Nursery Nurses
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-334, in the name of Carolyn Leckie, on nursery nurses. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament sends solidarity greetings and best wishes to all Scotland's nursery nurses and UNISON in advance of their gala day on Saturday 13 September 2003; supports their grading claim in full, and considers that COSLA should make an offer that meets the modest and legitimate demands of the nursery nurses.
I extend to the nursery nurses solidarity and admiration for their courage and determination. They have been pursuing their justifiable and modest grading claim for two years and have had to resort to strike action. I have a long history of involvement in the trade union movement and its struggles and I know how much courage it takes to pursue a dispute. Members might be aware that the nursery nurses lodged their claim in September 2001. In the 15 years before that, their duties increased continually and their role became increasingly complex, with their having more responsibilities around planning, assessment, production of reports on children and so on. In the same period, nursery places increased by 4 per cent, while staff numbers went down by 13 per cent.
During this afternoon's debate on education, many members talked about the importance of valuing children. If we are serious about valuing our children, we must value the people to whom we entrust their care, education and development.
Unison submitted a petition to the Public Petitions Committee on children in early-years education. Its evidence, and other evidence that was submitted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation and other agencies, showed quite clearly that there is a desperate need to develop early-years education, to integrate it with education as a whole and to give nursery nurses a proper career structure as part of that process.
Children are society's biggest resource—I am sure that nobody in the chamber would disagree with that—but are we going to put our money where our mouth is in relation to the people who have a monumental impact on, and input into, our children's lives at the very earliest stage? My children remember vividly the experiences that were provided for them in their early lives by nursery nurses. Those experiences have stood them in great stead throughout their education.
I challenge anybody to suggest that the nursery nurses' claim is not just. Even if the claim were met in full as it stands, it would put nursery nurses on a minimum pay structure that paid £17,340 to £21,732—I emphasise that a proper career structure would be part of that—but with the abhorrent use of term-time pay, that would still place nursery nurses only on average earnings for women in Scotland, which are still £6,000 behind average earnings for men in Scotland.
There have been 15 years of undervaluing nursery nurses. Not only is that obviously just cause for an undervalued and hard-working professional work force to make a pay claim, but it is a clear example of traditionally female work's being regarded as being of less value than the work of men. That is an inequality that entrenches low pay and which is linked directly to shocking levels of child poverty, as has been established in various reports by trade union and labour organisations round the world, and in reports by the Equal Opportunities Commission.
Low pay is topical not only today—low pay is for life, as has been shown by research. Low pay is for life and the pay gap is for life if the situation is not reversed. Inequalities that are ignored today ensure a lifetime of inequitable low income, increased poverty and lower pensions. For women, lower pay means that their pension is a third lower in later life. Low pay leads to a legacy of perpetual poverty and inequality for future generations—the very children who will be entrusted to the care of nursery nurses.
The Executive has lauded its participation in the "Close the Gap" campaign, part of which aims to encourage public and private sector organisations to conduct employment and pay reviews that cover all aspects of women's employment. However, the Executive remains silent on nursery nurses and says that their pay is a matter for employers and the trade unions.
I refer to the latest offer, which proposes a move to increased use of term-time working, which is directly linked to unequal pay and would perpetuate it. What does the Executive have to say about the proposals that have been made by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities? My previous life as a Unison branch secretary convinces me that the Executive's refusal to comment is evidence of breathtaking double standards and hypocrisy. The Executive is prepared to seek the glory for the removal of private contractors and for pay gains in the national health service—which have been achieved by trade union organisations, not by the Executive—but it refuses to offer support where it is clearly due. Its intervention may avoid the spectre of the nursery nurses' strike having to continue, with all the hardship that striking entails.
Is the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People saying that nursery nurses are worth only between £10,000 and £13,800 a year? Is that his view? Is it his view that MSPs' contributions to the future of our children are worth four times the contributions of nursery nurses, or does he agree that nursery nurses are worth their claim in full and that they are worth a proper career structure and the professional recognition to which they are entitled? Does he agree that COSLA should meet the claim in full, not just with recommendations, but with an offer that is guaranteed and which is binding on employers who have signed up to COSLA? Does he join me in hoping that nursery nurses feel valued and that their contribution to the future of our children and future generations will be acknowledged? Does he join me in hoping that we can see them off the picket lines, victorious in their dispute?
Nine members wish to speak, so speeches should be no longer than four minutes in order that all members can contribute.
I will try to be brief. I congratulate Carolyn Leckie on bringing this important debate to the chamber. Not long ago, I had direct daily contact with the pre-five sector; my children benefited from a pre-school education and were cared for by committed professionals. All societies should ensure that such central jobs are properly remunerated.
Recognition exists of the important work that is done by the Scottish Executive and local authorities in supporting early-years learning, and of the increased emphasis on child care. That prioritisation is the result of a long period of campaigning by women in the labour and trade union movements. Those women have clarified the importance of such a strategy in tackling poverty.
Increased emphasis on child care allows parents to manage their working lives better or to take up opportunities to work, but such emphasis is also important because of children's needs. It means that children are given a good start and it is especially important for children from vulnerable or chaotic families, which form a central part of our strategy for social inclusion. To make a difference at the pre-five stage can make a major difference to our children's later lives. I want to be absolutely clear that, even in a world of hard choices, such an issue must be a priority.
Sometimes, there are difficulties relating to intervening in individual pay disputes and there is an essential relationship between employers and trade union representatives, who must ultimately sort out negotiations. However, broader issues are highlighted by the dispute. From discussions that I have had with nursery nurses, it is clear that pay levels and responsibility levels simply do not match. The jobs are predominantly done by women and we know that women predominate among the low paid. There is a structural problem relating to women's pay, which is highlighted by the work of women in early-years education and child care. We will not close the pay gap if we do not address that problem and give priority to the issue of women's work and low pay. Women's earnings will not increase by a trickle down from settlements that have been achieved in other sectors through trade union disputes.
There is a conundrum: are women's jobs low paid because women do them, or do women end up doing low-paid jobs because those jobs are low paid? There is a pressing case for an independent review of the pre-five education child care sector across the range—public sector, voluntary sector and private sector—because such work is so important to the life chances of children, especially the most vulnerable children, and because women's caring work does not seem to be properly valued.
I urge the minister to explore, in partnership with COSLA, the trade unions and the staff who are involved, how a review might be carried out. I am absolutely certain that any objective review that considers the jobs and responsibilities in the sector will lead to greater remuneration for those jobs. Of course, I urge the minister to recognise that the employers need to be given a commitment in respect of resources that would follow the conclusions of such a review.
I cannot underline too strongly that the matter is of grave importance, although it can be sorted. The sector is so central and so diverse that we must address low-pay issues; those issues do not exist simply by accident, but are in the structures. I hope that the minister will give us a commitment in that respect today.
I apologise in advance to the Presiding Officer and to the minister because I may have to leave to attend a public consultation meeting in Linlithgow tonight.
I, too, congratulate Carolyn Leckie on bringing this debate to the chamber. There is a pay dispute and the issue is obviously topical. We must recognise that COSLA has a lead role in that dispute. However, Parliament has a responsibility to address the matter on two counts: first, because of our commitment to children, child care and early-years education; and secondly—this is an issue that Johann Lamont brought to the debate—because of gender inequality. If Parliament, which has so many women MSPs, does nothing to address issues around low pay and part-time working, we should look ourselves in the eye and ask why we are here. Many of the women who have been elected to Parliament have come here to address equality for women and women's low pay.
When we have debates on the economy and what the country needs—such as those in which I have participated recently—in which the same conclusion is reached as that which the First Minister reached this morning when he talked on the radio about the need to bring more workers into Scotland, we must ask ourselves why that is necessary. We know that we have a falling population: that is of real concern. Unless we arrest or change that trend, we must ensure that the people who are here now—the young people who are our future—get the best start in life.
We have to realise that the Executive's proposals for child care strategies and early-years intervention have to be delivered by somebody. The Executive is placing increasing demands on nursery nurses; we have a responsibility to reflect that. We must support young people in their first steps. Some educational materials show that the interventions and actions of nursery nurses in the early years can make a considerable contribution to identifying future support needs. We must acknowledge that and the Parliament must support their work. That is one of the ways forward.
It is imperative that we also consider the gender issues. If we want to tackle poverty and the problems of a falling population, we must encourage women to take up employment or better-placed employment. Women have often to work part time because that is the only way for them to work around their child care needs and to find employment near their children's schools or nurseries. The Executive cannot expect its proposal for nursery places for three and four-year-olds—which I welcome—to work unless the proposal is supported by the necessary resources.
The issue is not just about resolving the current pay dispute: it goes longer and deeper. However, if we value children and those who care for our children, that will be a big step in the progress that started many years ago with women demanding rights that are equal to those of men. In valuing the work that nursery nurses do, we will take steps to ensure that we build the type of country that we want, in which equality and social justice prevail. If valuing and celebrating children matters, we must support those who provide so much for them in their early years.
I congratulate Carolyn Leckie on her success in raising this important matter for debate. I hold in my hand a copy of the letter from the president of COSLA, Councillor Pat Watters, to Brian Monteith. Councillor Watters says that
"local negotiations can bring about satisfactory settlements based on our guidance. Indeed some local authorities have already settled the dispute."
Like COSLA, in this case, we believe that negotiations should be carried out in education authorities, leading to satisfactory settlements. We believe that a review of nursery nurses' pay was desperately needed because of the increased duties and tasks that they have taken on over the years. We argue for improved guidelines on pay and conditions, because the current wage levels for nursery nurses are unacceptable. We want the guidelines to prescribe a structured career path.
COSLA has recently reviewed the findings of the working group that was set up to review the pay of nursery nurses and has offered new guidelines for pay and conditions. We are in favour of the proposal that there be a three-tier career structure with benchmark grades for each post, which would result in pay that reflects fairly the experience of, and the work that is done by, nursery nurses.
We also believe that, in addition to the guidelines, the final pay and conditions should be set by the local authority, which would better reflect local circumstances. For example, in an area in which there was a shortage of nursery nurses, the local authority could go well beyond the guidelines in order to attract nursery nurses to fill vacant posts. If pay was set locally, pay and conditions would be more responsive to each nursery nurse.
I believe firmly that nursery education is not acknowledged for the fundamental work that it does in teaching children in their younger years. That is something that Carolyn Leckie touched on. All too often it is considered that spending a pound on primary or secondary education is better than spending a pound at nursery level. We simply must change that underlying attitude to nursery education so that genuine recognition, and a salary that reflects that, can and will come about.
It is our purpose to drive up standards at all levels of education. That can be achieved only by having on board the best teaching staff, who feel that they are given the recognition and salary that they deserve. That must be addressed urgently at nursery level. I look forward to the minister's words in a few minutes.
It is interesting that we had a debate earlier on the document "Better Behaviour—Better Learning", in which members talked about how important early intervention is for our young people. However, professionals who are working in nurseries with children of three and four—a crucial stage—are not being properly paid, do not have a proper career structure and their professional training needs to be reviewed. The nursery nurses are desperately keen to be back in their jobs; they do not want to be out on strike, but they have been forced to take industrial action because for years they have not been listened to.
As Carolyn Leckie asked, how important to us is our young people's future? Do we want to acknowledge the professionalism and proper education at nurseries by providing proper training and professional qualifications, with decent pay and career structures built in, or will we have a system in which nursery nurses are second class and are not part of the real education system? That is the case now.
We must remember that many of the nursery nurses about whom we are talking work in our primary schools alongside teachers; those teachers have professional structures and pay, which were improved recently by the McCrone settlement. Nursery nurses do crucial work in primary schools.
We must also consider what we expect from our nursery nurses today. We expect them to assess and plan for the individual needs of the young people with whom they work. We expect them to be involved in early identification of any special educational needs that young people might have. All of that involves a high level of professionalism, but nursery nurses are second class in our education system.
We also expect nursery nurses to work with parents, which brings me back to where I started. We talk about better behaviour and better learning and we want improvement in the behaviour of young people in our schools. The nursery stage is the crucial stage at which to identify where intervention is needed. We should have people working with parents at that stage and we should treat and pay those people as professionals.
We should put as much pressure on COSLA as possible to get the dispute ended and to give proper satisfaction to the nursery nurses.
I join other members in thanking Carolyn Leckie for bringing the issue to Parliament's attention this evening. I was pleased and encouraged in July this year when, in an interview in the Sunday Herald, the Minister for Communities, Ms Margaret Curran, recommitted herself to ensuring that feminist issues and ideals would be at the core of the Scottish Executive's decision making and policy making during the second session of Parliament. The minister said:
"Scottish feminism is still alive and well and in the Cabinet."
She went on to say:
"I think in this new parliament we need to reinforce our commitment by actually saying that women's rights, women's equality should be on our agenda. It's something that we really need to focus on now and make a key priority."
That kind of pledge follows previous good work on equality initiatives, such as the "Close the Gap" initiative, which was referred to earlier and which was launched in March 2001. That initiative recently received a further £30,000 from the social justice budget for the current year. Therefore, I want to record my recognition of the Executive's clear commitment to the feminist agenda and to closing the pay gap.
However, if there is anything to be learned from the situation that has arisen with regard to nursery nurses, it is that we have a considerable amount to do if we are to create a true culture of equality in the world of employment.
A number of questions can be put. Is it acceptable that the job of nursery nurse has not been reviewed for 15 years? Is it acceptable that a nursery nurse with two years' training and more than 10 years' experience can expect to earn, at best, no more than £13,800 a year? Is it acceptable that the increase in professional responsibilities and in the work load of nursery nurses in recent years has not been reflected in their remuneration?
Those are legitimate questions that need to be answered; I hope that the minister will address them. What is of more concern, however, is that those questions need to be posed at all. A slightly latent—if that is the right word—but equally significant question should be: why has our society allowed the job of the nursery nurse, which ensures the delivery of a valuable pre-five curriculum to our children, to be overlooked and undervalued for as long as it has been?
As Johann Lamont and Carolyn Leckie did, I point out that the issue is not only about a pay dispute between employer and employee; it is about the wider issue of gender discrimination in pay. I hope that the minister will be able to address that wider issue. I do not think that it is a coincidence that we find low pay to be the experience of a profession whose membership, according to Unison, comprises 99.5 per cent women.
In response to recent increases in the gender pay gap, Julie Mellor, the chair of the Equal Opportunities Commission, said:
"We, as a society, need to reassess the value we place on jobs traditionally done by women. How on earth can we justify, for example, the low pay received by people caring for children and older people - surely one of the most valuable roles in society?"
Parliament should take that advice on board.
We need to effect a change in cultural attitudes. That will take time, of course, but supporting women who work as nursery nurses, and those who work in similar professions, and giving them the professional recognition that they deserve is a way forward. It is something that we should do.
Nursery nurses make an extremely valuable contribution to our society. The early-years education of our children has become increasingly significant in recent years and is set to become even more important. The professional responsibility of nursery nurses has undoubtedly increased in accordance with that trend and it is time that society, Government and employers recognised that and rewarded nursery nurses accordingly.
I congratulate Carolyn Leckie on her motion and the members who have spoken on their speeches. Members' business debates are often the best debates that the Scottish Parliament has. On this occasion, despite strong feelings on the issue, no one has been over the top and everyone has made constructive comments from various angles.
The issue of nursery education is dear to the heart of the Liberal Democrats. Our manifesto has contained words about the subject for many years and we are pleased that the coalition Government has managed to extend considerably the provision of nursery education. As other members have said, nursery education is extremely important.
I agree with Lord James Douglas-Hamilton that, in the short term, it might be a mistake for the Parliament or the Scottish Executive to get involved in the dispute. As I understand the situation, the dispute is gradually being resolved and some councils have settled with their work force. Local democracy should be allowed to prevail. It might well be the case that COSLA has not negotiated intelligently on this matter—if one is not present at a negotiation, it is always hard to tell who is at fault—but the councils should be allowed to come to a settlement in the short term.
I support Johann Lamont's argument—other members made similar remarks—that there should be a McCrone-style study of the overall pay structure of the various professions that deal with young children. Those professions are important but undervalued.
The issue of women not getting proper recognition is important. I was well brought up, having had a granny and three aunties who were active suffragettes. I am aware that their campaign still goes on. Women have the vote, but they do not have a fair deal. The Parliament will make a big contribution to Scottish life if we can develop the idea of women getting a fair deal. I hope that Johann Lamont, as convener of the Communities Committee, will push the issue. We could press the Executive to take a long-term, overall look at the subject.
I declare an interest as a member of Unison and the mother of a registered nursery nurse.
The motion in Carolyn Leckie's name congratulates Unison nursery nurses on their recent fun day, which was held in Glasgow and highlighted their grading claim, and expresses our support for that claim. I was one of those who were delighted to attend the fun day and participate as a speaker. That was the second time that I had taken part to demonstrate publicly my support for Unison nursery nurses and the work that they undertake every day.
The case of nursery nurses is not new to me. In my employment before I was elected to the Parliament, I represented nursery nurses and was involved in their initial claim for regrading following local government reorganisation. I am also aware of the efforts to reach an agreement prior to the abolition of the old regional councils. Following local government reorganisation, COSLA made many promises that nursery nurses would be regraded with the introduction of the new job evaluation scheme. That has still not been realised, despite the latest claim being lodged in 2001.
The valuable work of nursery nurses is still not acknowledged in monetary terms or in a career structure that reflects the changed world of pre-five education. COSLA's recent offer does nothing to ensure a Scotland-wide career structure for the profession or a Scotland-wide pay agreement for nursery nurses based on factual job descriptions. Today, our student nursery nurses can spend four years in training to obtain a national certificate, a higher national certificate and a bachelor of arts in early-years childhood studies. Many who work in the profession have undertaken that further education at their own expense, but COSLA failed to recognise that in the recent offer.
No guarantee was given that councils throughout Scotland would implement the technical working group's report. The trade unions rejected—rightly, in my view—the offer of 32 interpretations throughout Scotland. It is interesting to note that the president of COSLA, Pat Watters, was the first to reach a local deal with trade unions in South Lanarkshire. That local deal mirrored the technical working group's recommendation, but also included a £600 golden handshake for those in post at 1 April 2002. It also included a clause saying that uprating would take place if a higher Scottish agreement was reached. Such breakaway deals demonstrate to me that COSLA's collective bargaining power is under threat, especially when the first authority to break away is the president's authority.
The Parliament has demonstrated its commitment to national standards for child care with the requirement in the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001 for the combined inspection of establishments by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education and the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care. The act recognises the fact that in our nursery nurses we have a professional work force, in that it provides that they will be regulated by the Scottish Social Services Council. A requirement is also placed on nursery nurses to demonstrate a level of training and continuing professional development to allow registration while working in the sector.
The Scottish Executive has made its commitment by giving local authorities £835 million for child care from 2001 to 2006. We must recognise the fact that nursery nurses deliver quality pre-five education. We must also acknowledge that teachers are no longer required to be in every nursery establishment—nursery nurses have the qualifications to allow that.
We now need the minister to ensure that there is one Scottish grade, one Scottish career structure and one Scottish salary scale for those who deliver a valued start in education to our children, so that they may achieve their full potential. I ask the minister to do all in his power to ensure that COSLA resolves this dispute by entering into meaningful negotiations with the trade unions that represent early-years educators in Scotland.
I will be brief. Tonight's debate has been very good and most members have argued the case for nursery nurses extremely well.
I congratulate Carolyn Leckie on bringing the debate to Parliament. I know that she has pushed the issue of nursery nurses in the Parliament several times. I might be wrong, but I recall that her first contribution was a question to the First Minister. Typically, Jack McConnell passed the buck on dealing with the problem of remuneration for nursery nurses back to local authorities.
I have given my unconditional support to the nursery nurses' case, which is incontrovertible. Rightly, the Executive has put together an investment programme for early-years education. If delivered, that will be of great benefit to the future of this country. However, what kind of message are we sending when we deny the work force that is essential to delivering the programme a decent salary?
Carolyn Leckie has already indicated that the number of pre-school places has increased by about 4 per cent, but the number of staff delivering the service has decreased by 13 per cent. A complete review of the nursery nurses' position is well overdue—I believe that the previous review took place something like 15 years ago.
Now is the time for ministers to intervene. COSLA will not deliver. It cannot force councils to settle at a level that is acceptable to the nursery nurses. Local deals are about picking off people—the classic tactic of divide and rule. We should address the needs of this work force now. It is the minister's responsibility to deliver on the Executive's stated aims for early-years education and to support a work force that has been discriminated against.
I rise to support Carolyn Leckie's motion in support of the nursery nurses' justified and modest pay and regrading claim.
Johann Lamont and I often cross swords politically, but tonight she made an excellent speech. In particular, she was right to say that this case must be a priority. I ask Donald Gorrie to reflect on his suggestion that this might not be the time to intervene. Let us get the matter into perspective. It is 15 years since there was a review of the situation. An initial regrading claim was submitted in 1996 and a new claim was submitted in September 2001. It is now September 2003 and the many members who have been on the picket lines and marched with the nursery nurses will know that they feel totally deflated and undervalued. They think that we are not listening and that we do not care.
At this stage of the dispute, the Executive must become more proactive and must put pressure on COSLA. In a trade union-employer relationship, it is right that the employer should be the initial point of contact, but we are way beyond that stage. The nursery nurses feel that there is nothing left for them to do but to withdraw their labour. All the members who have been on the picket lines and who have spoken to the nursery nurses will know that they do not want to be on strike. They feel that they are letting down the children and the parents, but what options do they have? The only option they have—and this is the only way that they think they will be listened to—is to withdraw their labour.
I remember being in George Square and listening to Margaret Jamieson speak at one of the early demonstrations, which I think must have been way back in 2001. At that stage, many people said, "The only way we're going to get round this is to take strike action." Others said, "No, no, just get in the claim and discuss it," and that won the day. Two years later, the nursery nurses have got nowhere, so they have had to take strike action, because that is all they have left.
We are letting down those essential child care workers if we do not make the case and ask the Executive to be more proactive and intervene. We are not talking about a king's ransom; we are talking only about a semi-decent wage for goodness' sake—£17,000 to £21,000. We are talking about essential workers who are delivering an essential aspect of the modern child care programme in Scotland. If it is essential, let us pay people a decent wage to deliver it. That is what we are asking for.
Johann Lamont said that this is not just a low-pay issue; it is also a gender issue. Let us be clear about that—it is about low-paid and predominantly women workers. We have to take up the cudgels and take up their case.
I appeal to the minister: let us not have a soft-shoe shuffle and let us not just pass the buck. I hope that the minister will say that he wants a meeting with COSLA and is pulling COSLA in. We do not want local deals. For goodness' sake, consider the mess in social work just now with local deals. All sorts of poaching deals mean that Glasgow cannot get enough social workers because South Lanarkshire Council and North Lanarkshire Council are offering better pay. Do we want a crisis in nursery nurse staffing, because of all the different deals in the 32 local authorities?
Let us have national pay and national grading for national standards. Surely that is what we should deliver for our children and for our child care workers. I hope that the minister will give us a strong response that is about him pulling in COSLA and asking it to get together with the unions to deliver the deal.
I declare my interest as a member of Unison, and my forthcoming interest, as I am the mother of two children under three.
I am proud of Labour's achievements in nursery education since 1997. It is vital that those achievements are recognised, because if we are to secure the long-term educational improvement of our children and take children out of poverty, we must intervene early.
By securing a nursery place and developing assessment for all three and four-year-olds, as a Parliament we have placed increased demands on nursery nurses. We must recognise that there is indeed a role for the Parliament and the Executive, because we have fundamentally changed the role of nursery nurses. That is why the Executive needs to get everyone round the table and to ensure that there is a full and independent review of the pay structure and responsibilities of nursery nurses.
In the previous parliamentary session, the Executive pulled together the parties to secure the McCrone deal for teaching staff. Frankly, if we are saying that COSLA cannot deliver a national agreement, the Executive must intervene. I do not accept that local agreements are the right way forward. I disagree slightly with Tommy Sheridan's analysis. Because of the nature of nursery nurse work, I do not think that people will cross borders. Women cannot necessarily do that, and the role of nursery nurses means that they might not have that flexibility.
I say to the minister that if a review was good enough for teachers—and the Executive put in the funding to back up that review and make it possible—I am sure that it is good enough for nursery nurses. Nursery nurses are vital members of the education team—they are not just child care staff or childminders. If it is important for us to fund a nursery place for three and four-year-olds, it is important for us to fund the pay of the people who educate those three and four-year-olds, because educate is what they do.
The minister needs to play a role and to get people working together. We need to ensure that we are not in the position four years from now, or even one year from now, where nursery nurses come back to the table saying that they are putting in a pay claim. That all goes back to national pay bargaining, and to having a system in which there is a clear and identifiable pay structure for nursery nurses that is based on the new responsibilities that this Parliament has placed on them.
I add my congratulations to those already offered to Carolyn Leckie on securing the debate, which has been good. The sincerity of everybody's views is something that I will take away with me.
I open by saying that nursery nurses play a vital role in the care and education of our young children. That is self-evident. As I have heard, that view is shared by all members. I would like to thank everyone for their contributions.
The Executive values the work that nursery nurses carry out. We are conscious that the positive outcomes that we seek for our children are associated with high-quality services that are provided by a work force of the highest quality. I am grateful to Adam Ingram for his recognition of the investment in early-years education. Over the next few years, we aim to increase the number of qualified workers and to widen opportunities for training and career progression. To help to achieve that, we have allocated a total of £15.6 million between 2003 and 2006 specifically to assist workers to gain accredited qualifications. Therefore, we are addressing the point that Margaret Jamieson made in her effective speech. The allocation is set against the background of the forthcoming requirement for the early-years and child care work force to register with the Scottish Social Services Council, which Margaret Jamieson mentioned, as part of our improved regulatory regime for such services.
I heard what Johann Lamont and Elaine Smith said and I share their concerns about low pay for women. The Executive is fully aware of the existing discrepancies and we appreciate the anxieties that they create. As a commitment, I am prepared to explore with Johann Lamont the idea that she put forward. I will perhaps talk to her about it afterwards.
The motion asks that we should support the nursery nurses' grading claim and says that our position should be to say that COSLA should make an offer that meets their demands. Although I accept the sincerity of members' views, they will have heard what the First Minister and the Minister for Education and Young People have said. I do not believe that we should become directly involved in unresolved industrial disputes between employers and employees. I will develop that argument in a minute. We have not intervened in the negotiations and we do not intend to intervene. They must—I repeat, must—remain a matter for the employers and the employees' unions.
It is regrettable that the dispute has gone on this long. Members have spoken eloquently about the length of time during which regrading has been an issue. High-quality and accessible early-years provision is essential in providing our children with the best possible start in life. It can also facilitate the return to employment of many parents. Therefore, in our view, it is essential that the unions and the local authorities continue to negotiate and that they reach a settlement quickly—a settlement that is fair to the nursery nurses and that is financially sustainable for the local authorities.
I want to come to an important point. My understanding is that, as part of the single-status agreement—which the local authorities and the unions signed up to—matters of pay are now a matter for local determination. What has happened during this dispute is that COSLA has represented the employers in producing a proposed benchmark of job description, grading and career structure that can be used by local authorities in local negotiations. If one likes, COSLA took over the role of facilitator. I come back to the point that, under the single-status agreement—which, I repeat, the local authorities and the unions signed up to—the matter is one for local determination. Therefore, we cannot intervene.
As members will know, the most recent proposal, which was presented to the unions on 12 September, was rejected and further strike action took place across the country. Although it might seem that national negotiations have broken down or have reached an impasse, I understand that each local authority is beginning to enter into discussions with trade unions on local settlements, as per the single-status agreement. I am interested to learn that that is not the case; I will take that point away with me.
I understand that the local negotiations have led to an agreement in South Lanarkshire—I listened to what was said about that—and that other negotiations might take place in due course. I cannot intrude on that sensitive situation.
I can understand how, in other professions, there are differences between people who work in one area and those who work in another, but will the minister clarify how being a nursery nurse in his constituency is different from being a nursery nurse in mine?
The member makes an important point, but I return to the fact that the single-status agreement was decided on by both the employers and the employees' representatives. I cannot escape from that situation. Whatever validity the member's point has, we are stuck with the present situation.
The minister refers to single status and the job evaluation scheme, but he might have read the Unison briefing, which states:
"The job evaluation scheme has been constantly put off"—
by the employers—
"since it was originally agreed."
Therefore, it does not function. The employers have raised the scheme simply as an excuse not to settle the nursery nurses dispute. The minister should not hide behind that.
I assure the member that I am not hiding behind anything; I hear what she says.
Some progress has been made, and the fact that the dispute has highlighted certain issues has been helpful. However, although many members will not like it, I must repeat that the Executive has no reason to intervene and has no intention of doing so.
I ask the minister to reflect on the fact that the Scottish Executive became involved in discussions on the McCrone settlement, to which Margaret Jamieson referred. In the course of last year's fire dispute, United Kingdom Government ministers met local government representatives and representatives of the Fire Brigades Union. I ask the minister to reflect on those cases and to reconsider his position.
I will reflect on what the member has said; indeed, we will consider very carefully what members have said, as we will do in relation to the debate on better behaviour.
To facilitate progress towards settlements in all local authority areas, I understand that COSLA will continue to act as a point of contact for authorities that seek up-to-date information on what has been proposed or agreed. As I understand it, that is a clearing-house arrangement. The Executive will continue to encourage negotiations between local authorities and unions, because we want to see a quick end to the dispute. I am sure that all members share that wish.
Meeting closed at 18:08.