Hansard

Not just now; let me get into my stride.

Early education and child care should not be a political battleground. We have a shared interest in securing for every child in Scotland accessible and high-quality care and education that serves the interests and needs both of children and of parents. That presents a challenge for us all. For those of us in opposition, the challenge is to be constructive—that is the spirit with which the SNP approaches today's debate. For the Executive, the challenge is to be inclusive, to listen to and consider new ideas, not to dismiss them simply because they come from the Opposition. I urge the ministers, Sam Galbraith and Peter Peacock, to do that today.

Although we have come a long way, there is still a great deal to be done. If I have a criticism of the Executive's motion, it is that it smacks of complacency. Now is not the time to stand still or to rest on our laurels. It is time to push ahead with developing the strategy and addressing the weaknesses that exist. That is what the SNP's amendment seeks to do. It does not deny what has been achieved, as Sam Galbraith implied. It says, "Yes, we have come a long way, but let us ensure that we keep moving forward." That is why I am sorry that the Executive has decided not to support the amendment. It should have been possible to move forward on the basis of consensus.

The SNP believes that further work is needed, such as on making child care even more affordable. Some of my colleagues will touch on issues relating to the working families tax credit. They will also explore in more detail issues such as the funding and management of child care, further integration and the quality of service provided. I will touch on a few of those issues and put forward positive proposals, which I hope, in the spirit of consensus, will be given due consideration by the Executive.

Sam Galbraith spent most of his time talking about funding. The motion mentions

"the substantially increased allocation of funding to local authorities in 2000-01".

Contrary to his opening comments, I do not deny that more money has been made available over that period. However, an important question lies behind that fact: what happens after that period? Until the end of 2000-01, grants to local authorities are ring-fenced to allow for the expansion of the provision of pre-school education but, afterwards, funding for child care will be included in grant- aided expenditure. The creation of pre-school places for three and four-year-olds is one thing; sustaining those places in the long term out of already stretched education budgets, which are subject to many other pressures, is another thing altogether.

The issue cannot be dodged, because the forthcoming education bill—as far as we know—is likely to make pre-school provision for three and four-year-olds a statutory obligation on local authorities. I have heard from a number of people in local authorities—practitioners in the field. They say that, although there have been positive noises—like those that we have heard from ministers today—about funding in the long term, no concrete commitments have been made. I hope that that will change today and that the deputy minister, who I assume will be summing up, will address that.

We should not be talking only about sustaining what we achieve over the next few years; we must also be looking to further expand free nursery provision and make it full time, rather than part time. I hope that all members agree that that should be the end objective. That will be impossible unless serious consideration is given now to securing long-term, sustainable funding.

The same funding problem exists in the provision of out-of-school places. As Sam Galbraith said, most of the money for new out-of-school places—£25 million—is coming from the new opportunities fund. Incidentally, that is the only substantial part of Scotland's education budget that is not devolved to the Scottish Parliament, giving rise to the ridiculous situation in which the Scottish Executive can set the strategy but cannot ensure the funding to implement it.

That is another debate, however. What is important to note in this debate is that money from the new opportunities fund is available only for new or expanded projects, which leaves existing services without adequate financial support. I know from my area, and other members will have similar experiences—[Interruption.] Sam Galbraith may laugh, but he should talk to people on the ground who are experiencing problems. Well-used out-of-school projects are finding it difficult to survive because they cannot access lottery funds. Is that a sensible way in which to proceed?

Of greater concern is the fact that lottery funding is available only for one year. As Sam Galbraith

said, the lottery provides start-up funding but, after the first year, on-going funding must be found from elsewhere. The question that that poses for Sam Galbraith is, "From where?" Either new projects must become self-financing—presumably through increased charges to parents—or, as is much more likely, the on-going burden will fall on local authorities.

I understand that lottery funding is, by its nature, short term. That begs the question: should we rely so heavily on the lottery to pay for essential child care services? I hope that the deputy minister will address the question of long-term funding in his summation. Many people welcome—as I do—the direction of the Executive's policy, but we worry about its short-termism and the sustainability of the new pre-school and out-of-school places that are being created under the child care strategy.

Another criticism that can be levelled at the child care strategy is that it consists of piecemeal support for a plethora of initiatives. Plans abound in local authorities, such as the national child care strategy, children's services plans and sure start Scotland, to name but a few. The Executive must ensure greater co-ordination. The emphasis, in some cases, is on the quantity of places, rather than on where the places are and how overall provision hangs together. Integration and co-ordination are lacking.

A parent with one child at school and another at nursery must perform daily juggling acts, dropping off and picking up children. I visited a nursery in Leith this morning and heard of a parent who takes advantage of a part-time place at a nursery school in the morning, and who would pay for a place in the afternoon, but has difficulty finding care over lunchtime. Those problems are all too common. The ministers can pretend that they have not heard of those problems, but they exist. If this child care strategy is to be taken forward and developed in the way that it should be, we must acknowledge that it is not perfect. Things must be done to improve the service.

A fully integrated service must be provided. The SNP accepts—as Sam Galbraith acknowledged— that that cannot happen overnight, but we must ensure that we continue to work towards it. When I said that I thought that the Executive was being a bit standstill, that is what I meant. The motion does not say enough about how we should take forward the strategy.