Hansard

The child care tax credit is certainly a step in the right direction and some of my colleagues will mention it, but there are loopholes and weaknesses in it. I hear what Malcolm Chisholm says about child care provision in Edinburgh. That does not fully answer the problem of sustainability. The fact remains that provision around the country is patchy and what is happening in some areas is not happening everywhere. That reinforces the point that I am making: although much has been done, much has still to be done. It serves no purpose, and certainly not the interests of our children, to deny that fact.

Integration is one of the areas in which most work has still to be done. We believe that the way forward is through the provision of children's centres. Sam Galbraith says that there are 93 children's centres around the country. That is great, but he takes the attitude that, because there are 93 centres, everything is fine—that sums up everything that is wrong with the Executive's approach. It is fine that there are 93 centres, but we need more. We should be headed towards children's centres and towards that concept of integrated, wrap-around care.

The beauty of children's centres is that pre-school, school and out-of-school education and care can be provided under one roof. Providers can be the local authority or the voluntary or private sectors, but the important thing is that the service follows the child and not the other way round.

Local authorities can provide accommodation in under-used schools. The benefits of children's centres are multifold. Costs would be reduced. Moreover, schools could maximise operational capacity—there is much to be done on that, as it could offer an alternative to school closures, especially in rural areas. The real beauty of going down that road is that children would enjoy genuine wrap-around care. That is where the strategy should be heading.

Children's centres would require further capital investment, which is the nub of the matter—it is the missing ingredient in the child care strategy. Children's centres would be a real step in the direction of a genuinely integrated child care service.

One of the principal motivations behind the child care strategy is to encourage parents back into the workplace, but the interests of children are of equal, if not greater, importance. Children must be at the centre of the child care strategy. This Parliament is bound—because the minister did not refer to this, it is worth mentioning—by the United

Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Perhaps we need a revised child care strategy from the Executive to recognise that fact. The group Children in Scotland would welcome that recognition.

Children's experience of early education and child care—and the quality of that care—will determine the overall success or failure of the strategy. The Executive intends to establish an independent regulatory body by 2001. We support that policy and look forward to receiving further feedback from the recent consultation exercise on the regulation of early education and child care. We strongly believe that consistent standards of regulation should be set across the range of child care providers—standards should not, as often happens now, vary depending on whether a child care provider is the local authority or the voluntary or private sectors. We also believe that the cost of regulation should rest with the regulator and should not be passed on to parents, as often happens now.

One of the crucial determining factors in securing quality of provision is the skill, commitment and qualifications of the staff who are employed to work with children. I was glad that the minister spent time on that point. The SNP believes that, where a child care provider is offering education and delivering a curriculum, there must be appropriate input from qualified teachers. We must also recognise that the distinction between education and child care is, as the minister acknowledged, becoming increasingly blurred. That is to be welcomed, as we should recognise the importance of play in children's development and should resist too narrow a definition of education.

As providers of care will inevitably also be providing some education, we should ensure that all child care staff are properly trained and educated. Again, in the spirit of consensus, I welcome what the minister said about that. We, too, believe that a new system of qualifications for child care workers is long overdue. We would do well to consider the Scandinavian model, in which child care workers are trained in psychology, educational studies, health and social studies, as well as in interactive disciplines such as music and drama. That enables child care workers to provide a high-quality service and to work across the increasingly hazy divide between education and child care. A new system of professional qualifications might also raise the status of the child care profession.

The SNP has tried—sadly, harder than the Executive has—to approach this debate constructively, and that is how we will proceed this afternoon. We recognise the progress that has been made, but urge ministers not to indulge in too much self-congratulation, as there is still a job to be done. That is demonstrated by the example of some other European countries, where universal, publicly funded child care and education is taken for granted. I hope that we can proceed on the basis of consensus. If that happens, the Executive will certainly have the SNP's support.

I move amendment S1M-285.1, to insert at end:

"and considers that efforts must now be directed at securing long-term sustainable funding for child care, ensuring further integration of provision and achieving the highest standards of care and education for all children in Scotland."