Early Years and Early Intervention
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-722, in the name of Adam Ingram, on early years and early intervention.
Early years policy holds the key to building the sort of Scotland that we want for the future, in which all our children are successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens and effective contributors. I believe that that ambition is shared across the chamber and by our partners in local government, health boards and beyond. However, with the evidence that stark health and education inequalities emerge within the first few years of a child's life, the scale of the challenge that faces us is clear. By the time that some children are three, their development is already up to a year behind that of their peers. The root causes are poverty and deprivation, and it is to our shame as a nation that one in four of our children is so disadvantaged. Modern medical research shows that children who are born into and grow up in such adverse circumstances suffer long-term impairment to their cognitive development and their physical and mental health.
It is time for Scotland to put a stop to that tragic waste of human potential and to break the pernicious intergenerational cycle of poverty, poor health and low educational attainment that blights our society. To achieve that, we need to gear up our public services across perinatal, pre-school, school, primary health care and social care to ensure that vulnerable families receive intense support when they need it, to build the resilience that can overcome disadvantage.
The early years strategy will be long term, will cover the period from pre-birth to eight years old—including pre-conception issues such as parenting education—and will cover the range of services that support young children and their families. Our focus must shift to prevention and helping to build resilience during the early years. We need to reconfigure policies and services across the board to deliver early intervention, thereby reducing the demand for crisis intervention, which currently dominates our systems.
Four themes are emerging as being central to the approach. First, we must build parenting and family capacity, particularly in the pre-birth and very early stages of a child's life. Most of a child's basic needs in the early years are met by parents, carers, families and their wider social networks. Children who live in families where parental capacity is high lead, more often than not, happy and productive lives. However, there is a group of parents who are not so well equipped to meet the needs of their children, either because their own parenting skills are poorly developed or because of wider factors such as poverty, domestic violence, mental health problems, substance misuse and so on.
I do not believe that there is sufficient appreciation in our society of the fact that parenting children is perhaps the hardest, and certainly the most important, task that any adult will undertake in their life. Although children's services will have a role to play in providing the support that children in vulnerable families need, some of the biggest and longest-term gains are likely to flow from supporting parents to develop their own skills, use the strengths within the family, build social networks and address the stresses that have a negative impact.
Will the support that the minister is proposing be available to all parents or will he seek to target it?
Clearly, we are trying to align our universal services to involve more early intervention and to be responsive to the needs of service users. In doing that, we hope to flag up as early as possible those individuals and families who need more support, so that we can mobilise specialist support and bring together agencies across the board to deal with problems before they reach a crisis situation.
We are trying to help parents to fulfil their nurturing role. That does not mean that we can shy away from the difficult decisions that will need to be taken where a parent's actions mean that children are at risk of suffering harm.
The second theme that is emerging is to do with creating communities that provide a supportive environment for children and families. The community has a significant role to play in supporting positive childhoods and the quality of experience for children that will help them to build resilience. Some of the issues are tangible and readily identifiable. For example, quality of housing, open spaces and play areas, and community safety are all important factors in the quality of childhood experience.
I would like to ask a question before the minister moves away from the point that he is making. He said that the Government will not shy away from taking difficult actions in cases where a family crisis is severe. Presumably, that means removing the child from the family and providing foster care. Does the Government have a programme to extend training for foster carers? How big a part is played by foster carers in the grand strategy?
As I mentioned in last week's members' business debate on fostering, during the summer we announced an extra £4 million to help with the training of foster carers and to provide them with better support.
We are trying to adopt a twin-track approach. First, we need to reduce the demand for foster care services by helping families to cope with their own problems. Secondly, we need to provide foster carers and kinship carers with better support. That will be the subject of the forthcoming fostering and kinship care strategy, which I hope to announce later on this year.
I return to the theme of providing a supportive environment for children and families. Less tangible aspects of the issue include the existence or absence of positive aspirations for children and the degree to which the community sees the welfare and well-being of children as a collective responsibility. We do not deal with that terribly well in Scotland. Many aspects of policy will need to come together with grass-roots social change to make an impact. I do not underestimate the challenges.
The third theme that we want to pursue through the strategy is delivering services that meet the needs of children and families in a holistic way. The early years service landscape remains quite fragmented, with a plethora of health, social work, education and child care services. The fact that several of those services encompass public, private and voluntary sector provision makes the landscape even more complex.
In many areas, local authorities and their community planning partners are doing positive work to join up approaches at local level, but fragmentation can have many consequences, from children being shuffled between several different forms of child care to multiple assessments and the risks that arise from the complexity of sharing information. Therefore, a major theme of the strategy will be to build on work that is already being progressed through the getting it right for every child programme.
I agree with everything that the minister has said—it has been extremely good and positive—but how does he reconcile it with the decisions to close nursery and primary schools that have been revived in Edinburgh by the Scottish National Party-led City of Edinburgh Council?
I do not believe that that is what has happened in Edinburgh, so I will return to my constructive remarks.
Will the minister give way?
I am sorry, George.
When need is identified, the first instinct should be not to refer the case on to another agency that is deemed more appropriate but to mobilise all agencies that can make an appropriate contribution.
As I have already mentioned, families with greater needs often have other stresses, which mean that they have to navigate an even more complex web of services—more likely, they do not even try to do so. We should not allow any child to fall through the cracks. Outreach work will be a significant feature of early intervention.
You have one minute left.
Will the minister give way?
I am sorry, but we are out of time.
The final theme, which was very much to the fore in the early years inquiry that was carried out in the previous session of Parliament, is workforce development. It is impossible to deliver the services that we want for our youngest children if we do not invest in the skills and career opportunities of the people who deliver those services—those are two sides of the same coin.
Just this morning, I launched the standard for a degree-level qualification in childhood practice, and our proposals on enhancing teacher involvement in pre-school education and on reducing class sizes will further enhance the amount of professional input in early years services. However, in the longer term we must look to a much broader agenda that involves developing the skills of all staff who work with children and families.
A strong consensus was built during the Education Committee's early years inquiry in session 2, so I am hopeful that we can build the cross-party support that will be needed in the new political landscape to deliver the scale of change that I believe is necessary. We will also need to build a wider consensus among people who plan, deliver and use services if we are to overcome the major obstacles to change that we know exist.
This is a truly national project. Fiona Hyslop will say more about that in closing, but I look forward to contributions to this important debate from members of all parties, and I look forward to the development of the strategy over the coming year.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the importance of early years policy in delivering improved outcomes for children and young people; believes that early intervention has a crucial role to play in reducing inequalities, particularly in health and education, but also more widely; welcomes the intention to develop a long-term early years strategy; agrees that parenting, support for families and community capacity-building are areas which require a strong focus; believes that services must work more closely together to support children and families, and highlights the importance of a highly skilled and collaborative workforce in delivering a new strategic approach to early years policy.
There is much in the motion on which we can agree. It is widely acknowledged that the Labour Party, in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, had an excellent record on provision for early years and early intervention and began to make real strides in addressing child poverty—a particular concern of the Labour Party. In our sunrise agenda for children and young families, we made commitments to children, families and parents, and acknowledged the key role that supporting parents plays in tackling poverty and disadvantage.
However, given that the motion and the early years strategy cover pupils up to primary 3, as the minister said, I will talk about the Scottish National Party's flagship policy of reducing class sizes to 18 in primary 1 to primary 3. We think that the SNP's pledge on class sizes is under threat and is unlikely to be fulfilled. Scottish parents have a right to know about that.
What exactly is the Labour Party's position on smaller class sizes? In 2003, Peter Peacock said that they were a good thing; in 2007, Wendy Alexander says that they are not so important. Do you want smaller class sizes or not?
Of course, we reduced some class sizes. However, our position is very much that it is up to head teachers and schools how they deliver smaller class sizes. The SNP has been unable to quote research that says that smaller class sizes would have a definite benefit. Valerie Wilson, of the Scottish Council for Research in Education, said that the case for reducing class sizes has not been made. The SNP has not made its case. We want flexibility and parents need to know what they are going to get.
I have brought with me a copy of a document that I have sent to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, which sets out 40 key questions that the SNP must answer if it is to achieve its goal of reducing class sizes. Many of the questions have not been answered. The SNP has avoided providing details on nearly all the issues, which is leading to huge frustration for parents and politicians and to accusations that the SNP has made a promise to the Scottish electorate that it cannot keep.
The cabinet secretary must answer a fundamental question: what is the projected cost of the class size reduction pledge? The SNP must have a projected cost, given that it has made a huge commitment to Scottish parents. Is the SNP seriously telling us that it does not know how much it would cost to fulfil the pledge? Has the SNP made yet another uncosted promise?
When I asked for detail on the SNP's costings for reducing class sizes in P1 to P3, Fiona Hyslop replied:
"Estimates of the staffing costs required for class size reductions in primary 1 to 3 to a maximum of 18 are not available broken down to local authority level."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 25 October 2007; S3W-5062.]
Has the cabinet secretary asked local authorities how much the SNP pledge on class sizes would cost? If you have not asked local authorities that question, will you do so? I suggest that if the cabinet secretary has not asked the question, it is because she probably has a pretty good idea of the answer, and she does not want to hear it.
Will the member give way?
Maybe you will tell us: have you asked local authorities what it will cost them to implement your pledge? Yes or no?
We are in continuing discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The member must decide whether or not she agrees with the reduction in class sizes, because many local authorities want to know whether the Labour Party supports a reduction in class sizes. So far, I think that the answer is no.
Of course, the cabinet secretary refuses to answer the question. I say to her: members are in the chamber to debate the SNP's manifesto commitment. She does not want to hear the information that councils might provide, but she will have to listen to some of it in the debate. If the Government does not know what the local authorities' costings are, she might like to check whether her officials are taking notes.
Glasgow City Council will need to hire 397 extra teachers and build 186 extra classrooms, at a total cost of £47 million. North Lanarkshire Council will need 150 extra teachers and 83 new classrooms, at a total cost of £20.5 million. South Lanarkshire Council will need 200 extra teachers and 90 new classrooms, at a total cost of £20.75 million. The City of Edinburgh Council will need 206 extra teachers and estimates that its total extra cost for staffing and capital costs will be £42 million.
Will my colleague confirm for the minister, Mr Ingram, that an article in yesterday's Edinburgh Evening News confirmed that the SNP-led council in Edinburgh is reopening its plans to close primary and nursery schools in the city? Is that not the case?
Absolutely. It is an absolute disgrace that the SNP Government at Holyrood is saying one thing and the SNP-led council in Edinburgh is doing another.
I asked councils how much the SNP's class size reduction will cost. Given that I have done it, will the cabinet secretary and her ministers now do it? The truth is that the policy is one of the biggest uncosted pledges in the SNP wish list of a manifesto. Of course, the question that I have asked is just one of many unanswered questions to which the cabinet secretary must respond.
Will the member give way?
No. If you do not mind, I would like to get on.
Scottish parents have a right to know whether the class size pledge will lead to an increase in the number of composite classes. If that is the case, it could lead to classes of 36 pupils with two teachers. Will that be acceptable? Will schools be allowed to use school gymnasiums or music rooms as classrooms? Will portakabins in the playground be acceptable? Will the cabinet secretary restate the First Minister's promise to deliver reduced class sizes in this parliamentary session?
The SNP is discovering that it is a lot easier to make promises than it is to keep them. Its class size pledge is looking like another broken promise. Reducing class sizes to 18 is a complicated process, yet the SNP cannot provide even the most basic costing information. Given that the SNP Government has pledged to cut class sizes—not only has it done that, the First Minister has restated that the SNP will do it in the first four years—it must know the potential costs, but if it does not know, what sort of Government is it? The questions are: how many teachers will be needed and what will be the capital costs? The SNP Government is not prepared to provide the answers to those questions.
Labour believes that having smaller class sizes is only one part of what is needed to give our children a better education. The SNP has put all its education eggs into one basket. Having done so, it will be unable to meet its pledge.
Will the member give way?
No. I would like to continue. I have given way two or three times.
The SNP has broken the promise that it made to the Scottish people to recruit an additional 1,000 police officers. We fear that it is about to do the same on class sizes.
The Labour Party amendment
"notes the failure of the SNP Government to provide a statement on its commitment to reduce class sizes … as called for by the Parliament on 13 September 2007"
and calls on the Scottish Government to
"bring forward detailed plans and costings on its commitment to reduce class sizes within the imminent strategic spending review statement."
Despite the First Minister's warm words in May that the SNP Government would always remember that it is a minority Government, it continues to treat the Scottish Parliament with contempt. We witnessed that earlier this afternoon. It is now time for the Scottish ministers to come clean on the costs involved in class size reductions. They owe it to Scottish parents to do so.
I move amendment S3M-722.2, to insert at end:
"notes the failure of the SNP Government to provide a statement on its commitment to reduce class sizes to 18 in primary 1 to primary 3 by 2011, as called for by the Parliament on 13 September 2007, and agrees that the Scottish Government should bring forward detailed plans and costings on its commitment to reduce class sizes within the imminent strategic spending review statement."
Before I call Elizabeth Smith, I say to members that, although I understand the difficulties involved, the use of the word "you" is creeping into members' speeches quite a bit. When a member says "you" they are referring to me, which, I am sure, is not the intention. Wherever possible, I ask members to refer to one another by their full names.
In speaking to the Conservative amendment, which is in my name, I begin by saying that no self-respecting politician could possibly disagree with the sentiments that are expressed in the Government motion, nor could they disagree with the compelling evidence that has been presented in a wealth of social and educational research in which the behavioural patterns of children aged zero to eight have been studied.
The importance of the early years goes without saying, as does the importance of the many and varied influences during what can be the most rewarding years of childhood. We can be under no illusions at all about the importance of the pre-school years and primaries 1 to 3 for educational achievement and wider social and cultural development, whether that means developing cognitive skills, helping children to adopt healthy eating standards and good manners, or ensuring that they understand others' needs.
However, we should not just debate a few grand sentiments and principles. I hope that today's debate will be about the details of workable policy, as Ms Brankin hinted, and not just about the ideals with which we want to inspire educational thinking. The amendment in my name reflects that and our belief that several key policy areas can be identified to provide stronger support for the family and, more specifically, for the institution of marriage. Although I do not want to dwell too much on Westminster responsibilities, I stress our commitment to Conservative policies at United Kingdom level that will encourage families to stay together and give parents real choices in deciding what is best for their children. If we do not have underlying support through the UK tax and benefit system, the policies over which the Parliament has control will be much less effective.
I will go straight to the detail and deal with the importance of the family in pre-school years—a point that was enunciated forcibly by several key witnesses who gave evidence to the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee earlier this month. The definition of the family is diverse these days, but there should be no doubt that its bedrock has been and always will be the institution of marriage and the creation of a stable environment within marriage.
Will the member give way?
I may be just about to answer Mr Purvis's point. I say to those who argue that that approach is somehow old-fashioned or discriminatory that, rather than ask politicians to judge, they should ask children and their parents what their ideal family situation would be. They need no reminding of the costs of family breakdown, which are now a staggering £20 billion a year in the UK. It is therefore essential that Government policy be directed specifically at redressing the situation.
For clarification, when the member refers to the institution of marriage, does she include civil partnerships within that broad definition?
Our party has made it clear that we will accept that.
It is vital that Government policy is directed in that way to end the perverse financial disincentive for couples to come together and stay together. The working tax credit that couples receive should reflect that situation, and perhaps transferable tax allowances for married couples should be introduced. Because of the situation, the Conservatives want a child benefit system that more heavily supports families with children in the age range zero to two, when costs are often at their highest and are, in many cases, prohibitive if one parent wishes to stay at home.
Besides that, it is important to remind ourselves of the Government's appropriate role, namely that it should support, not interfere. Thousands of parents in Scotland are perfectly capable of bringing up their families successfully, and they should be able to get on with it without the burden of a nanny state. So when we use the phrase "early intervention", let us be specific about the terms of reference: it is a relevant and appropriate description when it refers to the additional support for those families who genuinely need it—there are many of them—but it is not appropriate if it relates to developing a one-size-fits-all strategy that dictates how every child should be brought up.
Frankly, that is what is wrong with some aspects of SNP policy, and it is most clearly exemplified in its universal or one-size-fits-all policy of reducing class sizes in primaries 1 to 3 even when that cannot be funded properly and it is not the appropriate priority. The Conservatives believe that class sizes should not be determined by the Government at all, but instead should be decided by head teachers—it is good to see a Labour conversion to that policy. Give head teachers the choice between having universal smaller class sizes and the freedom to run their schools and they will take the latter.
I turn to the role of schools in early learning, and specifically to numeracy and literacy skills, on which, frankly, Scotland is not performing well enough. There have been many encouraging signs at nursery and playgroup level and in some early years of primary, but much more needs to be done. Basic skills are required. I hope that we will never go back to the bad old days when the emphasis was on expression rather than a good firm grasp of phonetics and numbers.
I will close on an important point to which the minister alluded. Will the Government give a firm commitment to develop policies that support children outwith the formal learning environment? The Government hinted at that in its manifesto, but to date it has given absolutely no detail. We want firm policy details. I entirely agree with Rhona Brankin that we are not hearing nearly enough policy details.
I move amendment S3M-722.3, to insert after first "families":
"and the institution of marriage".
This debate is welcome, and a 10-year strategy will be welcome, too. I commend the minister for his open approach to the other parties in the lead-up to the debate, and for the fact that we did not hear the contents of his speech on the radio this morning. That was a purely accidental reference to other proceedings today.
A number of manifesto commitments were made by the different parties. By and large, the approach to the development of a co-ordinated early years strategy was consensual, which highlights the fact that all parties in the Parliament share a common view. Today, we have chosen not to try to amend the Government's motion. The motion is fine, but we wanted to ensure a greater focus on how the strategy can give the most effective support. I hope that the Government is minded to support our constructive addendum.
I have some concerns, however. In a debate on the Government's skills strategy, I said that the Liberal Democrats would not tolerate an equally vacuous policy document. We want the early years strategy to be focused and to contain specific details, baseline data and real policy ambition. The document should not be like the mood music that we saw in the skills strategy, which led colleges in Scotland to say that it asked them to do nothing in particular and universities in Scotland to say that it asked them to do nothing at all. Gilbert and Sullivan described the House of Lords as doing nothing in particular and doing it very well, but we cannot allow the early years strategy to be so described.
The Government is on notice. Opposition parties, although wanting to work with the Government, will oppose it if it does not deliver a real strategy. Unfortunately, over the past six months we have seen too much obfuscation from the ministerial team on education. The comprehensive spending review statement must include a clear position on extending pre-school provision, on building capacity in the system, and on improving workforce skills through local authorities.
We must finally get a straight answer to the straight question of whether the Government's pledge on class sizes will be delivered before 2011. I say to Mrs Brankin that we do not need 40 questions, just the one—and we need just the one answer. By my calculations, we have had five variations on a theme from the Government. COSLA still awaits clarification. I understand that COSLA has said to the Government that it will require £300 million to deliver the commitment during this session of the Parliament. However, the Government has still not given COSLA clarity—no matter whether it is the First Minister or the cabinet secretary who has the say on when the commitment will be delivered.
We would like to consider the merits of limiting class sizes to 18. Other parties, too, have commented on the issue. Under this Government, we will be moving away from a position of having no limits on the overall group sizes in nurseries. There will be a limit regarding the ratio between staff numbers and numbers of children, but there will be no limits on group sizes, which will be potentially up to 25. There will also be a reduction to 18 for primaries 1, 2 and 3, but there will be a larger group size for primary 4. That will give heads of primary schools considerable difficulties related to staffing and to composite classes. There is no clear approach to an incremental development of a child's learning from the age of two to the age of eight—the age to which the Government has referred. The Government may be placing institutional barriers in the way of a coherent approach to education.
We must also ask about the commitment on nursery provision. In December 2006, the headline was:
"It's time to double nursery provision".
In February 2007, the SNP's website talked of a 50 per cent increase; the manifesto gave that figure as well. So far, we have not had 50 per cent, but again we are waiting on the consequentials from England to be clarified in the spending review before seeing whether that commitment will be delivered. We will give the commitment a fair wind and we will support it, as it was a commitment in our manifesto, too. I think that we would have given a much clearer statement on it before now, but I trust that such a statement will come from the Government.
We have not doubted the ministerial team's sincerity, but we have condemned this week's shifty auditing in the announcement of cuts in the number of quangos, on which the previous Administration had already decided, and spending announcements about money that has already been committed. We hope that the new strategy will be a fresh approach from the Government.
Clarity is needed on another of the Government's commitments that will be at the heart of the strategy. I refer to the commitment to provide access to a nursery teacher for every child in a nursery. There is no clarity regarding the definition of access.
As Jeremy Purvis said, no definition of access has been given. Does he accept that what the First Minister and others clearly said was not that there would be access, but that there would be a teacher for every nursery child, which is significantly different?
To be fair to the Government, which I always tend to be, it said that it wished to provide access to a teacher. However, as I saw during a visit to a nursery in my constituency, access as currently defined could mean one visit by one teacher to one nursery each term. The Government must be clear about what it means.
We want a renaissance in play and we want to reinvigorate Scotland's playgroup movement. We want additional support for two-year-olds with regard to play. We want to be able to move the strategy towards much better intervention at an earlier age. I hope that that would be our approach with regard to places for two-year-olds, better workforce planning and the transition from nursery to formal education in primary 1; that would transform the way in which staff, local authorities and Government work together. I hope that that approach will be part of the strategy. If it is not, we will be highly critical; if it is, we will of course support it.
I move amendment S3M-722.1, to insert at end:
"further believes that the Scottish Government's approach to early years must incorporate a strategy for play and communication, give greater support for play provision for two-year-olds and develop primary 1 into a transition year from nursery to formal education."
It has been almost eight and a half years since the first elections to the Scottish Parliament. Eight cohorts of primary school pupils have entered the education system since 1999. A child who was born on the day of that first election is now in primary 3. Such children were failed by the first eight years of stuttering administration and I am glad that they now have a Government that will at least try to deliver for them.
Will Christina McKelvie take an intervention on that point?
I want to continue.
I was pleased when I saw the motion that Adam Ingram lodged, which should allow us to debate the important early years in a child's life and how we can add to their life chances by improving services for them in the early years. However, I was saddened to see Rhona Brankin's amendment, not just because it seeks to score petty points in a debate as important as this, but because it misses the point altogether.
The Minister for Children and Early Years is seeking consensus in Parliament for an approach to early years services that would reduce inequalities, particularly in health and education, and seek better integration and collaboration.
The member said that my speech was irrelevant. Will she answer the question that the cabinet secretary and the minister singularly refuse to answer? Does she know, as a Scottish National Party member, how much the proposed reduction in class sizes will cost? Does she have any idea?
Perhaps I will give the member that answer when she tells me whether she supports smaller class sizes—yes or no?
The Government is plotting a path that seeks to help families across Scotland and seeks to find common ground among all the parties that are represented in the chamber, for the benefit of all Scotland's families.
We have a Conservative amendment with which we may not all agree, but which at least presents a point of view that refers to the early years experience. The amendment from Jeremy Purvis puts forward ideas that the minister can at least consider as part of the consideration of the early years strategy for Scotland. However, the response from the Labour Party is predictably sour and it misses the point.
While the other parties in the chamber can all use this opportunity to focus on the vital issues at hand, Labour instead has its heart set on worrying at the bruises of its election defeat six months ago. That is as unhelpful to Scotland as it is unedifying to see. While we are concentrating on the early years, Labour is off talking about school years and seeking to criticise the SNP's laudable commitment to cutting class sizes in the first years of primary school. Perhaps that is because Labour does not understand what the early years of a child's life mean for the child's life chances. Perhaps Labour has not had a chance to study any of the research, or perhaps it is ashamed that it promised an early years strategy during the 2003 election campaign, but did not deliver over the next four years. In the eight years for which Labour was in power, it did not produce an early years or early years intervention strategy. There was consultation on what such a strategy should be, but there was no delivery. There was prevarication and no action.
The child who was born on the day of the first elections to the Scottish Parliament was failed by Labour. One would think that Labour would have the decency to try to help put that right. While I am on the subject of Labour failures, I ask members to cast their minds back to the pledge that Labour made to cut class sizes in primary 1 to a maximum of 25 pupils. The latest figures for 2006 show that there was only a 3 per cent difference in the numbers between when the promise was made and 2006, when it was definitely broken. More than 41 per cent of primary 1 pupils are still in classes of more than 25. Three years after Labour promised an unambitious improvement, hardly a shred of difference has been made. I will take no lectures from Labour on class sizes.
I applaud Adam Ingram for bringing this important debate on early years to the chamber and I urge members to engage in it. I am aware that the previous Education Committee took a special interest in examining the work of the Scandinavian countries, having visited Stockholm and Helsinki during its early years inquiry. The SNP also has a particular interest in those nations, as they are in the arc of prosperity. We favour their early years partnership model, given the high regard in which the well-trained and respected staff are held and the attitude that allows children to be children.
The SNP is painfully aware that Scotland does not have control over the tax and benefits system, which would allow us to emulate the system in Sweden and Finland, which gives so much support to parents and families. However, we are determined to do what we can within the current system to improve Scotland's lot.
In the interests of balance, I am sure that the member will agree that, on comparisons within the UK with regard to what has happened in the past eight years, child care services, such as the free nursery places for three and four-year-olds, have set us considerably ahead of England.
Absolutely. At least Mr Purvis has the guts to recognise that we are trying to make a difference in Scotland and that we are making headway on that.
Research from the Abecedarian project and Perry pre-school project, as well as evidence from Reggio Emilia, shows that early intervention and an effective early years strategy pay dividends. There are lifelong benefits for recipients of the investment, whose life chances are immeasurably improved, and financial savings in later life social services for the society that provides the investment. The Perry pre-school 21 years on study suggests that the savings could be as much as eight times the spend. That is pretty good gearing.
Members of the Parliament have an opportunity today to make a commitment to drive early years provision in Scotland in a direction that will benefit us all. We will have further opportunities to help Scotland's Government refine the strategy and direction of our support for people in the first years of their life. I support the motion and commend it to my fellow MSPs.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. I am sure that we all agree that investment in early years education is vital to the future of our country. It is not just vital for the young people concerned and their immediate families, but is central to achieving our aims of eliminating child poverty, reducing inequality and maximising our economic success.
The early years policy of Labour-led North Lanarkshire Council is making a vital contribution to the lives of my constituents in Airdrie and Shotts. I do not have time today to highlight every success, so I will focus on the one area that is making a real difference: the national pilot that the council is running, which is based around nurture groups. There are currently eight nurture groups in our primary schools, each of which has two dedicated staff providing extra support to the children in primary 1 to primary 3 who need it most. Each school has a dedicated space for the nurture group to use, including home space, which replicates a domestic living room, an eating area and a class area, which is limited to 12 children. Children spend most of their day in the nurture group, but rejoin their main primary class for larger group activities. Parents are encouraged to be involved.
Although it is still too early to judge the full benefits of the scheme, national test scoring has already improved and the children involved are already reaping the benefits by gaining maturity, self-confidence and belief in themselves. However, I remind the minister that if we are to replicate those experiences and good practice throughout Scotland, it will cost money. I believe that such initiatives will deliver more for primary 1 to primary 3 children than the flawed policy on class sizes.
On the issue of class sizes for primaries 1, 2 and 3, the Scottish Labour Party is committed to smaller class sizes. However, unlike the SNP, we promise only what we can deliver, and our policies will always be driven by the desire to improve attainment. It is important that we consider a number of difficulties that local authorities will face as a result of the policy. First, the hard fact is that many schools across Scotland are physically unable to extend their facilities to accommodate a decrease in class sizes—they simply do not have the extra space or capacity to run extra classes. What will happen to the children who currently have places at those schools but who take the class roll over 18? What will happen to the 19th and 20th members of the class? Will they be moved to another school? Will the minister clarify what will happen in those circumstances?
Secondly, the policy will significantly reduce the ability of local authorities to deal with school placing requests, which will increase dissatisfaction among parents. Many more parents will be denied their first choice of school and more children will end up separated from their friends and siblings. Surely the Government would be better off giving local authorities the resources and power to reduce the overall pupil teacher ratio rather than focusing on the arbitrary reduction of class sizes, which has no proven benefits.
The fact is that the quality of teaching practice benefits pupils far more than a class size reduction. Reducing the pupil teacher ratio would be of far greater benefit to overall educational standards and would allow headteachers to allocate extra teaching support to the pupils who need it most, without having the headache of dealing with school capacity issues.
Leaving aside those practical considerations, the reality is that local authorities simply cannot afford to implement the Government's proposals. North Lanarkshire Council has estimated that, to meet the Government's pledge on class sizes, we will have to employ an extra 150 teachers at a cost of £5.5 million a year. However, that is only the tip of the iceberg. Building extra classrooms, where it is possible to do so, would incur capital costs of between £15 million and £20 million. That is the minimum cost and does not include any additional infrastructure needs, such as extra parking spaces or toilet facilities. Without extra funding, the Government's policy will mean that children who are not in primaries 1, 2 and 3 will be faced with larger classes of up to 40 being taught in school canteens and sports halls. It will mean that children will be taught in draughty portakabins in the school playground rather than in new classrooms in new schools.
When the costs are added in for local authorities that, in the face of changing school rolls, will also have to conduct catchment reviews, it is clear that the Government's policy of focusing on class sizes is not only misguided and costly; it is a diversion from the real needs of our children in the early years. We need an early years policy that is right for all young people and which focuses on children's real learning outcomes rather than on arbitrary targets.
Parents in my constituency, like parents across Scotland, want an early years strategy that puts their children first. I hope that the Government will listen to their concerns, as they have been expressed by members today—
Will the member give way?
I am in my last minute, I am afraid.
It is important that the Government begins to deliver on those priorities and ensures that effective action is taken to ensure a bright start for every young child in Scotland.
I thank Adam Ingram for bringing the debate to the chamber. As Jeremy Purvis and Elizabeth Smith have said, the debate is consensual. Many of us can agree with the basic thrust of what we are talking about. It is always slightly worrying when Jeremy Purvis talks about consensus, as that is unusual for him. However, I totally support his view today.
Jeremy Purvis Will the member give way?
I am not used to taking interventions from my own side. I certainly will not give way.
As I usually do, I will use examples from my constituency to bring some matters to the attention of the minister. I hope that he and his colleagues will consider them positively. One of my examples arises from a visit that I made to Pennyland primary school in Thurso. The children put on a particularly good video presentation that I would like to copy to the minister. They brought up the simple issue of bullying among younger children, and there is no doubt that—in terms of everything that we are trying to achieve together—that is one factor that can militate against our best efforts. The video was thought-provoking; it posed questions that I had trouble answering in Thurso, on the day, so it would be helpful if the minister is willing to engage.
Secondly, I want to mention a problem that occurs in my home town; I am sure that it will be familiar to many members. The workers from Europe whom we have in our constituencies are truly welcome; they are making a vibrant difference to our lives and to everything that is done in our constituencies. However, in Knockbreck primary school in my home town of Tain, there is a problem with the running of the Gaelic unit and the sports facilities, as we have so many immigrant workers' children—who are welcome—that the facilities are overstretched. That is posing a problem for the local authority, and it should be brought to the minister's attention.
My third point is the most serious. I ask for members' indulgence—I will go back slightly in history to before the recent election. The Highland Council was, in its infinite wisdom, considering the closure of a number of nursery units in Caithness. The unit in Thrumster, just south of Wick, is one example, and Keiss, just north of Wick, is another example. The council was talking about closing down those units altogether, which would mean that small pre-primary children would be transported from the village of Thrumster, south of Wick, to Wick for the nursery provision, and then back to Thrumster when they hit primary 1. In terms of sibling support, keeping families together and making life liveable for parents who are trying to transport children around, it was unthinkable. It became a cause célèbre—the minister might be aware of it—in the far north of Scotland, and it made many newspaper column inches. It caused great anxiety. There was a climate of uncertainty.
In fairness to the Scottish Government and the previous Scottish Executive, that plan seemed to fly in the face of the best intentions for the best interests of small children. Subsequent to that—and in fairness to the present Scottish Government—we got a new administration in the Highlands. The decision was put on ice, and has been frozen. However, we do not know what will happen at the end of the day. We are not certain that those small, crucial rural nursery units will be kept open. In terms of access to nursery units, it seems that a child who lives in Perth, Edinburgh, Glasgow or Lanark has exactly the same rights as a child living in a small remote village in Caithness, such as Keiss or Thrumster.
Ministers must ensure that there is no backing away from the best intentions of the Scottish Government, and that there is no behind-the-scenes unrolling of all that has been done in the best interests of our children. It is about checking that capital expenditure meets needs, and that grant-aided expenditure figures are being examined properly and used in the way that Government intended. It is an unfortunate fact that, in the nature of politics and government in Scotland, there is a big telescope from the decisions that are made here by the Scottish Government to what happens out there in a faraway county such as Caithness. Things can change—we all know that through our experience. I am saying, in a friendly way, to the Scottish Government, "Do your best. We, as Liberal Democrats, will support you whenever we believe that you are backing the best interests of the children." We need a consensual approach—the questions that have been posed on funding by the Labour Party are relevant, and I am sure that the Government will come back with answers.
Elizabeth Smith made points about the nanny state. I am not aware that the social work department in my constituency acts out of order in intervening in families. It has got the balance about right between providing a safety net for those children who need it, and non-interference. However, I accept that there is a debate to be had on that matter.
I urge the Scottish Government to look closely at the outcomes of the decisions at the lowest levels, and the impact on children, and I ask Scottish ministers please to keep in mind the small nursery units in my constituency that were under threat and which, pray God, will never be closed.
As my colleague Christina McKelvie noted, it has been nine years since Scotland compiled any kind of comprehensive strategy on early years and early intervention. Given that we all agree how crucial it is to have healthy, happy, informed, inquisitive, aspiring and involved children, we might think that one of the things that the new Scottish Parliament would have done in 1999 would be to look at an overarching strategy to help us help our children become all those things. That would have been a fitting intervention for the early years of our Parliament. That is why I was pleased to hear our Minister for Children and Early Years talk so passionately and with such commitment about a comprehensive plan to do the best for Scotland's children.
The nine-year-old strategy that I mentioned a moment ago—"Meeting the Childcare Challenge: A Childcare Strategy for Scotland"—was not so much an early years strategy as a plan to provide more accessible child care. That is important, of course, and it is something that the SNP supports, but it is not the end of the story. Doing the best for children is not just about education—it is also about health. If children are well nourished, fit and healthy, they will learn better. If they are emotionally secure and their psychological needs are taken care of, their minds will be free to learn. That, too, will enable them to learn better.
Doing the best for children is about social interaction. It is our duty to create an environment in which children have access to a variety of experiences and adult influences. If they have that access, their learning will deepen.
Doing the best for children is about having loving, supportive families, as Elizabeth Smith noted. It is society's duty to support families and enable them to provide the right environments for their children. Children thrive in stable, loving environments, where their capacity to learn increases.
Doing the best for children is also about wealth and poverty. The link between poverty and learning is unquestionable, as are the words of Douglas Hamilton, the head of policy and research at Save the Children, who said of the child poverty figures in March:
"The Scottish Executive and the UK Government strategies have not gone nearly far enough—the figures are disgraceful."
As the minister said, the SNP Government takes seriously its pledge to eradicate poverty. As we do so, children will be free to learn and they will do so better.
It is right to invest time and money in our children's early years, but it also makes economic sense. When the Work Foundation published the results of a major investigation into the early years, it came to the following conclusion:
"Many of society's most intractable social problems—crime, drugs misuse, unemployment, poor skills and endemic unhappiness—are rooted in the experiences of children during their first five years of life."
If we get things right in the first five years, we will undoubtedly save money that would otherwise be spent on dealing with the effects of crime and drugs. The Work Foundation estimates that, for every £1 that is spent on helping families and young people who are at risk, up to £17 of public expenditure can be saved. If the conclusions of the Work Foundation's studies are correct, we have only a short period of time in which to influence and encourage children positively, so we must not waste any more time.
What do we have to do? For a start, we need to ensure that our children are fit and healthy. The introduction of the free school meals pilot is a terrific start and is heading in the right direction. Many children go to school without having breakfast and rarely eat a nutritious meal. Our approach is simply common sense.
Often, common sense is all that is needed to help to improve children's lives. That is why I find the actions of South Lanarkshire Council—with particular reference to getting children fit—bizarre. I will give an example of something that happened at a school in Carluke in South of Scotland. To encourage participation in sport, the school has new enclosed playing fields. That is good news so far. From afar, they look like bright, new, shiny, wonderful facilities, but on closer inspection the surfaces are not grass or new age Astroturf but tarmac. A friend of mine said, "In my day, they called that a road."
I do not disagree with most of what the member says, but does she understand that there is frustration about the way in which the Government is developing its approach because it is limited to P1 to P3? The free school meals pilot is an example. The Government is not proposing free meals in nurseries or in P4. Why is there an obsession with P1 to P3?
It is a strategy and an approach, and we want to make contributions to further that. At the moment, the project is a pilot. The results will be considered and the project could be rolled out further.
I return to the point about tarmac. I think that we all agree that, in the 21st century, tarmac is not the best surface for children to play energetic sports on. It will not help us to find the next James McFadden.
Learning happens not only in nurseries and primary schools but throughout people's lives. We have to ensure that children's life experiences are about more than home and school. They need to venture out into wider society, but that is becoming more and more difficult. We have all seen the report by Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People, which says that nearly half of the adults who were surveyed fear being wrongly accused of harming a child and will not volunteer to work with them. Often, that means that local clubs and organisations are not set up. If children are denied access to such clubs, they miss out on other parts of life that will add depth and fun to the learning experiences that they get in the classroom.
The arguments for focusing on the early years are compelling. The Work Foundation argues that investing more in early years services, especially in parental support and community-based day care, will better help disadvantaged children and help us to save public money in the long term.
Tonight is Hallowe'en and many children will be excited and happy to dress up to go guising—perhaps some of us in the chamber will do so, too—but Hallowe'en is not only a game. When it comes to the future of our young children, let none of us play games and let us work together as a Parliament towards ensuring that the children who need our help and intervention are provided with a brighter, healthier and happier tomorrow.
I declare an interest, as I am a father of two and a grandfather of two, although my wife might question my claims to expertise in bringing up children.
For Aileen Campbell's information, James McFadden learned his football at Turnbull high school, in my constituency—I think that he played on red ash rather than tarmac.
I support Rhona Brankin's amendment. I will confine my remarks to a particular aspect of early years provision: nursery school education. As SNP members will know, it was the Labour Party that introduced the policy of a free nursery place for every three and four-year-old whose parents want one. That was a Labour promise made and a Labour promise delivered.
What of the SNP in government and its commitments to nursery provision? It has announced an increase in the number of weeks of free provision from 33 to 38—translated into free hours, that is an increase from 400 hours to 475. Yet the SNP's manifesto commitment was to increase nursery provision by 50 per cent—in other words, from 400 hours to 600. That is another SNP promise made and another SNP promise broken. Perhaps the minister will tell us when that manifesto promise will be delivered.
While the minister is thinking about that, perhaps he will consider doing something about ensuring that finance for free nursery places begins on the child's third birthday. This problem was brought to my attention by a constituent, Mrs Alexis Stevenson, who lives in Kirkintilloch. Her son Sam was three earlier this month. When she inquired about a place for him at a local nursery, she was told that the funding for his place would become available in January, in line with Scottish Executive Education Department guidelines. The current rules state that children become eligible for funding for their nursery place in the term following their third birthday. The term start times that are laid down by the regulations are August, January and April, which means that children such as Sam who were born between August and January must wait for six months before their funding becomes available.
Last week, Mrs Stevenson and I launched a petition, which we will bring to the Parliament, to try to correct the anomaly. It is called "Free at Three" and calls on all local authorities in Scotland to make the funding for free nursery provision available as soon as a child reaches their third birthday. That already happens in three councils: Stirling, Scottish Borders and Shetland. Perth and Kinross Council does it only if resources allow and the SNP-led Aberdeen City Council had a free-at-three policy but has now reverted to following the Education Department guidelines.
I am sure that members throughout the chamber agree that early years education is probably the most important and that no children should have to wait six months before they can access their free nursery place. That is not what the policy intended.
To ensure Sam's place at the nursery of their choice, Mrs Stevenson and her husband are having to pay £200 between now and January. They have had to borrow the money to give their son the best possible start, but they should not have had to.
When I corresponded with East Dunbartonshire Council about the issue, I was told that it was "common practice" for parents to pay for placements before the funding became available. What about those who cannot afford to pay? I was also told that it had been anticipated that extra funding would be made available for third-birthday entries but that that had not happened. As with most things, it comes down to resources. However, there can be few things that are more worthy of investment than our children's education.
At the weekend, the SNP's minister with the money, John Swinney, complained about the settlement from Westminster. He said that it is not enough—£30 billion is not enough for the SNP. Yet, at the same event, his fellow ministers, including the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, were throwing money around like lottery winners: £100 million for capital spending in colleges and universities; money for the M8 motorway—a decision that had, incidentally, already been taken by the previous Administration; and a commitment to introduce free prescriptions for all. Money was promised for all those things, yet the SNP is still determined to plead poverty in relation to nursery provision.
What the SNP is really suffering from is a poverty of excuses for the trail of broken promises that it is leaving behind it. The claim that it does not have the money will not wash. To the £30 billion from the comprehensive spending review it can add another £700 million in end-year funding, with the prospect of another £500 million or so as the Barnett consequential from the crossrail project in London. It is not a shortage of cash that the SNP is suffering from; it is a shortage of ideas.
Will the member give way?
I am just winding up. Sorry.
Labour is the party of social justice, and we deliver on the people's priorities. We are committed to investing in early years education, improving health care and family support for the under-twos, and expanding free early years education for three to five-year-olds. We also want to see fully trained early years teachers—even those with a degree in childhood practice, as mentioned by the minister—working alongside primary teachers in primary 1 in our most deprived areas. For nursery provision, there must be more free hours per week and more weeks per year. On a personal note, for the sake of young Sam Stevenson and the children who have not yet reached their third birthday, I want to see free at three introduced into every local authority in Scotland.
I welcome the debate, although there is a bit of knocking copy going on. This is a subject that the Parliament should be concerned about and I compliment the minister for bringing it before us.
It goes without saying that illiteracy and poverty are close bedfellows. The briefing from Save the Children makes grim reading. It states that 250,000 children in Scotland are living in poverty—that is nearly 25 per cent of all our children. Worse still, 150,000 children are living in absolute poverty. We do not recognise the Scotland in which we live when we read such figures. Scotland is one of the richest countries on the planet, yet some of our people are living lives that are closer to the dark ages. I therefore believe that it is important to put on public record some of the statistics that have been produced by Save the Children. Its briefing document states:
"Families living in severe poverty get by on very low incomes. For example, a couple with one child have to make ends meet on an average of £7000 a year for clothes, toys, food, childcare, electricity and gas, other bills, transport, health needs, and other essentials … In Scotland, 72% of children living in severe poverty parents' are not in work … 66 % of children in severe poverty in Scotland are in families claiming income support, job seekers allowance and incapacity benefit … 1 in 2 two children living in severe poverty in Scotland live in single parent families."
The document from Save the Children also states:
"despite significant progress in reducing the number of children living in poverty since 1999, the latest official figures suggest progress in reducing child poverty is stalling."
What is the SNP going to do about that stalling and how will it make the situation better?
As I progress with my speech, I will mention some of the things that are being done in that area.
The briefing continues:
"Educational disadvantage begins at an early age. Children from more deprived backgrounds are more likely to experience lower attainment at primary 5 and beyond and less likely to continue their education beyond school … Save the Children is therefore concerned that current policies aimed at reducing child poverty are not reaching the families most in need."
It is not all bad news, however. In West Dunbartonshire, sterling work is being carried out through the pilot scheme on early intervention. Although West Dunbartonshire Council had serious questions to answer at political and officer levels last year, and those questions are still not resolved, the early intervention initiative shone out like a beacon. The initiative was and is supported across the political divide, and all parties, officers and staff at every level are proud of their achievements.
I am sure that we would all applaud West Dunbartonshire Council's achievement. However, does the member agree that that was possible because the council used staffing flexibility and that the reduction in class sizes in primaries 1 to 3 could threaten the ability of councils such as West Dunbartonshire to take interesting and creative approaches to tackling literacy problems?
The initiative went ahead and was successful because it was agreed to right across party lines. There was a willingness to see the initiative through, which is why it prospered and is still doing so well. The SNP at a local level sees the need for such an initiative to continue and expand. Without a doubt, it is making a difference, but it still has work to do.
I will tell the chamber about the benefits of intervention in later life rather than at an early age. My wife was involved in a scheme to tutor and teach mature adults to read. The impact on a person of being able to fill in a simple form or to write a postcard for the first time in his or her life is profound. It raises an individual's self-esteem and gives them confidence. People grow in stature before our very eyes as they achieve the simple things that we all take for granted but which have such an important impact on them. We can just imagine what the early intervention scheme is doing for the long-term good of some West Dunbartonshire children. We are saving them from the trauma and embarrassment of having to approach others later in life to announce that they are unable to read. The benefits to the individual cannot be overstated or even measured.
To conclude, I will give my good friend the minister a few tips for nothing. He should take a leaf out of West Dunbartonshire Council's book. He should encourage that council and give it more resources to do more and he should extend its fine work throughout Scotland. He should not reinvent the wheel; it is already sitting there, so he should lift it and take it elsewhere. If he does that, illiteracy and poverty will be on the run in Scotland.
Aileen Campbell questioned Labour's vision. Labour has a vision for education generally but also specifically for early years education. It was because of that vision that we extended the opportunities for parents to send their children to nursery schools free of charge. Because of our vision, we extended opportunities by making sure that play is a prominent feature in primary 1 and into primary 2, as Jeremy Purvis suggested. That was one of the things that I did when I was minister. Our vision is also one of the reasons why Labour's manifesto suggested that there should be a qualified early years worker in primary 1 classes in schools with the lowest attainment.
Does the member agree that one of the top recommendations from Children in Scotland is that we should look to the Nordic nations for lessons? For example, we should consider nature kindergartens in order to combat the appalling aversion to risk taking among parents that pervades our educational system, stunts outdoor education at upper school level and affects our children's relationship to their environment at kindergarten level.
We can learn from the interesting experiences of many countries. I will return to that in a moment.
As Karen Whitefield said, we were careful to ensure that all our policies and pledges were costed and could be delivered. As I pointed out to Jeremy Purvis earlier, the First Minister was very specific on 31 May when he talked about
"the commitment to provide a fully qualified nursery teacher for every nursery child in Scotland".—[Official Report, 31 May 2007; c 317.]
That commitment was far more specific than just giving access to a nursery teacher. I hope that the First Minister will see that commitment through to delivery. If he does not, he should at least explain to us why.
Yesterday, we read accusations of shifty auditing; today's debate highlights what is more akin to shifty promises, especially the promise to deliver cuts in class sizes to 18 in primaries 1 to 3. Before I address that issue, I want to reflect on the superficial and inadequate logic that seems to underpin the SNP's thinking on the policy.
When I asked a parliamentary question on what international evidence had been considered before deciding to proceed with the policy, I was referred to the student teacher achievement ratio project—the STAR project—in Tennessee. However, closer examination of that research reveals that, of the 79 schools in the sample, only 40 showed any significant gains in educational attainment. That is hardly a ringing endorsement. Worse, as the project could not control movement in and out of the schools, only 1,842 children out of the total of 11,600—just under 16 per cent—remained in the project throughout the time of the study.
Recent academic reviews of the STAR project have raised serious questions about the viability of a simplistic blanket reduction in class sizes. Eric Hanushek of the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University questions the quality of the STAR project and suggests that its evidence overstates the impact of reduced class sizes. He states:
"The one limited and flawed experiment in Tennessee cannot be taken as providing the definitive evidence needed for policy changes that cost billions of dollars annually."
Other academics have also questioned the STAR project's approach.
Does the member believe that Unison and the 80,000 people who submitted a petition on reduction of class sizes are wrong?
I point the minister to the international evidence. She should perhaps read it at some point.
It is clear that the quality of teacher development, the availability of proper resources and access to teacher support are all more important than crude reductions in class sizes. Normore and Ilon from Florida International University conclude that some of the lessons learned
"include the need for adequate facilities, policies that allow flexibility in the use of funds to maintain focus in learning and not just on getting the numbers down, excellent teaching, and directing resources"
particularly towards children in minority and low-income families. Again, Normore and Ilon state:
"Our results show that lower class size is the least cost-effective intervention for public monies that Florida elementary schools can make."
All the evidence has been ignored except one piece of research that fits the prejudice of SNP ministers.
Karen Whitefield and others have talked about the consequences of the policy, but I dispute whether the policy can be met. Before the election, the SNP gave a clear commitment that the policy would be delivered and it said nothing about having to rely on others. Those in the SNP who were responsible for formulating the policy before the election had access—as did all the parties—to civil servants to cost their policies and consider their implications. They knew roughly the budgetary parameters and they knew the logistical implications. I believe that they would have been told before the election that such a promise could not be delivered by 2011, yet they persisted with the duplicity.
Worse, ministers will also, I believe, have been told since the election that the promise cannot be delivered by 2011, yet they have persisted in saying that it can. Three ministers—Alex Salmond on 7 June and 6 September, Fiona Hyslop on 21 June and Adam Ingram on 4 October—have persistently repeated a promise that I doubt can be delivered. What is worse is that they will, I believe, have been advised of that.
This issue goes beyond the usual broken promises and failure to deliver. Such is the seriousness of the matter that, given the way in which ministers have behaved, I believe that there should be a full parliamentary inquiry into whether the commitment can be met, whether ministers knew that it could not be met and whether they have tried to hide the truth from Parliament.
I am grateful to ministers for bringing this important debate to Parliament. It is also a proper preliminary point to highlight the fact that the strategy builds on the considerable work carried out by previous Scottish Governments over the past eight years, largely with the consensus of all parties in the chamber—a point that I made repeatedly when I spoke in a different capacity.
Against that background, I take some umbrage at the speeches of one or two back-bench SNP members, who seem to emphasise declamation and gripe over analysis and remedy. They should recognise that, when in government, the Liberal Democrats and Labour delivered free pre-school and nursery education for three and four-year-olds; 3,000 new teachers in the previous parliamentary session, with all the flexibility that such a move brought; and 300 new and renovated schools. In fact, they achieved pretty much a revolution in additional support needs, in the curriculum, in leadership and in many other aspects of the Scottish school system.
This strategy deals with children from nought to eight. The key point of any strategy is that it should add value to what Governments would otherwise do. I have no particular disagreement with the suggestion that it might be useful to focus on that age group and the strategy certainly fits in with Liberal Democrat thinking about making primary 1 a transition year from nursery to primary education. Such a move, which is increasingly gaining professional support and has already been carried out in many schools, rightly recognises that children develop at different rates and that, as Hugh Henry pointed out, they need a more play-based approach to learning.
It is no coincidence that in many other countries—not least in Scandinavian countries—formal school often starts later, at six or seven years; that more innovative approaches, such as nature kindergartens, are taken at the pre-school or nursery stage, and that there is a broader view of the importance of play, recreation, sport and wraparound care than we sometimes take in Scotland. I see no reason to dispute the suggestion that in Scotland 50 per cent of children who start school at five years old have imperfect communication—and sometimes substantial communication difficulties—which can hamper and inhibit them as they progress through school.
During the recent election campaign, I had the privilege of attending the launch of Play Scotland's manifesto at a nursery facility in Cathcart in Glasgow. At that event I was very glad to offer Liberal Democrat support for a Scottish play strategy, whose introduction I had become convinced would be both helpful and necessary early in the new parliamentary session.
What should such a strategy contain? First, it should be a play and communication strategy that brings together those two complementary elements and allows one to reinforce the other. Children express themselves through play, and one of the saddest commentaries that I have ever heard on the challenges that we face in our often fractured society is the bald statement that many parents do not know how to play with their children. How sad is that? However, is it really surprising when we learn that about 80 per cent of girls who leave care are pregnant within a year? Often they are children and are woefully ill-equipped to look after themselves, far less a new generation. A play and communication strategy must bring in effective family support, widen the availability of nurture classes and target in particular the needs of those who have been in care or are at risk.
Secondly, a Scottish play and communication strategy must contain a programme of improvements to early years facilities, with more green space and a recognition of the importance of outdoor learning for all children.
Thirdly, we must support the reinvigoration of the Scottish play group movement with a commitment to a free play group place for every two-year-old. As our programme of a free nursery place for every three and four-year-old has taken effect, play groups have to some extent been displaced from their traditional territory and have had to reinvent themselves. Their role is not just to provide play opportunities for young children: indeed, they have a huge role in spreading good practice, providing mutual support for parents, particularly mothers, in building confidence in parents and children, in bringing in expertise on play methods, and in harnessing such methods to education.
Fourthly, staffed play centres should be developed throughout Scotland. If the minister has not had the opportunity, I urge and invite her to visit Reidvale Adventure Play Association centre in the east end of Glasgow. The size of a football field, no less, and with a variety of facilities, including a kick-about area and an indoor facility, the centre is staffed by professional play leaders and is managed by a community-based management committee that was instigated by the local housing association. Although it is run on a shoestring and is badly needing some capital investment in the perimeter fence and equipment, it is hugely successful in catering to the local community and beyond, with a specific role in helping children with additional support needs in Glasgow.
I imagine that the centre costs around £200,000 to fund, and I can think of few better investments than 20 or 30 similar facilities across Scotland, which would cost about £5 million per annum. Among all the things that are on the SNP Government's wish list and on other parties' wish lists, few offer comparable effectiveness with such a facility for such a cost.
We must consider free play, which I do not have much time to go into. We must tackle the attack on green space in our cities. Play is linked with adventure, challenge and confidence building.
Liberal Democrat concerns about the class size policy turn on the need for more teachers and the availability of facilities such as classrooms. It is remarkable that the SNP Government has seen fit to provide no figures, no teacher numbers and no capital investment figures to show what would be required for that policy. I well recall that, before the election, the SNP wanted to double nursery provision—or was it to increase it by 50 per cent? However, it turned out that the SNP had no proposals for under-threes. All that gave us was the impression that the SNP was devising its policies on the back of an envelope.
The SNP Government's actions across the board have been marked by a series of populist announcements rather than a sense of long-term policy coherence. That must not be the case in early years policy. We must not have what Jeremy Purvis was right to call "a vacuous policy". The key elements of the policy must give flesh to the worthy aspirations about which the minister spoke earlier and deliver a step change, both from what has gone before and in our young children's life chances. That is what the Government will be judged on. It will have our help and support in that, but it should take the time and effort to develop and get right a coherent early years policy.
The debate has been wide ranging. In the short time that is available to me, I will address a few issues that have been raised.
I will start by commenting on the amendment in the name of my colleague Elizabeth Smith. We in the Conservative party make no apology for raising the important question of government support for the institution of marriage. The reason for that is simple. It is not because we wish to make a moralistic point, but because the evidence all points in one direction—marriage is good for society and particularly for children. In general, children who are brought up in a family where their parents are married to each other do immeasurably better than children who are brought up in other families in their health and educational outcomes and in relation to crime, antisocial behaviour and criminal justice system figures. I do not denigrate other households that come about, whether deliberately or by accident but, in general, the evidence is incontrovertible: marriage is a good thing, so marriage is a model to which society should aspire.
I am happy to give way to Mr Foulkes.
I agree with Murdo Fraser: I have survived 37 years of marriage—[Interruption.] My wife is very long suffering. I have three children and four grandchildren. He says that "the evidence is incontrovertible", but he has not quoted it, and I do not think that it is incontrovertible. Will he please give chapter and verse? Otherwise, his argument will carry no weight.
I will happily provide Mr Foulkes with all the evidence that he requires, but doing all that will take more than the six minutes that remain to me. I say in passing that I am sure that Mrs Foulkes has all our sympathies for the 37 years.
The important issue is that Governments should not be neutral on marriage, which they have been. Governments should actively support marriage as a good thing for society.
I will move on to other issues in the debate. Many members have said that parenting is difficult and brings many challenges. Societal changes in the past 30 or 40 years have in many ways added to those challenges. Increasingly, parents rely hugely on child care providers—much more than many years ago, when one parent often did not work or parents relied on immediate family members to provide child care. For many, child care is too expensive and too inflexible. David Whitton made good points in describing some of the challenges of accessing affordable child care.
For the Conservatives, some of the main weaknesses of pre-school nursery entitlement are that it gives too much control to local authorities and that parents lack choice. We should enhance the parental right to choose. Whether parents want a local authority nursery or a private sector nursery—if that suits them better—or whether they think that money to which they have access would be better used to pay a family member to care for a child should be matters for parents and not for ministers or local councils to determine.
We also need to be careful to avoid duplication of provision by the public sector when there is already good private sector provision. I can think of an example in which the local authority is talking about opening up a nursery to provide wraparound child care, which can only take youngsters away from the excellent existing private sector nurseries. We should not encourage such action in circumstances in which existing child care provision is working well. The people who provide such services should be supported and we should look to local authority provision to fill the gaps in need.
The motion mentions health and education, but so far we have talked mainly about education. Does the member agree that it would have been rather good to debate the huge advantages in reducing inequalities that could be achieved by doubling the number of health visitors?
That is a very interesting point, but it is rather outwith the scope of the debate; perhaps we could address it on another occasion.
The use of salary sacrifice child care voucher schemes should be extended across the public sector and the Government should encourage their use in the private sector.
I turn briefly to smaller class sizes, to which the Labour amendment refers. Smaller class sizes are important, but they are not the be-all and end-all of education policy. As Hugh Henry said, there are other important issues that could and should be addressed. Many teachers would prefer to teach a class of 30 well-behaved pupils than a class of 18 in which there are disruptive pupils or pupils who have been mainstreamed inappropriately and whose education might be better served elsewhere. The issues of mainstreaming and discipline require to be considered in the context of class sizes.
As we have heard, the Government's commitments on class sizes raise huge issues, such as teacher recruitment and the cost of providing infrastructure and new buildings. As yet, the SNP Government has given us no idea of where the money will come from. There will be a negative impact on parental choice and composite classes will become an issue. Fundamentally, it should be up to heads to decide the priorities in their schools. If the Government wants to give them extra cash, they should be able to decide whether to use that to reduce class sizes or for additional investment in other areas. It is not for the Government to dictate to every school the size of its classes; that decision should be taken at school level.
We will support the Labour amendment because it is true that we need more information on the Government's proposals and on costings. Councils need to know where they stand if they are to plan their school estates and their teacher rolls for the future, but they are simply not getting the information from the Government.
Do I have time to make a few, brief closing remarks, Presiding Officer?
You have one minute left.
Thank you.
There is much in the motion with which we agree, but it lacks detail. Fine words are all very well, but we need to know what policies are proposed to advance the motion's sentiments. Perhaps the cabinet secretary will expand on that when she winds up the debate. We need to know what policies are proposed, what they will involve, what they will cost and where the money will come from.
In principle, we accept the value of early intervention and the importance of the early years but, as my colleague Elizabeth Smith said, early intervention should be exercised only when families require it; such provision should not be one size fits all but should be targeted at those families who need it. With those caveats, we will be happy to support the wording of the Government's motion.
Everyone who has spoken has welcomed the opportunity to debate the early years and early intervention, and there have been many good ideas and suggestions on how to make life better for our children in their earliest years. Like Murdo Fraser, I would have liked a little more detail on how ministers propose to bring about such additional support, but perhaps the cabinet secretary will provide that.
The first area on which I would have liked more detail is support for families through the early years and—given how important health is before and during pregnancy—perhaps even from conception. Secondly, I would have liked to have been told about support for projects such as sure start or the starting well demonstration project. In that context, I agree with Mr Harper that we need to consider the role of health visitors. His intervention was relevant to the debate.
Thirdly, I would have liked to have heard about the provision of child care. Fourthly, I would have liked the minister to have answered questions about how the Scottish Government intends to reduce class sizes. That issue has been more than ably covered by my colleagues Rhona Brankin and Hugh Henry, but I might return to it if I have time.
I would have liked the minister to have said how the Scottish Government intends to build on the record of the previous Labour and Liberal Democrat Executive and reduce child poverty—I tried to get more information from the minister on that issue, which cuts across all the areas for consideration that I mentioned. Save the Children has acknowledged the work that has been done, but there is a need for renewed effort on the targets to reduce child poverty by half by 2010 and to abolish it by 2020. I am interested in hearing specifically how the Scottish Government intends to meet those targets.
I will talk about support for families. Babies and young children are totally dependent on their families, particularly their mothers and fathers. During the early period after birth, when feeding patterns and routines are being established, a bond is made that will affect the child's development throughout their life. A child's development can be badly impaired if a parent or close family member is misusing drugs and/or alcohol. In its manifesto, Labour promised to expand residential services to help women who have children to kick drug or alcohol habits.
Labour also acknowledged that the wider family can play a critical role in getting drug users into treatment and in caring for children. What support will be available for the wider family? I was disappointed to receive today a letter from Mr Ingram in response to questions that I asked about additional funding for kinship carers. The minister ignored all my questions. In particular, I asked when kinship carers throughout Scotland will begin to receive the increase in their allowances to the level recommended for foster carers, which was promised by the First Minister in the Parliament. I hope that the cabinet secretary will answer that question when she winds up the debate. Scottish Government ministers have acknowledged that they are part of a minority Administration that will need to build support in the Parliament if its policies are to be implemented. There is cross-party support for kinship carers in the Parliament. We need action.
Trauma can also be caused to children during their early years when there is marital breakdown. After the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 was passed, the Justice 1 Committee in the previous session of the Parliament tasked me with considering what services are available to couples who need support because there is a risk of marital breakdown and to parents—in particular non-resident parents—after a breakdown. Organisations such as Scottish Marriage Care, Mediation Scotland and Couple Counselling Scotland provide invaluable services. Will the cabinet secretary tell us what funding the Scottish Government will make available to the national bodies of those organisations? Can she guarantee that if a council tax freeze is forced on local authorities those voluntary organisations, which do crucial work in our localities, will not have their funding cut?
I mentioned how poverty affects children. Most people agree that the best way to keep families out of poverty, thereby benefiting children, is to keep adults in paid employment. Employment rates are as high as they have ever been, but access to child care is a major barrier, particularly for lone parents. The SNP said in its manifesto that it would
"extend access to high quality, affordable and flexible childcare services".
I—and nearly every other member—can sign up to that commitment, but we need to know how the SNP will meet it. The Scottish Government is not a direct provider, so how can it ensure that local authorities and the private and voluntary sectors deliver such services? How can the Scottish Government prevent local authorities from reducing full-time nursery places, which are available to needy children in our communities—as the City of Edinburgh Council has just announced it will do? How does the Scottish Government support local authorities such as West Lothian Council, which provides wraparound care but is facing not just financial challenges but severe challenges to do with the management of numbers and demand?
I also lodged questions on fathers and their role in raising children. I am grateful to the minister for answering them at 3 o'clock this afternoon. However, I await the reply to one question on which I am particularly keen to hear a response. The question is:
"To ask the Scottish Executive what changes it is making to its employment practices to support and encourage a better work/life balance for fathers."
Child care is an issue not only for mothers and the Scottish Government should be leading by example.
If we are serious about giving parents the confidence to use child care, we have to invest in those who provide it. Child care is often seen as a career for young, single women. If we do not address the issue of pay and conditions, it will stay that way. Women with experience will move on and men will not even bother to enter the profession. As a result, we will lose the possibility of having a professional, quality service that is delivered by people with a variety of skills—one to which our children are entitled.
I turn to the issue of class size. As other members said, the Government does not seem to have thought through the implications of its policy. Funding is a major issue in policy delivery. We heard about the £40 million that the Government has made available, but if councils around the country do as the City of Edinburgh Council has done and use the money to clear debt, class size reductions will not happen.
On 13 September, Maureen Watt spoke about "another 300 teachers". I say to her that West Lothian Council has estimated that it will need 100 additional teachers. I will find it interesting to watch the other 31 councils fighting over the remaining 200 teachers.
One of my biggest concerns about the policy is that additional money will need to be spent in schools that are already oversubscribed. That could divert important resources away from schools in areas of social exclusion, which is not how to tackle the social exclusion of our youngest and most vulnerable children.
Members entered the debate with a great deal of support for action to support children in their earliest years. However, we can now see that we need a bit more detail. More in hope than in expectation, I ask the cabinet secretary to answer some of the points that were raised in the debate in her closing comments. In particular, I ask her to respond to questions on kinship carers, funding for family support services, the ways in which to deliver high-quality, flexible and affordable child care, and how the Government intends to ensure that it delivers on its promise to reduce class sizes.
Will the cabinet secretary correct what Mr Ingram said in his response to my colleague George Foulkes? Will she accept that the SNP and Lib Dem Administration in Edinburgh is to reintroduce its plan to close nurseries and schools in the city, as we read in yesterday's Edinburgh Evening News—and, no, I do not always believe what is in that paper, but it was reported there.
There is much that we can agree on in terms of an early years and early intervention strategy. However, a strategy is not the answer; it is a process. Our children need action that is backed up by resources. I look forward to the cabinet secretary introducing proposals for action at the earliest possible opportunity.
The aim of the debate was to focus time and attention on children who are in need of support. I am encouraged by the constructive tone of most, if not all, of the contributions to it.
The needs of children will be first, foremost and always in the early years strategy. Across the chamber, there is recognition of the importance of early years policy. There is also a lot of support for the themes that Adam Ingram set out in his opening speech. I assure members that we will look constructively at the many suggestions that they have made; we want to engage Parliament in shaping the policy.
Will the minister give way?
If the member does not mind, I will move on.
I want to respond to some of the points that have been made and say a little about how the Government will move forward from here. I put on record my recognition of the previous two Administrations' work in developing integrated children's services.
The Liberal Democrat amendment makes specific points about play for two-year-olds and the transition into primary. There is plenty of scope to examine the strategic issues that surround children's play, as mentioned by Robert Brown and Jeremy Purvis, and to consider the mix of support for younger children in the work on the strategy. Similarly, there is scope to consider a range of issues on the transition to primary education.
Members will be aware that moves are already being developed to pursue more play-based and less formal learning in primary 1, through the curriculum for excellence. There are also interesting developments such as nurture groups, which Karen Whitefield mentioned, that aim to support vulnerable children during that transition. I can tell Karen Whitefield that I have visited nurture groups in North Lanarkshire—they have an important role.
Although I am happy to support the Liberal Democrat amendment and to consider those policy areas in developing the strategy, our work has not reached the stage at which we can guarantee to adopt the specific proposals in the amendment. I cannot do so for one specific reason, which I want to share with members. If we can secure agreement on a new relationship with local government, the development of the early years strategy will be the first policy area of co-ownership between councils and the Government. We cannot prejudice that or commit local government on it, but local authorities will be vital in producing successful policy for the early years. We will pursue the points in the Liberal Democrat amendment.
The Conservative amendment talks about supporting the institution of marriage. I support that institution, but I am not convinced that it should be a central theme of an early years strategy for children who are already born and whose parents may not have been married at the time of their birth. The strategy must address the needs of children and families whatever their circumstances. I stress that the theme of building parental and family capacity will aim to address some of the stresses that parents face. It should have the dual benefit of supporting parents in meeting their children's needs and reducing the stresses that can lead to relationship breakdown, but let us put the needs of the child, not the relationship of adults, centre stage in policy and, importantly, in decisions on resources.
The Labour amendment refers to a request on 13 September for a statement. In response to that request, Maureen Watt wrote to 12 Labour members, including the front-bench team, on 21 September. Last week, the second-largest petition ever was presented to Parliament. In it, more than 80,000 people call for cuts in class sizes. Parents, teachers and pupils want those cuts, but Labour does not—it is content for us to have the largest class sizes in Europe.
Has the minister been advised that the proposal to cut to 18 the number of pupils in primaries 1 to 3 cannot be met by 2011?
The pace and scale of delivery will vary, depending on council area, the school population and teacher retirals. Other important factors will be class configuration and the need to maintain the quality of probationers and ensure quality teaching in our classrooms. We are committed to reduce to 18 class sizes in primaries 1 to 3 and we will work to deliver that. We will look for support from other parties in the Parliament, along with support from the 80,000 people in Scotland who want class sizes to be reduced. Labour is out of touch; no wonder it is out of office.
Adam Ingram spoke about supporting parents and families. Aileen Campbell, in a considered speech, talked about the emotional security that is needed in children's development. David Whitton raised an important point about the need to examine the dates on which funding is provided for access to nursery education. That relates to our commitment to deliver 50 per cent more nursery provision. We will consider the issue as part of the strategy.
Mary Mulligan seemed to have missed Adam Ingram's speech: he did talk about support for families and kinship care and he mentioned delivering a statement on that later this year. Within eight months, the new Government wants to deliver for families and kinship care providers, whereas we had eight years of Mary Mulligan's Government ignoring the needs of those people.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No, I will not.
On the need for a positive environment, it is critical to the agenda that we tackle poverty and inequalities. Gil Paterson talked eloquently about the need to address poverty, and Robin Harper referred to nature kindergartens, which was one of the positive proposals that were made during the debate.
Jamie Stone referred to the Highland region. The Government acknowledges the important work of the pathfinder project on integrated services. Perhaps contrary to what Murdo Fraser thought, Robin Harper was absolutely right to talk about the health agenda as part of the early years agenda. We are talking about integrated services—about children's education, care, development and health and about other provision.
Another theme on the early years workforce developed—Robert Brown talked about play and the communications strategy, which are critical issues and a constructive development in our policy. He also talked about staffed play centres, which is an issue that we can consider.
We will have to consider an integrated training and qualifications framework. We are committed to that and we will deliver it. The previous Government was perhaps a little slow in providing it.
The cabinet secretary has implied that Labour did not care about the early years. We care passionately about families and about early years, but Labour will not promise what it cannot deliver. Will the cabinet secretary promise Scottish parents today that she will deliver a reduction in class sizes to 18 in primaries 1 to 3 within the first four years? Yes or no.
We will deliver on our policy of class sizes, but we will do so in discussion with local authorities, who have a key role to play.
While we are on the subject of promises, in 2003 the Labour Party promised an early years strategy. Did it deliver? No, it did not.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
The Labour Party talks about providing for kinship carers. Did it deliver? No, it did not. Within eight months of this Government we will deliver for kinship carers; in eight years, the Labour Party did not.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
Presiding Officer, there is a loud noise in my ear. I wonder whether you can do something.
I will finish by saying a few words on how we want to make progress. What our strategy is trying to achieve is on a groundbreaking scale. It is ambitious. [Interruption.]
Order. Too many conversations are taking place around the chamber. Could we have some quiet, please.
As I was saying, our strategy is on a groundbreaking scale and it is ambitious. We are shifting from policy that was geared to crisis management to policy that is geared to intervention and prevention. That will not be easy, but academics across the world—including the economist Professor Heckman—have called for early intervention. We will be able to deliver on our ambitions and to make our strategy last in the long term only if we approach the issue in an open and inclusive manner that harnesses the wide range of expertise that exists.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
I am afraid that I will have to move on.
Foremost in—
Order. I am sorry to interrupt again, but I have to repeat that too many conversations are taking place around the chamber. Could we please have some quiet.
Foremost in our thinking are children themselves. We are determined to base our work firmly on analysis of their needs and aspirations. We will develop processes that give children and parents a voice in the strategy. We will also work with the early years sector and with the adult services that play such a crucial role in supporting families with young children. In particular, we will engage with local authorities, health boards and other providers, all of which make such a big contribution. The work of the health inequalities task force will be crucial, as will the constructive work with justice colleagues. That work has already started.
From today's debate, it is clear that members of all parties share our ambition to provide a better experience of early years for Scotland's children and families. I have listened carefully to the points that have been made. We will reflect on them as we work to make progress with the strategy. I look forward to returning to the chamber to debate more detailed proposals in due course.
A few years of neglect in the early years of a child's life can lead to a lifetime of disadvantage. Together, we can help to support lifetimes of opportunities, and positive futures, for all Scotland's children.