Hansard

I, too, congratulate the cabinet secretary on her appointment.

As this is my first speech, I thank the voters of Edinburgh and Lothians East, who have put their trust in me. I will serve them diligently.

I will start by saying a little bit about myself. I have a background in education. For nearly 30 years, I have been either teaching or involved in instructional design, helping public and private organisations globally with learning. I understand the importance of having the appropriate structure and pedagogy for learners of all ages, so this subject is a particular passion of mine.

I am sure that we all agree that every child deserves the best start in life. We all agree that childcare matters for families, for work and for child development. However, agreeing on the principle is not the same as agreeing on the policy. We cannot keep pretending that a system that is already under strain can simply be stretched further without consequences. That is why we cannot support the motion as it is drafted. In the spirit of being constructive, we offer a different approach—one that is targeted, sustainable and grounded in evidence.

We believe that the solution should provide choice for parents, because a system without flexibility and competition risks becoming one in which families have fewer, not more, options. We suggest that the existing 1,140-hour offer should be strengthened by prioritising working families and by targeting support on the basis of need. We insist that funding should follow the child, so that the provision is flexible, transparent and not restricted primarily to council-run delivery. We recommend a phased approach to expansion, with published results and evaluation at each stage, focusing on ages two to five alongside early primary school—that is, primary 1 to 3—wraparound care. A phased approach would allow the opportunity—which we have in the business world—to reflect and to measure, understand and assess success before moving on.

We, in Reform, believe in supporting families and not limiting their options. We believe in childcare that enables work, not a system that ignores cost, capacity and choice. We must also be honest: childcare supports participation in the labour market but it does not, on its own, drive economic growth. It is an enabler, not an engine.

Before the existing system is expanded, we need to ask whether it has delivered as intended. The 1,140-hour policy was meant to improve child development, close the attainment gap and deliver more support for parents who were in work or who wanted to get into work, but, although some progress has been made—I acknowledge that the Government’s policy has had positive aspects—overall, the reported outcomes seem to be mixed. The attainment gap has certainly not narrowed, and the impact on employment has been, to use the Government’s own word, modest. I agree with Willie Rennie that the targeted approach to support for two-year-olds has delivered the best signs of improvement. The more universal provision for children from the age of three onwards seems to be the area that is struggling, and that is where the evidence is far less certain. Therefore, the question before Parliament is not whether access to childcare matters—I am sure we all agree that it does—but whether expanding a universal taxpayer-funded model on such a scale is the right way to achieve the aims set out in the motion.

We must also look at the reality of the system today. The 1,140-hour system costs close to £1 billion without clear and consistent evidence of success. Private nurseries have struggled to deliver funded hours sustainably—some have fallen short and even closed—and there has been a significant loss of places offered by childminders. Staff are under incredible pressure. Surveys by organisations such as Unison have shown the level of stress that staff are experiencing. In some cases, providers are withdrawing from offering funded hours. That raises concerns about long-term capacity and choice for parents. We must remember that, behind the figures, there are real families and real providers. Parents are struggling to find places, and staff are working under tremendous pressure to keep services going. That is not a secure platform for expansion.

There is also the question of funding, as we have heard. Scotland faces significant fiscal pressures, and we are being asked to support an expansion that would require billions more in spending. I think that the £500 million figure is a low estimate.

The motion assumes that economic benefits will follow from the proposed expansion, but that assumption is not guaranteed. The Quebec model is often cited as a good example, but that model was released in times of economic growth and fiscal stability in Quebec. In Scotland, the opposite is the case, and we are being asked to expect childcare to deliver that growth. The reverse is true.

We should be cautious about relying on that aspect. Policy cannot override economic reality. Even if funding could be found, there is the serious issue of the workforce, which we have mentioned previously. Infant care is the most complex and resource-intensive form of childcare, and, if we are to expand entitlement to it, we must take the workforce into consideration. Without a credible workforce plan, not only will further expansion be difficult, but there is a risk that it will be undeliverable.

We encourage a more responsible approach that is not about doing less but about doing things properly. If the intention is to support economic growth, responsible policy must focus on providing support where it is most needed, ensuring that funding follows the child and prioritising working families.

The motion asks Parliament to expand a system that is already under pressure without offering a clear plan for funding or delivery. For the reasons I have given, we cannot support it.