Hansard

We share the ambition to deliver early learning and childcare to significantly more two-year-olds who are in greater need. We know that children from more disadvantaged backgrounds benefit most from high-quality early learning and childcare. Far from ruling out expansion in my letter, I have consistently said that we will expand provision through secondary legislation. We have always planned to expand eligibility through the order-making power in the bill when that is affordable. Any orders will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so it will receive detailed parliamentary scrutiny. That is why the order-making power is included in the bill, as I said on 8 October.I am absolutely delighted that the First Minister announced last week that, from August next year, we will increase entitlement to those two-year-olds who are set out in amendment 86, but we do not need an amendment to do that. The proposals that the First Minister announced, which, as the convener pointed out, Neil Bibby’s party voted against, cover two-year-olds in families that are seeking work—approximately 15 per cent of two-year-olds from August this year. That will be followed by the two-year-olds who are set out in Neil Bibby’s amendment 86—approximately 27 per cent of two-year-olds who meet the criteria for free school meals. That represents a phased and sustainable expansion of childcare for the most vulnerable two-year-olds. We are prioritising the young children and families who will benefit most from an expansion of funded hours.That is a positive step in expanding childcare provision, but it is not the transformation that we seek through independence. That can come only when the revenue that is generated by increased numbers of women in the labour market can be used to pay for the increased provision of childcare.We share Neil Bibby’s ambitions, but we have to be absolutely realistic. There are not the resources to do what he proposes. As we set out in “Scotland’s Future: Your Guide to an Independent Scotland”, a more fundamental transformation of childcare for pre-five children will be possible only with the increased tax revenues that will help to fund expanded childcare. Under our proposals, if labour market participation were increased, more national insurance would be paid, while increased spending would boost VAT receipts and companies would pay corporation tax on the profits generated by their employees. This is about transforming the structure of our economy and the nature of our society.That is why our ambitions for childcare cannot be funded on consequential hand-outs of money that is ours and comes back to us from Westminster. Under devolution, the vast majority of tax revenues flow to Westminster; we pay for Westminster policies that we do not necessarily agree with, such as the policy on Trident; and we are trying to mitigate the impact of welfare cuts that we cannot reverse, as tens of thousands of children grow up in poverty. It is suggested that about 50,000 children being pushed into poverty as a result of the coalition’s welfare reforms.I urge members to recognise that we always planned to expand early learning and childcare provision through secondary legislation. The intention was made clear that that would apply to three and four-year-olds in the first instance, with further expansion when that was affordable and sustainable. The confirmation of consequential funding in December has enabled us to commit to making that initial expansion.In his closing remarks, I urge Neil Bibby to provide us with clarity on how he and the Labour Party expect the proposals to be delivered. I am not just talking about the money, although I would be extremely interested in his comments on how he intends to fund the proposals, in relation to which the convener made good and valid points about the consequentials and the understanding of them. I would also be interested in how Neil Bibby intends to deliver the proposals in relation to capacity issues, such as staffing. How does he expect that to be coped with between now and August this year? If he cannot be specific on how he wants to deliver the proposals, the rate of expansion that he proposes could be viewed as political grandstanding.I want to discuss other amendments in the group. Amendments 338 and 339 seek to extend the 600 hours of provision to two-year-olds who qualify for disability living allowance and to two-year-olds who have been identified as having additional support needs for the purposes of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004. It is important that parents and professionals recognise that young children with additional support needs should be supported under the 2004 act. There are existing duties to provide appropriate educational support for disabled children before an entitlement to funded early learning and childcare would take effect—potentially from birth, where a need is identified.Young children with additional support needs or a disability will also benefit from the named person provisions and from the requirement for a child’s plan where a wellbeing need is identified from birth. A key issue for young children with additional support needs that arise or become apparent in the first few years of life is the identification of those needs. A child’s health and wellbeing are assessed from birth during the contacts that are set out in the child health programme, which now includes a 27-month universal health review. The named person will support the identification of wellbeing concerns at an even earlier stage than the one at which entitlement to early learning and childcare would take effect.Finally, the bill proposes that local authorities consult locally representative populations of parents. Local authorities should use those opportunities to encourage broad, open and transparent dialogue with parents, and to identify the needs of parents with a range of needs, including those who have children who are disabled.The statutory guidance that will support the bill’s early learning and childcare provisions will refer to the code of practice on additional support for learning under section 27 of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, to make clear local authorities’ existing obligations regarding disabled two-year-olds and those with additional support needs. It is not necessary to amend the bill in those respects. With that, I have set out the reasons why we cannot support amendments 338 and 339. We announced a significant expansion of childcare last week. We have always made it clear that that can be done through secondary legislation. The crux of the matter is how Neil Bibby intends to find the funding to cover what he proposes. There are also significant capacity issues. If Neil Bibby cannot respond to those points, to ensure that the quality of provision is such that two-year-olds can benefit developmentally from this first step towards transforming childcare in Scotland, something is seriously lacking in his proposal.