Hansard

What a difference a week makes. I know that we were unable to deal with part 6 of the bill last week, for perfectly understandable reasons, but it leaves us wondering what might have been. Would the minister have been granted licence to pre-empt the First Minister’s announcement later in the day regarding the extension of early learning and childcare provision for two-year-olds, or would Mr Salmond have required her to block the Opposition amendments in this grouping that are aimed at doing just that, in order to keep his powder dry?Whatever the case, I reiterate my colleague Willie Rennie’s welcome for the substance of what was announced last Tuesday afternoon. Although the 27 per cent of two-year-olds who stand to benefit from the extension in provision by the summer of next year falls short—as Neil Bibby explained—of the 40 per cent that are covered south of the border, that is by any measure a major advance on what the Scottish Government had originally proposed in the bill.The extension will bring real benefits to some of the most disadvantaged two-year-olds from this year onwards, and I congratulate the minister on that change of position. Colleagues will recall that an extension has been a priority for Scottish Liberal Democrats over successive budgets. It reflects our belief that, welcome though the plans are for three and four-year-olds, it is the investment before the age of three that can make the most significant difference in closing gaps in cognitive development, social skills and so on, and ultimately in attainment and outcomes later in life. That was the thrust of the evidence that we received from Save the Children, among others, and of the well-established empirical findings of Nobel laureate Professor James Heckman. If those gaps are not closed at that stage, it is difficult—if not impossible—to close them subsequently. That is why my colleague Willie Rennie has been pressing the First Minister on the issue week after week. Initially, those calls were rejected on the basis of policy differences between the Scottish Liberal Democrats and the Government. More recently, the SNP ministers have argued that, in order to deliver ambitious plans for early learning and childcare for two-year-olds, we first need the powers of independence. Given that childcare is an entirely devolved area, that position was never credible, and last week’s announcement has thankfully put it to rest.Not surprisingly, I am still keen for the Government to go further and to be more ambitious in the bill. Moreover, the delays in reaching the current position have had the unfortunate consequence—as Neil Bibby said—of limiting the scope for us to properly scrutinise the Government's proposals for two-year-olds, which we are told will be introduced in secondary legislation rather than in the text of the bill.In that context, the amendments in this grouping are very valuable. Indeed, they perhaps offer members an opportunity not only to keep the Government honest but to press for greater ambition yet. I support Neil Bibby’s amendments, albeit that they go further than the figure of 40 per cent of two-year-olds that we have proposed until now. Ultimately, that is where we should be heading. Of course, it may be achievable only in stages, and my amendments address the ways in which eligibility criteria might be extended, although it seems logical to start with free school meals and tax credits.Amendment 338 links eligibility to disability living allowance, reflecting the additional or specialist needs that that group of two-year-olds may have. Access to quality early learning and/or childcare in that context would be hugely beneficial in laying the foundations for improved outcomes in later life.Amendment 339 widens the criteria to include those identified as having additional support needs and could make a dramatic difference to later outcomes. It also chimes with the approach that is taken in the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2009.Amendment 240 ties eligibility to those whose parents are in receipt of state pension credit. Although the previous two categories will be covered south of the border only from September 2014, two-year-olds in this group already benefit from what is being put in place by the coalition Government. The amendment also picks up a slight deficiency in Neil Bibby’s proposals, which appear to exclude this group of two-year-olds on the basis of the age of their parents or guardians. I think that he would perhaps accept that.Again, I welcome the progress that has been made on the issue over the past week. The new year appears to have ushered in a new willingness on the part of the Government to listen. However, I urge the minister to go further and to support an even greater level of ambition for two-year-olds from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. On that basis, I will move the amendments in my name.