Early Years Education, Development and Care
The next item of business is a debate on business motion S2M-5549, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on early years education, development and care.
The SNP is using this debating opportunity to propose constructive policies on early years education. We are keen to put the subject of the youngest children in our society firmly on the policy road map of a future SNP Administration.
Firm foundations that are laid in the early years of life by quality, accessible care, development and education reap many dividends. In a society of pressure and pain for so many children, a stable environment where they can learn social, cognitive, motor and interpersonal skills means so much to those in need. In Scotland, far too many youngsters are in that category for Government to ignore them.
Self-esteem, self-worth and the capacity to grow and develop are stimulated by well-trained early years educators—including nursery nurses and teachers as a team and in partnership—who are a powerful influence on children. As a country, we need those early years educators to ensure that we have well-adjusted and receptive young people and citizens of tomorrow, and to identify through early intervention those who might have additional support needs, and those who might be in danger of living a childhood that leads them straight into the not in education, employment or training category.
The current Government has chosen not to drive forward the early years agenda. Its education policies are about dealing with failure after the event and coping with extraordinarily high levels of 16 to 19-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training. We are dealing with persistent young offenders who started out in the system because they needed care and who are involved in antisocial behaviour because self-esteem and self-worth were denied them in their upbringing and no one was there to intervene early enough to identify and solve problems.
The current Government is coping with failure and compensating for the inadequacies of people at 16 and 18. A future SNP Government will try to change the country fundamentally for the better, with imagination and commitment to early intervention for young people who are at the stage when changes can properly be made to their ability to learn, to socialise and to develop a positive sense of self.
Our country has one of the biggest prison populations, made up of young men from identifiable and predictable postcode areas, many of whom have social and additional needs. What an expensive way Scotland has of coping with a country that did not care enough at the right time to make a difference. We should look to America and the Perry pre-school model of the savings that quality early education can provide. Abecedarian research shows what can be gained.
The SNP's early education policies are about long-term vision and perspective. Children need early years support, not just because they are the citizens and workers of tomorrow, but because they are the children of today. They deserve safe, stimulating experiences now.
It is with disappointment that I reflect that, from a good start in 1997, the Labour and then the Labour-Liberal Democrat Administrations have lost pace and focus on, and vision for, the early years. The Executive amendment refers to achievements since 1999 as hardly anything to speak of has happened since 2003. The early years strategy has been shelved and the workforce review—however welcome—was delayed and has only recently been published.
The nursery education for three and four-year-olds that we all called for in the 1990s and that came in between 1999 and 2003 is welcome, but in many places, including in this city, it came in 10 years ago, in 1997, before devolution. Meanwhile, in England we have seen the announcement of a 10-year child care strategy and promises of increased hours in nursery education being rolled out from April last year, while Scotland treads water with no increase in hours delivered.
The First Minister has reneged on his promise; that is another example of Labour leaving a generation behind. On 17 April 2005, his spokesperson said that a fully costed plan for 15 hours of nursery education a week would be produced before the end of summer 2005, and we are still waiting. The sure start in 1999 that saw Scotland gaining a head start over England has rapidly descended into inertia and catch-up for the current Government and too many children are being left behind
The SNP wants a 50 per cent increase in the hours when children can access nursery education—a longer day and a longer term. That would make possible the sharing of nutritious lunchtime meals in nurseries as part of the valuable socialisation and health promotion that so impressed those of us from the Education Committee who visited kindergartens in Finland. The Government seems to support that concept in the Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Bill; I hope that it is not on the basis that the bulk of pre-school children are there for only 12.5 hours a week—2.5 hours a day—and so would not be in school to benefit. That would be very short-sighted indeed.
Is it the SNP's commitment to increase the hours from 12.5 to 18 hours a week?
The increase is from the average of 400 hours, which is the current statutory requirement, to more than 600 hours. It can be funded from the Barnett consequentials from which we would benefit because the system is already being rolled out in England. Why do our young people have to fall behind those in England instead of getting the nursery education that they need?
The increase in hours, combined with smaller class sizes in primary 1 to primary 3, means that we can develop an early years agenda that gives quality early years experience to all our young children. We are disturbed when councils such as Glasgow remove nursery teachers from classes and we support calls from the Educational Institute of Scotland and others to retain nursery teachers in the early years setting.
Support for the early years should not be about just firefighting poor decisions. Scotland needs a 10-year early education, care and development strategy for all aspects of child care, development and education to drive forward the agenda in an ambitious and child-focused manner.
We have a dedicated workforce that is committed to providing that support, but those people also need support in training, status and career progression. A 10-year strategy would provide policy leadership as to what the workforce review could achieve, with the possibility of a specific early years education and development teaching degree, with a flexibility of delivery to tap into the talents and abilities of people across Scotland, particularly those in rural areas or those with caring responsibilities, so that we can grow the number of professionals delivering in this area and scale up early years education to deliver those extra hours.
The role of quality nursery education must not be underestimated. The status and position of the early years must be recognised as a touchstone to show how we can and will change the Scotland of tomorrow for the children of today.
I move,
That the Parliament believes that early years education, care and development support for our youngest children can provide firm foundations for later life and that there needs to be an increase in pace and attention in terms of delivery for the early years in Scotland; further believes that Scotland needs a 10-year strategy for care, development and education in the early years; recognises the vital role that nursery nurses play in delivery of this service as part of a team approach to early years services; calls for a 50% increase in free nursery education with access to a nursery teacher for all children; condemns the Scottish Executive for falling two years behind England and Wales in the provision of nursery education despite the fact that resources have been made available through the Barnett formula, and calls on ministers to offer an explanation.
Today's debate is opportune and relevant, and I am grateful to Fiona Hyslop for securing it. There is increasing recognition of the seminal importance in a child's life of what happens in their early, formative years; I do not disagree with some of the points Fiona Hyslop made in that regard. A child's early years are a time of rapid development and have a key role to play in establishing their future health and well-being. The basis for children's physical health, emotional well-being and cognitive skills and abilities is established in the first few years of life. That is why the Executive has placed such a high priority on early years as a cohesive part of the educational system in Scotland.
Today's debate is really about what will happen in the next session. I have no doubt that all the parties will seek to lay out their stalls and develop the agenda. I hope that the debate will not be marred by simplistic solutions to a complex challenge. This is an area in which major advances in provision need to be matched—as they have been under the Executive—by major advances in resource.
Despite what Fiona Hyslop said, the Scottish Executive has made enormous advances. Sometimes, we forget just how substantial progress has been. Provision since 2002 of a free nursery place for every three and four-year-old is a substantial achievement. Such places are now taken up by 96 per cent of three-year-olds and 99 per cent of four-year-olds. The Executive has provided support for capacity building in the private and voluntary sector. Local authorities have been given the resource to raise the advisory floor to £1,250 a child, and £5 million per annum to support workforce development. Since 1999, £30.8 million has been made available for workforce development more generally.
There has been huge investment in sure start Scotland, which is a major driver for change, to provide new and improved services and support joint working and child care partnerships to develop more cohesive services. Providing cohesive services is a significant part of the challenge that we face in this area. Funding for sure start Scotland has risen to £59.9 million in 2007-08. New legislation may not be required if the system is placed on the right foundations. Child care strategy funding has risen from £19.25 million in 2003-04 to £44.256 million in 2006-07. In some areas, it has been used to fund an affordable full-day service for three to four-year-olds, supplemented by initiatives such as the sitter service. The results of that investment are there to be seen.
As Fiona Hyslop indicated, we have made significant progress in refining our approach as knowledge and understanding of child development deepens. Pilot provision for vulnerable two-year-olds, cross-cutting support for parents and families, nurture classes, backing for improving parental skills and reading-with-parent schemes constitute an exciting and developing agenda. The challenge is to identify and spread good practice and good ideas across the sector. There is increasing recognition of the importance of play and communication skills and of parental bonding. Provision of child care is not just a matter of numbers or hours—the quality and focus of provision are also important.
High-quality provision is key to ensuring that children get the most of the opportunities in pre-school education. Key to ensuring high-quality provision is high-quality staff. Teachers have and will continue to have an important role to play in delivering pre-school education. Unlike the SNP, we do not set things on high—we must use that valuable resource in the way that best meets local needs. Pre-school education is delivered by a variety of providers across the sector. That diversity of provision, which parents welcome, means that we must allow authorities to decide how best to use their teaching resource locally. In some areas, that may mean having a teacher in the room all the time; in others, a peripatetic team of supporting teachers may be the best solution. We should not apply from the centre too rigid a straitjacket on the deployment of teachers.
There are many more early years workers than teachers in the sector. As Fiona Hyslop said, in August we published the report of the national review of the early years and child care workforce, and the Executive's response to it. The review's proposals include developing leadership in the early years and child care sector, the creation of a career structure for the workforce, and improving support for partner providers. All those proposals are aimed at improving quality of provision across the sector in a way that recognises the diversity of provision that exists.
We are also making progress on exciting new developments for the early years curriculum. The curriculum for excellence programme will produce a curriculum for children from three to 18. Moving to a single curriculum that starts at age three, with the early stage of the revised curriculum going to the end of primary 1, has the radical potential to extend the child-centred, active learning approaches that are used in nursery into the early years of primary. That is extremely important. Good work is being done in many schools and other establishments across Scotland in that regard. From experience across the sector, we know that transitions are always difficult. Continuing the active learning style of nursery into primary 1 will make the transition from pre-school and nursery to school easier. It is vital that the eagerness and enthusiasm for learning that young children have in early years settings are maintained throughout their school careers.
Early years services sit within a wider set of services for young children, many of which are delivered in a holistic, integrated way. The challenge is to do more of that. The Executive has already recognised that the time to refresh the strategic direction is coming, but we should recognise that much has been and is being achieved to push forward the quality agenda. Action is about more than strategy documents. The SNP motion seems to me to be fairly shallow and insubstantial in understanding and meeting the challenges that I have described, although I accept that Fiona Hyslop raised a number of other issues in her speech.
Early education and early years services are crucial. Substantial progress has been made in recent years. We recognise that there are major challenges ahead—on the curriculum, on the workforce, on meeting parents' and children's needs, and on recognising developmental needs. The Scottish Executive is focused on that agenda and has a strong and proven commitment to early years education and services, evidenced by the action that it has taken over the years of its control in Scotland.
I move amendment S2M-25549.2, to leave out from "that there needs" to end and insert:
"welcomes the significant increase in pre-school education entitlement that has been delivered since 1999; recognises that teachers have, and will continue to have, a major role to play in delivering pre-school education; recognises the vital role that qualified early years practitioners play in delivering early years services and welcomes proposals to deliver greater professionalism and improved career pathways for early years staff; welcomes proposals under A Curriculum for Excellence to introduce more active learning into early primary education; recognises that early years strategy needs to reflect these developments, and recognises that the Scottish Executive's investment in education has rebuilt the foundations of a successful education system in Scotland."
Today we return to debating policies for early years education and child care. As Fiona Hyslop and the minister stated, they are areas of tremendous importance. Getting them right will be enormously beneficial for children, as they will ensure that children get off to a positive start in life. They will also be of benefit to parents, as they will give parents a helping hand in the rewarding, but often difficult, duty of raising children.
I hope that today's debate will build on the constructive work of the Education Committee, whose early years inquiry we debated last October. I shall start by providing an overview of the early years sector, then reiterate the three key priorities that I have taken from the inquiry: ensuring that nursery children have sufficient access to qualified teachers, making better use of early intervention, and building on the success of family centres. Fiona Hyslop will remember our visit to Whitburn.
The picture for early years is reasonably encouraging. The state entitlement to nursery education has been taken up almost universally. However, we must improve the flexibility of pre-school education and child care options so that they are readily open to parents. We must attach less importance to the habits or prejudgments of local authorities and more to the specific needs of families. To that end, the Executive should embrace enthusiastically the new salary sacrifice child care vouchers that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, introduced in 2005, which can save parents nearly £100 per month on child care costs. All public sector bodies should offer such vouchers, which would not cost the Executive a penny. The Executive should also encourage more private sector organisations to provide them.
I turn to the Education Committee's recent inquiry into early years and the three priorities that I have taken from it. First, I am genuinely apprehensive about the decline in the number of qualified teachers who are working in early years establishments and believe that the Executive should address the matter by issuing guidance to local authorities and by reforming early years teaching posts and training to make them more attractive to trainees. I acknowledge the reassurance of the Minister for Education and Young People, Hugh Henry, that many in the early years workforce do not have teaching qualifications but are highly skilled and dedicated, but I maintain that teachers have a unique set of skills that we cannot forgo lightly. Their knowledge and, sometimes, experience of children at later stages of development make them particularly suited to identify which children may have additional support needs.
Secondly—this is related to my first point—I emphasise the importance of early intervention. Generally, care for the under-threes has been seen as the poor relation of three-to-five pre-schooling, but it must now be a priority. There is significant scope in both sectors for early intervention to identify children from disadvantaged backgrounds and those who have additional support needs or are otherwise at risk and to support them individually.
Thirdly, much potential benefit is offered by family centres in which a multidisciplinary team works together to provide a wide range of children's services under one roof. For maximum cost-effectiveness, that type of early intervention should be targeted in the first instance at deprived areas.
Scotland has many important institutions, but families are the most important. Parents are adults and should be treated as such by heeding their views and giving them flexibility. Equally, children should have their childhoods protected, so that they may grow up in a stable family environment supplemented by high-quality child care provision. If I may, I will quote the excellent wording the clerks to the Education Committee used when they summed up the committee's views in our report:
"In ten years' time, we want Scotland to have an early years sector that gives all children the best possible start in life, that values and develops them and is aspired to by the rest of the world."
We owe our country's children nothing less.
I move amendment S2M-5549.1, to leave out from "that there needs" to end and insert:
"can assist parents with the difficult but rewarding task of raising children; further believes that provision must be advanced, highly-skilled and flexible in order to meet the range of needs that parents and children in Scotland have; therefore expresses its concern that access to qualified teachers in nurseries may be insufficient in some areas of Scotland; recognises the potential that early intervention has for helping children from disadvantaged backgrounds, or who have additional support needs or are otherwise at risk, and calls for serious consideration to be given to expanding the number of family centres, particularly in areas of deprivation."
Like many other members, members of the Education Committee have spent a lot of time considering how we can best invest in Scotland's young people, particularly through pre-five provision. Committee members have consistently taken the view that we need to find ways in which to continue the progress that has been made since the Parliament was created.
Robert Brown identified the key changes that are taking place in Scotland. We should not undervalue them. It is regrettable that, because of its tone, the SNP motion misses some of the major development work that we in the Education Committee valued when we looked at pre-five provision.
Any developments towards providing a nursery place for every three and four-year-old in Scotland are welcome. We have invested in sure start Scotland to ensure that we take an integrated approach to supporting children, and to supporting families in the difficult task of bringing up young people. We have committed to funding through a variety of mechanisms, such as the conventional funding mechanisms for general procurement in local authorities and through public-private partnership schemes. Individuals identify whatever is appropriate at a local level. Capital investment, as well as investment in individuals, is another key component to try to change the debate about educational experience.
Members who were fortunate enough to see the television documentary about Polmont young offenders institution last night can appreciate the impact on people of our not intervening early, particularly in young men's lives. If we do not intervene, they will end up with the kind of behaviour, attitudes and inarticulacy that was evident in the documentary. If members did not see it last night, they should try to catch the follow-up next week.
The Labour-led Executive and our Liberal colleagues have taken a very positive approach to try to tackle investment. We have invested in early years education and child care and we have done exceptionally well. For example, 94 per cent of under-fives in Scotland are enrolled in early years education, which compares well with the educational average of 68 per cent. If we compare ourselves with what Westminster has done, as the SNP motion asks us to, we find that 81 per cent of under-fives are enrolled in England and Wales. We are ahead of the United Kingdom in that respect.
Labour is entering the pre-election period with interesting developments ahead of us. Our starting point is the need to intervene much earlier in children's lives—even earlier than at the three to four years stage—and we need to find the resources to do that. However, such interventions must be flexible and respect the aspirations of working parents. Most important, services and staff must be of a high quality.
Although I commend qualified nursery teachers, I recognise that many other people contribute to the quality of pre-school education in Scotland.
Does the member share my belief that we should debate early intervention and support for two-year-olds and focus on the need to support families and parents? Does he agree that we might need to debate further the idea of removing children from their parents at the age of two?
Individuals need to address that decision in a crisis, but I do not recommend that we take children away from their family circumstances unless there are powerful and compelling reasons to do so. Key psychological and emotional evidence tells us that children need their parents, whether they are the birth parents or guardians and carers.
I have mentioned the curious tone of the SNP motion. I compliment Fiona Hyslop on commending the Labour-run Parliament in London and the Labour-run National Assembly in Wales. The logic of that is that she will celebrate a Labour victory in the forthcoming Scottish Parliament elections. Let us wait and see whether that happens. The SNP motion is important because of what it does not say. It makes general points about investment in a 10-year strategy and early years services. Ken Macintosh touched on what the implications of that might be.
If we are going to cite heroes or use examples from other parts of the UK, I offer Nelson who, like the SNP, turned a blind eye to the obvious issues. How will the SNP fund its proposals? How will it fund increased services when it has a capping regime for local authorities, which should be flexible enough to manage the proposed scheme? How will the SNP fund services if it is reluctant to support existing levels of capital investment in Scottish schools? More important, how will it fund services without any real consequences in terms of capital and the impact on the delivery of services?
Glasgow already offers a substantial programme of pre-school provision and the number of weeks and hours available is above the Scottish average. Does the SNP propose a commitment to a 50 per cent increase in pre-school provision over its existing commitment—or is it only a 25 per cent increase or whatever the percentage is? Clarity about that proposal from Fiona Hyslop and the SNP would be welcome.
The Executive has a very good record of investing in young people. We need to ensure that that continues. I favour the debate that has been raised by members of the Wise Group. Alan Sinclair said to the newspapers recently that we skew our funding to further and higher education and that the Parliament needs to find ways to try to reverse some of that every year over the next 10 years. I would certainly engage in that debate. The SNP missed the point in its motion. The Executive has made tremendous efforts in early years investment, and long may that continue.
I am totally persuaded of the importance of developing early years education and care as a key area of educational focus. As a former businessman, I am not alone in that view. The Smith group, in the shape of extremely successful businessmen such as Sir Robert Smith, Sir Tom Hunter, Jim McColl and Willie Haughey, has reached that same conclusion. Not only does early intervention help children, it promises to be the strategy that could reduce the not in education, employment or training pipeline and improve the life chances of thousands of young people in Scotland.
This Parliament and big business, in the shape of the Royal Bank of Scotland, Clyde Blowers, City Refrigeration and West Coast Capital, have fuelled the debate, particularly in the Allander series of lectures in 2003 and 2004. Among the very best of those lectures was given by the Nobel laureate Professor James Heckman. He made the plea for increased spending on early years education in deprived areas and evidence-led policy emanating from that and combined those tactics to make his case.
Heckman pioneered such a dual approach in deprived areas in Baltimore, the net effect of which was the switching on of the cognitive and non-cognitive skills of many youngsters. He has profuse research-based evidence that it is at this vital early stage that cognitive skills—the skills of how to think—and non-cognitive skills, such as communication, concentration, honesty and discipline, are embedded.
Heckman has evidence that appeals to business people, taxpayers, parents, teachers and the custodians of the public purse, and offers a cost justification that is made up of many components. For example, Heckman's approach produces less disruption in class; youngsters are more engaged and respectful; there is less involvement with the police and the courts; youngsters are more aware of their reputations and potential; there is increased likelihood of educational attainment because youngsters are more motivated, aware of cause and effect and of building up a good educational skills base; and there are increased chances for youngsters to discover their strengths and enthusiasm, which is a direct effect of their being treated seriously from the outset and given the skills they require.
It is more likely that youngsters will hold down a job, because confidence and skills are embedded in that process—and the increased awareness that they can achieve, promotion, advancement and migration to successful self-employment are vital. All that is a result of their grounding in awareness and ability to learn and augment skills over time. There is also the possibility of an increased chance of youngsters maintaining relationships in early life and bringing up healthy, motivated youngsters.
In other words, if we emulated Heckman to the full we could have a virtuous circle that could go well along the way to transforming Scotland. I was heartened that Peter Peacock attended the lecture. I hope that the message is increasingly being taken on board. I took comfort from the minister's acceptance of many of those arguments in his opening remarks.
However, with the SNP, Scotland will enter a new phase where such inputs are even more firmly taken on board. Other lessons can be learned from the world of business. People such as Professor Umit Bitici at the University of Strathclyde's manufacturing department are keen to see the concept of process improvement taught in our nursery and primary schools so that we get across understanding of the process of teaching, the process of learning, the process of doing homework and the process of building a brand. It might be just wee Johnny Smith, but he could be another Willie Haughey or another Jim McColl.
The Deming learning centre in Ellon in Aberdeenshire indicates that the Deming approach can bring stakeholders together and address antisocial behaviour. It offers youngsters more rewarding channels for their energy, ideas and exuberance—the more that happens at an earlier stage, the better.
We can pull all this work together. Perhaps we should ask Government departments to take more shared responsibility with the business community. The Education Department, the Health Department and the Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department should take co-ownership with business of the NEET issue and seek to improve the figures and, incrementally, over time, the life chances of those young people. Such an approach will require a good educational basis in the shape of early years education and a willingness to flex policy in the light of long-term evidence. On that basis, I have great pleasure in supporting Fiona Hyslop's motion.
I welcome the debate on this very important topic. I think that there is a degree of broad cross-party agreement on the way Scotland should be moving on the matter, but I am a little disappointed that the Scottish National Party has given it so little priority—it is holding the debate on a day when it is giving priority to its stunt on the future of bridge tolls. That is disappointing because the issue deserves to be given a whole debate, not to be split by that diversion.
The Education Committee's report, which several members have referred to, achieved consensus. It identified a number of key issues in relation to early years provision and recognised that we have made considerable progress since devolution. It also recognised that some provision is piecemeal, that there are a number of disparate funding streams, different projects and different priorities that sometimes compete with each other and that those issues need to be addressed.
The committee's report acknowledged, in particular, the extreme importance of early years education for the long-term welfare and development of children and for the future of our economy. It stressed the need to have a more co-ordinated approach to pre-school children in respect not only of provision, but of the workforce. The report stated that we have to look at the qualifications of the workforce to ensure that there is a co-ordinated and sensible system of training and development for our workforce. The committee called for a 10-year strategy, because we need to see where we are going if we are to ensure that the investment that we make in the short and medium term is in the right areas and that people who make that investment have a clear idea of where we intend to be in 10 years' time.
The Executive has done much. It is important to recognise the importance of the provision of free nursery places for three and four-year-olds and to acknowledge that the 96 per cent uptake of provision is a valuable contribution to early years.
I am slightly disappointed that Fiona Hyslop claimed that the problems that we see today with our 16 to 19-year-olds are the result of the Scottish Executive's failure. I do not think that anyone can argue with the fact that no child who has entered nursery since August 1999, which is the earliest date at which the Scottish Executive could be held to have any responsibility, has yet left primary school, let alone turned 16. Today's 16-year-olds were three in 1993.
We can all agree that the UK Government gave too little priority to early years education prior to 1999 and that that situation has changed as a result of devolution, but we need to do more.
Evidence given to the Education Committee clearly shows that the earlier we intervene, the better it is for children. It is important that we recognise that children's future development and behaviour patterns can be set by the time they are three. It is on that point that I am particularly disappointed with the SNP's motion. The SNP seems to be prioritising extending the hours of nursery education, yet no evidence has been presented that that would provide additional educational benefit to young people. The evidence that the Education Committee received was that that would produce no additional educational benefit.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I think I am in my last minute. I may be wrong, but I think I am in my last minute.
I am prepared to give you five minutes, Mr Smith.
In that case, I will take a brief intervention.
Iain Smith has said a lot about education, resources and extended hours, but does he accept that diet and exercise are equally important, as they can set a pattern for later years?
Absolutely. I am about to come on to that, because it is important that we recognise that we must make that investment, not only in the three-to-four age group, but in the earlier age groups. That is why the Liberal Democrats are today launching a very important policy to ensure that all two-year-olds will have 15 hours a week in a supervised playgroup if their parents wish it.
It is important that we recognise the importance of play and exercise for young people and the importance of ensuring that they have access to healthy, nutritional food when they are at playgroups. It is extremely important that we move the investment to include not only three and four-year-olds but the pre-threes, because that is where the biggest difference will be made in the long term. There is clear evidence that the more investment we make in our young children at that age, the more benefit they will have in later life. That is where our policy launch today is significantly different from the SNP's policy, which is about a Dutch auction as to how many hours children should have in education.
It is important that we recognise the need to invest heavily in the training and development of our early years workforce to ensure that we have a skilled workforce across the sector. We must recognise that we need to look at a new professional approach that does not say that someone has to be a teacher or a nursery nurse, but that they are an early years educationist or child care worker.
I welcome the debate, but I hope that we will look at issues other than nursery education.
I welcome today's debate. Nursery schools and nursery classes are an important aspect of the start of childhood education. We must remember that early intervention at that crucial stage can mean a great deal to any young person's future. It is fair to say that nursery nurses can easily spot issues and problems related to young people at that key early stage.
For a number of reasons, I think that it is very important that we maintain our qualified teachers in our nursery classes. It is important that we have good, qualified staff, whether they are teachers or nursery nurses, but the classes should all be led by qualified teachers. Nursery nurses have been greatly undervalued over the past few years. The settlement that they got from industrial action has torn apart a high-quality service, as a result of local authorities being able to go for the highest bid. The result has been movement that we could do without.
We need to return to national agreements on pay and conditions for nursery nurses to ensure that our national strategy for early years education and child care is firmed up completely. I say that because we underpay and undervalue those key workers, who work with the most vulnerable young people in our communities. The situation is akin to care of the elderly—another sector in which we undervalue and underpay workers. It is about time that we respected the workforce much more than we do now. I felt that it was important that I made that point.
As I said, a quality nursery education depends on the mix of teachers and qualified early years nursery nurses. Nurseries must have access to qualified staff from all aspects of the sector. Teachers are much more able to identify at an early stage difficulties that will affect a young person's transition into primary school. They know the school curriculum and set-up and they have closely studied all aspects of child development, so they are in a good position. However, specialists should also have access to nurseries. Far too often, nursery nurses tell us that they are worried about a child. We need to ensure that there are enough educational psychologists, teachers with additional support needs qualifications and nursery nurses who are trained to work with young people with additional support needs, so that young people's needs can quickly be identified and key planning can take place to ensure that targets are set and frequently reviewed.
Parents must be included in such planning, but many establishments are seriously lacking in that regard. Far too often, parents are told to wait until their child is in primary 1—only to be told then to wait until the child is in P2. We need to change such attitudes and ensure that if a child's needs are identified at nursery, support is followed through in the transition to P1. There is good practice in that area, but much work remains to be done. If we do not get that right, there is no point in extending provision.
I am all for giving all three and four-year-olds much more access to nursery education, but we must build in flexibility to support working parents and families who need extra support. We should have integrated community schools that children attend for early years and primary education and into the transition to secondary school. The community and parents should have ownership of the school, so that parents can go in and out of the school and feel comfortable about the education that they receive about their children, for example, through parenting classes and classes in child development.
My vision is slightly different from that of other members, but I welcome the debate. I hope that we can carefully scrutinise the transition between nursery school and P1.
Members will be well aware that I always welcome the opportunity to debate education, particularly in the early years, in the Parliament. Such debates present me with an opportunity to enlighten members about the advances that are being made in that pioneering local authority, East Renfrewshire Council. I also hope to inform members about the difference that is made in people's lives when they live in a Labour-led authority area, under a Labour-led Executive that puts education first.
I am proud of what we have achieved in my constituency. My children have experienced the benefits of those achievements and I have seen with my own eyes the new buildings and the huge expansion in nursery and early years provision. Family learning opportunities, books for babies, the sure start initiative and early intervention programmes have all been provided because the Government is committed to education, education, education.
Members will be relieved to hear that I will refrain from being overly parochial. I want to contrast the Labour Party's record, in backing up its commitment to early years education with investment and spending and in being prepared to take hard decisions, with that of an Opposition party whose only guaranteed commitment is to separation, separation, separation. I do not think that there is a member in the Labour or Lib Dem ranks who does not acknowledge that more remains to be done in early years or nursery education. However, surely no one but the most blinkered party hack could condemn our record in the area—yet the motion uses the word "condemns".
Even worse than that ridiculous, misplaced hyperbole, the motion presents us with yet another uncosted, implausible spending commitment from the Scottish National Party. The motion calls for
"a 50% increase in free nursery education".
The SNP's policies in the area are quite remarkable. There is no huge ideological divide between us; if we drew up a wish list for nursery education, an expansion in provision would be on it. However, despite—or perhaps because of—its eight years in opposition, the SNP can say nothing new and draws up only wish lists that contain empty promises and uncosted pledges, which could not possibly be fulfilled because the sums do not add up.
Will the member give way?
I will give way in a second, but first I want to expand on my point—the member might care to respond to it.
On the basis of current costs, a 50 per cent increase in free nursery education would cost £73.5 million a year, which would amount to £292 million over the next session of the Parliament—that is the minimum cost; there might be other costs. There is nothing wrong with the policy, but how would the SNP pay for it? The SNP is also committed to spending an extra £160 million over the same four-year period on free school meals for middle-class children who do not want free school meals. The SNP also says that it will spend £1.8 billion to abolish the graduate endowment—that is over just the first year; it would cost almost £2.5 billion over four years to get rid of the graduate endowment and replace student loans. However, that policy will not lead to one extra student in our country being educated. It is a remarkable commitment.
Can we get real here? Does the member think that the Westminster Government's plan to deliver 20 hours of nursery education by 2010 is implausible? That is more hours than we are promising to deliver. Why is the Westminster policy plausible?
Because it is part of a costed programme. The Westminster Government is not making all the other promises that the SNP is making, which I will list. The SNP's total proposed spend is unbelievable to anyone who takes more than a cursory interest in such matters.
The SNP is entitled to put its policy choices to the electorate if—that is a big if—it says which taxes it will increase and which spending cuts it will make. However, the SNP says that it will freeze council tax for two years, which represents a spending commitment of £55 million over the next session of the Parliament. The SNP admits that it will increase income tax for everyone, but although it knows that income tax would have to increase by 6 per cent—not to pay for new commitments, but to maintain current services—it says that tax will go up by only 3 per cent. The SNP will increase everyone's income tax by 3 per cent but still leave itself £1 billion short—a vast sum—in local government spending to pay for schools or care for the elderly. That would be a remarkable achievement.
I said that I would not be parochial, but I want to demonstrate what that policy would mean to the rest of us. In East Renfrewshire, more than 100 teachers would be lost—in contrast, since Labour has been in power, an extra 264 teachers have been delivered in the area. On top of that, the SNP's policy would mean that nursery or school building programmes would not go ahead, because they are funded through public-private partnerships.
Let me recap. The SNP will increase income tax for everyone in Scotland by 3 per cent, but it will reduce local government spending by more than £1 billion, which will lead to the loss of 100 teachers just in my area. It will scrap the school building programme and it will tax pensioners and low-paid workers to give the kids of middle-class parents school meals that they do not want. It will spend more than £2 billion on further and higher education without gaining one extra student or lecturer. Somehow, on top of all that, the SNP expects us to believe that it will find just short of £300 million to provide an extra six hours of nursery education a week. The SNP is as dishonest as it is opportunistic. It is a party wedded to opposition and I hope that it remains in opposition.
Unlike Mr Macintosh, I hope to speak about early years education.
Fiona Hyslop opened the debate with a rather idealistic but nonetheless moving and quite relevant summary of the position of young people in society. The Parliament has debated problems to do with young people as they reach early adulthood many times, under the heading of justice as well as of education. Although we need to address significant problems to do with how teenagers are dealt with in school, early years education is almost as relevant to the issue. We must consider how we develop young people's thoughts and ideas as they move into education. Early years education has a long-term impact.
Fiona Hyslop was reasonably generous, although perhaps not as generous as she appeared to be, when she suggested that the build-up of resources and effort in early years education pre-dates the revolution of 1997. The furthering of early years education was a priority of the Conservative Government.
According to the SNP motion, our biggest priority must be to increase by 50 per cent the number of hours that children spend in the pre-school system. One point that has arisen during the debate is that, although that must be an on-going priority, it is not the biggest single priority. We all support continued pressure to increase resources for early years education, but any increase in the support must be clearly defined and targeted. Robert Brown said that resources must be targeted at increasing the quality rather than simply the quantity of early years provision. I am inclined to agree with his suggestion that quality should be the priority.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton set out in greater detail how that priority should be set. He highlighted the issue of access to teachers, of which there is a grave shortage, and the workforce issues in early years provision, which other members have raised. I have a daughter who has a qualification in early years education, which she achieved three years ago, but she has never worked in a job for which the qualification was required, as she does not see that as an appropriate way in which to pursue her career.
My colleague James Douglas-Hamilton and other members highlighted the requirement to target resources at specific needs. We all have an aspiration on the general provision of early years education but, in practice, needs differ in different areas and, to an extent, in different social groups. It is absolutely essential that we target early years provision in areas of deprivation. It is obvious that specific damage occurs as a result of social deprivation and that that must be addressed specifically through targeted additional resources. Another group with specific needs are working parents. James Douglas-Hamilton suggested that we should copy the voucher system that exists in the south, so that working parents can tailor the available care to fit their requirements and so that, when parents choose to put in additional resources, they are not undermined by having the advantage of the other resources, to which they contribute, withdrawn.
I was surprised to find myself in agreement with a great deal of what Rosemary Byrne said. The debate has been sensible and fair, but the bottom line is that the resources that are available for early years education must be targeted at improving quality rather than quantity. I therefore support the amendment in the name of James Douglas-Hamilton.
As has been said, the debate has been a thoughtful one with many good points. The Parliament has a tradition of good debates on education. All members clearly accept the importance of the early years in shaping young people's futures and the need to build on the foundations that we have established. I confess that I rather liked Jim Mather's phrase when he talked about early years education being a strategy to reduce the NEET pipeline. There is an element of truth in that, which we acknowledge. However, I agree with the point that another member made that it is a bit rich to blame the Executive for the alleged failures of the early years policies that led to the issues with the present NEET group.
I pay tribute to the Education Committee's work in its inquiry into early years education, which placed several interesting spotlights on some of the themes, particularly the need to make progress with more cohesive provision in certain areas and to join up the provision that is developing throughout Scotland. That is an important point. Several members spoke about the need to move resources to early intervention. I agree to a reasonably significant extent with that direction of travel. However, I am not sure that the SNP is best placed to make that point given, as has been pointed out—although I make the point from a different perspective—its commitment to invest £1.8 billion in its policy on student loans. That does not quite match what the SNP says on early years provision. How the sums add up and the arrangements are important issues.
What is the SNP saying? An SNP press release from December 2006 with the heading
"It's Time to Double Nursery Provision"
confirmed the SNP's
"commitment to double current nursery provision".
However, by February 2007, the SNP's website appears to make a commitment to a 50 per cent increase in nursery provision. I am not sure what the policy is and I would like clarity on that from the SNP member who sums up the debate.
The SNP must take on board the point that Iain Smith and Alex Johnstone made about the priority. A debate has opened up about whether the spending priority should be to increase the existing provision for three and four-year-olds or to deal with children under the age of three, given all the issues that have been talked about in the debate about nurturing, bonding, early development and the importance of early intervention. As Alex Johnstone rightly said, that is particularly important for the more vulnerable children of that age. He made a good point about that in a good speech. The SNP must take on board some of those issues. The SNP's website suggests that it is obsessed with nursery education for three and four-year-olds, on which we have already made substantial progress.
The SNP must take on board the point about the instability that would come about through its obsession with separation. Ken Macintosh rightly touched on the SNP's uncosted wish list, which does not exist in isolation, but instead affects the credibility of the SNP's policies on key matters such as education, particularly early years education. The SNP should ponder on those matters when it criticises other parties' policies on early years education. It is important that people believe in the viability and sustainability of policies and the ability of those who propose them to fund them at the end of the day. The Scottish Executive has built solid foundations and has put resources into the key issues, although there is certainly more to be done and great challenges to meet. We want to make progress in that direction.
I am glad that there is renewed energy in the debate about the future direction of early years policy in Scotland, which I am sure will come through in the forthcoming election campaign. Some interesting differences between the parties' policies have opened up during the debate although, as Iain Smith rightly said, all parties share common ground on the importance of the matter. Recent publications such as Alan Sinclair's report on early years for the Work Foundation, which was referred to earlier, remind us how important the issue is and, more important, of the breadth of the issues that we must address.
I said in my opening speech that the SNP's motion is shallow and simplistic. I stand by that suggestion, as the debate has shown just how shallow and simplistic the motion is. The debate is worth more than that and the speeches that have been made have established that. We must make progress through consistent and coherent policies. I therefore ask the Parliament to support the Executive's well-founded amendment.
We have had an interesting, if somewhat patchy debate—Ken Macintosh's speech, in particular, was very patchy—on a key issue in the education debate that will, I suspect, feature significantly in the forthcoming elections. My friend Jim Mather likes to identify the core problem. In our education system, the core problem that we face is the persistent underperformance of one in five school pupils. We have had 10 years of Labour rule but no improvement in attainment levels among the lowest-performing 20 per cent of the school population.
How can it be acceptable that so many of our youngsters go through the school system without acquiring the basic literacy and numeracy skills that are needed to fit them for their working lives? It is a national scandal that we continue to have one of the highest rates in the western world of 16 to 19-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training. Those stark facts are an undeniable measure of Labour's failure to deliver on its education, education, education pledge. Let us not forget that the Liberal Democrats in Scotland are fully complicit in that failure.
We all know that poverty and deprivation are the root cause of educational underperformance. The Labour Government has failed to break the vicious cycle of poverty, lack of qualifications, low pay and unemployment, yet it is clear that early intervention, through the provision of high-quality child care and early years education, is the key to turning that situation round. For children from deprived backgrounds—Alex Johnstone mentioned this point—such an approach provides the early cognitive and behavioural gains that, if they are properly supported through the school journey, can help to equalise life chances and educational opportunities.
I do not understand why the Executive has allowed the early momentum that was gained with the introduction of free nursery places for three and four-year-olds to run out of steam. The constant interference in policy development by a First Minister who fancies himself as an education guru may have something to do with it. Whatever the reason, progress in Scotland has been limited in comparison with what is happening elsewhere in Europe, including south of the border, where there is a 10-year child care strategy. Here, the Executive inexplicably regards a three-year planning horizon as sufficient for the delivery of high-quality services, and the provision of family centres in deprived areas as a matter for local consideration. No leadership; no ambition; no idea—it is time to sweep this tired regime and its failed policies out of the way of real progress.
As Fiona Hyslop set out, the SNP will inject much-needed dynamism into early years policy. The SNP would introduce a 50 per cent increase in hours of free nursery education, and access to a nursery teacher for all our pre-school children—that is an improvement in quality as well as in quantity. Class sizes would be cut to no more than 18 for primary 1, primary 2 and primary 3, and there would be pilot provision of free school meals for that same group of children. Our aim is to give our children the best possible start to their education by allowing their teachers to spend the time they need to work individually with their pupils. Much of that can be funded by the Barnett consequentials that the Executive is currently forgoing in the early years field.
In the litany of policies that the SNP would introduce in the ideal world, what would it do for the under-threes? That central point has been made throughout the debate. In that context, does the member welcome the progress on the pilots for vulnerable two-year-olds?
I certainly welcome those pilots.
What I am expressing today is not the limit of our ambitions. With independence, we would move as quickly as we could to the type of universal nursery and child care provision that is enjoyed by the Scandinavian social democracies. With our programme, we will have laid down an important marker on the road to that future.
I thank Mr Ingram for holding back on his dynamic speech to take a question. During my speech, I asked about funding. Mr Ingram seems to suggest that the SNP will move to universal nursery provision. He also hinted that the SNP would expand family centres throughout the country. Is that true? How does that compare with the costings for family centres in the Education Committee's early years report?
We need no lessons in prudent spending from Labour, which has constantly underestimated the cost of its legislation by an average 20 per cent per law passed in the Scottish Parliament. Labour's extra spending commitments for rail links, trams and housing transfers in the next session of the Parliament amount to a whopping £3.7 billion. To top it all, big brother in London will burden Scottish taxpayers with another £9 billion on son of Trident, identity cards, the Iraq war and the London Olympics—not so much a union dividend; more a London Labour levy.