Early Years Inquiry
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4931, in the name of Iain Smith, on behalf of the Education Committee, on its seventh report of 2006, on its early years inquiry.
I am pleased to open this debate on the Education Committee's report on its early years inquiry. The committee's decision to hold the inquiry pre-dated my convenership, but I was pleased to have the opportunity to hear most of the evidence and to preside over a thorough and considered inquiry.
The committee was extremely consensual in its approach to the inquiry and agreed the final report unanimously. I start by thanking members of the committee from all parties, who helped to achieve that; our committee adviser, Professor Kathy Sylva of the University of Oxford, who is a world-renowned expert on early years and gave the committee invaluable advice throughout; and the clerks to the committee, for their extremely helpful input into the process and, in particular, for drafting the report. I also thank the many people throughout the country and beyond who contributed to the inquiry.
As well as taking the usual written and oral evidence, members went on the road. We visited local authority and voluntary sector early years operations in Glasgow and West Lothian and held an informal round-table discussion with private sector operators. Last October, we visited Sweden and Finland to find out about early years policies and practice there. We invited many of those who gave evidence to the inquiry to an informal reception here at the Parliament last night, both to say thanks for their invaluable contribution and to get their feedback on the report. I am pleased to say that, on the whole, the feedback was positive. Indeed, some organisations indicated that they are already acting to implement some of the report's recommendations, which is welcome.
In June, the committee held a high-profile launch of the report at the Cowgate under-fives centre here in Edinburgh. We also printed 10,000 copies of the executive summary, which has been widely distributed throughout the country. We have been encouraging a debate on the report since its publication. We welcome a number of stakeholders in the public gallery who have made the journey for the debate.
We are pleased that in its response to the report the Scottish Executive accepted many of our findings, although—as the debate will no doubt demonstrate—there are one or two areas in which it prefers an alternative route towards what is, in effect, the same end.
No investment is more important than that which we make for our children. Time and again during the inquiry, we heard that investment in early years will pay dividends in the future, not only in the development of children's social skills, in their educational success and in their potential to contribute to wider society, but by helping to grow our economy by maximising people's opportunities to contribute to the workforce.
For the Education Committee, the impact of early years services on the individual child is paramount. All children should be cared for in a situation that stimulates their social, emotional, physical, cognitive and language skills, whether that care is provided by their parents, by relatives, by childminders or in a more formal nursery, playgroup or pre-school setting.
We recognise that economic activity is one of the best ways out of poverty and to promote social inclusion, and that an important element of that is the availability of quality child care. If our economy is to grow in the way we want, we need a vibrant early years sector that will give parents confidence that their children will be cared for while they are at work. Investment in early years services gives us, in effect, a triple whammy, by providing benefits to children, their parents and society at large. That is why the committee agreed unanimously that early years services must be an investment priority and that we need to find the resources to sustain that investment over the medium to long term. Early years must no longer be the Cinderella service in our education system.
Much has already been achieved. We now have universal entitlement to 12.5 hours of pre-school education for all three and four-year-olds. There has been a lot of progress towards improving staff qualifications throughout the sector. The Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education, through their inspections and reports on early years provision, have helped to drive up quality over the past few years. The child care strategy that the Westminster Government published in 1998 was a big step forward, but it pre-dates devolution. It is perhaps time to develop a new strategic framework that sets out how investment is to be targeted at the early years sector in the coming years.
A considerable sum has already been invested in the sure start programme. Although that investment has been welcomed, not enough is known yet for us to be able to say how effective it has been. That is why the report welcomes an Executive commitment to evaluate the sure start programme.
What form should future investment in early years take? Committee members visited Sweden and Finland, where investment in early years has been heavy and sustained over a long period. In many ways, it is tempting to replicate some of the good practice that we saw there. However, although there is a lot to learn from the Scandinavian approaches—not least about the respect that the sector is given in both countries—ultimately we have to accept that Scotland comes from a different starting point. Much is already in place, and we have different social problems and taxation and benefits systems. The challenge for us is to improve our early years sector in a way that fits best with the existing structures in Scotland and deploys the resources that are available to us most effectively.
The committee recognises that the single most important factor in improving quality in the early years sector, and the area in which we will get the biggest return, is raising skill levels throughout the workforce. Although there has been a big improvement in recent years, and despite the valuable and important job that the early years workforce does, it remains overwhelmingly female, poorly trained, poorly rewarded and undervalued.
Much of the debate since the report was published has been about the qualifications of the early years workforce. The argument has centred on whether teachers or people with other nursery qualifications are best placed to provide the stimulating experience for children to which I referred earlier.
We have a lot to say in the report about teachers in early years settings. Although the area is controversial, and some of our recommendations have been rejected by some commentators, all the evidence from the effective provision of pre-school education study—the only major, recent, large-scale, longitudinal study of early years that has taken place in the United Kingdom, albeit largely in England—is that children, particularly those from the most challenging backgrounds, make significant gains in their social and relationship skills and in their capacity for subsequent learning at school when supported by teachers, particularly from the age of three onwards. That is why we are uneasy about moves by some local authorities, such as Glasgow City Council, to redeploy teachers away from nursery schools.
That said, more important than the qualifications that people have is how they work with their colleagues and engage with the children. A feature of all the examples of best practice that we saw during the inquiry was a multidisciplinary team of professionals working together in integrated teams.
In the longer term, I would like to see a move towards a new set of qualifications for the early years workforce that draws on the best from the present workforce to provide a comprehensive and flexible series of qualifications that ensure that all who work with young children can help to develop their social, emotional, physical, cognitive and language skills.
Since the committee's report was published, the Executive has published its long-awaited workforce review. I am pleased that it meets many of the aspirations in our report, although perhaps it does not go far enough in some important respects. The workforce review says little about how we can recast training for early years workers, including teachers, so that there is a much greater degree of flexibility than at present, with flexible learning methods and different entry and exit points depending on the kind of early years job an individual wants to do. However, that point is acknowledged in the Executive's response to the committee and we are assured that it is being taken forward, which is encouraging.
The committee was impressed by the family centres that we went to see during the inquiry, both in the voluntary and local authority sectors. Too often, family centres are seen as part of the landscape only in deprived areas, where a range of social problems means that people require extra support. At the excellent Whitdale early years centre in West Lothian, we saw a non-stigmatising service for three and four-year-olds that was seamlessly integrated with other types of care. We considered recommending a roll-out of family centres throughout Scotland and we commissioned research on the cost of doing so. However, we found that the cost of making such provision in every community in Scotland would be enormous and could not be justified as a responsible use of resources.
There has been some criticism of the committee's report on the ground that it does not recommend universal services. In fact—and this is not double-speak—we do recommend universal services, but that does not mean that every community, or indeed every child, should receive exactly the same type of service. In some communities, there might be a need for only an early years hub, where parents can find information about where the playgroup is or who the local registered childminders are, where they can get extra support and where parents and relatives can get training. In other areas, needs are more complex and a more sophisticated and comprehensive range of services is required. As a result of the high capital and revenue costs of family centres, they should be sited where they are likely to have the most impact, that is, in areas that face the greatest challenges.
We learned during the inquiry that many children have difficulty making the transition from early years settings, particularly the change from very informal learning to more formal learning in primary 1, because sometimes they are not mature enough to cope. That is why we are pleased to hear that in its on-going curriculum review the Executive has pledged to introduce some of the best and most innovative early years approaches to P1, while at the same time ensuring that the informal learning in the early years sector is appropriately cognitively challenging.
We have a mixture of early years services in Scotland, some provided commercially, some provided by the voluntary sector and some provided by local authorities. That diversity might be welcome, but what is less welcome is that HMIE still identifies a significant quality gap between local authority services and others. It is vital that we strive to ensure that quality in the private and voluntary sectors is brought up to the same level as in local authorities as quickly as possible. A drive to improve the skills and qualifications of staff might go a long way to pushing up quality. We were encouraged by the willingness of the private sector providers to whom we spoke during the inquiry to support their staff in improving their skill levels. However, as we say in the report, perhaps local authorities need to build on the co-ordinating role they have taken with the workforce development fund in training staff in all sectors, including the private sector.
Another important issue is that the pace of change in the early years sector needs to be such that all parts of it can cope. The moves to professionalise the service that were announced in the workforce review will inevitably lead to upward pressure on salaries. It is important that we take steps to ensure that that does not force private providers to put up prices to the extent that they become unaffordable to many parents.
We found some evidence during the inquiry that voluntary sector initiatives can run into funding difficulties because of the complexity of some of the funding streams in local authorities and centrally funded projects. We heard reports of grants and revenue funding for early years facilities in the voluntary sector being awarded through a number of different departments of the same local authority, each with its own application forms, reporting requirements and monitoring systems. I am glad that the Executive acknowledges the problem in its response and is taking steps to address it.
In opening the debate on behalf of the committee, I recognise that change will not happen overnight, but I hope that the report has stimulated a wider debate on the early years and, more important, that it has helped to focus attention on what we need to do to develop the sector over the next 10 years.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Education Committee’s 7th Report, 2006 (Session 2):
Early Years (SP Paper 596).
I begin by thanking the Education Committee for initiating the debate and for the early years inquiry that preceded it, as well as thanking Iain Smith for his comprehensive opening comments. The early years inquiry is a welcome contribution to the wider debate on early years services and it comes at a time of significant development in the area. As Iain Smith mentioned, I was involved with beginning the process when I was convener of the Education Committee. My only regret is that I did not have the opportunity to make the Finnish or Swedish visits that the committee undertook as part of the inquiry.
One of the hallmarks of this Parliament is its increasing focus on the prospects of our children and young people in Scotland and the growing understanding of what is necessary for children to thrive and prosper, so that they can take up the opportunities that are available to them and fulfil their potential in this increasingly challenging world.
We are all aware that children's earliest experiences play a fundamental part in shaping their lives. Future health, well-being, skills and abilities can depend on what happens to children in their earliest years. That is why it is important that we as public policy makers do our utmost to ensure that children have the best possible start in life.
The committee's report states that Scotland must have an early years sector that can provide the highest quality pre-school education, care and support for younger children, particularly those from families that face extra challenges. The Scottish Executive and every party in the chamber fully share those aspirations.
Our response to the committee gave more detail than I have time to go into today, but I take this opportunity to highlight some ways in which we are investing in the early years sector.
Parents want flexible, high-quality early years services for their children and, as Iain Smith rightly said, the key to improving quality is investment in the workforce. Iain Smith said that in August we published the report of the national review of the early years and child care workforce and the Executive's response to it. We set out how we plan to improve services and encourage investment in staff who work in the sector, which is central to the Education Committee's recommendations.
The main features of the proposals include: the development of quality leadership in the early years and child care sector, which is central to almost everything that we try to do in Scotland, not least in education; the creation of a career structure for the workforce—we want to attract high-quality staff into the profession and keep them there, so providing routes for career progression will help to retain good and committed staff; and a fairer deal for partner providers of pre-school education, which was touched on in the Executive's review and by Iain Smith today. We have started by providing an extra £5 million a year to local authorities so that they can increase the amount that they pay to partner providers, enabling them to increase investment in their staff. We have also considered the guideline recommended floor level for support.
The committee's careful report recognises that effective development of leadership in the sector and the workforce will be incremental. It will build on success and experience and will widen opportunities and the workforce's understanding of the potential of its role in delivering so importantly at the front line through working with children. Such measures, and the other proposals listed in the Executive's response, are intended to give members of the workforce opportunities to develop their careers and gain qualifications. By investing in the sector and developing staff, we will improve the quality of care that is provided to our children. However, as Iain Smith rightly said, what we do will have to be balanced and appropriate for the sector.
Let me say a word about the composition of the workforce. One of our central aims is to ensure that children who face disadvantages—whether they live in deprived areas or not—can access high-quality provision. We believe that the broad approach that we have set out is the most practical way of achieving that goal. That approach will also deliver direct benefits to provision for children under the age of three, which many in the sector believe is the area that requires most improvement.
Let nobody doubt the Executive's commitment to teachers in Scotland. We have provided record numbers and record investment, and we are moving towards our target of having 53,000 teachers by the end of this session of Parliament. Teachers will continue to have an important role in pre-school provision, particularly in local authority services. Indeed, some of the curriculum changes that are being progressed mean that teachers can add value because they can be deployed across pre-school and early primary, and can provide continuity and a similar style for children who move from nursery to primary 1 in the same school. However, as Iain Smith rightly says, there is a risk of curtailing the development of flexible and innovative services. Decisions on such matters rightly are taken locally, so that they reflect the varying needs across urban and rural, town and city, and affluent and deprived areas.
I acknowledge the Executive's moves to make improvements in primary 1 and in the transition from nursery to primary, but how many additional nursery teachers has the Executive employed? If the minister cannot tell me the answer now, does it not cast some doubt on how the Executive is meeting its targets for class-size reduction in P1? Is it taking nursery teachers out of nursery classes?
As Fiona Hyslop is well aware, decisions on the deployment of teachers in local authorities are a matter for the local authorities themselves. They are the employers. As I have tried to suggest, they can take a comprehensive view across nursery and primary provision. Increasingly, they are able to deploy people to meet a number of different needs.
In its report, the committee touched on the balance between teachers and other professionals in the early years workforce. Iain Smith was right to mention the potential in the sector to develop new styles of professional involvement. The Executive is taking such ideas forward.
A key point to come out of the research that Iain Smith referred to and other research is the acknowledged need for reflective practice, that is, the ability of members of the workforce to consider day-to-day activities in nursery school or early years provision more broadly, and to use their skills to add value to local areas.
I mentioned the curriculum review a few moments ago. A curriculum for excellence will produce a curriculum for children aged from three to 18. Moving to a single curriculum that starts at age three recognises the importance of early years provision in a child's education. The early stage of the revised curriculum will extend to the end of primary 1. As highlighted in the Executive's response to the committee, the changes to primary 1 are likely to be among the most significant that flow from the new curriculum framework. We have therefore accepted the need for detailed planning and continuing support for staff in making the changes.
The committee report refers, in a number of its recommendations, to improving support for vulnerable children from an early age. As the committee heard in evidence, sure start Scotland—which is a big programme—is already delivering a wide range of services for vulnerable children from birth. In July, we launched pilots of pre-school services for two-year-olds. The pilots are running in Dundee, Glasgow and North Ayrshire and will give some of our more disadvantaged children an extra year of pre-school provision, creating a platform for further development of services for younger children. We will rigorously evaluate the pilots to help us identify what works for vulnerable children in the age group and their families. As has been suggested, we will also consider the lessons that we can learn from the sure start programme.
The programmes that I have mentioned are only part of the picture. Other services for parents and families also significantly influence young children's lives. My final point is about early years services, which benefit from broader improvements to children's services, such as those in "Getting it right for every child" and the development of integrated children's services planning. The services that sit within the Education Department are not the only ones that impact on young children: high-quality services for early years learning is a commitment right across the Scottish Executive.
I conclude by genuinely thanking the committee for its report. I look forward to the debate, which is relatively short for such an important subject. MSPs have insights and knowledge from their contacts throughout Scotland, which the Parliament values immensely. They make a major contribution to our understanding of the mosaic of provision of early years services. In this area above all, we share a common and central aspiration for our young people.
In commending the Education Committee's report and its recommendations to Parliament, we are contributing to a growing consensus—both here and throughout Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries—that early childhood education and care should be seen as a public good and should therefore be universally accessible and affordable for all children and families.
The consensus has been driven by a number of factors: a recognition of the importance of early education to children's social and cognitive development; a response to the needs of parents, especially mothers participating in the labour market; and the need to tackle child poverty by enabling parents with dependent children to take employment or training opportunities.
More recently, the benefits of early intervention have come to the fore. The youth justice improvement group report attracted some sensationalist reporting, but there can surely be no doubt that identifying and tackling early signs of social, emotional and behavioural difficulties through support for children and families makes eminent sense. It is a national scandal that one in 20 of our children is referred to children's reporters for care and protection or for offending behaviour. The problem can be attacked only by dealing with root causes, not by treating symptoms.
We are lagging behind in the development of early years services, and little progress has been made since devolution. Universal access to free part-time nursery places is limited to 11 to 12 hours per child per week. The cost of formal child care is still prohibitively high for most parents, apart from the wealthy. The child care element of working families tax credit is too narrowly targeted to have a major impact.
Of course, we get what we pay for. The fact is that Scotland spends less than 0.5 per cent of gross domestic product on all early years education and care services. The minimum recommended by the European Commission's child care network is 1 per cent. Social democratic countries such as Sweden and Denmark spend more than 2 per cent.
We should be mindful that this Parliament does not have all the policy tools to hand with which to effect change. The tax and benefits systems could and should be used as key drivers for change. Although we welcome the provisions of Westminster's Work and Families Act 2006 to extend maternity leave and pay, Gordon Brown seems determined to stick to tax credits rather than move to provider subsidies. As well as easing the burden on parents, supply side subsidies would help to stabilise funding for services and make it easier to deliver improved staff pay, training and conditions.
With regard to funding, the committee found inconsistency, complexity and incoherence in funding streams and reporting requirements, and called for rationalisation and streamlining. The City of Edinburgh Council's suggestion that the Executive should create a single early years budget to cover sure start, the child care strategy, pre-school education, the working for families programme and aspects of the change fund has considerable merit and would raise the profile of and give impetus to early years work in local authorities. Such reform would provide a mechanism to encourage the reallocation of resources into early years provision and would attract additional funding for early intervention. It would also dovetail with moves to integrate children's services, which we are all keen to promote.
The family centre model that has been mentioned could deliver a range of services including care for under-threes and nursery education for three and four-year-olds, in addition to family support. It has a great deal to offer, not least in facilitating multidisciplinary team working. Family centres would be particularly valuable in addressing the problems that are associated with poverty and disadvantage. Given that they are the centrepiece of England's 10-year strategy for child care, it is disappointing that the Executive regards the question whether more family centres are needed as a matter for local consideration and considers a three-year planning horizon to be sufficient for the delivery of high-quality services. The Scottish National Party begs to differ.
Finally, I turn to workforce issues. The committee's report states:
"The single most important factor in improving quality in the early years sector is raising skill levels across the workforce."
We are disappointed with the Executive's response to the national review of the early years and child care workforce and we share Unison's concern that the Executive has spurned the opportunity to develop a national framework of grades to create a career ladder for nursery nurses and has not sought to pursue national pay bargaining. Our nursery nurses surely deserve better.
We are deeply concerned that the Executive has explicitly rejected the committee's view on the role of teachers, which is that the use of qualified teaching staff ought to be a requirement in the delivery of pre-five education in disadvantaged areas because such staff have the necessary expertise to identify additional support needs and thereby facilitate early intervention.
Fiona Hyslop will set out the very different approach that we intend to pursue in government. In the meantime, I commend the Education Committee's early years inquiry report to Parliament.
We have heard three constructive speeches on a significant report that covers an area of vital importance. It is right that we are focusing on early years education, given that the most contemporary strategy document, "Meeting the Childcare Challenge: A Childcare Strategy for Scotland", is from 1998 and pre-dates devolution. The fact that the committee recommended unanimously that a review is required is a signal to the Executive that we on the Education Committee believe that we are on the right track.
I will mention three issues: first, the provision of family centres in our most deprived areas; secondly, the concept of early intervention for children, particularly those who have additional support needs; and thirdly, the pressing need for a sufficiency of trained nursery teachers.
Many people view family centres as the future of early years provision in areas of deprivation. They involve multidisciplinary teams that provide, under one roof, a comprehensive array of integrated children's services, which include the pre-school entitlement of three to five-year-olds and wraparound care for children whose parents are at work. Family centres might also provide care for under-threes, information and training for parents and family carers, a base for local childminders and perhaps even health services. Alongside those services, children in care and parents who have been targeted for support will be assisted, which will help to reduce their isolation.
As our convener mentioned, we visited one of the few existing centres, the Whitdale centre in West Lothian, and were impressed by the quality of the various services that are provided. A recent study concluded that the wider the range of services that a family centre provides, the more effective it is. Provision of information and support for parents are considered to be essential in order to maximise the quality of care and learning at home. There is now a body of research evidence that shows that high-quality pre-school education for three to five-year-olds enhances opportunity.
I turn to the effectiveness of provision for under-threes. Unfortunately, the sure start scheme in Scotland has not yet been evaluated—I urge the Executive not to allow it to be forgotten—but evaluation in England suggests that the scheme has struggled to reach the most disadvantaged children. The committee feels that much of that deficiency is the result of the current status of provision for nought to three-year-olds as the poor relation of care for three to five-year-olds. Currently, one-year-olds are only one quarter as likely as four-year-olds to attend child care, and funding for the under-threes has lagged behind that for older children, which has increased.
Will the member give way?
I will give way briefly, because I have quite a lot to say.
The committee is concerned that 36 per cent of children under three receive full-time care from their grandparents. Will the member comment on that?
The point that Fiona Hyslop made is highly relevant and the issue needs to be focused on. I ask the minister to confirm in his wind-up speech that the sure start scheme in Scotland will be properly evaluated as soon as possible.
Early intervention can be effective but, for that to be the case, it must take place sufficiently early, which is a question of facilitating access to social care specialists and of addressing the problems of parents and children by supplying them with services and support. That is better than waiting until children are affected by more severe problems that require more heavy-handed treatment. Within whatever structures are established, early identification of children who have additional support needs is essential.
That leads me to my final point, which is about the training of sufficient nursery teachers. Of course, the better trained and more experienced the staff, the better are their chances of identifying children for whom intervention is appropriate. The number of teachers in early years establishments has fallen by more than 10 per cent in the past two years alone, despite the backdrop of there being a more qualified workforce. Nursery teachers now comprise just 16.5 per cent of that workforce. I regret to inform Parliament that some councils even appear to have made a policy decision to phase out teachers from the early years sector.
Although I do not doubt that the new wave of childhood studies graduates should play a key role, I note the inspectorate's opinion that enhancement of skills and, in particular, leadership among the workforce is crucial for improvement. Surely, to reduce teacher numbers is not consistent with the drive to make early years education more closely focused on developing the child's skills in thinking, reasoning and remembering. The committee is highly supportive of improving the development of those cognitive skills in the early years and thinks that that could be delivered through "purposeful, well-planned play". The intention is to build the foundations for later more formal education.
The report contains suggestions on how training of teachers could be improved and it recommends that initial teacher training should be better integrated with training of other early years staff. In our view, early years education should be made a much more attractive destination so that applicant shortages for the places that exist can be reduced.
As the committee has highlighted, key opportunities to reform early years provision remain. The long-term benefits to a child of being started off on the right footing are indisputable, and it is crucial that that be achieved if we are to face up to the competitiveness and demographic challenges that are predicted for Scotland. To that end, I have elaborated on three sets of proposals. The first was about the need for family centres, the second was about early intervention, especially for children with additional support needs, and the third was about changes to the workforce that are required and the need to have more qualified teachers—nursery teachers, in particular—to underpin early intervention.
I hope and believe that the Executive will use the committee's recommendations to update its strategy and that it will establish a national framework to evaluate results. Our children are our nation's future—we must not fail the Scotland of tomorrow.
I am delighted to have the chance to participate in the debate. As Education Committee members know, I was present for only part of its deliberations because I was on maternity leave, which gave me the opportunity to become an active consumer of early years services for the first time.
There is a growing consensus that the need for support for parenting and early years provision is one of the big issues of this century. To put the matter in an historical context, the 18th century is known for the growth of Scottish universities, the 19th century is remembered for the extension of primary education to all and the 20th century was when provision of secondary education was extended to everyone.
The early 21st century should be marked by a movement towards the introduction of child care that is available to all. If that is not to be characterised by provision that is based on the size of one's bank balance, we politicians need to be willing to move forward with the notion of an entitlement to pre-five child care for all families. The best example that we have of such provision so far is the entitlement to part-time nursery places for all three and four-year olds. The question that emerges from the committee's deliberations is what next. How will we extend that entitlement and make it real for more families over the next decade?
There are people—I count myself among them—who will question the cost. New entitlements are costly but, as we approach next year's spending review, I invite Parliament to consider a truth that applies to any parent. Imagine for a moment that a parent won the lottery on their child's 16th birthday. However large were their winnings on that day, they could have only a limited impact on the child's life chances because by 16 a child's character, behaviour, confidence, outlook and ambitions have all largely taken shape. However, a parent who wins the lottery when their child is only six months old could bring their wealth to bear on the child's outlook, experiences, ambitions and life chances. We cannot all win the lottery but, as guardians of the public purse, we can use the resources that are at our disposal to best nurture young lives.
Happily, we are in an age from which the rhetoric of the nanny state has largely gone, and all parties recognise society's role as a partner of parents in raising their children. I will mention to the minister three areas from the Education Committee's report that commend themselves as the next steps. As we have heard from the committee convener, the minister and others, the single most important factor in raising the quality of the pre-five experience is the workforce's skills. Therefore, I am delighted with the way in which the Executive has responded in its review of the early years workforce and I hope that—as I think the Executive intends—a new profession of early years educators will develop in Scotland. I also hope that that group of professionals will be accorded respect that is commensurate with the importance of their responsibilities.
The committee identified the zero-to-three age group as a priority. I will draw for a moment on my experience: if a woman has young children with her for 14 hours a day, seven days a week, she simply cannot be the world's best mum all the time. Although mother and toddler groups have their place in the patchwork of mixed and variable provision, surely somewhere in the critical first three years of life there is space for an entitlement to a few hours a week of stimulation, support, learning and play.
Wendy Alexander mentioned having a child around for fourteen hours, but my young child does not sleep. She is right about entitlements, however. She mentioned universal provision, but the problem is that much of the funding for support for zero to three-year-olds comes through the working tax credit and other provision for working families. If we agree that some support is required for all mothers of zero to three-year-olds, we must find a way of having a supply side subsidy, even if it allows only a few hours of support a day.
The joy of not having sat through the whole of the committee's deliberations is that I can say that we need to think about the entitlement to support for zero to three-year-olds as we move forward. The workforce must come first and provision for zero to three-year-olds should come second.
We have an entitlement to two and a half hours a day of care for the three-to-five age group. It is popular and effective and it improves life chances. The convener rightly made the case for family centres where they are appropriate, particularly in deprived areas. In the final moments of my speech, I will add one idea for consideration. Children in Scotland has done much work recently on examining the role of food and nutrition in the pre-five sector—it has asked for a meeting with ministers on that, which I hope can be accommodated. All over Europe, children in nurseries spend the morning making their own lunches—less Play-Doh and more dough. However, I want to make a serious point: by the time our children go to school, one in three has a serious obesity problem. The problem starts before they are five so, as we have taken creative play to the heart of the pre-five experience, it is time to bring that imagination to the debate on healthy eating.
I welcome the guidelines that the Executive has offered for nutrition in the pre-five sector, but we need to do more. I would be grateful if the Executive would consider discussing piloting schemes to extend the entitlement of two and a half hours of nursery care to cover lunch at the end of the morning shift and an earlier start for the afternoon shift. That strategy would have multiple pay-offs through better nutrition for children and a social experience of eating. The international evidence on that is compelling and, if we endow our children with a healthy appetite for life, we will endow the next generation with experience of healthy eating that has, in truth, largely escaped our generation.
I welcome the Executive's commitment to streamlining the funding, which came through strongly in the committee's deliberations. I look forward to the minister's response.
There is so much in the report that I preface my remarks by congratulating the committee on the report's depth and breadth and on the basic premises behind its recommendations.
I will pick up on what Wendy Alexander said about nutrition, which I have brought up in a parliamentary question on nutritional standards in schools to the Minister for Education and Young People. At the moment, local authority nurseries are inspected—inspection does not extend to all nurseries. The minister's response was:
"The proposed legislation builds on the Scottish Executive's existing Hungry for Success programme which does not extend to the independent sector."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 8 August 2006; S2W-27291.]
Barnardo's also received a communication from the Executive—which it passed to me—that states that
"It is not normal practice for the Executive to place a legislative requirement insisting the independent schools sector introduce Executive policy."
The Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Bill provides an opportunity for fresh consideration of which pupils need to be protected by nutritional standards. All provision that is subject to inspection by the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care should be included. Standard 3.4 of the national care standards for early education and child care up to the age of 16 already states that children and young people should
"have access to a well-balanced and healthy diet (where food is provided) which takes account of ethnic, cultural and dietary requirements, including food allergies."
That should be a reality for all children.
There is a debate to be had about regulation versus guidance, but does Robin Harper accept that the important issue is that we are able to move forward? Provision throughout the non-state sector—private and voluntary—is disparate, so it is important that we work with the grain of what takes place in those establishments, where much good work is being done.
I accept that but, as the minister said, the important point is that we are already beginning to work with the grain. There is general acceptance throughout the country that—as Wendy Alexander emphasised—nutrition for young children is extremely important. It is not just another concern; it is highly important.
Wendy Alexander mentioned the importance of play and creativity in early years education. I was delighted to note that despite complaints from primary schools about pupils not being fully prepared for primary school by their nursery provision, the committee report takes an opposing view, which is that primary schools should be adapting the curriculum in year 1 to include more play and creativity.
I would be appalled if we started measuring the success of early years education in academic terms using literacy and numeracy—we should not go down that road. I believe that about 80 per cent of what children have learned by the time they leave school at 16 has been picked up outside school. It is important to keep that in mind. Experience teaches children so much, and their experiences during early education are vital for developing motor skills, relationship skills and so on. Music is important for developing rhythm and movement. Colour is also important. There are even possibilities in respect of early risk assessment. We must also consider the importance of stimulation and being in a social environment. Those are the things that we should be considering: many of them are not measurable and are almost numinous, but when we go into a nursery, we know a good thing when we see it and that should be sufficient for us.
A lot of really good work has been based on that of people such as Montessori and Froebel and on the approach of the Steiner schools. I recommend to the Executive the work that has been done by the Rudolf Steiner school of Edinburgh and Balgreen primary school, which have been working together to establish ways of incorporating creative activities and music into the primary curriculum. That could feed back down into nursery education.
The Education Committee's report and the speeches so far this morning have rightly mentioned the importance of integrated services. Yesterday, I had the privilege of visiting the new north-west Kilmarnock area centre with the Audit Committee. The centre is due to open on 13 November. The Executive should visit it—I know that it is supported by the Executive—and consider the special way in which it has been developed. The centre houses a comprehensive mental health service, a nursery and family centre, social day care for older people, a community health cafe and a fitness suite. There is also a new teach-and-treat dental facility. Everything is there for the community in that area, particularly when it comes to child care.
That development underlines the committee's recommendation that investment needs to be focused where it is needed. Such centres would not be appropriate in some places, although the centre that I mentioned is extremely appropriate for north-west Kilmarnock. It would be advantageous to follow the development of that centre to find out how services can be developed in the future. The services that are provided at that centre cannot simply be rolled out across Scotland because they depend so much on the willingness of all concerned to work together. A north-west Kilmarnock area centre existed previously, so the people at the new centre are ready to work together as they were already doing. They will move into the new premises together and all the connections have already been made. That sort of bottom-up community spirit can be deployed to the best advantage of our young people wherever it is appropriate to operate such facilities and wherever there are the opportunities to build on such work.
I will close with a bit of blue-sky thinking. If we had a citizens income—a basic income for all citizens—there would be far wider choice for mothers and fathers about how they care for their young children, whether they buy nursery care or use the nought-to-three care that is available in their areas. That is one little thought for the future.
I will focus on the haves and have-nots. I accept the benefits of the limited entitlement to nursery care for three and four-year-olds, but issues arise about parents who do not have much money because they are on benefits or have very low incomes. One parent explained to the Communities Committee that, notwithstanding that she had access to provision, she had to pay the transport costs for herself and another child to the nursery, which she could not afford. The Deputy Minister for Education and Young People talked about flexibility, but that parent does not have access to such flexibility. When the limited provision was finished, she could not take up a job because she had to look after her child. I will touch on integration of taxes and benefits later, but that is an example of the real issues that affect individuals in vulnerable groups and areas.
The Education Committee's report and the speeches so far have been interesting. The report states:
"Investment in the 0-3 sector has not increased at the same pace"
as elsewhere. That age group is a very vulnerable stage, when it is possible to catch a child and turn his or her fortune around such that a family pattern need not be repeated generation after generation. Accordingly, we should invest far more in family centres, to which the committee report and members have referred.
I am grateful to Adam Ingram for advising me that family centres deliver a range of integrated services. People do not work in silos anymore and social work, education and health care can all be accessed in the same place. Family centres provide support for carers of children and families. In addition, nutritious meals are served, so those centres are an excellent development. However, I note that there are only 162 family centres in Scotland, half of which are run by local authorities and the remainder of which are in the voluntary and private sectors.
That brings me back to evidence that was given to the Communities Committee on poverty and deprivation. Two single parents advised that committee that they had run such a service. They did not call it a family service, but it was an integrated unit that attracted seedcorn money from the usual suspects—Lloyds TSB and others. When they ran out of that money, however, they had no more funding, so it all ended and crashed around them. People who had begun to build confidence in the family centre lost that and concluded that there was no longer much use in attending the centre because it would not be there a year later.
There are problems in respect of continued funding, so I will move on to that issue, which I cannot believe we are still raising. Years ago, the Justice 1 Committee discussed early intervention to prevent people from going to jail, and it discussed the idea that some children who are not given much help between the ages of nought and three will end up on a criminal path partly as a result of that. We went on about simplified funding streams—not just for local authorities, but in the voluntary sector.
Paragraph 133 of the report mentions—yet again—
"the complexity of funding arrangements."
We are seven years into this Government, yet we still cannot sort out funding for something like the Jeely Piece Club. If the Executive cannot sort out funding for the Jeely Piece Club, it is not going to be doing very much for the Scottish budget. The situation must be dealt with. We cannot have people competing for funding streams, making applications and cross-applications over and over again. Surely that ought to be remedied PDQ.
Another terribly important issue is the workforce for early years provision. I am quite surprised that nobody from the Scottish Socialist Party is here for the debate—its members seem always to be banging on about how nursery teachers should get more pay, but have not bothered to contribute to the debate. There we go—they must have other things on their minds. We must value the people who deal with young children. We should not decide that people who deal with children aged from nought to three are worth only £6 an hour, but that is apparently the median pay for child care staff. Cleaners are paid more than £6 per hour, but people are asked to accept lower pay than that for looking after vulnerable children as they develop, for relating to them during the day, for giving them experience of interacting with and reacting to adults, and for developing their social skills with other children.
That takes me on to childminders. I am indebted to the Education Committee for this information:
"More than 24,000 children … are currently looked after by … childminders in Scotland."
I presume that that means those who are registered, and that we are not talking about unofficial childminders. One third of those children are under three, yet I read in the report that childminders have
"no current requirement for any training prior to an application for registration being made."
That is a stone that we should look under. I do not blame childminders, but we should train and support people who look after children, often in the community, and on whom people who have little money often rely for child care.
That takes me on to unofficial childminders. I think the current jargon is "kinship carers": the grandparents, aunties, sisters or whoever who look after children. People who are on benefits could be trained and paid to provide child care. I think—I am not sure about this—that people can earn no more than £20 per week before their benefits are affected. Surely it is not beyond the wit of anyone to increase that level so that people can earn some money and still receive their benefits. Those people could include pensioners, if they were properly employed. Many grandparents provide child care but are not paid to do so, although they have many skills. Wendy Alexander took me back to dim and distant days and, like Fiona Hyslop's child, mine did not sleep. I do not know about 14 hours' care—something more like 24-hour care was needed.
Seven years down the line, the matters that I raise are serious. The minister talked in his speech about the "mosaic of provision". I call it a patchwork—which is patchy—rather than a mosaic. We cannot continue to have the figures to which Adam Ingram referred for children who are going into the children's hearings system. Most of those children need care and protection. I do not always blame the parents, who often come from situations in which they needed care and protection. We must break the societal link and give those children a chance. I will use a cliché again—we cannot continue to have Scottish children who are born to fail because our society does not give them the proper support.
I congratulate the Education Committee on producing a report that highlights a range of issues. The committee has done a pretty fair job. My only regret is that it has not told the Executive what to do, because it is fairly obvious that the committee has a better grasp of things than some of our Executive colleagues do.
The formative years are essential. People either have a good set of formative years or they do not—it is as simple as that. If people do not have good formative years, they are disadvantaged from an early stage. Whoever starts with a child—parents, grandparents—is not taught about that. We do not teach young people how to be parents, although doing that is essential if children are to be given a real start in life.
I have a granddaughter who will be three at the end of the week and who lives in England. I hear about the opportunities that she can access in her small rural community. A lady there recently set up in the private sector a music exercise that involves not just dancing and playing instruments, but learning about tunes and interacting with other children. That is all that that lady does. My granddaughter also goes to the local state-run nursery and to something else. All that is because her parents know how to give her a chance and some advantage. I rest my case on the need for young parents to be supported, preferably from before they have children.
Comments have been made about sleepless nights. My regional aide's daughter has just turned one and my aide can count on the fingers of one hand the number of hours of sleep that she has had this week. That is just part and parcel of having children. She is managing to obtain childminding so that she can continue to have a part-time job, to keep her brain engaged. She and her husband can afford that, but not everybody can. A huge issue is access to child care and how we support people to find that care, which allows them some life of their own. People may have an economic requirement to get to work. Wendy Alexander mentioned two and a half hours' care a day, but in the school holidays that will hardly keep somebody in a part-time job unless they put their hand in their pocket to buy something else.
There are huge areas of deprivation. No one has talked about rural areas, in which transport is a major issue and in which the critical mass does not always exist to keep a pre-school facility going. Some primary schools have pre-school operations, but children still have to reach them and such children do not go on the school bus. Deprivation is experienced in a series of places—not just in high-rise flats in Glasgow, but in rural areas throughout Scotland. Everybody says that it is wonderful to be brought up in the country, but it is not. The country is a dangerous place—it is not safe. Such areas do not have pavements and some communities do not even have play areas. Neighbours can be quite a distance away. We need to consider a social network when dealing with early years provision and support to help families to give their children the best start in life.
There is little doubt that the quality of staffing varies. We know that many staff have qualifications and that others are trying to obtain further qualifications. Job security is not guaranteed. In Aberdeen not too long ago, some staff lost their jobs because of cuts. It is staggering that the minister cannot say what the staffing level should be, as I presume that he has some input into the grant-aided expenditure settlement for local authorities. The moneys that are voted to go to local authorities must have some correlation with the number of bodies on the park. I agree with the minister that it is up to a local authority to decide where money should go in the system, as long as it goes into the sector for which it was originally intended. I am not a great believer in ring fencing, but I expect all the money for the education sector to be spent on that sector. If the amount is deliberately being pushed up for the early years sector, it is vital that it should be seen to go to that sector.
The committee mentioned vulnerable children in its report. How early will we start to assess every child's individual needs, such as health or disability needs? That is the key issue. How many young children are written off at primary school because they are deaf or do not have good hearing when those facts could be picked up early? Such assessment should happen in the early years sector.
As the minister knows, I am totally against mainstreaming, but how will we support children who need specialist care? Their parents are obviously under great pressure, and we must ensure that those young vulnerable people, who will have special needs for all their lives, are given the support that they need. The Executive must consider that. In the previous debate on special needs, the minister failed to answer the questions, so I hope that he says something about that today.
Robin Harper talked about several interesting issues. He is right to consider the child's needs holistically—we should do that. He talked about a citizens wage. I recall that he did not support the Conservatives in the first session when we talked about a voucher scheme that parents could use for different types of early years provision, whether from the independent sector, the voluntary sector or a council. Such a scheme would give parents choice. All providers would have to meet the right standard. Will Robin Harper eventually see his way to taking a slightly different approach?
We have heard interesting and valid comments from the SNP. However, the SNP suggests interfering with the Westminster-based tax credits system, which is slightly outside our remit this morning. I would have thought that the SNP would want to consider more carefully what the Executive is doing and what the committee has covered. However, there is an element of truth in the idea that the issue comes down to affordability.
In paragraph 139 on page 32 of its report, the committee identifies the importance of the tax and benefits system in ensuring a joined-up approach to child care.
I am pleased to be reminded of that, but the point is that neither the committee nor the Executive has the powers to do anything other than identify that. We must work on what the Executive is currently doing within the powers that are available to this Parliament. We must use what we have while we can. If we do that as a primary exercise, it would be the best way forward.
We are not all experts on this matter, but we are all genuinely concerned that we give children in Scotland the best opportunity. I know from the primary head teachers that I have spoken to throughout the country that children who have been through a fairly successful nought-to-three and three-to-five programme blossom earlier in school. They are more receptive, more participative and so on. As has been said in relation to family centres and the like, we must ensure that there is reasonably equal access throughout Scotland to all the services for all Scotland's young children.
I do not know whether colleagues have seen the film "Parenthood", but a favourite scene of mine in that film is when one set of parents—Rick Moranis and his wife—are talking to their daughter. Rick Moranis says to his daughter, "You are really falling behind in your Japanese classes and your calculus is not going as well as expected. Frankly, you'll need to improve your attitude if you're going to get the grades you need for university. Your whole career could be in jeopardy." The camera pulls out and he is talking to his three-year-old daughter. I do not know why that thumbnail sketch of pushy, middle-class overachievers should appeal to me. I said as much to my wife as we dropped off our four-year-old at his Kumon maths class after nursery.
The point is that there is a diverse range of needs and demands in our society for pre-school education, for both the formal education sector and voluntarily run playgroups and toddler groups that provide child care, including wraparound care, for our hard-pressed working families. There is also a need for early intervention for families with the most chaotic backgrounds.
What we have achieved over the past 10 years is remarkable. The expansion of nursery education for all three and four-year-olds who want it in this country perhaps ranks as the proudest achievement of the Parliament. It is one in which we can all take pride. Only time will tell, but I suspect—I certainly hope—that future generations will reap the benefit of the commitment that we are making in investing in the education of our youngest children.
The evidence submitted to the inquiry makes it clear that merely increasing the hours available in pre-school education is not what is now needed. The committee and our special advisers looked in detail at the cost of various policy choices and their benefits to children and their families. We shied away from the idea of simply doubling the 12.5 hours of pre-school that is currently available.
Flexible provision—coupled with higher quality provision, which I will return to shortly—that is adapted to the needs and wishes of families in all our different communities is where we see real gains being made in our vision for Scotland's early years provision.
I will touch on a few areas in the sector, in relation to which I felt points emerged from our inquiry. I will start with family centres. I believe that all the committee members were hugely impressed by the two family centres that we visited—the one in West Lothian and the Jeely Piece Club in Castlemilk in Glasgow.
The Jeely Piece Club is run by the voluntary sector, although it clearly receives a lot of support and assistance from the local authority. It has managed to reach out to families across the community. There were pre-school services, playgroups and toddler groups. Crucially, support was provided for parents and support was provided for families with the most difficult home backgrounds, including drug abuse.
There were issues about how those families mixed or did not mix with others, but the centre had made it work. It has created an ethos of a non-stigmatised service that is used by some out of choice but by others out of need and it has delivered for families in the community. We wish to see that model of service being expanded throughout Scotland—not necessarily in family centres everywhere—but it is important that integrated support is available in areas where such investment will make the biggest difference.
It is interesting that the Jeely Piece Club is voluntarily run. It is worth noting that we want to maintain the diversity and pluralism that the early years sector currently offers. Not everyone wants the educative hothouse approach to their child's learning that I touched on earlier. As Robin Harper mentioned, nobody necessarily wants an overly strong emphasis on formal lessons or on providing an early start to numeracy and literacy.
I am conscious that in our drive to push up standards and quality we are in danger of driving out some of the informal care that is available, for example through playgroups. Such provision is highly valued by parents who are more interested in allowing their children to socialise in a safe and secure environment and to enjoy being children than necessarily start on the formal curriculum. Christine Grahame mentioned that perhaps the most important step we could take in securing such provision would be to secure its funding and it was clear that sure start was the most useful of the many sources of funding available to the family centre that we visited and to the sector. What was surprising was the lack of hard empirical data to build on the anecdotal evidence that sure start is making a clear difference for our young people. I believe that the Executive has noted and is acting on our suggestion for further research on the matter. In the meantime, work can still be done to rationalise the current cocktail approach to funding early years provision.
Having praised the diversity of the sector, I should make it clear that I see local authorities as the key partner in any early years strategy and in particular in driving up quality. Every member who has spoken in the debate has touched on the importance of improving quality in early years education and care, the emphasis that we want to put on training and education for the workforce and the need to improve the qualifications of those involved in educating our youngest children. In particular, much has been said this morning about the importance of the presence of a teacher in each early years setting. As the son of two teachers, I do not want to detract from that, but we should put it in context. In our own children's nursery, I would challenge anyone to distinguish between the teacher and the nursery nurses. The leadership and input of the teacher are essential, but we should not decry the professionalism of the nursery nurses and others who work alongside them.
Perhaps equally important are the links that exist between the primary school and the pre-school or nursery provision. It strikes me that the biggest quality gap exists between the stand-alone, private sector providers and the nurseries that have the closest links to their primary school—they are often located in the school playground or next to the school. If we are to drive up quality and improve the status and qualifications of the workforce, we must tackle the divide between what happens at pre-school and the start of compulsory education at five.
I hope that the committee's report offers a number of practical steps that the Executive can take to improve early years provision, as well as a vision for the next 10 years, around which we can all unite to make the next decade as successful for our children as the past 10 years have been. I commend the report to the Parliament.
I am pleased to speak in the debate. The report, which I have read, is excellent. It covers all the main points and is written in comprehensible English, so I give it very high marks.
Every speech that we have heard so far has contained some useful comments. If everyone can consider themselves to have been patted on the back, I will not have to mention them again.
My relationship to nursery probably goes back further than that of any other members. My father worked in India in the forestry service. Nursery prepared me for politics. I remember that at a sports day there was a tug-of-war between the boys and the girls. We discovered that the girls were going to have the teacher, who to my five-year-old eyes was a very large lady, pulling on their side. I accepted that, because girls are weaker than boys so a bit of help is okay. However, I then noticed that the girls' end of the rope was tied round a tree. Politics is like that—I spend all my time pulling against the tree.
My first point—all the points have been covered to some degree in the report and in other speeches—is about involving the whole family, including grandparents, aunties and so on. It is necessary to use parents' talents and to bring on their talents in addition to using the talents of the paid professionals who are helping them. It is necessary for them to work together. We have a tendency in this country to compartmentalise and draw a line between what nursery nurses can do and what teachers can do, and so on. You may have a cleaner who, in many ways, is far better at teaching the kids than other people are. Everyone should be part of the team, including families. Given that children also learn at home, more parents and families should be encouraged to teach their children and show them nice books with pictures.
My enthusiasm for history began with H E Marshall, the lady author of books including "Scotland's Story" and "Our Island Story". The books had smashing pictures of Bruce toinking de Bohun over the head with his battle-axe, Black Agnes of Dunbar, Catherine bar-the-door and other splendid people. I read those books at home. If we harness the home and the family and bring all the services together, we will get on better than we do at the moment. A lot of good work is being done, but too much of it is done by way of bits here and there.
My second point is on valuing staff. My elder son has been a Liberal Democrat councillor in London for only the past six months, but he made an observation that had escaped my notice in the course of 35 years as a politician. He told me that public bodies—councils, Governments and so on—find it much easier to invest in things than in people. Someone can be photographed outside the local family centre or whatever, but a council cannot do that if it has recruited some really good people because it is harder to photograph that sort of thing. People can also be a problem: they can become difficult and need to be moved on in some way, whereas a building or equipment cannot answer back. We must invest in people and value them, by putting in place a good career structure. That is what matters, not what we call people—early years educators or whatever.
I do not denigrate people who teach in universities. However, at the moment, there is a hierarchy in which those who teach in universities are considered to be very clever and valuable; those who teach in secondary schools are considered quite clever and valuable; those who teach in primary schools are considered to be not so clever and valuable; and those who teach and work in nurseries are considered to be at the bottom of the heap. If the situation cannot be turned around, we should at least have an equality of esteem. Teachers of three to fives can make more difference to a young person's career than can their university teacher. Training is also important. Many staff are good at their job, but they do not understand all the problems and difficulties. In bringing together the education and care of children who live at home or in care, staff need to understand that.
Given that I am one of the members who always enthuses about play, I will put in a plug for play. Whether they are in schools or public places, the design and use of playgrounds is important. Play teaches children to socialise by helping them to learn that they have to take their turn on the chute and so on. It also teaches them risk management and makes them less obese.
I turn to investment and the need for simplification in this area, which one or two other members have mentioned. There must be a simpler and better organised way in which to invest in early years education. Again, we are not quite as bad at investment as the English are. I am assured that some head teachers in England now have to employ people whose only job is to extract money out of the confused public funds that are available to schools. Schools are having to employ people who are expert at getting funding for schools out of all the funny funds that now exist. Schools have to do that because mainstream funding is not adequate.
Although the situation in Scotland is not as bad as it is in England, the investment flow is far too complicated. Mr Brown needs to cut this Gordian knot. I will present him with a sword—or whatever it was that Alexander the Great used—and say, "For God's sake, sort out this muddle of confusion over funding." A lot of money is available; let us direct it better into an overall scheme. We have done a lot of good work, but we now need to do it better. The report is a good step forward.
We move to wind-up speeches.
I commend the Education Committee for its report. A number of useful and entertaining points have been made in the debate, some of which drew on personal experience.
For me, the striking feature of the report is the interlinking nature of early years education. First, it has to provide support for families within which live some of the most vulnerable children in our society. It also has to provide child care, which is an issue that affects all families—regardless of income or circumstances—and nursery education, in which we prepare our children for formal schooling. Adam Ingram rightly highlighted the point that the City of Edinburgh Council made in its evidence on the desirability of having a single budget for early years services that have to embrace those very different facets. The point was well made; it is worthy of consideration by the Executive and our councils.
I turn to nursery education. Although the Scottish Executive has now introduced a universal entitlement to a free nursery place for every three and four-year-old, the provision is limited to around 12.5 hours per week and to school term times. Christine Grahame and other members noted that point. The last Conservative Government made a significant step forward in the provision of nursery education through its nursery voucher scheme for four-year-olds, which was scrapped by the incoming Labour Government. Funding of some £70 million had been committed to the voucher scheme project. I have no doubt that, in the fullness of time, the scheme would have been extended to three-year-olds and that it would have been directly comparable in terms of its scale, scope and cost to the present scheme.
There is one fundamental difference between the old voucher scheme and the present system, however. Our scheme empowered parents to make the choice between a local authority nursery school and one that was run by the voluntary or private sector. The scheme was much more flexible in enabling a parent to top up nursery provision; parents who are at work or who want to work require to do that, given the limitations of the 12.5 hours per week provision of the current system.
That freedom of choice is anathema to a Scottish Executive whose principal objective, in tandem with that of Labour-run councils, is to squeeze choice out of the education system. Accordingly, we have a situation where a council that is not in the position of being able to be the sole provider of nursery education is not only the main provider of nursery education but the commissioner of provision from the voluntary and private sectors. That is a mistake, as I am sure Mr Macintosh will happily recognise.
Rather than harking back to policies that were rejected almost 10 years ago, perhaps Mr McLetchie will recognise that, although there was nothing wrong with the voucher scheme, it emphasised child care. The old scheme put the interests of families and parents before those of the child. The nursery provision that all members of the Scottish Parliament introduced has the interests of the child at heart. Of course, in emphasising the education of the child, it is also of benefit to the parent. More important is that it brings social benefit to the whole country.
Both schemes have their merit. The key issue in the debate is who runs the system and who can make the choices. Do we want a scheme that takes a child-and-parent-centred approach, where the parent makes a choice from the range of providers that suits their family circumstances, or one that dictates the choices and options?
I turn from nursery education to look at the child care side of the coin. In his 2004 budget, Gordon Brown introduced a salary-sacrifice child care voucher scheme, which enables a parent to forgo up to £55 per week or £243 a month in salary in order to take that remuneration in the form of a child care voucher. The benefit to the parent is that the voucher is neither taxable nor subject to the employee's national insurance contribution. Accordingly, when the comparison with financing child care out of after-tax income is made, the parent saves almost £23 a week, or £100 a month. From the employer's standpoint, the voucher scheme has the added benefit of the employer not having to pay their national insurance contribution on the amount of the salary foregone. That more than covers the administrative cost of the scheme. The child care voucher can then be spent by the parent on child care that is provided at a nursery or by an agency-supplied nanny, as the parent chooses, to fit the parent's circumstances and the child's needs. The underlying principle is therefore one of parental choice and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's child care voucher scheme would fit more happily with the Conservative nursery education voucher scheme than it does with the current system. I have praised Mr Gordon Brown for embracing the Conservative principle of choice, which I commend to the Scottish Executive, but it is a matter of regret that his child care voucher scheme has so far had a miserable level of take-up.
The most recent figures indicate that across the United Kingdom only 30,000 parents of children under five used child care vouchers in 2005-06. By 2009-10 it is estimated that only 90,000 parents will have used vouchers. Why is that? I am sure that that is the question that Fiona Hyslop was about to ask, which I will answer. The responsibility lies with employers. Earlier this year, I received a letter from a constituent who is a teacher. She complained that the City of Edinburgh Council does not offer such a child care voucher scheme to its staff, although the scheme would be of considerable benefit to her and other working mothers employed by the council. I was prompted by her inquiry to ask the Scottish Executive a number of parliamentary questions about the scheme and the extent to which it is available to employees in the public sector in Scotland, but I was told that, in relation to councils and non-departmental public bodies, the information is not held centrally—
That is a surprise.
A fair comment from Mrs Grahame.
That information should be held centrally if we are to devise a joined-up strategy for child care, nursery education and support for families. Moreover, the public sector, as employers, should take a lead on the matter. The Scottish Executive should require all councils and public bodies under its control to offer child care voucher schemes to their staff. Given that some 25 per cent of the workforce in Scotland is employed in the public sector, such action would provide a huge boost to the scheme, help many families and cost the Scottish Executive not one penny piece out of its budget. I am sure that Mr Robert Brown will see the sense of that and I commend the policy to him.
This morning's meeting of the Parliament has offered an interesting reflection on how far Scottish democracy has progressed. It started with time for reflection led by an 18-year-old female bricklayer and—in a Parliament in which 40 per cent of members are women—it continued with a debate in which nine speakers have been men and only two have been women, despite the fact that the subject matter has traditionally been regarded as a women-led agenda.
We must acknowledge, as the Education Committee's report does, the importance of the women—particularly those in the workforce—who provide most of the care, support and education of young people. The committee witnessed and applauds the pride and passion of all the people who work in the early years sector. Katie McAdam said that all young people deserve a positive future, which is exactly what the report and the debate are about.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said that we must invest in early years for the Scotland of tomorrow. He is right. We heard about the cognitive development that is important if we are to build a knowledge economy. Members also said that if we are to tackle issues to do with justice and antisocial behaviour and ensure that our young people have good social skills and behaviour, action must be taken at a very early stage. Perhaps we should consider early years intervention and support in the context of the justice debate. Christine Grahame touched on that.
Early years support and intervention are about the Scotland of today as much as they are about the Scotland of tomorrow. It is important that children in the here and now receive support in a safe and stimulating environment. When we and the Government consider budgets, we must acknowledge that care and support for today are as important as investment for tomorrow.
Important points have been made on interesting strands of the debate. The Education Committee supported the momentum in the early years of devolution for the provision of education for all three and four-year-olds, and much of the debate has focused on nursery provision for children in that age group. However, the committee feels most passionately about the zero-to-three agenda, to which the Parliament can make a difference. It is not local councils but health authorities that have the lead responsibility for children under three in Scotland. The fourth edition of "Health for All Children"—Hall 4—noted that there has been a reduction in access to health visitors, who are the only point of contact for many people with children under three. We must consider who provides services if we want there to be universal provision, which is a theme in the committee's report. Universal provision does not mean that everybody should receive the same service; it means that everybody should receive something, which is the message that emerges from the debate.
We must consider provision for children under three, which has been described as a "mosaic", a "cocktail" and a "patchwork". As the committee said, services must be integrated at the point of delivery. The system is currently a morass and is far too complicated. We must simplify the structures around provision.
Wendy Alexander said that everyone should have an entitlement to services, but interpretations differ as to what the entitlement should be. David McLetchie made the case for a voucher system—whether those are vouchers in the traditional sense or tax credits—but he talked about a demand-led approach to child care. He was right to say that Gordon Brown has introduced such an approach but, although the voucher scheme has helped some people, it has not improved the delivery of child care services. People need choice and flexibility, which is why a shift in emphasis from a demand-led approach to child care to an approach that considers supply and integrates services would provide more flexibility and choice and deliver better services, particularly in areas that are hard to reach, whether they are rural areas or deprived communities, as David Davidson said. The issue is at the heart of the debate.
With the exception of the Labour Party, I think that every party in the Scottish Parliament would like the Parliament to have increased economic powers. The debate on fiscal autonomy always focuses on economic matters such as changes to corporation tax, but perhaps the Parliament could take a lead and consider supply-side issues and the benefits of having increased powers over funding streams for child care. Perhaps that is the dialogue that we should have with Westminster. The committee makes a benign statement about the integration of funding streams, but integration is genuinely needed if we are to improve service delivery.
Parents in Scotland pay up to 70 per cent of their child care costs, unlike parents in other countries. Committee members took part in fascinating visits to Finland and Sweden, where parents pay only 30 per cent of the costs. That makes a huge difference to families. We also considered the experience of children in other countries. In Helsinki, every child receives the same food and learns the social skills that are so important—Wendy Alexander mentioned nutrition.
The extension of the nursery school day, even by a few hours, would help to improve children's experiences. The Scottish National Party is committed to increasing nursery provision by 50 per cent and acknowledges that nursery provision is not just about education but can help parents. The SNP thinks that every child should have access to a nursery teacher—currently only 40 per cent of children do. Those two policies could make a difference.
The committee's report should be regarded as a staging post and not as the end of a process. It should represent the start of dialogue and debate. At last night's reception, I heard that as a result of the report, East Lothian Council is interviewing candidates for the post of early years development officer working with children under three and the private sector. Change is happening, which is the report's purpose.
There are big gaps in the national review of the early years and child care workforce. Consideration must be given not just to improved provision but to structural matters. It was remiss of the Executive to neglect the consideration of nursery teachers in the review.
We must provide support for grandparents if we are serious about the zero to three-year-olds. Research shows that 36 per cent of under-threes and 15 per cent of three to five-year-olds are looked after by grandparents, many of whom have finished their working lives and are looking forward to their retirement. They support their children and grandchildren out of love, so the least that we can do is to provide support for them. Ken Macintosh talked about the informal arrangements in playgroups and other support. Nobody says that we must be prescriptive about grandparents, but their support for their grandchildren should be acknowledged and valued through some kind of social provision. Again, that cannot be done through vouchers or a demand-led approach. If we are serious about supporting grandparents in Scotland, we must have an integrated supply mechanism to fund child care.
I will end on a point about the early years funding strategy. The City of Edinburgh Council is absolutely right to ask why we have a separate schools budget but not a separate early years strategy and funding stream. Such a strategy would allow integration with child protection work in the health sector—a lot of integrated work is happening on that—and additional support for learning. A single funding stream that gave local authorities flexibility in deploying resources—as the committee's report states, they are the best placed to do that—is a meaningful measure that could come from the committee's report and the debate. I hope that the debate is not the end of a committee inquiry but the start of a continuing debate that has some meaning, because we are considering not only the children of Scotland's today but the children of Scotland's tomorrow.
I said at the start of the debate that I anticipated high-quality speeches from members, with many issues on which to reflect. That has indeed been the case, which makes it difficult to summarise the debate and draw out the main strands. Many excellent speeches and good points have been made.
Adam Ingram suggested that nothing has happened on early years since devolution, but that is quite simply not the case. A great deal has happened since devolution, even simply in funding terms. Ken Macintosh talked about the measures on nursery school provision which, as he rightly said, are a major achievement of the Parliament. Since 1999, we have provided workforce development funding of £30.8 million. We provide funding for parenting support, the bookstart scheme, the Family Fund and sure start Scotland, the funding for which is at present £56.9 million, increasing to £59.9 million in 2007-08. We also have the children's strategy, the funding for which is £44 million. A lot of money is going into early years learning.
I accept that we are still developing and that we have reached a certain stage in our progress on early years. A lot of good work has been done and many new facilities have been put in place. Issues arise to do with co-ordination, availability throughout the country, funding streams and perhaps a strategy, which has been mentioned. Several good points have been made about those issues. However, we start from a high base and we are making progress, with many actions having been taken. The issue is how we can make the existing provision more effective, universal, accessible and affordable.
As Iain Smith rightly said, the measures are being taken for a series of purposes—for personal child development, to improve the economy of the country and to address the child care needs of parents and families. The important issue of families has been highlighted. The linkages between early years education in formal settings, such as nurseries and play centres, and what happens in families are important. Several members have drawn out the opportunities that exist to put in place substantial connections of that sort.
Iain Smith listed the main themes in the report, which are the impact of early years learning on children; the need for a child care strategy; the need to raise skill levels; the longer-term issue of qualifications; and funding arrangements, the complexity of which has been raised several times. The Executive is aware of the importance—in the early years sector, as in other sectors—of providing a coherent and sensible funding structure. We have said that we will consider that. The issue was discussed yesterday at the Education Committee as part of the committee's budget examination. That is an important matter on which we can make progress.
The funding issue is linked to the issue of a child care strategy. There are calls for strategies on all sorts of matters. For example, Donald Gorrie talked about a strategy on play. A strategy is the right approach at certain points in the development of policies, but the issue is whether a strategy adds value to what is being done on an issue. As we are moving toward the end of the present session of Parliament, the issue of a child care strategy is probably one that should be discussed further at the beginning of the next session. A good case can be made for reviewing the child care policy and making progress on the matter. However, the implementation of any measures would be for the Executive that is in place after the election in May 2007.
Several points have been made about the evidential basis of the sure start programme. A fair bit of mapping and examination has been done of the sure start provision in Scotland, most recently in 2004. As was mentioned, an evaluation has been carried out in England. We are taking on board the lessons from the English experience, although it is slightly different in detail from the Scottish experience. We must have a close examination of the on-going lessons from sure start and the other provision throughout the sector.
There has been a lot of talk about the skills and composition of the workforce. The balance of teaching provision is an important issue.
There is an issue that has been raised with me since the committee's report was published—it was repeated last night at the committee's reception for early years stakeholders. Because teachers are being withdrawn from nursery school settings, fewer places are available for placements for teacher training in those settings, which will obviously have a long-term knock-on effect on the future availability of nursery teachers. Will the minister reflect on that and perhaps have discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the teaching colleges on how the matter could be addressed?
Iain Smith makes a valid point. One of our big successes in expanding the teaching workforce generally has been the provision for supporting the workforce through initial teacher training and probationer support. I am more than happy to discuss that important issue with Iain Smith and to consider it further. We want our teachers to have the opportunity to experience different settings.
David Davidson, Christine Grahame and others made important points about the issues that arise in rural settings. The Executive's funding for pre-school education acknowledges the higher costs of providing services in rural and remote areas. It is for local authorities to determine how to use the funding, but I am well aware from the conversations that I have had with providers throughout the country that it is difficult to sustain small centres in more sparsely populated areas. There may have to be a different method of provision, but that is a matter for local authorities. Where appropriate, we are ready to discuss with local authorities ways in which the matter can be approached more effectively.
Some members, primarily Wendy Alexander, raised the importance of nutrition in the early years. We acknowledge that, which is why we issued the national nutritional guidance for early years in January 2006. The issue is on-going and we will continue to consider it. Christine Grahame mentioned childminder training, although other members did not raise the issue to a great extent. In our response to the committee's inquiry, we undertook to examine the need for pre-registration training for childminders. The issue is difficult because of the differences in provision that exist. We want to keep in place the provision and not frighten people off, but standards are important. Executive officials will meet the Scottish Social Services Council and the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care to consider further the implications of the matter.
It has been suggested to the committee that we should consider mandatory training for childminders. However, that can be provided only if finance is available to provide relief support for childminders who undergo training. The councils are obviously best placed to provide that. Has the Executive considered that matter seriously?
Although I would not rule out anything in that connection, mandatory training for childminders is quite a complex issue, with many implications. The main focus of the Executive must be to concentrate on the general workforce, particularly in early years learning. It is important to move forward in the childminding domain, which is why, as I indicated, we are trying to discuss with the relevant authorities—the Scottish Social Services Council and the care commission—what further can be done in that regard. It is a complex issue, to which there is no one single answer, so we are interested in any suggestions.
The importance of early years learning has been stressed by everybody in the debate. We are at a crossroads in that regard. There is more that we can do. There are too many young children whose circumstances mean that they are disadvantaged at an early age—that point was raised by a number of members. The problems that children have in their early years can remain with them and can influence them later in life. Our children deserve the very best of services, not just to prepare them for later life but to enhance the quality of their lives now. We have made significant progress. We are committed to improving services further to meet the needs and demands of Scotland's youngest children and their families. The debate has been excellent, with considerable contributions across the board. I welcome the continuing debate about the precise way in which we move forward on a series of issues. I am sure that that debate will take wings as we move towards the election.
It is some years since I have had the pleasure of summing up a debate. In summing up, members always say that the debate has been interesting, but in this case that is true. That is not surprising, as the subject of the debate is one of the most important responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament. That is demonstrated by the useful responses that the Education Committee has had so far to the inquiry findings.
At the core of the inquiry is how we provide high-quality and flexible care for every child. We recognise that care will be provided in a variety of settings, including the parental home. It is therefore not just professional input that is important to determine the quality of the care; there must also be access for parents to advice on parenting skills. I agree with David Davidson on that. I was interested in his colleague David McLetchie's praise for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom I applaud on his attempts to get Labour Party policy taken up appropriately by public bodies. However, there is a difference between the entitlement of parents to assistance with care and the entitlement of every child to a good-quality start in life. I wish we lived in a world in which every parent knew exactly what was best for their child. As a parent of three children—now grown up—I doubt that I always knew best for my children; I am sure that every other parent has their failings just as I did.
Vulnerable children must have their needs identified as early as possible so that intervention can be put in place. Where required, that intervention must be sustained and coherent throughout the child's education. In her metaphor about winning the lottery, Wendy Alexander eloquently described the importance of investment as early as possible. We can make far more difference when someone is six months than we can ever make when they are 16, although that is not to say that people do not turn their lives round at 16. In time for reflection this morning, we heard a tremendous contribution from a young woman who has become involved in training in an unusual sphere. That shows how young people are able to turn their lives round. I felt for her, being the only female builder in her workplace. At one time, I was the only female physical chemist at work, so I know how it feels to work in a very male environment.
As many members have said, excellent education can be delivered only if the workers discharging that vital role are well trained, properly rewarded and well respected. Some of the pronouncements that the committee has made about the involvement of teachers have been a little controversial. We based them on research—admittedly from England—that has demonstrated the important role of input from qualified teachers in improving attainment later in education, especially among children in the most disadvantaged communities. We recognise that the system in England is different from that of Scotland; we were therefore concerned that some local authorities are withdrawing qualified teachers from their early years workforce and we recommended that the Executive should provide clear guidance to councils on their deployment of qualified teaching staff. Last night, I had an interesting conversation with Carol Ball of Unison, which does not accept that recommendation. She says that, after 29 years of experience in the early years sector, she does not believe that the teaching qualification makes much difference. There is still an interesting debate to be had between the different professionals involved in the early years sector. I hope that the Executive can facilitate that debate in some respect and provide useful guidance to local authorities.
Initial teacher education may require to be changed to make the early years a more attractive area in which to study and work. The committee believes that there may be opportunities for joint training of teaching and other child care staff. That happens in Scandinavia; unfortunately, I did not manage to get over there to see how things are done, but colleagues tell me that it was an interesting experience. In the longer term, a joint core curriculum for teachers and other early years professionals should be developed, allowing people to start off in comprehensive child care and education training and then branch out into teaching or other parts of the education and care of children. That model can perhaps be developed in future.
The need for flexibility in career choice and the need for quality in the training of the early years workforce were key findings of the Executive's national review of the early years workforce. Several committee members have mentioned how impressed they were by their visits to family centres and how those centres are able to provide non-stigmatised provision. We believe that that type of provision should become more widely available. However, we commissioned an analysis of the cost of universal provision of that type in every school community and recognised that, in the short term, however much we might like it to happen, the cost is prohibitive. We suggest therefore that provision should be increased initially in more disadvantaged communities, where early intervention will be of most benefit. We believe that family centres should be delivered by local authorities working with other partners and that that approach will enable communities to develop the models that are most suited to their needs. It is almost a community planning model, in which local authorities can take a lead but other partners will be involved and will be important.
Robin Harper, Ken Macintosh and others mentioned the problems of transition between the early years and primary 1. Transition in education—from early years to primary school and from primary to secondary—is a problematic time. Indeed, the problems of people leaving secondary school and going into further and higher education were mentioned on the radio just the other day. At all those stages, differences in learning and teaching methods can be problematic. The committee's adviser, Professor Kathy Sylva, impressed on us the benefit of some degree of directed learning in the very early years. She used the example of children learning how to clap out the rhythm of words, which enables them to understand the component shapes of words as a precursor to reading skills. Equally, child-directed, play-based learning can make a contribution in the early years of primary school, so the committee welcomes the Executive's commitment to better integration of the three-to-five and primary 1 curriculums.
As Ken Macintosh and others have said, early years providers in the voluntary sector, in particular, commented on the problems posed by multiple funding streams, which can make longer-term planning difficult. It was a wee bit uncharitable of Christine Grahame to state that the Executive has no interest in addressing that. In other areas, the Executive has been trying to bring together funding streams, but we recommend that the Executive review the present arrangements and try to progress that work in the early years sector.
As many members have said, the evaluation of sure start in England has suggested that there have been benefits to some parents but not to others. So far—perhaps because of the timescales involved—there does not seem to have been much benefit to children themselves. The committee is keen for the Executive to evaluate sure start in Scotland to ensure that we are achieving what we hope to achieve. We asked the Scottish Executive to reflect on and update the strategy that was produced by the Scottish Office in 1998 and to produce a vision of how that can be built on over the next 10 years.
I finish by thanking—as the convener did—the clerks; the witnesses, who gave both oral and written evidence; and the early years centres that entertained us and allowed us to interact with their young people. In particular, I thank the little boy at the Cowgate under-fives centre who showed me his collection of insects, some of which were no longer alive. I was most impressed by the spirit of scientific inquiry being fostered in such a young child.