Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 19 February 2014
19 Feb 2014 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
By proposing a move to a system in which all children would receive two years of funded early learning and childcare, amendments 51 to 53 would result in significant numbers of children taking up their entitlement, some from the age of two and a half. Amendment 54 would make the order-making power in amendment 51 subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure.
Although we accept the need to build on the bill’s provisions, the priority at this stage must be to build additional hours and flexibility into our high-quality universal provision, increasing the entitlement to around 16 hours a week, and, as we expand, focusing on our more vulnerable two-year-olds. We have demonstrated our commitment to do that with the announcement on additional two-year-olds by the First Minister on 7 January.
17:15
On the start date for three-year-olds to take up the funded entitlement, local authorities can and do deliver provision beyond the minimum number of hours and the minimum eligible children. A number of local authorities already start children from their third birthday, or the month after their third birthday, where they have capacity to do so.
The youngest children—those born in January or February—who may get less provision when they are three, will continue to be entitled to an additional year after they are four, where parents wish. In addition, increasing entitlements to two-year-olds will result in a significant decrease in the number of children who are impacted by the issue of third birthday start dates.
We share the ambitions within amendments 172, 173 and 174 to deliver early learning and childcare to significantly more two-year-olds in greater need. We know that children from more disadvantaged backgrounds benefit most from high-quality early learning and childcare and we were absolutely delighted when the First Minister announced on 7 January that from August 2015 we will increase the entitlement to those two-year-olds set out in amendments 172, 173 and 174. I am pleased that Neil Bibby agrees with our timescales, but we do not need amendments to the bill to do that.
I have said that the bill is a starting point and that we will expand entitlement through secondary legislation where it is affordable. We have demonstrated our commitment to that approach by allocating consequential funding that was confirmed to us in December 2013.
Amendments 115A and 197 seek to ensure that those two-year-olds who would be eligible by virtue of meeting free school lunches criteria, whom Neil Bibby wants added on the face of the bill, are commenced separately in or by August 2015.
Amendments 172, 173, 174, 115A and 197 are all unnecessary, as we have made clear our commitment to commence children by virtue of meeting the free school lunch criteria through secondary legislation, for implementation from August 2015. Those amendments would overcomplicate the issue by introducing additional children and dates on the face of the bill. There are clear advantages to defining children through secondary legislation, as we always set out to do, especially through the affirmative procedure agreed at stage 2, affording an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny and discussion—indeed, more discussion than would be possible through an amendment at stage 2 or 3.
The purpose of amendments 103, 105 and 114 is to ensure that the arrangements for stopping early learning and childcare to start school are the same for all children. Currently, children whose fifth birthdays are in September to December, and so who are not quite five in August when they are eligible to start school, can be deferred for a year by their parents so that they are over five when they start school. However, they are not automatically entitled to an additional year of early learning and childcare. Children whose birthdays are in January and February, who would only be around four and a half if they started school the August before, when first eligible, can be deferred by their parents for a year so that they are over five when they start school. They are also entitled to an additional year of early learning and childcare. Those starting and stopping arrangements are all set out in secondary legislation, which will be replaced by new secondary legislation enabled by the bill at section 43(2)(c)(ii).
The children who are defined on the face of the bill—two-year-olds who are looked after, are under a kinship care order or have a parent-appointed guardian—have their start dates set out on the face of the bill. However, they are not currently covered by the secondary legislation enabled by section 43(2)(c)(ii) and therefore have no stopping dates.
For all children born in September to December, regardless of whether they are specified on the face of the bill or through secondary legislation, whose parents or carers decide to defer entry to school for a year until after they are five, there is scope for an additional year of early learning and childcare at the discretion of the local authority. That is based on the needs of the child and informed by appropriate professional assessment, which could be by educational psychologists, early years staff or teachers.
Amendments 103, 105 and 114 are technical amendments to enable the same end dates to be specified by secondary legislation made under the bill for those children specified on the face of the bill as for all other children specified by secondary legislation under the bill. That will ensure consistent arrangements for all children and is important in determining eligibility for an additional year of early learning and childcare before starting school.
Amendment 104 will provide that children who have guardians appointed under section 7 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995—guardians appointed as such in a parent’s will or similar—are also eligible for funded early learning and childcare provision from the age of two. That is to bring them in line with children who have guardians appointed by the court under section 11 of the 1995 act. Those children were deemed at stage 2 to be subject to a kinship care order and therefore eligible for funded early learning and childcare from the age of two. The amendment will ensure that two-year-old children who have a guardian, no matter how that guardian was appointed, will be eligible for funded early learning and childcare.
The purpose of amendment 115 is to provide for the commencement of the non-substantive provisions in sections 43(2) to 43(4), which define the children who are eligible for early learning and childcare provision, and of the power to make secondary legislation to describe further eligible children, including when their entitlement starts and stops.
We have worked closely with our key delivery partners on our policy intentions as regards defining eligible children and we have used the opportunity of the consequential funding that was confirmed in December to announce further eligible children to be defined through secondary legislation. I am pleased that my amendment to make the order-making power subject to the affirmative procedure, which was recommended by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, was agreed, as that will allow greater parliamentary scrutiny. It is essential that we set out at the earliest possible opportunity who the eligible pre-school children are, to enable local authorities to plan and work towards implementation.
We share the ambitions of local authorities and key stakeholders to contribute to Scotland’s social and economic development, improve attainment, support parents to find or sustain employment and, first and foremost, see our young children happy and benefiting from early learning and childcare. I am grateful to local authorities and all our delivery partners for the tremendous amount of work that is under way to plan and prepare for the delivery of the early learning and childcare provisions. I want to continue the pace and engagement on the aspects of provision that are subject to secondary legislation. The bill is the first step in achieving our ambition to transform childcare and to do more for children in the earliest years. In the white paper “Scotland’s Future”, we set out our ambitions to do even more and to help families to balance work and life more ably.
I ask the Parliament to support my amendments in the group and not to support Liz Smith’s and Neil Bibby’s amendments.
Although we accept the need to build on the bill’s provisions, the priority at this stage must be to build additional hours and flexibility into our high-quality universal provision, increasing the entitlement to around 16 hours a week, and, as we expand, focusing on our more vulnerable two-year-olds. We have demonstrated our commitment to do that with the announcement on additional two-year-olds by the First Minister on 7 January.
17:15
On the start date for three-year-olds to take up the funded entitlement, local authorities can and do deliver provision beyond the minimum number of hours and the minimum eligible children. A number of local authorities already start children from their third birthday, or the month after their third birthday, where they have capacity to do so.
The youngest children—those born in January or February—who may get less provision when they are three, will continue to be entitled to an additional year after they are four, where parents wish. In addition, increasing entitlements to two-year-olds will result in a significant decrease in the number of children who are impacted by the issue of third birthday start dates.
We share the ambitions within amendments 172, 173 and 174 to deliver early learning and childcare to significantly more two-year-olds in greater need. We know that children from more disadvantaged backgrounds benefit most from high-quality early learning and childcare and we were absolutely delighted when the First Minister announced on 7 January that from August 2015 we will increase the entitlement to those two-year-olds set out in amendments 172, 173 and 174. I am pleased that Neil Bibby agrees with our timescales, but we do not need amendments to the bill to do that.
I have said that the bill is a starting point and that we will expand entitlement through secondary legislation where it is affordable. We have demonstrated our commitment to that approach by allocating consequential funding that was confirmed to us in December 2013.
Amendments 115A and 197 seek to ensure that those two-year-olds who would be eligible by virtue of meeting free school lunches criteria, whom Neil Bibby wants added on the face of the bill, are commenced separately in or by August 2015.
Amendments 172, 173, 174, 115A and 197 are all unnecessary, as we have made clear our commitment to commence children by virtue of meeting the free school lunch criteria through secondary legislation, for implementation from August 2015. Those amendments would overcomplicate the issue by introducing additional children and dates on the face of the bill. There are clear advantages to defining children through secondary legislation, as we always set out to do, especially through the affirmative procedure agreed at stage 2, affording an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny and discussion—indeed, more discussion than would be possible through an amendment at stage 2 or 3.
The purpose of amendments 103, 105 and 114 is to ensure that the arrangements for stopping early learning and childcare to start school are the same for all children. Currently, children whose fifth birthdays are in September to December, and so who are not quite five in August when they are eligible to start school, can be deferred for a year by their parents so that they are over five when they start school. However, they are not automatically entitled to an additional year of early learning and childcare. Children whose birthdays are in January and February, who would only be around four and a half if they started school the August before, when first eligible, can be deferred by their parents for a year so that they are over five when they start school. They are also entitled to an additional year of early learning and childcare. Those starting and stopping arrangements are all set out in secondary legislation, which will be replaced by new secondary legislation enabled by the bill at section 43(2)(c)(ii).
The children who are defined on the face of the bill—two-year-olds who are looked after, are under a kinship care order or have a parent-appointed guardian—have their start dates set out on the face of the bill. However, they are not currently covered by the secondary legislation enabled by section 43(2)(c)(ii) and therefore have no stopping dates.
For all children born in September to December, regardless of whether they are specified on the face of the bill or through secondary legislation, whose parents or carers decide to defer entry to school for a year until after they are five, there is scope for an additional year of early learning and childcare at the discretion of the local authority. That is based on the needs of the child and informed by appropriate professional assessment, which could be by educational psychologists, early years staff or teachers.
Amendments 103, 105 and 114 are technical amendments to enable the same end dates to be specified by secondary legislation made under the bill for those children specified on the face of the bill as for all other children specified by secondary legislation under the bill. That will ensure consistent arrangements for all children and is important in determining eligibility for an additional year of early learning and childcare before starting school.
Amendment 104 will provide that children who have guardians appointed under section 7 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995—guardians appointed as such in a parent’s will or similar—are also eligible for funded early learning and childcare provision from the age of two. That is to bring them in line with children who have guardians appointed by the court under section 11 of the 1995 act. Those children were deemed at stage 2 to be subject to a kinship care order and therefore eligible for funded early learning and childcare from the age of two. The amendment will ensure that two-year-old children who have a guardian, no matter how that guardian was appointed, will be eligible for funded early learning and childcare.
The purpose of amendment 115 is to provide for the commencement of the non-substantive provisions in sections 43(2) to 43(4), which define the children who are eligible for early learning and childcare provision, and of the power to make secondary legislation to describe further eligible children, including when their entitlement starts and stops.
We have worked closely with our key delivery partners on our policy intentions as regards defining eligible children and we have used the opportunity of the consequential funding that was confirmed in December to announce further eligible children to be defined through secondary legislation. I am pleased that my amendment to make the order-making power subject to the affirmative procedure, which was recommended by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, was agreed, as that will allow greater parliamentary scrutiny. It is essential that we set out at the earliest possible opportunity who the eligible pre-school children are, to enable local authorities to plan and work towards implementation.
We share the ambitions of local authorities and key stakeholders to contribute to Scotland’s social and economic development, improve attainment, support parents to find or sustain employment and, first and foremost, see our young children happy and benefiting from early learning and childcare. I am grateful to local authorities and all our delivery partners for the tremendous amount of work that is under way to plan and prepare for the delivery of the early learning and childcare provisions. I want to continue the pace and engagement on the aspects of provision that are subject to secondary legislation. The bill is the first step in achieving our ambition to transform childcare and to do more for children in the earliest years. In the white paper “Scotland’s Future”, we set out our ambitions to do even more and to help families to balance work and life more ably.
I ask the Parliament to support my amendments in the group and not to support Liz Smith’s and Neil Bibby’s amendments.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Elaine Smith)
Lab
We move to stage 3 proceedings on the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill. Members should have copies of the bill as amended at stage 2, the marshalled...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
Group 1 is on duties of Scottish ministers in relation to the rights of children. Amendment 116, in the name of Jean Urquhart, is grouped with amendments 117...
Jean Urquhart (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Ind
The stated policy intention behind the bill is to contribute to Scotland being the best place for children to grow up, and I applaud that intention. It is vi...
Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands) (LD)
LD
The bill represents the coming together of two pieces of proposed legislation, one of which is a bill on children’s rights. As Jean Urquhart identified, the ...
The Minister for Children and Young People (Aileen Campbell)
SNP
I welcome the opportunity to respond to the range of amendments that focus on part 1 of the bill. The bill will ensure that children’s rights properly influe...
Liam McArthur
LD
I listened carefully to what the minister said. She seemed to be concerned that amendment 125 overlaps with amendment 126. That would make sense if she inten...
Aileen Campbell
SNP
As I have said, we are developing that. That is something that we will achieve in order to ensure that we make rights real for children and that the UNCRC is...
Alison Johnstone (Lothian) (Green)
Green
It has, at times, been difficult to articulate through this bill the potential impact of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child on children...
Neil Bibby (West Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
I welcome the opportunity to speak to amendments 121, 123 and 124 in my name as well as the other amendments in the group.Although I join members of all part...
Liz Smith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Con
Over a lengthy period, I have listened very carefully to what has been the most challenging but nevertheless one of the most interesting aspects of the debat...
Joan McAlpine (South Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
Like Liz Smith, I listened as part of the Education and Culture Committee to the evidence on this section of the bill. Like the rest of the committee, I came...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (John Scott)
Con
Minister, would you like to respond to any of the points that were made in the debate? You do not have to by any measure.
Aileen Campbell
SNP
Joan McAlpine raised the fact that the committee did not support the full incorporation of the UNCRC, and I reflect again on Professor Ken Norrie’s comments ...
Jean Urquhart
Ind
I return to the wording of amendment 116 and reiterate what it would do and what it would not. It would require Scottish ministers to set up a body to consid...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
I am afraid that I did not hear what you said. Are you pressing or withdrawing your amendment?
Jean Urquhart
Ind
I am upholding it—I am pressing it.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
Right. The question is, that amendment 116 be agreed to. Are we agreed?Members: No.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
There will be a division. We will have it shortly, as there will now be a five-minute gap—the word I am looking for is “suspension”.14:40 Meeting suspended. ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
We move to the division on amendment 116.ForBaillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Baker, Richard (North East Scotland...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
The result of the division is: For 36, Against 84, Abstentions 0.Amendment 116 disagreed to.Section 1—Duties of Scottish Ministers in relation to the rights ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
The question is, that amendment 117 be agreed to. Are we agreed?Members: No.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
There will be a division.ForBaillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab) Baxter, ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
The result of the division is: For 55, Against 65, Abstentions 0.Amendment 117 disagreed to.Amendment 118 moved—Liam McArthur.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
The question is, that amendment 118 be agreed to. Are we agreed?Members: No.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
There will be a division.ForBaillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab) Baxter, ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
The result of the division is: For 56, Against 65, Abstentions 0.Amendment 118 disagreed to.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
Group 2 is on duties in relation to article 7 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Amendment 92, in the name of Siobhan McMahon, ...
Siobhan McMahon (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
As I said at stage 2, the reason why we require the addition of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is to give additional assurance ...
Liz Smith
Con
As I mentioned at stage 2, I have a great deal of sympathy for the intent of Siobhan McMahon’s amendments, and by bringing them to stage 3, she has allowed u...
Aileen Campbell
SNP
Amendments 92 and 94 to 100 seek to place requirements on Scottish ministers and public bodies to take steps with the aim of furthering the rights set out un...