to fail. We will be failing our children if we do not take our time, embark on dialogue, listen and engage. We are moving forward; commitments to deliver have been made and initiatives put in place to ensure that the most vulnerable and those who require additional childcare get that provision. I hope that the Labour benches recognise that the First Minister’s commitment to give every three and four-year-old and every looked-after two-year-old 600 hours of funded nursery education was a commitment to every child in every part of Scotland and that it will be delivered.
We now come to closing speeches. There is a little bit of time in hand for interventions, if members wish to take them.
11:17
The debate has been quite constructive, not least because it has flagged up one of the dilemmas with this particular childcare policy. The fact is that we are dealing with two very separate issues, the first of which is the number of hours on offer. In that respect, I think that we can all come up with slightly different answers to the question whether that requires primary legislation in all its guises.
The second issue is flexibility in the way parents who will have this entitlement use the hours. We must be very careful that we do not create a muddle here. If I read the legal team’s advice correctly, both the motion and the amendment contain factually correct points, and it will all come down to semantics and definitions about what exactly we are driving through. For that reason, I think that Claire Baker and Dennis Robertson made valid points about the basic principles underpinning what all of us on all sides of the chamber are trying to do.
These issues come down to three things. First, we are absolutely determined that the best possible childcare be on offer in all parts of Scotland and that it be provided by qualified carers and nursery teachers. That is essential and, indeed, it is what parents want. I know that many of the people who have lobbied us on the issue are concerned about that and at the back of all this lie various debates on certain contractual issues.
Secondly, as Claire Baker said, there are issues to do with the mix between the private and the public sectors. The fact that both sectors are valuable providers of care, even though they come from slightly different perspectives, adds to the choice that is available. We should not forget that that mix is essential, particularly in an age in which we want greater choice and flexibility. We need to make it possible for that mix to work as well as possible, and to ensure that private providers do not feel under pressure because of certain diktats from local authorities.
Thirdly, we should never forget that the policy is targeted at the most disadvantaged children. They, above all, are the priority, because it is they—and their parents—who need the greatest support. It was in that context that the minister referred to Bronwen Cohen’s article in The Scotsman last week, in which she threw up the challenge that we all face in striving for better articulation between care services and education. As several members have pointed out, the issue is extremely complex. Cross-party support will be required if we are to ensure that we can work through the complexities, just as we have done on other social matters that we have debated in the chamber. That is important.
Johann Lamont and Jamie Hepburn rightly flagged up the fact that part of the argument is about how well the welfare system that Westminster oversees works. As I said in last week’s debate, I am very conscious of some of the stresses and strains on that system and the arguments about whether the focus has been on the right places. I hope that the fact that some of the child benefit changes that were announced yesterday were not quite as radical as those that were originally planned is an example of that message having got home.
As Jamie Hepburn said, it is essential that we all pull together to ensure that we do what is right and proper for the educational, emotional, intellectual and social needs of our children. We look forward to hearing much more from the Scottish Government about the timing and the content of the legislative process that it intends to pursue. Thereafter, I hope that we can move further forward.
11:22
I welcome what is, as Liz Smith pointed out, the second debate on the topic in seven days. Last week’s debate was called by the Liberal Democrats. It is clear that they got a surfeit of information last week and decided not to have a second shot at the issue. This week’s debate has been called by Labour. I would not dispute any member’s describing childcare as being “exceptionally important”. It is exceptionally important. It benefits children, of course. Education and care are indivisible. Being within that process is extremely important for the youngest children. As they move towards formal schooling, the flexible childcare that we are talking about becomes ever more important.
Such childcare benefits parents, not just in their working lives, although that is clearly important. There are working mothers in the Parliament, two of whom have spoken in the debate. It also helps with parents’ work-life balance and, overall, it benefits society. [Interruption.] I am told that there are four working mothers in the chamber. Is there any advance on four? There are quite a number of working fathers in the Parliament, too. We should not forget them. We now have five working mothers in the chamber—Angela Constance has just entered. I think that I will stop with that. Flexible childcare also benefits the economy and the overall wellbeing of society.
We have had a number of positive contributions to the debate. Claire Baker’s was positive and helpful in pointing out the issues that need to be addressed, and Dennis Robertson’s was exceptionally well informed and constructive. The questions that Liz Smith asked are important ones. I will come to the issue of legislation in a moment. It is important that we take a fresh look at what we are trying to do. Dennis Robertson was right to say that a great deal is happening. It is definitely wrong to represent the debate as an either/or scenario—either you are interested in the provision of 600 hours or you are, in some sense, a failure. I will come on to address the tone of the opening speech in the debate, which was unfortunate.
There is very strong concern in this Government and across this chamber—nobody has a monopoly on concern for children—about making progress on a range of issues. We have done so: early years work has been done, getting it right for every child work has been done, and quality has been driven up. For example, additional qualifications are required for childcare. Those are all important things. The significant achievement of taking the number of hours from 412.5 to 475 in the early days of the first SNP Administration was important. The number of hours delivered was lower—I will not make any political point about this—before the SNP came into office. We still want to improve and we have that aspiration to improve, which the First Minister has been right to lay out.
We need to work out how we can improve and the right way to deliver that improvement. That right way must be flexible, because this is not just about hours or sum of hours. We have moved on from there and we know that early years’ care and education are indivisible. We need flexibility and we need primary legislation to deliver that flexibility. I will not swap opinions with people—that route will not help us—but this Government is committed to doing those things, wants to do so and wants to introduce the right legislation. The Government is happy to work with all parties—I make this offer—to introduce that legislation.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
In a moment, Mr Henry. The Government is happy to introduce that legislation. Liz Smith has asked to discuss it and I am very happy to sit down and discuss it. I make the same commitment to Hugh Henry. I constantly make commitments to Mr Henry that he can come and talk to me, and he never does, but on this occasion he would be very welcome to do so and we might make some progress.
Will the cabinet secretary confirm whether he has the powers and competences to use regulation and ministerial guidance to introduce the increase in the number of hours now?
That was an unhelpful intervention, but I am used to that from Mr Henry. I was talking about developing the way in which we deliver childcare to take account of the flexibility required, and that needs primary legislation. I make the offer again—if Hugh Henry wants to sit down and talk, or if Neil Bibby is asked by him to come and talk to the minister, I would be very happy to have those discussions. We need that discussion and debate.
A great deal is being done, and, of course, more can be done, but I want members to reflect on something else this morning. We have had two debates from Labour on interesting and important subjects. Unfortunately, the focus on the Labour side has been not on progress but on insisting on spending now—not next week or next month, but now. There was not a word, not a single contribution, about what they would stop spending the money on. That is important because of the constitutional circumstances in which we find ourselves. We live within a constrained, fixed budget and in those circumstances, if anyone is going to argue for additional expenditure—indeed, our budget procedures in the Parliament demand this—they have to say where it would come from. There has not been a word about that important aspect of the question.
It was also very telling—this was the difference between this week and last week—that there was not a word about the assault on families being undertaken by the coalition through welfare reform. The debate has simply, alas, been about oppositionalism—it is best just to say it and be open about it. It has been about naked, simple oppositionalism. The people of Scotland are not fooled by that and I will tell members how I know that they are not fooled. A year ago today, on 22 March 2011, this Parliament dissolved. We had had four years of oppositionalism from Labour members; four years of anger, bile and frustration. That frustration was not just at not being in office, but at having their entitlement to office taken away. That has been striking.
We went through that election and there was a lot of expectation that things would change, and they did change. They changed big style. This party got an overall majority, the first time that it has ever happened. There is a lesson in that and I want to give that lesson free, gratis and for nothing to Johann Lamont. The lesson is that people in Scotland find that type of oppositionalism deeply unattractive. I have not done the word cloud of her speech, but I suspect that my estimate is pretty close, and a speech on childcare from the leader of the Opposition that uses the words “First Minister” as often as it uses the word “child” tells us something about what is taking place. A speech that attacks the Government for not caring about children is deeply unattractive, too, I must say. I speak as not just a parent, but the minister who has overall responsibility for children.
I did not say that.
I suggest that the leader of the Opposition, who is shouting out as usual, and the education spokesperson who is about to sum up take a positive approach. They should come and discuss this issue. Let us get together on it, because I suspect that we are about to hear more anger and bile directed more at the fact that they are not in office than at any care about anything else.
11:30
It is hard to know how to start, when the Government is making us an offer to come and talk and be positive while suggesting that the talk would take place in conditions of anger, bile and negativity. If the Government wants to talk, that is no way to frame the terms of the discussion.
Will the member give way?
Not yet. I heard enough of Mike Russell’s bile a few minutes ago.
Let us concentrate on what the motion is about. Mike Russell asked why we have not spent time talking about what the coalition Government has done on welfare benefits. There will be plenty of opportunities to look at other matters; this debate is about a specific issue.
We are all guilty sometimes of confusing nursery education and childcare. Mike Russell was right to say that the issues are indivisible to some extent, but there are also significant differences between them. I do not for a moment dispute that working families throughout the country need better access to more flexible, integrated childcare, which wraps around our important core education service. We need to ensure that the educational input can be more flexible and can link into what parents need. We perhaps also need to admit that we sometimes blur the distinctions between childcare and education.
I think that there should be more flexibility, but I also argue that we need to ensure that we do not lose the fundamental educational input into early years development.
We are not doing that.
I am not accusing the SNP Government of doing that. I am talking generally; we all need to ensure that we do not lose that fundamental input. We need to be careful. We also need to be imaginative and flexible, so that we can match what parents need to what can be delivered.
Whether or not Mike Russell liked hearing references to the First Minister, the debate has been framed by what the First Minister said. He mentioned childcare, but—
Will the member give way?
In a second.
The First Minister mentioned childcare, but he has laboured significantly on education. That is the bit that we need to look at. Let me remind members what the SNP has said. In its 2007 manifesto it said:
“We will increase the provision of free nursery education for 3 and 4 year olds by 50 per cent”.
In its 2011 manifesto, the SNP said that it would
“ensure ... that the expansion of nursery education continues.”
At the party conference, Alex Salmond said that there will be
“a statutory guarantee of over 600 hours of free nursery education for every Scottish 3 and 4 year old.”
I thank Hugh Henry for giving way. He said clearly that the debate is predicated on the First Minister’s remarks at my party’s conference. Does that mean that if the First Minister had not made those remarks Labour would not have brought the subject forward for debate? Does that mean that Labour does not care about the issue?
I will resist the temptation to thank Hepburn for that intervention.
Excuse me. Mr Henry, please refer to the member as “Mr Hepburn” or “Jamie Hepburn”.
Oh, I am sorry; since he called me “Henry”, I was just making the point—
And if I had heard that I would have given Mr Hepburn a row, too.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. May I ask you to reflect on the Official Report? I did not at any stage refer to Mr Henry as “Henry”.
Mr Henry, continue.
Well, anyway.
The member asked whether we would have brought the subject forward for debate if the First Minister had not made those remarks. Well no, the subject would not have been on the agenda because it is about what the First Minister said. What he said—and what the SNP said—is that this is about the delivery of 600 hours of free nursery education. The question is whether we need primary legislation. Maybe in three years’ time, or longer, when the bill takes effect, there will be a need to consider legislation for flexibility, but—
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
Primary legislation is not needed to deliver the extension to hours. The SNP has already extended the hours by statutory instrument and moved beyond what Labour delivered. I agree with Aileen Campbell that 600 hours should be the starting point for a flexible package of wraparound childcare. We do not need to wait for primary legislation to deliver it.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
Section 32 of the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc Act 2000 allows ministers to effect change through regulation; that is, by statutory instrument. Section 34 allows ministers to give guidance on how that will be delivered. Delivery of the 600 hours does not need to wait for primary legislation.
Joan McAlpine says that the commitment to 600 hours is a milestone. Normally, milestones tell us where we have reached in a journey. We have not reached 600 hours, so there is no milestone here.
As Dennis Robertson said in a very good speech, this is a complex issue. We do not want to do something that could fail, yet the SNP has already extended provision and has made improvements on the journey, and that has not failed—it has been positive—so why would an extension to 600 hours be a failure?
Will the member give way?
No, thanks.
The question is whether Scotland’s families and children need to wait for three years or more for the 600 hours to be delivered. The answer is no. Ministers have the power, and they have already used it. All that Labour is saying today is that we want to work constructively with the Government. We want the Parliament to send out the powerful message that we can unite on something so important to Scotland’s families. We all agree that 600 hours is a noble aspiration and that 600 hours will make a huge difference, so surely we can also agree that ministers have the power to deliver that now if they wish. [Applause.]
There is no bile on my part—[Interruption.]
Minister, please do not shout across the chamber.
Why not be positive? Why not say that we can all work together? Why not recognise the powers of this Parliament? Why not recognise the powers of ministers? Why not recognise that Scotland’s families could benefit now from the 600 hours rather than waiting three years or more?
The debate is about what we can do as a Parliament and not what we can aspire to as a Parliament. The debate is about whether there is a will to succeed. It is about whether we have the determination and ability to work across parties to do something now. We are offering the Government the opportunity and the mechanism not to delay nursery education provision for three years, but to implement it now and to work together to improve the flexibility of childcare and the integration of the different aspects of childcare. Above all, we are offering the Government the opportunity to make a difference now, not to postpone it to the dim and distant future.