 My apologies to Mr Lamont that I did my absolute best to get to your question, but unfortunately time has caught on with us. The next item of business is a statement by Keith Brown on the Caledonian sleeper franchise. The minister will take questions at the end of the statement, and there should therefore be no interventions or interruptions. I am grateful to Parliament for the opportunity to make a statement on the future of the Caledonian Sleeper franchise. This morning, I advised Parliament that the procurement process for the Caledonian Sleeper rail franchise had been completed on time and to plan. The competition has been evaluated rigorously on the basis of the most advantageous balance of quality and price. The Scottish Government intends to award the contract a Serco Caledonian Sleeper limited. The new franchise contract confirms the Scottish Government's commitment to transform this iconic Scottish rail service, which will commence on the 1 April 2015, Working Many and delivering investment in the service for the next fifteen years. The contract is good for passengers, staff and Scottish business. In short, it's good for Scotland. The contract secures the future of the Caledonian Leave as a delivery of service fit for the 21st century and provides, as it has done for over 100 years, a unique, valued and high profile overnight service between Scotland and London. I give some details of the contract, I wish to say a few words about the context of railways franchising. As members will be aware, franchising is a requirement under the Railways Act 1993, introduced by a previous Conservative administration. That act precludes any UK public sector organisation from bidding to operate a railway service. However, no such barrier applies to state backed organisations from Europe or elsewhere, and I believe that that's fundamentally unfair and constraining. It's unfair because it discriminates against UK or Scottish interests and it's constraining because it restricts the range of options available to operate our railway services. As I've stated publicly on many occasions, it's the unfairness of the restriction that I find objectionable as much as the relative merits of the case for private or public franchise operation. I've written to numerous secretaries of state during my term of office requesting a change in the law and each request was refused. I am however aware that the Labour Party are hinting at moving from their most recent stance and say that they would now look at making changes to the law should they win the UK general election next year. I am pleased for my part that the Labour Party is coming around finally to my way of thinking because they did nothing to address the issue in Westminster from 1997 right through to 2010 and we're happy to leave us operating patently unfair procedures. We have to follow the franchising rules imposed by Westminster and we've always stated that we would do so competently. Accordingly, we've set out a prudent programme and process for the franchise procurements. The Caledonian Sleeper and ScotRail franchise is managed by a properly resourced and expert team within Transport Scotland. Following a pre-qualification process, we were delighted to have attracted three final and high-quality bids from Arriva, First and Circle. Each of the bidders are well-established and well-respected railway service providers and there is clear evidence of the strength of our procurement exercise in that result. Each of the bids that I am advised was of extremely high quality. I should stress that, as many members will appreciate, ministers play no part in the evaluation or selection of the winning bidder. That's controlled by the process administered by officials. After a rigorous evaluation exercise, Circle Caledonian Sleeper Ltd came out on top. However, it would be remiss if I did not express my thanks to Arriva and First Group for their participation and the conference that they've shown in the Scottish Government's vision for our rail services. I'd also like to thank First Group and its very hardworking staff for their management of the service since 2005. I'd also like to acknowledge the hard work of Bill Reeve and the rail officials at Transport Scotland during his process. It's also appropriate to acknowledge the contribution of £50 million for the sleeper that was announced by Danny Alexander as chief secretary to the Treasury. Our specifications stated that we will place passengers' interests at the heart of the service and the new franchise will deliver on our commitments. The new Caledonian Sleeper will transform the whole passenger experience right from booking tickets to onboard comfort and hospitality right through to post-travel aftercare. Before boarding, passengers will benefit from a revamped website, allowing them to view information and book tickets, manage their booking and even pre-order food online. A new app will also be available for smartphones, which is recognition of how much more of us are communicating in this particular way. At stations, lounges will be improved and special sleeper interactive information totems will be placed on platforms to provide real-time information to passengers. On board, the franchise will deliver improvements for all passengers, from backpackers to business travellers, increasing the pleasure of travel and opening the service to new audiences. The Scottish Government's commitment to investment has led to a real success. New trains will be built, designed especially for this service, and developed in consultation with passengers. The new fleet will be ready and on the tracks in 2018. Key features of this will include in the seated accommodation modern, comfortable cradle seats, as well as innovative pod seats that can transform into flat beds. The train will deliver new standard-class sleeper berths, and in business berths there will be en suite shower and toilet facilities, making it truly a hotel on wheels. Improved security will be built in for all passengers and their luggage, as well as CCTVs in all public areas of the train. Wifi and powerpoints will also be available to all passengers facilities that the modern traveller rightly expects. The club car will be at the heart of the new trains, providing a welcoming place to eat, to relax and to socialise with special themed evenings to enhance the travel experience. Post-journey, the guest services team will help passengers with onward connections, as well as wider holiday and business planning. The new Caledonian sleeper franchisee, and as I said at this stage, it is an intention to award the contract. We have the 10-day Alcatow period. It has been made well aware of the Scottish Government's policy of bearing down on rail fares wherever possible and ensuring accessibility to the sleeper for all budgets. The Scotland-London rail travel market, in fact the travel market generally, is fiercely competitive. The Caledonian sleeper franchisee has committed to delivering strong growth in passenger numbers. To achieve that, it plans to offer a range of competitive and attractive fares and ticket promotions that will widen the interest in the service for all budgets. I have also been careful to ensure that the interests of Caledonian sleeper staff are addressed in the new franchise contract. Accordingly, we have engaged with the rail unions to ensure that staffing issues are appropriately covered, and I am grateful to them for their assistance. True pay, of course, will apply, as will continued inclusion in a fully funded new section of the railway pension scheme for all staff who transfer to the new franchisee. We have also ensured that Caledonian sleeper staff will retain the benefits of the rail staff travel scheme where they currently have those benefits. I can also confirm that the long-term future of Inverness train maintenance depot is secure. I have also spoken to the chief executive of Serco Group and asked for and received specific assurances in relation to the living wage that staff currently receive in excess of the living wage and will do so in future, and that they have no intention of using zero-hours contracts. The Scottish Government is investing in growing train service levels in the Highlands. I think that the most recent figures across Scotland are nearly 90 million passenger journeys, both through—that is for the whole of Scotland—franchising and rail infrastructure enhancements in terms of the investment that we are making. Inverness depot is well located to support that growth, so we have required that the next ScotRail franchisee must maintain the depot in Inverness for the maintenance of its own trains, which continues a majority of the work there and for the sleeper carriages that will continue to receive daily servicing at the depot. I am delighted also that 15 apprenticeships will be taken on in the first two years underlining our commitments to investing in Scotland's future talent. This franchise is good for Scottish business as well. The new Caledonian sleeper franchisee is partnering with Scottish businesses to deliver the hospitality service to supply excellent Scottish produce and to provide furnishings. The franchisee has committed to increase its annual hospitality and catering spend with Scottish local small and medium-sized enterprises to 75 per cent by year 5, increasing to 90 per cent through the life of the contract. We have great produce in Scotland, and the sleeper will provide yet another opportunity to showcase it to the wider public, with many businesses from Shetland to Stranraer and Stornoway to Stonehaven directly benefiting from contracts to support the service. As I say, the franchisee is good for passengers, good for staff and good for Scottish business. It will be good for Scotland in general. The franchisee will manage the Caledonian sleeper business and the Government's substantial investment to deliver better value, obtaining a good return on investment and achieving a financially sustainable operation. Growing passenger numbers will drive growing revenue, so that annual franchise payments will reduce by more than 70 per cent at current price levels over the life of the contract, a saving around £130 million over the price of the contract. This is a new beginning for night rail travel in Britain, providing, as I have said before, a hotel, an office and a restaurant whilst on the move, together with the skills of the franchisee and its partnering organisations. Our investment will ensure that the Caledonian sleeper endures building on its strong heritage and renewed for a great future. The minister will now take questions on issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions after which we move on to the next item of business. Members who wish to ask a question could press a request to speak, but now that would be extremely helpful. I thank the minister for advance the notice of his statement. The Caledonia sleeper franchise, as the minister has said, is unique, valued and high-profile, but there are some concerns with the franchise award. We would like to see a not-for-profit rail operating model. Indeed, although the Scottish Government has said that it is also committed to that, it was nowhere to be seen in the First Minister's big six demands of the Scotland Bill. The next Labour Government is committed to giving the Scottish Parliament the full powers over rail, so why has the franchise been offered for 15 years? Will there be a breakpoint to allow different models of rail ownership when we have those powers? There have also been concerns raised that train drivers will not be covered by the Chippey process since they are employed on a subcontract from ScotRail and DB Schenker. Serco has stated that it tends to employ GB rail freight drivers for the franchise, so can the minister give a cast-iron guarantee that existing drivers will have a job based in Scotland after the award? I am told that the new rolling stock will be procured and manufactured in Spain. Tell me if the Caledonian sleeper service will be running with trains built outside of the UK. Mark Griffin for his questions. First of all, to say in relation to the not-for-profit issue, which is the first thing that he raised, I have said consistently that we were more than happy. In fact, eager to see a not-for-profit bid come forward and would have considered it on its relative merits as we were obliged to do. However, talking about future powers, it might come really hide the point that the Labour Party has had the chance to deal with this and failed to deal with it over the 13 years in government. You have had every chance. You have had two transport bills that went through the Westminster Parliament where you could have changed the ground rules. You stuck with franchising. The Labour Party supports franchising. The last words of your last transport secretary, Lord Adonis, were to talk about the benefits and effectiveness of rail franchising. That is what you have left us with. That is the process that you have left us with. We cannot favour one particular franchise over another. We are bound to do this and we have done it competently. In relation to existing drivers, I think that I have covered that in my statement. I am happy if there is more information that Mark Griffin wants to provide him with that, but we have said that Chewpie will apply. It is the same guarantee that has been given by previous Governments. Existing staff, including drivers, will have that protection of Chewpie. Way beyond that, they will have that protection of the existing terms and conditions, they will have protection in terms of the rail travel benefits that they currently have, they will have a new pension scheme that is established with the support of the Scottish Government to cover their pension requirements, perhaps the most fundamental concern that the staff had. I have also mentioned the increased training opportunities and apprenticeship opportunities. That, to me, represents a very good deal for employees on this service. We have been very careful to make sure that we protect the interests of employees and I think that that demonstrates that we have done that. On the last question that was raised by Mark Griffin, of course, the idea of new rolling stock—of course, it is down to whoever wins that bit as to where they place that contract—we have no legal ability to go back to the legislation that the Labour Government supported during its 13 years. We have no ability to prescribe that that should be built in a particular place, so it is down to the discretion of the contractor, but at least he should welcome the fact that more than £100 million will be spent on new railway rolling stock. What did he do when he was in Government? Nothing like that. That is a good deal for business in Scotland and a good deal for the staff in the new franchise. I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement and I take the opportunity to congratulate Serco on having achieved the success and the franchising process. Can I also extend my commiserations to those who were unsuccessful, particularly First Group, a company based in the north-east of Scotland, who have provided an excellent service over the length of the previous franchise? It is some disappointment to me that the minister has taken the opportunity to attack this apparently successful franchising process, demonstrating during his statement his long-standing aversion to private enterprise and fair competition, something that I will defend at every opportunity in this chamber. The specific issue that I would like to address is the £50 million that was mentioned in the statement that came from the UK Government. That did not seem to be highlighted in this morning's press announcement, which appeared to claim that the Government money was all coming directly from the Scottish Government. I am glad that that £50 million has now been acknowledged. I hope that the minister will take the opportunity to offer me further reassurances, for I have asked after this money many times, that it is being properly looked after in its current temporary home. More important, will he explain how that money will be returned to the franchise to provide the sleeper service and how the £50 million that he promised one month after that announcement of match funding will be included in the financing of the franchise? First of all, to say in relation to the franchise process, I have made very clear a number of times what the Scottish Government thinks of the franchise process and the limitations. It would have been nice to have heard from Alex Johnson some condemnation of the fact that UK and Scottish businesses that are public sector owned are precluded, whereas German, French or Dutch businesses that are publicly owned are not precluded. Perhaps he could have mentioned that, but just in relation to the franchise itself, at least we have done that efficiently and competently. Look at the mess that the UK Government, the Government that he supports, made in relation to the west coast mainline franchise, and perhaps he could have mentioned that as well. In relation to the money that has been set aside for rolling stock, I have said already that the likely value of that will be in excess of £100 million. There is other work that will be done with infrastructure in addition to the services, but even that £100 million shows that the £50 million pledged by the UK Government and the commensurate amount by the Scottish Government—I think that our contribution will end up being perhaps £60 million—shows where that money is going. In relation to reinvesting that money in the franchise itself, there are clauses in the contract that allow any excess profits to be taken, half of them to be taken by the Scottish Government, and if they become particularly excessive, we take the whole of the profits to then be reinvested further into that service. What we have done is to make sure that that contract is constructed in such a way that we have a step change in terms of improvement in the service first of all and then continuous improvement thereafter. I would have thought that that would be somebody welcomed by the Conservative Party. I now go to backbench questions to the minister. I have many people requesting a question. Can I remind members that there should be one question? It should be brief. Minister, if we could have a brief answer in that we will make progress. Maureen Watt fall by Lewis MacDonald. Can the minister tell the chamber how small and medium-sized enterprises can benefit from the new franchise perhaps more than they have done in the past? Yes, I can. I mentioned during my initial speech about the increasing percentage of Scottish SMEs, which will benefit 75 per cent by year 5 and 90 per cent by year 15. I had also mentioned the food hub in common old, which will be used to facilitate the selection and provisions of Scottish products. Glyncraft and Aberdeenshire will be used to supply matrices, laundry services, Scottish businesses and Shetland wool to be used for blankets. Of course, the envelope management group will be helping to provide the food, which, with the help of Albert Rew, should be of a world standard. The minister rightly paid tribute to First Group and its staff who deliver the current service. Given that any direct rail service between the north of Scotland and London has to compete with aviation, can he guarantee today that there will be no reduction in quality, comfort, reliability or frequency under the new contact? In particular, can he tell us whether the new contact will enable a direct nightly rail service between Aberdeen and London seven nights a week instead of six? Of course, we have the ability and the franchise holder has the ability to look at extending the services that have been written into the contract. If you think back to the rail 2014 consultation, the scare stories about the sleeper service going all together have been proven to be pretty unfounded. I should also say that I can give the assurance that Lewis MacDonald seeks in relation to quality of service. I have tried to lay out the ways in which that can happen. It is bound to be improved, not least by the investment in the new rolling stock of that that will take until 2018 to come on board. However, all the other services in terms of the customer-facing services should happen as soon as the franchise holder takes over, so there will be that increase in quality of service. As to extending the service, that is a dialogue between ourselves, the public and the franchise holder. I am pleased that the minister has explained how he hopes to avoid the mistakes of previous franchising, not least his predecessor Stuart Stevenson's mishandling of the 2008 extension. It is worth recollecting that, in November 2011, the Scottish Government did not understand the value of the sleeper. It proposed terminating all cross-border services day and night at Edinburgh, and it took vigorous campaigning by Liberal Democrats, ambitious for the north-east and the highlands, and action from Danny I. Alexander in the Treasury to keep Scotland connected. I am grateful that the Scottish Government belatedly recognises the value of the service. The minister has acknowledged that 50 million investment from the Treasury does not show the importance of strong Scottish voices in the UK cabinet, able to deliver investment in cross-border services. As you say, first of all, strong Scottish voices in the cabinet may be in short supply after the next election, if Lord Oakshort's poll is to be believed. I will also make it just making it up when she says that we proposed to abolish the sleeper. She is just making this kind of stuff up when it is completely wrong. I think that it is demonstrated by the fact that what we have got now is a sleeper service about to have a huge amount of investment placed into it, a qualitative jump in the quality from the time when her party was running this franchise in the past. Perhaps she is a wee bit scannered about the fact that we have done something that she never managed, her party never managed to do, and perhaps that is why we have the sour note coming from the Liberal Democrats. As far as I am concerned, what we have been key in trying to do is make sure that the process was run properly, which she and her colleagues in the Westminster Government failed to do in the west coast mainline and also making sure that we keep focused on what the passengers need. That is why this contract will be good for passengers, be good for staff, and good for Scottish business as well. Thank you for ensuring that the interests of staff will be fully addressed in the new franchise contract. What further assurances can the Scottish Government provide that in realising its ambition for the Caledonian sleeper to become truly world-class, that that will at all times be reflected in the terms and conditions of the staff on whom its future success depends? Well, very briefly, in addition to what I have already said, I should say that I will be speaking to Tim O'Toole this afternoon in relation to the efforts of first group staff over the previous term of the franchise and to thank them for the efforts that they have made and will continue to make when they transfer to the new franchise holder. However, during mobilisation of that period and beyond, we will ensure that paying conditions are protected, Tupi will help us to do that. The railway pension scheme that I have mentioned, ensuring commitment to training and apprenticeships is contractualised as well and a personal guarantee on living wage and the use of zero-hours contracts. I think that that looks after, to a great extent, the interests of staff. Dave Thomson, by James Kelly. Well, I am absolutely delighted that the Inverloche Castle Management International is going to be involved with this franchise. I would like to ask the minister how he feels that this will benefit local highland and Scottish businesses and indeed the consumers who will be using the service. I think that if we can put ourselves in the place of somebody coming on to this new service in London stepping on to the sleeper train to get confronted with the best of Scottish produce, with a world-renowned chef like Albert Rew and the Inverloche organisation, which David Thomson has already mentioned, we really do start to send a message about what we think of the service and what we want other people to think about it. And of course, with the attractiveness of the onward journey to the highlands, we think that this would be a great selling point for Scotland and have much wider benefits and merely the transportation of people from place A to place B. James Kelly, by Mike McKenzie. Thank you. Can the minister confirm the total value of the franchise payments over the 15 years of the contract, as this has been omitted from the ministerial statement? Can he also explain why the contract has been awarded for 15 years and there has not been a break put in place, as is the case with the ScotRail franchise, in order that alternative funding models can be explored to keep money within the public purse? Yes, on the first point raised by James Kelly, the value is around about 180 plus million pounds over the 15 years of the contract. As I said, that equates to around 130 million pound reduction in the subsidy that we would have paid if we had left things as they were. There is the opportunity for a break around year 7, but the conditions of that break really are around the fact that financial conditions have changed dramatically. We have seen in the past, and one of the reasons why the west coast mainline franchise was such a spectacular failure was the difficulty of trying to predict inflation and other economic factors over that period, so we have built that into the process. Both the proposed franchise winner and ourselves have said today that we fully intend to see the contract through 15 years, and the reason for that is that it allows the long-term capital investment, which I have mentioned in terms of rolling stock, to take place, which is much more difficult to achieve in a shorter term of franchise. Mike McKenzie, followed by John Finnie. Can the minister provide details of how CECO will be monitored in terms of maintaining quality and of delivering improvements to the service? Yes, through a number of processes, including financial penalties, which should also come from a break in the contract as well as has been evident in other franchises. However, the franchisee will also be measured against the execution of the contract, and since many of the contract's key measures such as performance will be in the public domain, it has every incentive to ensure its effectiveness. Just to say that part of the specification of the contract was 50 per cent emphasis on quality, and it will be kept to that quality commitment that it has made. Thank you. I thank the minister for a very positive news in relation to the depot and the apprenticeships. With regard to the living wage in zero-hour contracts, I note that it is a personal rather than a contractual assurance of God. The unions have already been in touch to express concern about the way that CECO discharged their industrial relations with regard to the northern ferry contract. Will he work with them to ensure that a better relationship is maintained under the new franchise? Of course. I am happy to give the commitment to ensure that we have the best possible relationship with the trade unions and the franchise holder. Just to say that the commitment that I had asked for with the chief executive of CECO was in relation to not just the living wage, because the staff involve currently earning well in excess of the living wage. So Chupi and the commitments that we have protect their existing wages and conditions, and well beyond that, and to things like the rail travel that the company benefits from as well. The other thing, of course, is concerned about the staff training and apprenticeship opportunities, and all those are being protected. We have spoken directly with the franchise winner so far, the preferred winner so far. We have had those conditions or those commitments given by them, but in addition to that, we have written into the contract in terms of Chupi. The pension scheme was a huge issue for the trade unions, and we have gone the extra mile in relation to setting up a new pension scheme so that existing pensions of those employees are also protected. Given that, until very recently, CECO was banned from bidding from any UK Government contracts, I think that a few eyebrows might have been raised this morning when they heard the news. Can I ask the minister the assurances that he received from the chief executive of CECO? Do they also apply to indirectly employed staff or to subcontracted staff with regards to zero-hours contracts, trade union recognition or the living wage? Can I say first of all that perhaps it shouldn't have raised people's eyebrows, especially in the Labour Party. Given that the Labour Party in Wales, the Government has entered into a substantial contract with CECO in the last month. It is also true to say that Glasgow City Council is a contract with CECO, which is of greater value than the contract that we are about to enter. Perhaps the Labour Party has got some thinking to do about its relationship to CECO in relation to that. The other point that I would make is that we have these guarantees within the contract in terms of Chupi, we have written it in in terms of the pensions, we have written it in terms of the training and so on, and in addition to that, of course, what we have mentioned in relation to the living wage as well. I think that we have done a pretty good job of making sure that the interests of workers are looked after and listened to this. Perhaps it would be interesting to know whether it is also true in Wales for the Labour Party to deal with CECO and in Glasgow as well. Thank you. I recently had to intervene for a Glasgow-bound passenger who, along with some 20 odd others, were left spending a long cold night at Euston station after a delayed sleeper left without them. Does the minister agree that it is the co-ordination and co-operation between network rail staff and the train operating company staff that needs to improve to prevent situations such as that arising? It is the human touch that is important, however good the smart phone app and the interactive information totem turn out to be. First of all, on those last points, those things are important to people, how they can access the bookings, how they can make sure that they have the best possible journey. Of course, he is absolutely right to say that performance in trains leaving on time and arriving on time is extremely important. To do that, we have to have, as he rightly says, the maximum possible co-operation between those that control the track, network rail and those that control the trains themselves. We have done a great deal in pushing forward that integration. We are limited by European legislation in how far we can go in relation to that. We are getting more of it in the projects that we undertake, but we will push to continue to make it as seamless as possible for passengers. If you look at some of the recent figures in performance across the Scottish network, not the sleeper network specifically, but the Scottish network, we have made some remarkable advances. There is a chance to make sure that we continue that into the future. My apologies to John Mason. We move to the next site of business, which is a debate on motion number 10131, in the name of Kezia Dugdale, on Scotland's future. Members who wish to take part in the debate should press a request to speak but now, and I can give a very few seconds for the front benchers to get themselves organised. I also see it now that the set of this debate time is extremely tight this afternoon, so we are going to hold you to your time. I call on Kezia Dugdale to speak to and move the motion. Ms Dugdale, you have got 14 minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. When the white paper was published in November, I was as surprised as the next person to see that childcare was front and centre. Here is a policy area completely devolved, sold as the cornerstone case for independence. The commentary act were quick to link this policy to the polls and a sizeable gender gap between men and women when it comes to support for independence. Whilst we added our voice to the collective cynicism, we did not lose sight of the ambition for a transformation in the provision of childcare. Whatever the result of the vote at 5.30, this chamber will have accepted, for the first line in Labour's motion today, that the Parliament will resolve to keep childcare at the top of the political agenda. I regard that as no mean feat, Presiding Officer, and I hope that we will keep good to that promise. High-quality, affordable childcare can transform lives. It has a clear economic benefit, there are clear links to closing the educational achievement gap, it is central to gender equality and it is key to tackling child poverty. It is an issue that lights the fire of the Labour Party because it is at the heart of our pursuit for equality and social justice. Uniting behind one line in a motion is one thing, uniting behind a long-term vision for childcare in Scotland that carries the support of at least of the two major parties in this chamber is quite another. That is why Labour's motion today calls once again for a cross-party childcare commission to set out a route map for the long term and I will return to that later. First, Presiding Officer, I wish to spend a considerable amount of my time focusing on the childcare policy as outlined in the white paper and the various twists and turns that it has taken over the past six months. I believe that it needs to be on the record of this Parliament and it is a matter of regret that it has not been here before today. I find some of the spin, the vacuity and the handling of the statistics around this truly shocking. I cannot make up my mind whether this is wild incompetence or deliberate deception. Regardless, let me go through each twist and turn and I do not intend to give way until I have got to the May events and I will happily accept an intervention and preferably an apology from the minister at that point. First of all, let us look at the white paper. The case for childcare is set out in three phases. Phase 1, 600 hours of childcare to 50% of two-year-olds, delivered within the first budget in independent Scotland. Phase 2, all three and four-year-olds will get 1,140 hours a year by the end of the first Parliament. Phase 3, all children from the age of one to the school age or five are entitled to 1,140 hours of childcare. The costs associated with those, according to the Scottish Government, are £100 million for phase 1 and £700 million for stage 2. That includes no capital costs whatsoever. They have not published a cost for stage 3, but Spice tell us that it will cost £1.2 billion. Again, there are no capital costs associated with that phase. When they were asked where that £700 million was to come from, the SNP said that it would come from the tax receipts of 100,000 more women going into work. In January, the Government released this paper, Child Care and Labour Market Participation, the economic analysis. Alex Salmond boasted that he had published this very important paper so that everybody can read and understand these things. The footnote on it was very interesting. It says that, not the analysis below illustrates the impact of a boost in female participation rates rather than a specific policy. The specific policy will have its own unique implications for the economy and budgetary impacts. Those are not simulated here. The footnote says that, essentially, the Government had examined the impact of 100,000 more women in the labour market, but it had no direct or substantiated link with its own childcare policy. On 6 March, the IFS rang the alarm bells, stating that there was little evidence that a major expansion of early learning childcare would lead to tens of thousands of more women getting jobs. On 11 March, Tom Gordon from the Herald received confirmation in an FOI response that there was no modelling of its childcare policy. It stated clearly that modelling the impact of women in the workforce was not the impact of improved childcare itself. A separate FOI request sought details of how long the Government had given itself to get 100,000 more women into work, one year, five years and ten years. The FOI was refused on public interest grounds. We recognise that there is some public interest in release as part of open transparent Government and to informed debate. However, there is a stronger public interest in high-quality policymaking and in the proper considered implementation and development of policies, particularly on such a significant issue as childcare. That means that ministers need a private space with women which to obtain the best possible evidence and advice from officials to be able to consider all available options and to debate those rigorously, to fully understand their implementations. Disclosing this advice and evidence while the childcare policy is still under discussion and development may undermine or constrain the Government's ability to develop that policy effectively. Whilst the Government were touring the country saying that only independence could deliver transformational childcare, officials were in Victoria Quay desperately trying to work out how. On 2 April, Spice published its paper on early learning and childcare. It revealed what many of us already thought. There aren't enough women. As outlined right at the beginning, the SNP maths was based on 100,000 women with kids under five joining the labour market, except there are only 64,000 economically active women and only 14,000 of those are actively looking for work. Spice also added that a rapid increase in women joining the workforce might lead to suppressed wages, stating that that could have wider implications for the labour market and on incentives for women to enter the workforce. However, there's not just the problem with the number of women looking for work that have kids under the age of five, it's the nature of that work. The Government's paper released in January is based on the medium salary of both men and women, £26,000 a year. The reality is that the medium salary for women in Scotland is £17,000. That's because so many women work part-time. When Alex Salmond was questioned about this on Politics Scotland, in both January and April, he cast that aside and arrogantly pointed to the employment stats, showing 60,000 more women returning to work in the last year alone. In the January programme, he said, that the vast overwhelming majority of those extra jobs are full-time. In April's programme, he said that they were mostly full-time jobs. Neither of those statements were true, Presiding Officer, and in PQs, in my name, answered by John Swinney, they were demonstrated to not be true. The vast majority of those jobs were in fact part-time on a two-to-one basis. The major boost to female unemployment stats comes from women over 50 returning to work, not young mums. That matters not simply because the First Minister misspoke, but because it fundamentally undermines the maths once again. Part-time workers pay less tax. They tend to do low-paid jobs. What about those jobs? The idea that a young mum, out of work for three years, can walk into a £26,000 job is unonsence. I want transformational childcare for lone parents in Nidry, in Pilton, in Westerhales and in Gracemount. It is the lives of those women that I want to transform. Alex Amond wants their votes. However, there is another and a final twist, and that came on 2 May. Government revealed again in an FOI to Tom Gordon that there was childcare modelling. It just would not be released. Let me read out what the FOI said. While the strategic policy direction has been set out in the white paper, detailed policy design work is continuing. The premature release of this detailed modelling type work could be to the detriment of the full consideration of the entirety of the evidence and the options which underpin development of childcare policy. The modelling work forms only one part of a wider evidence base used to continue to develop this policy. Release of this information could therefore lead to a narrowly focused debate that may not allow for the measured consideration of all evidence on the best way to deliver the policy highlighted in the white paper, and that would not be in the public interest. That is yes, Minister, speak for we scribbled all over the fag packet and we still cannot make it add up. Forget the public interest, Presiding Officer. It is clearly not in the minister's interest for this information to be in the public domain. Let's get this absolutely clear. The Government refused to provide full workings to paper that it published in January. A paper it said that it was publishing, in Alex Salmond's words, so that everybody can read and understand these things. Publishing some results in January was a pertinent and a good thing. Publishing all those results in May is premature and a bad thing. We understand the Government's childcare policy all right. We understand it to be an absolute shambles. However, there is a road back. Government could commit to a child commission and stop hijacking the debate on childcare for its own ends. The Labour Party has set up a campaign called Every Step. We have been touring the country asking parents for their first-hand experiences of childcare. We have been talking to them about their experiences of it, and we know that the quality of childcare, the flexibility of childcare, are just as important as the cost. We understand how important workforce issues are to parents, what people who work with their kids and nurseries get paid, what their terms and conditions are, what their qualifications are. We understand that childcare does not stop when kids go to school if anything gets worse. The SNP's policy is based only for children who are three and four years old and some two-year-olds. The challenge is much broader than that. Parents want to see wraparound care, and they want to see more investment in breakfast clubs—the two things that have faced the biggest brunt of the Government's cuts when it comes to local authority budgets. They want to see council services join up, but they want their politicians to join up too. I note that the minister's motion today mentions my colleague Malcolm Chisholm and Willie Rennie, but they can hardly boast about cross-party working when so much of the understanding of Government's approach has had to be unearthed through PQs and FOIs, many of which have been rejected and avoided along the way. Transformational childcare is something that I want to see. I think about the mums I meet regularly at Rhym Time in Craigmiller library. It is their lives that I want to transform. There is no incentive for them to work just now. I do not want to send them into a low-paid, poor job on a zero-hours contract. I want them to go to college first, and I want them to get the skills that they missed out on school. They cannot do that because of the cuts that the Government has made to the college budget. Tasks have made all the harder by the fact that there are 93,000 fewer part-time places for women in our colleges than there were in 2007, 93,000 each year for the past seven years. That is nearly a quarter of a million women denied a place in further education, and that is the responsibility of this Government. I know that MSPs on Government benches share the passion to help those women to get back into work. They see independence as the answer, and I believe that their proposal is in tatters. We need to get round the table and address this issue together. They shake their heads and say that in tatters, Presiding Officer, they could not be more removed from reality. Their own Government ministers and their own officials are telling them that they do not have the answers, that their policy is still in development, and yet they sit and they laugh. I find that truly shocking. I look forward to the debate this afternoon, and I call once again—let's take the politics out of this, let's get round the table, and let's work on a long-term vision for childcare in Scotland that we can all get behind. Presiding Officer, this Government has a significant and a positive track record on achievement when it comes to childcare. I welcome any opportunity to talk about this, and today it is absolutely no different. It is worth reminding ourselves just what those achievements are and have been. We are building on our previous increase in annually funded early learning and childcare provision from 412.5 hours to 475 hours in 2007, with a further expansion to 600 hours from this August. That represents a 45 per cent increase in provision in places for three and four-year-olds, since this Government came to office and has worth up to £700 per child per year. We are working with local authorities and partner providers to deliver a phased, sustainable expansion of early learning and childcare that supports more children and families while maintaining quality and, for the first time in legislation, improving the flexibility of provision in line with local needs. We are backing this up with investment by committing over a quarter of a billion pounds over the next two years, including £3.5 million to strengthen the capacity and skills of staff alongside the on-going expert review of the early years workforce. We have done all those things because it is the right thing to do. Investment in our children's lives in the earliest years is crucial for the future of our country. Childcare enhances all-round development and wellbeing in children. Evidence also shows that childcare is particularly beneficial for disadvantaged children and that the benefits persist through primary school, with evidence also suggesting that it carries on into secondary school and beyond. We can also see our commitment to children through our world-leading early years policies and strategies and, of course, our groundbreaking early years collaborative. We promote the measures that we do because they advance both our economy and our society. Because we know what works and how important it is, we continue to be hugely ambitious, but our ambition absolutely needs and absolutely requires independence. In Scotland's future, we outlined our blueprint for achieving universal childcare in Scotland. I think that Kezia Dugdale outlined it, but I think that because they are so good at those provisions, it requires and necessitates further expansion on that. In our first budget, we will commit £100 million to extend 600 hours of childcare to nearly half of Scotland's two-year-olds. By end of that first Parliament, those vulnerable two-year-olds and all three and four-year-olds will be entitled to 1,140 hours of childcare, which is broadly the same number of hours as provided in primary school. To achieve that, we will invest a further £600 million. In the long term, we will provide 1,140 hours to all children in Scotland from age 1 to starting school, and when fully implemented, around 240,000 children and 212,000 families will benefit. The transformational change of our childcare policy would improve care and learning for young children. It would boost economic growth and remove a major barrier to work for many parents, especially women. Indeed, the OECD and the EU have stressed the importance of childcare in removing barriers to female labour market participation. Achieving all this will be one of the major gains of independence and the experts agree with that premise. Professor Sir Donald Mackay—you may laugh, but if they want to listen and learn, they should listen to what I am going to say. Professor Sir Donald Mackay, an economic adviser to previous secretaries of state for Scotland, said in written evidence to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee that no financially responsible Scottish Government would dare to implement the childcare proposals under the fixed block grant funding of devolution, unless they were prepared to take an axe to existing programmes. Bronwyn Cohen, the former chief executive of children in Scotland, noted the difficulties in transforming childcare without independence because of split responsibilities and policies. Moreover, our plans for childcare have been widely welcomed, with experts recognising the potential that our proposals have for improving the lives of children and families right across Scotland. I want to quote Jackie Brock, the current chief executive of children in Scotland, who said, that the white paper proposals by the Scottish Government are really exciting. We call them a game changer. It is a real pity, despite the enthusiasm over our ambitions for childcare, that Labour persists with this negativity. On the point of negativity, perhaps I will let Neil Bibby come in. You have talked a lot about the childcare policies in the white paper. Can you tell us what the total cost of the policy is? Can you tell us how you are going to pay for it? I am always listening to the cabinet secretary, and independence is the answer. We have outlined our first phases of childcare. We are proud to stand by. I am going to speak some more about the costings and some of the attacks that the Labour Party has put on to our childcare proposals. Perhaps, if they want to calm down and listen, they will learn some more. Given the progress that we have made— Mr Bibby, will you stop shouting at the minister across the chamber? Given the progress that we have made on childcare and our ambitions to do even more, we will absolutely reject Ms Dugdale's motion this evening. However, let there be no doubt that our childcare plans would boost female participation rates and the economy. The European Commission, the OECD and various experts all agree on that. A European Commission report from 2009, based on a study of 30 countries concluded that the empirical studies of the relationship between childcare costs and labour force participation are consistent with that prediction. When costs go down, labour force participation goes up, especially among mothers. The SPICE briefing, which was published on 3 April, states on page 25 that there are currently 64,000 economically inactive women in Scotland with children, aged 1 to 5. The second and third of the Scottish Government's model scenarios requires 68 inactive women to enter the workforce. However, the very next sentence on page 26 states, in order to achieve the model scenarios, the policy would need to influence the labour market decisions of a larger group of women, which could include women who do not currently have children or have children under, aged under 1 or over five years, and future groups of women either before or when they have children, which could extend the timescales of the impact. In other words, SPICE recognises that the policy operates over more than one year and that women who re-enter the labour market as a result of free childcare stay in the labour market, even when their children get older. Without the help that we propose, too many never come back into the labour market. The point is made in the Scottish Government analysis, which was published on 12 January, which noted that such an expansion is a model to take place over a number of years. However, the impacts of such a policy on output and taxation will build over time. SPICE recognise that every year, around 55,000 children are born in Scotland and their mothers will benefit year on year. I want to turn to the points raised by Kezia Dugdale this morning in her press release about our proposals. For her and her party's information, I want to point to the robust evidence and analysis on what our childcare policy is premised, grown up in Scotland, and an international review of early learning and childcare policy, delivery and funding. In addition, our policy takes account of the OECD's starting strong work, which highlights the best type of childcare system and the effective provision of preschool, primary and secondary education study. In contrast, let's take a look at Labour's recent performance on childcare. At the start of this year, Kezia Dugdale and her leader, who is in the chamber this morning, commenting on what their spending preferences would be for the consequentials, said that they would invest in childcare helping 10,000 vulnerable children. Despite us pledging to help over 15,000 children from August next year, Labour voted against those proposals. On 7 January, when the challenge to say what she would cut to pay her childcare pledges, she suggested removing funding from small businesses. The very next day, Kezia Dugdale's party colleague Patricia Ferguson confirmed on Politics Scotland that Labour would certainly consider that. Yet, when John Swinney said that Kezia wanted us to increase business rates for companies within Scotland on question time on 23 January, Kezia protested. That's not true, it's not true. Kezia Dugdale is getting quite a reputation for saying one thing in public and another thing in public. Labour today and Kezia Dugdale in particular have made a big play of Spice's commentary on our proposals. We too have a spice to analyse Labour's proposals for 25 hours of childcare. Given what Ms Dugdale said this morning about not creating policy on the back of a fag packet, you can imagine my surprise and my astonishment to read Spice's conclusions on Labour's policy proposals. I quote, Labour Party researchers have indicated that they are still in the process of deciding the policy details and funding, still in the process of deciding the people and the funding. I didn't realise that Kezia Dugdale's fag packet was in the last minute, Ms Dugdale. Of all parties' policies, my goodness. In response to Labour's calls to work together, I totally subscribe to that, but I say that with a feeling of deja vu and that I totally subscribe to it when Labour leader Joanne Lamont made that call over a year ago, which fell completely short on any substance. Our children's futures demand that we can put aside differences and embrace the knowledge and expertise that can be found on these benches and beyond the party boundaries. As you draw to a close, please. In response to Labour's calls today and echoing what I said one year ago, that is exactly why I work alongside Malcolm Chisholm and Willie Rennie on our task scores, recognising that, despite the differences, we can put aside political differences and work towards the best interests of our children. I think that we should also welcome— No, no, no, no, no. No further mores, thank you. The First Party approached the childcare in Scotland. So, Presiding Officer, we will work with others who want to, as we regret, though, that Labour's continual negativity shows that they do not have the interests that we have in children's lives. That is fine. Thank you. Now, Colin, Willie Rennie, to speak to and move amendment 10131.1. Mr Rennie, you have six minutes no more, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Before I forget, I move the amendment in my name. I am pleased to have the opportunity today to discuss childcare in Scotland once again. Members across the chamber will know that Liberal Democrats' ambition on nursery education, and thanks to our pressure and that of many others in this chamber, thousands of two-year-old children will get 15 hours of nursery education each week from 1 August. That is alongside the expansion in childcare for three and four-year-olds to match the provision in England. The SNP said that such a provision would not be possible without the powers of independence, but yet it is being delivered under devolution. However, I participate today in this debate with a certain degree of sadness and sorrow. Let me be clear that the ambition on childcare in the white paper is admirable. I doubt that there will be any disagreement in the chamber that we support such an ambition. All people in this chamber would support that aspiration, that ability to give children a great start in life. However, we know simply that the sums do not add up. It is fine to have aspirations, but the sums do need to add up. I have to say that the minister needs a better answer than when she was asked by Kezia Dugdale about whether that could be afforded. The answer that, because the cabinet secretary told us so, is simply not enough. We need something much more substantial than that. £700 million is what the Scottish Government says that it will cost to implement stage 1 and stage 2 of their childcare plan. That is providing by the end of the first Parliament 1,140 hours of childcare a year to all three and four-year-olds and vulnerable two-year-olds, 48 per cent of two-year-olds. Underpinning the whole policy is the argument that an increase in female participation in the workforce would see a significant increase in both direct and indirect tax receipts. The Government's weak analysis suggests that increasing the female labour market participation rate by six per cent to Scandinavian levels could benefit Scotland's economy by £2.2 billion and increase tax by £700 million. However, there is no detail on the estimates of the component tax revenue streams that contribute to the £700 million. No. I know that the minister will say that there is one illustrative example, but that is not sufficient. We cannot trust the Government on the analysis because it will not release the workings. We do not have the full picture. I have tabled numerous parliamentary questions asking for further information on costings of the plan set out in the white paper, but not one of those has provided any additional detail. The Council of Economic Advisers, I am told, has considered the economic and social importance of improving childcare provision, but there will be no full report on its findings. Instead, the analysis informing the council's deliberations will be reflected in the annual chairs report. I look forward to seeing whether there is further detail available in that. It is not just tax receipts that do not add up either. Thanks to the research carried out by Spice, which we have heard about today, I am not going to take an intervention. We know that a 6 per cent rise in the female workforce is equivalent to around 104,000 women moving into work. However, in 2011, there were only 15,000 women of working age with children aged one to five who said that they were looking for work. 64,000 were inactive, with the majority of those sighting looking after a family has been the reason for not working. Only 14,000 of those said that they would like to work. Put simply, there are not enough women of working age with children to fulfil the SNP's childcare plan. The fact is that the SNP and the Scottish Government could act now to improve childcare that we offer in Scotland. Thanks to the UK's budget and the improving economic conditions, the Scottish Government now has the money—now it has got it at its very minute—to implement the same childcare package as England in full now. That would mean 40 per cent of two-year-olds receiving free nursery education from this autumn, not the figure that we currently have. I welcome the figure, but we are not even matching what England is doing. I agree with some of the Government's amendment, especially the importance of cross-party work on the issue and of the value of the partnership commission for childcare reform as part of the children in Scotland's childcare alliance. However, the SNP has played fast and loose on nursery education for too long. First, it held back on action to offer a carrot for independence, and now it exaggerates the numbers to make the case for independence. I genuinely understand the passion for independence, but it must not allow it to emasculate this important area of public policy. The future of our children is more important than their passion for independence. I am pleased that the Labour Party motion acknowledges the continuing importance of the issue, and we will support its motion today. Education can never be taken away no matter what happens to a person. A solid education gives them skills to fall back on, and a pride in their achievements cannot be taken away. Education stands alone in that enduring opportunity, and we should do everything that we can to make sure that every child in Scotland benefits from it. Mary Scanlon, up to six minutes, we have made time for time today. I think that it was rich for the minister to tell the Labour Party to listen and learn when today it is debating its white paper flagship policy with a huge absence in the ranks of the SNP. I am glad that the Labour Party has selected childcare for debate this afternoon. It is your flagship policy, Mr Russell. All parties in the chamber recognise that we have to go further, both in terms of the hours provided and in terms of extending eligibility. For example, the issue of birthday discrimination, which my colleague Liz Smith will come back to in her contribution this afternoon. Quite recently, on the Education Committee, we discussed conducted hearings on Scotland's educational and cultural future relating to the Government's white paper. During the final evidence session, we discussed childcare, and rightly so, with the cabinet secretary. Mr Russell gave a typically modest performance, which included the following statement. It is wrong to try and deconstruct it, meaning the white paper childcare policy, and undermine it by taking a figure from here and a figure from there and saying that you have not worked it out. I did think that that was quite an extraordinary statement. First, to question the financial assumptions behind the policy is not an exercise of deconstruction, it is an exercise of parliamentary scrutiny. As the Labour motion makes clear, the Scottish Parliament's own information centre recently published a fool and a rather devastating brief on the white paper plans, so a spice guilty of deconstruction too. Perhaps I could go a step further and ask us freedom of speech no longer accepted by this Government. Secondly, there are very good reasons to conclude that, as far as this policy is concerned, the Scottish Government has not got its sums right. Notwithstanding the fact that the project is 6% rising of female employment is purely illustrative, as the journalist Tom Gordon and many others have pointed out, and is in no way related to the specific proposals outlined in the white paper. Others have mentioned today for female employment to reach Swedish levels, 104,000 presently inactive mothers would have to enter the workforce, and a spice have concluded that there are 64,000 women in the category and only 14,000 indicated they would enter employment. The economic modelling for this policy cannot have taken place, otherwise we would not be here today debating this issue and asking for information. However, it is a crucial point because, as the cabinet secretary said to the committee, the childcare policy, particularly the third phase of the plan, will be funded via taxation. However, if there are not enough women able or indeed willing to enter the workforce, this raises questions about the proposal's affordability. Spice have estimated that the third phase would cost £1.2 million, could rise to £1.5 billion, if costs continue to grow. To generate that kind of figure from increased workforce taxation alone, it is estimated that we would need to see a 10 per cent rise in employment rates, which is extremely substantial advance in what would be a relatively short time frame. A further point relates to the nature of work that the mothers are anticipated to be doing, as Kezia Dugdale raised that point. However, in a press release issued the day after the white paper was published, the Scottish Government indicated that the projected 35,000 additional childcare jobs will be, and I quote, mainly for women. However, we all know, and in my case, from my family's experience, those who work in the nursery sector are low paid, mainly on a minimum wage and many on zero hours contract. At this point, I would like to add that they are much more highly trained and qualified than they were a decade ago. They are all registered with the Scottish Social Services Council, and I think that in a debate such as today we should all put on the record how much we value everyone who works in childcare, and it's not just about education. The great thing about childcare is identifying any development needs a child has at the earliest stage so that they can be corrected pre-school rather than post-school. However, I very much welcome Professor Sir Adger's review of the early years workforce, unless conditions are radically altered, then many part-time workers in the sector will not earn enough to go beyond the personal allowance. Since the coalition Government came to power, that has increased year on year and is now over £10,000, overall the increase in the personal allowance has taken over 200,000 of the lowest earners in Scotland out of income tax altogether. Moreover, it's assumed that the earning potential of these presently economic inactive mothers will be roughly equivalent to those in work. I'm running out of time, but I would just say that it's not solely the absence of childcare that's holding women back, it's also better access that's needed to education. I'm almost finished. Just finally, Presiding Officer, we know that the Scottish Government has not directly modelled the impact of improved childcare. There is public interest in doing so and I hope that the information commissioner will do what she did in terms of the legal advice for Scotland entering the European Union and take this Government to the high court in order to give this information, if necessary. Thanks very much. We now move to open debate. Collin George-Anne will be followed by Malcolm Chisholm up to six minutes, please. Less would be more. Thank you Presiding Officer, and thank you for that subtle hint there as well. I'm always happy to talk about childcare, Presiding Officer, in the chamber. We've talked about it quite a lot and I can see the transformational change that it can make to constituencies like my own when we look at the Scottish Government's plan. Perhaps I'm even more focused at the moment and I should possibly declare an interest at this stage because, since we actually started talking about childcare, my daughter Jessica and her partner John are now expecting their first baby, so I will probably be looking at this with a lot more detail because they are obviously going to be dealing with that in the future as well. That focuses me from the point of view of what future do I want for my grandchild? We're sitting at a stage here where we'll get two futures again and what can a country do I want my grandchild to grow up in. We do want Scotland to be the best country to grow up in and I think that independence is the only way that we're going to give that opportunity to children and families like our own in order to make the difference that that transformational change into our nation's future. The Scottish Government's policy on childcare on independence Scotland can and will make that type of difference. Now, this is also backed by a lot of the experts, like already mentioned by the Minister Jackie Brock, the chief executive of Children's Scotland, stated that this demonstrates that it is undeniable that the quality early education and care has advantages for every child but is especially important as one measures to eliminate Scotland's inequalities in educational attainment. Now, I believe that the quality childcare this will make a difference from the point of view is that I look at it from my own constituency. We have difficulties like other constituencies have. I've said often in this chamber that I don't doubt for a moment anyone's passions, anyone's beliefs and why they got involved in politics to try and change things but my area, we've got an area in Fergusley park where it's just been an area of multiple deprivation for decades and it's been, I would say and I've said before that I believe that constantly thinking about the edges that the union has done over the decades has not made any difference in places like Fergusley park. We need the type of transformational change that independence and the full levers of power that offers us that can make a difference to young people and children and families in areas like that because people in my constituency are fed up hearing the same old tired arguments from the unionist. They're fed up hearing that we can't make a difference you know and the same argument goes from one election to the other, Labour, Tory, back and forward, one more push for Labour and it'll make a difference. Never made a difference in the past, won't make a difference in the future. The difference we have to do is we have to just start from the beginning and look at how we can build the type of future and this offers that opportunity. You know what I say, the aspirations we have for Scotland is that we can make it the best country for our children to grow up. Let's go down that route, let's move away from all the petty. You know Pantel Seasin almost came early when I was listening to Ms Dugdale earlier on because it was full of cliches and lack of vision. We have to look at how we can actually promote the future for Scotland and move away from the petty bickering that the public quite clearly are just fed up with and I think we have to look at the debate and do it in a mature way. We have to sit here and look at the issues and say how are we going to make things better and just as I said mature Mr Bibby get up so here we go. Neil Bibby. We have to look at it in a mature way and people want substance and facts. Will George Adam support our call for the Scottish Government to publish all relevant cost things and economic modelling on the childcare policy? George Adam. Presiding Officer, substance and fact, substance and fact is something that does not go with Mr Bibby in any shape or form. You know they should start looking at their own policies which they actually recently announced. I think it was called together we can document which the Spice paper actually said that the proposals from Labour do not outline the anticipated impact on female participation in the workforce and so the supporting background information also does not show the likely scale of impact of female participation. So they have a cheek to come here Presiding Officer and lecture us when they have no plans and no ideas for the future. So I will say you know I would make an appeal to everyone in the Labour Party again to be positive, to actually work with us, let's work together, let's ensure that we can actually make this difference because I don't doubt that there's good minded people in all the benches round here that want to make that difference but I'm not seeing it here in the chamber when we debate it. I don't want to sit here for two and a half hours and debate and talk about strategy and ideals and what we're going to do. I want to create the policy, enforce the policy and then make a transformational change in Scotland. That's what responsibility of independence is and that's what the difference is that our ideals would actually show for Scotland. Now you know the aspirations that we have, we have to look at you know surely we're a bit better than constantly just going back in this bickering here at this stage. The Scottish Government has printed a white paper in Scotland's future. They've shown the way quite clearly how we can make that forward and promote that. I have still to this minute to hear anything positive or any future if we remain within the union. I plead with the unionist parties within here. Will they actually show us if they want to remain in the union so much, what is their future for childcare? What will they do for young people and families in Scotland? We've not heard it yet and, Presiding Officer, I can guarantee you we won't hear it in the future. So in closing, Presiding Officer, I think we have to be aspirational, we have to be bold, we have to support the ideals that the Scottish Government are putting forward and let's all work together so that we are not standing here in 10 years' time and wondering why we still have problems with child poverty. Many thanks for your brevity. Now Colin Malcolm Chisholm to be followed by Joan McAlpine. Gillian Campbell said at the end of her speech that we can work together on this agenda and, of course, this is exactly what is at the heart of Kezia Dugdale's Boatium today, where she's calling for a childcare commission, which will develop a long-term vision for childcare and she uses the word consensus. So that is absolutely central to what is being proposed today. There has been a great deal of progress on the early years agenda, particularly with reference to child development, and that's been the particular focus of the early years task force, of which I've been glad to be a member, but obviously there's a wider childcare agenda as well, which is to do with parental employment, gender equality and childcare as a weapon against poverty, and that is something, of course, that we would like the commission to take up as well. Now, what I deeply regret in this whole debate about childcare is an area that did have a great deal of co-operation and agreement, obviously differences. We pushed a lot on more for two-year-olds and to some extent the Government responded to that, but there was a lot of common ground and that all ended on the day that the white paper was published, and I deeply regret that as someone who has had a passionate concern for childcare for over 20 years, because since then we've seen the hijacking of childcare for misleading constitutional debating points and spurious referendum points going. Now, of course, it's particularly galling that the First Minister never had any interest in 27 years in Parliament on this subject. Suddenly, when he saw the gender gap in the referendum polling, suddenly childcare was thrust to the fore, and I deeply regret that. Now, there are at least three fundamental problems with what the white paper is arguing on childcare. As a general proposition, of course, it's true that if more people go into work, you get more revenues, and under Labour's proposals for greatly enhanced fiscal devolution, more of that revenue will be kept in Scotland, so there are great incentives there, of course, to increase employment. However, of course, it would not work like that in independence because we know that, firstly, we would have to have those upfront costs of £700 million in the First Parliament of an independent Scotland, upfront costs, and all the independent experts are saying that the fiscal position in the first two years of an independent Scotland would be more difficult and more bleak than our current fiscal situation, so it's easier to put in the childcare investment now than it would be in 2016 in an independent Scotland. However, of course, the fundamental deception—and this has been talked about by several speakers already—is about the employment effects and the revenue effects of what is proposed. On 12 January, paper is particularly deceptive in that regard because it paints a Swedish model, a 6 per cent increase in the labour force, £700 million in revenue, but what the Scottish Government is proposing in the White Paper is not the Swedish model of childcare. The Swedish model is based on achieving full-time employment. There is nothing in the White Paper about after-school care, and even, of course, the under-fives does not allow for full-time employment. As we know from the SPICE paper, even if it was proposing something more like a Swedish model, the numbers simply do not add up. For that Swedish level of employment, there would be 104,000. That has been much quoted, but it is really the heart of what we are saying. 104,000 additional women with children under five would go into the workforce. There is only 64,000 in that position, and SPICE estimates that only 14,000 of them want to go into employment because quite a lot of parents, particularly mothers with children under five, want to delay that. That is the deception that is at the heart of what we are being presented with in the White Paper. We are told that suddenly all this would be possible, and I am actually arguing that it is more possible now than it would be in the first term of an independent Scotland. Of course, if those policies were implemented, there would not be advantages. Of course, there would be child development advantages and advantages for many parents currently working who might be able to have more free care rather than informal care or paid care. I am sure that we would support those policies. A lot of what we are proposing is quite similar to that in terms of provision for under-fives and so on, but it would not have those dramatic employment effects, which is the heart of the argument that the SNP is putting forward as part of its referendum campaigning. One obvious way to improve what is proposed then would be to build in after-school care. That is something that we are arguing for now. We are saying that we want to have after-school care as central to our childcare policies, and it is in our current policy document. That is a big issue to return now to the present. In my constituency, now there are simply not enough places for after-school care, and that is absolutely fundamental for parental employment. A particular issue in Edinburgh, of course, is that there is no building capacity for that. I know that North Edinburgh childcare, which I always mention in childcare debates, does a lot of after-school care in school buildings, and now it is under pressure to move out of those buildings because there is no space in the schools for the expanding role. A big issue is about after-school care. Let us address them. Another feature that we have highlighted in our policy document is investing in the childcare workforce. That is absolutely fundamental, but again, I hear this from North Edinburgh childcare, who has a brilliant childcare academy, which has won awards. They have particular problems now because they cannot train those 24 and over, as they used to, because skilled development Scotland is only putting in the money for those who are under 24. It is worth doing that, but not to the exclusion of the older people. Let us address the problems that we face now. Finally, in the last few seconds of affordability, clearly we regret the UK Government producing the childcare tax-tread element to 70 per cent, but there are still possibilities for subsidy from the Scottish Government now. Again, North Edinburgh childcare has benefited for that, and save the children are suggesting for children in deprived areas. Let's put money there now to help the anti-poverty effect of childcare, which is there among all the other advantages. Thank you very much. Listening to some of the Labour contributions, I found myself throwing back to my university days, so a long while back when I studied social history and labour history. I couldn't help thinking about the founding fathers of the Labour Party and how they would have approached this. They were inspired by a vision, and they set about realising that vision. Today, Labour is crippled with an obsession with process and point scoring. I am just so glad that Kezia Dugdale was not around to tell Tom Johnson that he could not electrify the Highlands because he had not modelled it properly, or that John Wheatley could not build social housing because he had not got the numbers right or that Nye Bevan could not start the NHS because he had to prove how it would pay for itself? Yes, I will. If she recognises that neither Tom Johnson nor Nye Bevan misled the Scottish people on the cost of electrification nor the costs of their welfare estate. John McAlpine? I think that the word misleading is... I will hope that people will withdraw that, because I think that that is extremely inappropriate. I think that we can do without the word misleading in future. I think that we can call these Labour founding fathers to see what they would have made about the lack of ambition in the present-day Scottish Labour Party. However, who we have heard from are people like Dr Jim McCormack, who is an adviser to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, who was giving evidence last month to committee. I asked if a transformative approach to early years, if he agreed with me that that was a single most significant thing that we can do to close the attainment gap that currently sets in before the age of five in wideness as a child grows up. Dr McCormack agreed with that, and he said that he looked at both yes and no and the challenges of yes and no outcomes in the referendum. He said that if there was a no vote, there would need to be substantial devolution of tax credit powers so that we had the revenue that would allow us to make up for some of the income tax that we did not have. We know from Labour's devolution commission that not only a tiny proportion of income tax is being devolved, but there is certainly no plan to devolve tax credits or any other form of welfare. Dr McCormack went on to consider the situation after a yes vote. He said that the fact that transforming childcare has been the number one social policy issue of the year so far must bode well for the kind of political space that we might find ourselves in. I was particularly interested in Dr James McCormack's remarks because I am old enough to remember him in a past life when he, back in 1996, authored an article in the Institute of Public Policy Research called The State and the Nations. That article is widely considered to be the first draft of the Scotland act. Of course, Ms Alexander went on to work for Donald Dure and to help him draft that Scotland act. Mr McCormack and Ms Alexander were the bright young things of their day. In their day back in the 1990s, they did have ambition for the people of Scotland. However, they looked at the bright young things such as Kezia Dugdale on the front bench and compared them to those people back then. They do not seem to have made a great deal of progress. Mr McCormack seems to have got more radical as he has got older and he showed himself to have moved with the times, whereas Labour seemed to be stuck back in the 1990s, unable to radically develop devolution in any meaningful way. However, it is not just Mr McCormack who has grasped the opportunity of the transformative nature of a Nordic-style childcare system. Back in 2012, none other than Ed Miliband had his bargain moment. In a speech to The Sutton Trust, he said, if you are born poor in a more equal society such as Finland, Norway or Denmark, you have a better chance of moving into a good job than if you are born in the USA. If you want the American dream to move to Finland, when I sit in both the education committee and the economy committee when we have been looking at this particular subject, post-independence, all I hear is how it is not affordable and how it can be done. Mr Bibby in particular in committee has been telling us that we shouldn't aspire to Nordic levels of childcare because it is unaffordable. I would contrast that with the comments of Jackie Brock from Children in Scotland, who was asked in the education committee, no thank you, I am running out of time, by Mr Bibby. She was more or less invited to trash the white paper. Jackie Brock said, greater support from government has been a significant milestone for those of us in the childcare sector. I would ask the Labour front bench to draw inspiration from the past and from the people who had vision and set about realising their vision and did not get bogged down with point-scoring. Kezia Dugdale has said that her party has not lost its ambition with regard to childcare, but by constantly attacking the ambitious proposals in the white paper she just exposes that as a lot of nonsense. She talked about the need for a route map and coming together. We have a route map. This is the route map. This is our vision for the future. This is the vision that we are going to realise. You have no route map, you have no ideas, and you have no vision. I am pleased to speak in today's debate as it gives me the opportunity to return once more to something that underpins the wellbeing and potential of children across Scotland, the issues of early learning and childcare. For this is an issue that does not go away, and the issue will only become more acute with the Institute of Financial Services predicting a significant rise in child poverty in Scotland by 2020. The issue has also not gone away for those parents and carers who on a daily basis have to juggle the challenges, responsibilities and commitments of family life, part of which is to ensure that they have access to good quality reliable childcare, and until that is delivered, it cannot go away as an issue for all of us in this chamber. As anyone who has brought up children will know, when you are looking at options for childcare, it is not just the cost that matters. Families have to build their childcare around their own working patterns and the availability of nurseries, childminders or day care in the local area. Crucially, and something that has been missed in current debates, is that we must also consider wraparound care for school-age children. If you have more than one child, there can be further complications with getting them where they need to be, and that all adds time to the working day. A nursery or childcare provider whose hours do not match the requirements of the main carers, whether through working patterns or other reasons, will be of no use at all, no matter how high quality or affordable is the provision. I know from listening to parents that childcare options sometimes have to be decided around what is available, be that friends, family, voluntary, private or public sector provision, rather than what is perhaps best suited to the child or family's circumstances. If you ask any parent or carer who is in employment, there will be a long list of childcare options that are turned to, depending on the circumstances. The childminders who take the children to and from school nursery, or the day care centre, or combinations of all of those, or speaking from experience, the emergency phone call to granny to step in when other options are exhausted, flexibility and true quality childcare can tackle significant inequalities in development and at the same time support working parents. From many families, the list of options may be limited due to financial or other circumstances, which is why it is so vital that the childcare provision of Scotland in the future is affordable and flexible to meet the needs of all parents and carers. As we all know, it is over three months since the Children and Young People's Bill was passed by the Scottish Parliament. It is a bill that offers some real positives for young people, and yet, as other colleagues have already pointed out, it remains a bill about which some very large financial question marks loom. Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of opposition parties of the finance committee and external bodies in the third sector, there do remain a number of question marks over the costs of the childcare commitments outlined by the Scottish Government. It is not just in childcare whether, through the absence of financial modelling data or the lack of update on the revised capital costs in the financial memorandum, which has still been awaited by the committee, there are other question marks over the financial implications of the Children and Young People Bill. I have raised before my concerns about the delay in publication of the financial review of kinship care. The Scottish Government has promised to publish the findings of the kinship care financial review by the end of 2013. That was crucial to offer some security to kinship carers, who provide a vital role in caring for their children, and yet we are still awaiting for the publication of that review. I hope that we can hear some indication from the Scottish Government of when the financial review will be published, for kinship carers play an essential part in providing love, care and security for so many of Scotland's children. We need to make sure that we are not forgetting the need to make security's vital foundations before building on the basic blocks of family life with other early learning and childcare opportunities. What is also clear is that the quality of childcare is of fundamental importance. The new definition of early learning on childcare as set out in the bill is to be welcomed as it recognises the crucial educational aspects of looking after children. I have previously raised the issue of opportunities for all children and the impact a good quality start can have on their life chances in other debates. That point is all the more stark today as we hear from Saitha children that one quarter of all children live in families in relative poverty. Three quarters of these children are under 11. Those children are at greater risk of poverty than any other section of society, and that is damning. Although there is no silver bullet, we must come together to ensure that quality, flexible and affordable childcare offers children a route away from their persistently poor situations. Then, as now, it is absolutely vital to remember that access to opportunities for too many children and young people is bound up in a tangled web of poverty-related issues, including housing, food and nutrition, access to transport and opportunities of play, all of which impact on their health, their education, their interaction with their peers and their educational attainment. Saitha children have shown that children living in poverty are twice as likely to be born under weight, three times more likely to have food diets, nearly four times as likely to have access to nutritious food, five times more likely to live in poor quality housing and seven times more likely to live in households in fuel poverty, and the education gap starts to open up long before school even begins. The end result is that children growing up in poverty finish school with significantly lower levels of attainment, limiting their opportunities throughout life. As much as a single change can begin to make a difference, providing flexible and quality childcare is that change. Our long-term vision for childcare in Scotland must also tackle such crucial issues. It is a long-term vision that is in danger of being cynically used as a carrot for those pushing constitutional arguments without the facts and figures to support any proposals. Whatever the outcome of the referendum in September, the need for high-quality childcare will remain. It is an issue that we all know as well within the powers of this Parliament to consider now and in the future, and we do not need independence to improve the lives of Scotland's children. Many thanks. Thank you very much. I begin by congratulating my friend George Adam on his impending status as a grandparent. I can also say to Mary Scanlon that she is going to reduce the SNP for its turnout today. It might have been an idea to cast her back with glance first just to check her own party's dismal attendance today. However, I welcome the chance to debate the provision of childcare in Scotland. This is an issue that I care about very deeply. I believe that that is shared across the board. I am not going to question anyone's motivation for supporting the issue. I am informed by my own experience of father of two children who have spoken of my own good fortune to be able to secure first-rate childcare for them before. I have previously been able to speak of the work that I have undertaken with Save the Children in those matters. I previously hosted a number of parents from across the country of struggle to access childcare. Many were young, single parents, young women with aspirations for themselves and their children. They wanted to go to college to secure those qualifications. They needed to get the work that they wanted to support their family. Too many were unable to do so. The question is how best to ensure that we provide childcare to those in that position in the future. I have mentioned Save the Children. It is appropriate that we have this debate today in another way, because this is the day that they have released a fair start for every child, which is a study of the impact of poverty on children who are poor. I could perhaps also mention in passing that the Child Poverty Action Group reminded us earlier today that the numbers of children in poverty are set to increase by 100,000 in Scotland by 2020 as a result of UK Government's tax and benefit changes. It reminds us of that at the finance committee earlier today. I want to quote from a fair start for every child. It says, young children growing up in disadvantaged families are less likely to participate in formal preschool care, which is designed to provide children with a high quality early years learning environment where they can learn skills that will keep them in their later school careers. Many families cannot afford to send their children to preschool because of the cost relative to household income. It goes on to say that parents serving by one poll for this report repeatedly cited childcare costs as a reason for reducing expenditure and other goods for getting into debt and reducing the hours that they work. It is understandable that Save the Children said to me in an email today that investing in additional state subsidised services is critical and that one of the demands of a fair start for every child is that every family should have access to high quality and affordable childcare. That is an interesting conclusion. That is exactly what the Scottish Government wants to deliver with the powers of independence. I know that he does not support independence, but I thought that it was very welcome that Willie Rennie said that he supports the ambition that is set out for childcare. In the white paper that I do, two he felt everyone in the chamber would support this ambition. I am reminded of the exchange with Glen Campbell that Johann Lamont had when Glen Campbell answered, do you support the idea that John Swinney has of equal access for all to any additional free childcare? Johann Lamont answered, no. Unfortunately, it is not an ambition that is shared across the chamber. I support those proposals because they will help with the burden of costs. Parents in the UK spend around 27 per cent of household income in childcare in contrast to families in Denmark and Sweden paying 9 per cent and 5 per cent respectively due to higher levels of state investment. In childcare, it will help to ensure that young children get the chance to have the best start and that life will help to boost participation in the workplace. We know that many countries in the OECD, such as the East, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Canada and Finland and New Zealand have higher female activity rates than Scotland. As all Scotland is in a slightly better position than the UK as a whole. We know that the OECD has said that financial support for public and private childcare providers and parents reduce a key barrier to employment participation for many parents with young children. The European Commission has said that empirical studies of the relationship between childcare costs and labour force participation are consistent with that prediction. When costs go down, labour force participation goes up, especially among mothers. Even the spice paper that some are using as having reduced the Scottish Government's policy states that studies find that an increase in subsidised childcare is associated with an increase in mothers employment. However, we do need independence to achieve this. Willi Rennie says that he understands the passion for independence on the SNP benchants. What I think he and many others in this chamber who oppose independence do understand why we are passionate about independence. We do not believe in independence as an end in itself. We believe in the power of independence to deliver for people in Scotland so that we can deliver policies such as universal childcare. I will come to close, Presiding Officer, because the reason that we need independence is that, while it is estimated that an increase in receipts from the four main taxes collected in Scotland by 1 per cent and getting people into work and reducing core wealth by 1 per cent would boost public finance by £350 million, even under the powers of the Scotland Act. Only around £45 million of that would accrue directly to the Scottish Government. We would not be able to invest that back into childcare. I will not provide the whole quote, but I thought that the point that Donald Mackay made in terms of no Scottish Government being able to dare to implement this policy under the limits of devolution was a ceiling when I can't understand why Malcolm Chisholm and others in the Labour Party do not understand this. It is only with independence that we can deliver this policy. I want to declare an interest in this debate on a personal level. I have pepper pig yogurts in my fridge. I know the stories of the tiger who came to tea and how to hide a line back to front. My TV is set to see BBs, Katie Morag, I am an ad hoc member or a conscript to that group known as grannies. Notice that I am a granny, not we are a grandmother. We contribute largely to free childcare. I thought that it is important to put that on record for all the grannies, grandas and grain ants and whatnot that do this. To the motion, obviously everyone subscribes to putting childcare at the very heart and the very centre of any Government's policies. This Scottish Government has delivered beyond those of the first eight years of this Parliament, Labour and Liberal, where in power and money was flowing pretty freely from Westminster. That has not been happening as we know for some time now. Everybody in this chamber knows that this Government works on a fixed budget. We also know that in every portfolio through education, through to justice, through to health, about 80 per cent of that budget is fixed. It pays for staff, it pays for transport, it pays for building, it pays for heating costs, so there is a very small sliver at the top that can be reallocated. That is the rub. Because when Labour asks for additional childcare, you have to ask, where is the money coming from? That is a fair question, because we all know that it has to come from somewhere. Kezia Dugdale said on Scotland Tonight in the 7th of January that she was asked where are the cuts coming from to fund the childcare plan because we have to have them, because it is not floating about spare. She said, we found the money, we think the money is there. Rona Dugdale said, where is it? Kezia Dugdale, the SAP do not think that it is because they spent it already on small business rates relief. When, later on, Stuart Maxwell, my friend and he and colleague for the moment, asked Patricia Ferguson so that he would cut the small business bonus, Patricia Ferguson said that we would certainly consider that. Let us be straight talking. If you are going to put extra money to childcare, which we all want, somebody is going to have their budget cut out of that little 20 per cent of the top that can be moved around. As for releasing women into workplace, Labour's spokesman on childcare is Lucy Powell. Enabling women to go back to work, who want to go back to work in the same jobs that they were doing before so that they do not pay that pay and status penalty for the rest of their careers will increase revenues to the exchequer significantly, such over that time it pays for itself. I have a good time. Exactly the principle on which the white paper is operating. I talked about the better times that we had in the first eight years of this session. I do not recognise Willie Rennie's picture of recovery. I am no accountant, but I can understand that the UK's debt is currently running at £1.27 trillion. I can understand that the debt interest bill remains on course at £1 billion a week this year, and it is growing at £5,000 per second. I do not see a good future ahead if we stay part of the UK with that kind of debt hanging round our necks and cuts all route to Scotland. I can see less childcare, cuts to our health service. That is what lies ahead for us. I will then look on at figures, because we are always told that we try to bamboozle with figures. The most recent figures today are telling us, Danny Alexander, that it cost £2.7 billion to set up new government departments immediately disowned and rubbish by Professor Dunleavy, who says that the UK Treasury press release on Scotland's cost of government badly misrepresents LSE research. The Treasury figures are bizarrely inaccurate. I do not see why the Scottish Government could not do this for a very small amount of money. There is jiggery pokery from the Treasury. There is jiggery pokery from the Opposition benches. When I am telling my granddaughter these stories, I will add to my list a new story book, which I think I will write myself for bedtime reading. I am going to call it Better Together's Funny Money Tree. That is a fable, and that is just my working title. Thank you very much. A bit like Jamie Hepburn, I thought that today's report on poverty from save the children could not be more timely in emphasising the importance of good quality affordable and available childcare. Its stark warning on alarming rises in child poverty across Scotland is accompanied by a direct call. In fact, save the children's first recommendation for policy makers to minimise the impact of childcare costs on household budgets. The statistics that accompany the report reveal what most of us, as parents, will know only too well. The cost of a nursery place for a child over two in Scotland rose by 31 per cent between 2009 and 2014 and by 26 per cent for a child under two in the same period. Yet, at the same time that families are struggling to even find suitable childcare, let alone pay for it, there is ever more abundant evidence about the benefits of good quality care for both parents and children. I thought that Bernard is, for example, one of the organisations promoting the importance of attachment. That is an issue that I have followed for some time. Scientific evidence suggests that the link or the interactions or the attachments between very young children and the adults that surround them, be that parents, carers or nursery staff, those links and attachments are of vital importance in supporting the development of those children and can help to avoid problems for those individuals later in life. Bernard is working on this through his five-to-thrive approach, which focuses on creating a common language, a common understanding between parents and childcare staff of how attachment can strengthen the connection with their child. Crucial to the success of the approach, as most members here will realise, is that we have well-trained and committed carers who know that their own job is valued. Unfortunately, unison Scotland recently found that the average salary for a nursery nurse—that is a qualified member of our preschool staff—is £13,361 a year. That is half the UK average wage. We have a dilemma where parents are already in a position where they can barely afford childcare, yet we do not begin to pay the staff anything like what would be expected, for example, in an educational environment. I was talking to a parent just this week who only half jokingly says that she uses the only after-school club available to her as a kind of threat to her children. If they do not behave, she will put them in the after-school care club. I suspect that there are quite a few of us as parents who have suffered similar qualms at dropping off our kids at some childcare establishments. I am conscious that there is a danger in my own contribution of not distinguishing clearly enough between childcare and preschool education, but on the benefits of the latter in particular, colleagues from the Education Committee from the first and second sessions of this session will recall the evidence that we took on the EPI study to give it its full title, the effective provision of preschool education longitudinal study in England. It found that good quality preschool provision, while not eliminating differences in social backgrounds, reduced the disadvantage that children experience from some social groups and reduced social exclusion in later life. In particular, it found a positive effect on attainment in English and on social and emotional abilities. Children who had attended preschool from an earlier age were generally more intellectually able and more sociable with other children. In other words, there is no shortage of evidence to support both the need for childcare and preschool education and on the benefits of that childcare. I believe that there is no shortage of political will either. As several colleagues from the S&P have also pointed out, childcare was one of the earliest substantive debates in this Parliament. Labour and the Liberal Democrats agreed through our making it work together programme for government to put childcare firmly on the policy agenda, and it was an agenda supported by all the parties across the chamber. In successive elections and programmes on government from both my own party and from the S&P, that commitment to childcare has remained sincere and we have made considerable progress. By 2002, we had introduced a statutory right to free early learning for all three and four-year-olds. By 2007, we would increase that to £2,000 a year per child to parents across Scotland. The recent Children and Young People Act pledges to increase that to 600 hours per year. I hope that all of us will see some progress on the implementation of this soon. There is political will in this Parliament for more action. I believe that there could be cross-party support on how we should implement it, and my only regret is that the referendum has eroded that consensus. It is of regret that, instead of using all the means at our disposal to help families now, the Scottish Government is promising radical solutions only if people vote yes. I regret that, instead of working with all parties to find a sustainable way to increase childcare, to improve the quality and flexibility of existing childcare with the powers that we have, we have turned into, as we have heard already, one of those if only we had the powers debates. What worries me most about the, supposedly, transformation of promises being made by the S&P is that, on all the evidence that we have now seen and heard, those promises are based on nothing but assertion and assumption. I suspect that the Sunday Herald had not chosen to take such a firm editorial line. We may have read more of the evidence and the research that was exposed by Tom Gordon. As a step towards rebuilding that consensus, can I support the calls that we have heard today for the minister to publish all the economic modelling to be published so that we can see how those figures have been reached? The outcome of the referendum should have little or no bearing on the agenda. I now call on Clare Adamson to be followed by Alison Johnstone up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The childcare proposals in the white paper have the potential to transform the outcome of women in Scotland, but they are much more than a policy outline and should not be seen in isolation. They are part—an integral and important part—that are part of a vision for Scotland, a vision that absolutely embraces the removing of gender segregation from the workplace, valuing the softer caring roles that women, mainly women, perform in their society. The childcare proposals must be seen in the context of the White Paper's fair work commission, the White Paper's ambition for greater female participation in boardrooms, and, for the first time, addressing the barriers to women's sustaining well-paid career-rich professional lives, as so eloquently outlined in the Royal Society's Tapping All Our Talents. Far from that being new to this Government, it has been at the heart of what it has been doing in the Parliament. The equality statement for the Scottish spending review in 2011 for the 2012 draft budget states, we recognise that equality is an important driver of growth and that inequality detracts from our economic performance and social wellbeing. We make it clear in our economic strategy the importance of increasing participation in the labour market, removing the structural and long-standing barriers that limit the opportunities and harnessing diversity and the wealth of talent that we have available to us as a nation. That is about a new economics, one that challenges traditional thinking in this country. Presiding Officer, I am not suggesting that we throw the economic baby out with the bathwater, but more that we embrace economic theorem that values the work of the person who puts the baby in the bathwater, nurtures the baby, who performs the caring roles so valuable to the economic future of our country. The economists who first opened my eyes to this new thinking were Marilyn Waring, who published in 1988, If Women Counted, which challenged the accepted characteristics of GDP calculation that counted the journey to work as economic activity, but what happened in the home as invisible to that process? It is notable that Finland and Denmark internally used the unpaid work of mainly women in their internal calculations for GDP, and that is maybe why they are so successful in delivering childcare. Marilyn Waring is a great hero of mine not only because of her economic academic work, but because she was fundamental in bringing about a non-euclair legislation for New Zealand. If we are not spending money on bombs, we have more money to spend on what is truly important to the people of Scotland, the future of our children. I mention her today because I know that she had a great influence on Dr Ailsa Mackay, whose academic research and contribution to the economics of Scotland has played such a great contribution in the development of the childcare proposals in the white paper. Indeed, one of her final publications before her untimely sad death was Counting on Marilyn Waring, New Advances in Feminist Economics. Gulley Sensen, Professor of Istanbul University, said of that work, that Counting on Marilyn Waring provides a timely reminder of the politics and economics underpinning what, how and by whom activities and outputs are valued. For those concerned with social justice and sustainable futures, that important and powerful book provides an invaluable practical insight into issues that are in need of greater visibility. Professor MacDonald, we are so much to be thankful for the work of Professor Ailsa Mackay. Indeed, in her address to the EIS, she stated that the current economic crisis is therefore a turning point, a time for reflection, a time for challenging the norm and taking nothing for granted. I think that she had the ambitions that were so eloquently spoken of by Ms McAlpine when she was talking about the vision and ambition of previous leaders in the Labour Party. Ailsa Mackay also contributed to the great work that has been done by the Jimmie Reed Foundation in looking at the value of universal services, about welfare that is universal and valued by everyone in society and how that can transform the way that we live. In his tribute to Robin McAlpine on the Jimmie Reed Foundation website, he talks about Professor Mackay's response to the First Minister when he first asked her if she would contribute to the policy that is within the white paper. Her response was, if you are serious about the policy, if you mean it, then I would be delighted, but you have to mean it. He did mean it. We are serious about this. The white paper is serious about this. I have to challenge Labour. Are they serious about this? I have my doubts. I have my doubts because Ed Bill Miliband announces pledge to crack down on zero-hour contracts in my hometown in Motherwell. Unfortunately for him, North Lanarkshire Council, run by Labour, has 800 workers employed in using these zero-hours contracts. I have to ask Labour if they are serious again because, this week, Unison has released a press release that states, Unison in North Lanarkshire is stepping up pressure on North Lanarkshire Council in the union's long-running campaign to end their unfair treatment of low-paid women. John Mooney says, for an employer-purposely-chained job scores that Lord Payrates, and to admit that they have destroyed paperwork, is astonishing and Unison demand to know who sanctioned such disgusting behaviour is Labour serious. This is one of the many issues in Scotland where we can make real progress if we do not treat it as a political football. Screw today of how we are going to pay for it is welcome. Obviously the finances are important if any Government is going to deliver on promises, but I welcome the fact that this issue is getting the debate time it needs. As it is fair to say, it has not had the attention it merits until now. However, I hope that we can see this debate in the round, the care of children rather than childcare. Public policy should be able to help parents to make sure that their children have the best start in life. Increases in the amount of institutional nursery childcare available from local authorities will be welcomed by parents who struggle to afford to pay for additional hours, and we all know that childcare costs here are amongst the highest in Europe. There are other types of childcare, too. Many of these are playing second fiddle in this debate, but they should not be forgotten. Informal care from friends and family is the most obvious. Sharing responsibility among friends and family is the way that we have raised children throughout human history. This type of care has immense value. It is not measured in the economic terms, like the things Clare Adamson mentioned, but it is immensely valuable. Any public policy that we promote should welcome and recognise the important role of this informal care. However, many parents, for all sorts of reasons, do not have this network to tap into, so we look outside that circle. Just who-by and where our children will be looked after is a massively important decision for any parent or carer. Many of us will have visited nurseries and childminders before coming to a decision, though many people experience a limited range of options or no options, limited availability for certain days, waiting lists, shortages, necessitating increases in travel, expense and inconvenience, and making a long day even longer for both parents and children. However, it remains the case that it is often easier to secure a nursery place for a younger child than childcare that fits around the school day and makes working life possible for those with school-age children. Childcare is absolutely essential for those with children who juggle work and family life, and it can be challenging finding the right place or person to provide that. Fees can sometimes be comparable to mortgage payments and beyond consideration, particularly for those with more than one child. As I have said, they are particularly high in this country, yet those who deliver the care are not seeing it reflected in their pay packets, and that is surely one of the most important jobs that anyone could do. I agree wholeheartedly with the comments of Mary Scanlon and Ken Macintosh. One size does not fit all. We need to have various flexible models of childcare that reflect this and that address local challenges, but we need quality assurance too and mutual commitments to standardise excellence across the board. Daycare should be part of a full childhood, not simply somewhere to park children when we are heading to work. It should be delivered by highly qualified, well-paid, valued staff. It should be such a positive offering that it will be taken up even when there is a parent at home. The new foods and standard agency for Scotland suggests that 15 per cent of Scottish homes do not have cutlery. Quality childcare can introduce children to important life skills. Many children do not eat at the table and are not introduced to a knife and fork at home. We can look to the Copenhagen house of food model and make good food habits an important part of a quality education. We can address our children's lack of physical activity from the youngest age by making the outdoors accessible all year round. Make days where children spend wet breaks indoors a thing of the past. Stock nursery in schools with waterproofs and wellies for all children. Our children are not as fit and as physically literate as they used to be, and we are paying the price. We need to build links with sports governing bodies and introduce our nursery children to gymnastics and athletics—the basis of physical literacy at the earliest opportunity. Childcare needs to be educational, affordable, universal. If we achieve that transformation, we will enable those many women who wish to work to achieve their potential and realise their ambitions. As Professor Sarah Carter has noted, if levels of business ownership among women matched that of their male counterparts, we would see more than 108,000 additional businesses here in Scotland. However, as the STUC has advised, many women are choosing economic activity when faced with high childcare costs and lack of appealing choices. This inactivity can impact on career progression and on the value of women's pensions when they reach retirement age, and single parents face particular challenges accessing childcare and making budgets balanced. The great majority of single parents are women, and while children are young, there is a marked difference in the number of lone parents working and the number of women with partners working. The overwhelming number of those working in childcare is women. Childcare is one of the biggest gender imbalances among staff, and it is important that we address that. Norway has set targets, along with extra support from male educators, job advertising and recruitment campaigns. Sweden, too, is often quoted in this debate. In Sweden in the 70s, less than 10 per cent of preschoolers could access a publicly funded place where their parents took to the streets. We need, too, to recognise the important role of childminders in this debate. They look after 30,000 children in Scotland and in too many areas that are a preciously rare resource. We need to make sure that we offer the support that will encourage more people to look at childminding as a career. Let us think about where our childcare buildings are located. Large institutions, colleges and universities should offer childcare provision for staff. This Parliament should look at such an option. There is a private nursery in a local college, but it is too expensive for the young mums who study there. That does not make sense. We cannot achieve this transformation overnight, but we can achieve it. I would like to begin with a quote from Professor Ilza Mackay. Professor Mackay was much respected and admired across the chamber for her hard work and dedication to improving outcomes for women and disadvantaged groups in Scotland. Writing on the Sunday, Herald, in December 2013 about her ambitions for the childcare plans outlined in the white paper, Professor Mackay said that the highest rates of employment of mothers are in Scandinavia, where public investment in childcare is high. If Scotland could replicate that, tens of thousands of more women would be in work in Scotland. A higher female employment rate increases economic growth and productivity and has a positive impact on fertility, making it more likely that population growth will be above replacement rate. Additional investment in childcare provision would more than pay for itself in the medium term. Labour talks about the importance of ensuring that childcare remains at the top of the political agenda, regardless of the result of September's referendum. That was a point made by Professor Mackay, and I agree with his sentiment, although I must say that I am disappointed, although not entirely surprised, that the Labour Party has chosen to attack the Scottish Government's childcare plans. If it really believed in a transformational change in childcare, it would be right behind the Scottish Government's ambitious proposals. Of course, Labour has formed on this kind of behaviour. A few months back, we witnessed Labour MSPs teaming up with the Tories to vote against the Scottish Government's proposals for free school meals and improved childcare provision. It appeared then that this was just another example of the Labour Party choosing to oppose for opposition's sake, particularly as the Scottish Government's plans had been welcomed by a wide range of children's charities and the child poverty campaigners. Labour's actions at the time were rightly condemned in the press and in communities across Scotland. I had hoped that lessons had been learned about the danger of attacking everything proposed by the SNP for the sake of political point scoring, but sadly I was wrong. I spoke in the childcare debate back in January, when I highlighted the work carried out by Professor Edward Millish of the University of London. Professor Millish's research has demonstrated the long-term benefits of effective childcare, particularly for children from deprived backgrounds. Those findings were reinforced by a recent research paper published by the Scottish Government entitled Child Care and Children's Intellectual Outcomes, which concluded that high-quality nursery education enhances development in children not just in their early years but also aids attainment in children at all ages. The paper highlights evidence that preschool education enhances all-round development in children and is particularly beneficial to children from disadvantaged backgrounds, helping to improve cognitive development, sociability and concentration. Those benefits continue into primary and secondary school, with research demonstrating that pupils aged 15 who attended preschool education tend to outperform those who did not. Although there are significant social benefits from improved childcare for both parents and children, there is also a strong economic case for investment in early years education. In written evidence that was submitted to the Parliament, Professor Mackay and her colleagues at the Women in Scotland's Economy Research Centre at Glasgow Caledonian University highlighted research showing how important investment in childcare is to stimulated economic growth. Growth in the construction industry is often held up as a barometer of how well the economy is doing. The wise group at GCU suggests that, in economic terms, the development of a high-quality childcare sector is just as important as the development of the construction sector, in that one creates physical capital and the other creates human capital. It is argued that there is a lack of access to adequate affordable childcare that is damaging to the economy and society as a whole. As it acts as a barrier to participation in the labour market by parents and in particular mothers, enabling more women to contribute to the economy through better provision of affordable childcare can help to lift families out of poverty and tackle inequality in earnings—an ambition that I do hope we share across the chamber. When the social and economic benefits of improved early years provision are not in doubt, the question is how can we ensure that children and families in Scotland gain access to similar opportunities as those enjoyed by our Scandinavian neighbours? Scotland and the rest of the UK has one of the highest childcare costs in Europe. We spend an average of 26.5 per cent of parental income on them compared to the OECD average of almost 12 per cent. A recent report by the family and childcare trust suggests that families are paying more than £7,500 per year in childcare costs for two children, which amounts to more than the average cost of a mortgage. Under devolution, Scotland has made some progress in improving access to affordable childcare, and I am very much welcome that. Since the SNP came to power, we have increased free nursery provision by 20 per cent. The improvements in flexible earlier learning and childcare delivered through the Children and Young People Act will benefit over 120,000 children in Scotland and help to save families around £700 per year. That will be welcomed by hard-pressed families across Scotland, though the reality is that, only with the powers and resources of independence, can we bring about the transformational change that is needed to help to provide the best possible start in life for children in Scotland. Labour MSPs assert that that can be done now under the limited powers of devolution. If that is the case, I wonder why those ambitious plans were not brought forward by Labour when they were in power in the previous two Administrations, or why they cannot tell us now how they would pay for it under the devolution settlement. Professor Sir Donald Mackay, leading economist and former chair of Scottish Enterprise, hit the nail on the head when he said that no financially responsible Scottish Government would dare to implement the childcare proposals under the fixed block grant funding of devolution, unless they were prepared to take an axe to existing programmes. I look forward to hearing from the Labour Party about what public services they plan to cut to finance more childcare now under the current limited devolution settlement. Outline the benefits to the economy that increased access to childcare provides. The Scottish Government has been clear on its commitment to improving access to affordable high-quality early-line childcare. The Minister for Children and Young People has spoken of her ambition to make Scotland the best place to grow up in the world. With the opportunities of independence, we can do just that. Our families, our children and our communities deserve nothing less. Now Colin Carrollton to be followed by Bob Doris up to six minutes please. Thank you Presiding Officer. Lack of affordable, quality childcare is one of the biggest issues facing families in, infirmland and across Scotland. Across the political divide we all agree that action needs to be taken and childcare is quite rightly rising right to the top of the political agenda. This is welcome news for women across all political parties who have been making the case for childcare for many decades, often falling on deaf ears in Parliament and council chambers that are full of men. I am pleased that childcare is now right at the heart of the mainstream political agenda where it belongs, but for mums and dads the pace of change is still too slow. We are still waiting for a childcare revolution and parents deserve better than childcare promises which are simply uncostied, unworkable or are taken too long to deliver. Whatever the result in September we have the powers at Holyrood now to transform childcare in Scotland and we need to use them, not just talk about them. Our priority must be to ensure that childcare in Scotland is free or affordable for every parent and that childcare challenges do not end when children start school. That must include school children too. In Scotland we have waited seven long years for the SNP's 2007 childcare pledge to be met. Finally in August Scottish parents will catch up with their friends and family in England and Wales and overdue, but welcome step forward. We will also see preschool provision extended to work-less families of two-year-olds. A policy that is welcome but also comes with challenges, because local authorities are telling us that the new childcare pledge is not fully funded. Given how important that is in addressing the cycle of disadvantage, that is surely a big concern. Fife council, for example, has identified a funding gap of £500,000, and that figure does not even factor in the adaptions that need to be made to preschools to cater for two-year-olds. I know too from speaking to early years workers in my constituency that there are real concerns about a reduction in the quality of early years education for our two, three and four-year-olds as a result of the 600 hours with less time available for planning and setting up the nursery area, less opportunity to discuss the needs and development of individual children and a real concern about the quality of early learning. It is crucial for the Scottish Government and local authorities to provide the right funding and support to ensure that all our preschool children continue to receive high-quality childcare, especially given the fact that curriculum for excellence starts from age 3. Given the evidence from the OECD that low-quality childcare can damage children's outcomes, we need to monitor that carefully, especially in our more deprived communities where high-quality childcare can make a huge difference to children's lives. However, delivering 600 hours is not exactly the childcare revolution that moms and dads are waiting for. It is not enough to transform lives. Parents who are the rest of the UK have had this level of free childcare since 2010. With parents across Scotland spending a huge proportion of their hard-earned incomes on childcare, urgent action is needed now to ensure that every family can overcome the childcare challenges that they face. Childcare costs continue to rise much faster than inflation and certainly much faster than wages, and many families spend more on childcare than on their rent, their mortgage or their fuel bills combined. Those are costs that are continuing to spiral and, as a couple of colleagues have pointed out, a nursery place costs 30 per cent higher now than it did in 2010. Working full-time is simply not an option for most moms of young children. Indeed, only 24 per cent of moms of three and four-year-olds work full-time. The cost of a full-time childcare place for one child alone is £8,000 a year. Is it any wonder that so many parents find they simply have to turn down jobs or reduce their hours, forced to abandon career plans due to sky-high childcare costs? A Save the Children apport has found that 80 per cent of the poorest families say that cost is the main barrier in accessing childcare and getting back into work. Some families are just locked out of the labour market entirely, and many families are only managed by constant juggling, working different hours to cover childcare, relying on friends, grandparents and even next door neighbours. While elsewhere in Europe, men are more likely to reduce their hours to share childcare responsibilities, in Scotland it may be 2014. Many employers still view childcare as a mum's responsibility and fail to consider the growing needs of working dads who also want to balance work and family life. In that context, the Scottish Government's pledge to transform childcare after a yes vote does seem attractive. If only there was any evidence at all that it could be delivered. The reality is that the SNP's sums simply do not add up. This is a pledge based on Scotland having 40,000 more preschool moms able to return to work than even exists. A pledge that SPICE have estimated will cost at least an additional £1.2 billion to finance. A pledge that is not even being backed up with any financial modelling, despite the policy being one of the key highlights of the white paper. Parents have waited long enough. They deserve better than a childcare policy that has been questioned by the Scottish Parliament's own team of impartial experts. It is time, not only for the Scottish Government to publish the full costings of its childcare plans, but it is time for all of us to put aside our political differences and work together to transform childcare for mums, dads, carers and grandparents across Scotland. Our proposal for a childcare commission gives us this opportunity. Parents want real action in childcare. They are fed up being treated at its political ponds. Whatever the result of the referendum, we already have the powers at Holyrood to deliver on childcare. Let us use those powers now and work together to deliver a comprehensive childcare strategy. A childcare strategy that doesn't end when children start school. A childcare revolution that will transform the lives of working parents and end the childcare headache that is simply being endured by working parents across Scotland for too long. Now is the time to deliver a childcare system for Scotland that supports all our parents and gives all our children the very best start in life. Many thanks. Just under six minutes would be helpful. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Despite some of the rhetoric in here this afternoon, I absolutely believe that everyone in this chamber wishes to see expanded and flexible early years learning and childcare provision in Scotland. On that front, the Scottish Government has delivered in part, indeed occasionally in partnership, including with Willie Rennie in the chamber this afternoon, but we do have to go much further. I don't have time for intervention, Mr Rennie, don't get excited. To enable that to happen, any policy developed has to be both affordable and sustainable. That is a truism whether we are independent or not, following September's referendum. Turning to the Scottish Government's childcare commitments following a yes vote in the independence referendum, I would point to the monies that an independent Scotland would divert from defence spending, including I'm delighted to see ditching, trident and its replacement, and instead make an overt political choice to pump that money into childcare. I would also point out the specific figures that show a surplus of £8.3 billion in Scotland for comparing money raised and spent in Scotland in the last five years. Those two facts are powerful arguments towards the resourcing of childcare within independence, however. That has to be balanced against the next question, and that is, can those commitments be delivered anyway without a yes vote and without independence? In theory, they could be. However, the political choices to be made in order to fund such a revolution and expansion would not be between trident and childcare, but rather between our NHS and childcare, or our education system and childcare. Perhaps it would be our students and academics and universities that might be de-prioritised after a no vote, or something else lurking in the so far undisclosed Labour Party's Cuts Commission. Who knows? We're all in the dark. Those are not the choices that I am in politics to make, quite frankly. However, as previously stated, I do believe that there is genuine commitment across the chamber. It is just that a no vote means a political choice that is to deliver on childcare that, quite frankly, is stark, unpalatable and unacceptable. I now want to turn to the tax and revenue implications of the Scottish Government's plan for childcare after independence. I cannot say to Mr Rennie again that I am going to leave the front benches to argue over the details of, and I quote from Mr Rennie's amendment, the component tax revenue streams and the details of that. However, I am going to turn to another truism in relation to that. Put simply, whilst we might argue and debate the extent of the revenue boost through the taxation system, and likewise we might debate the extent of the reduced benefits burden as more people, particularly females, move into work, no one can debate with any degree of credibility that there will not be a financial gain to Scotland by the steps that the Scottish Government will take after independence. No one would have credibility if they were to deny the fact that wealth would flow from that. The question that we must ask is that, when the revenue started to flow from childcare policy, as it undoubtedly will, where should those revenues go? Should it go to an independent Scottish Exchequer or an out-of-touch, undemocratic, unrepresentative of Scotland, Westminster Exchequer that will not refund one penny back to Scotland for our good investment and our young people? I think that we all know the answer to that. The people of Scotland know that, and that is an independent Scottish Exchequer. I welcome the motion before us today from Labour, because it shines a light on two levers of power essential to deliver revolutionary childcare expansion. Firstly, being able to make the political choices on all aspects of spending in Scotland in order to prioritise what we wish to see. For us, on this side of the chamber, it is childcare rather than trident. Secondly, to get the benefits of economic growth and for that money to flow to a Scottish Exchequer and not to an out-of-touch, undem, Tory Government. We can only have two levers of power with independence, irrespective of whether the other parties wish to argue over the numbers within the Scottish Government's white paper. The process is quite clear. The levers of power are quite self-evident. We need them in Scotland, and those can only be delivered with independence. Enough of the number crunching, just accept that we need those powers to deliver on childcare. I want to look a little bit more at the wider picture. I am generally disappointed that I cannot let you in, but I want to move on and speak about something else, because so far no-one has spoken about the wider picture about getting people into working childcare. We have to look at UK tax credit reforms in relation to that. If we look at the childcare element of working tax credit and the changes to that, that has made working families in Scotland up to £1,560 worse off. If we look at changes to family tax credit system, that has made many families in Scotland up to £3,870 worse off. Let me give you a story that I repeatedly tell in this chamber. Those changes mean that you only get working tax credits if you increase your part-time hours from 16 hours to 24 hours has pushed two families I know in Maryhill out of work and on to benefits. That is not a progressive system, and the connection between childcare provision and getting families into work and lifelong prospects are absolutely dovetail. They are intertwined, and that is the wider picture. All those powers quite genuinely for something that I am passionate about and for Beth, Emily and Hannah, my three little nieces, they have to come to this Parliament for a coherent, socially just, progressive and visionary childcare system. It is only with independence that we can achieve that. Before we move to closing speeches, I invite all members to take part in the debate to arrive in the chamber as soon as possible. Colin Willi Rennie, six minutes please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am a Liberal Democrat. We in the party support the principle of spent to safe. We think that it is something that should be encouraged for us to look forward to see what we can invest now to make long-term changes. That is why, back in the 90s, we had a very strong policy of a penny on income tax for education, because we recognised the value of investing in education. We were prepared to make the sacrifice at the time by putting up income tax by £1 in the pound, so that we could invest millions of pounds in improving education. That is something that we strongly supported. I think that the difference between what the SNP is suggesting now and what we did then was that we had a transparent, costed process. We had set out in detail what the sacrifice would be, the income tax being raised in order to pay for it. We recognised that there would be returns to the Exchequer at a later date, but our approach was a cautious approach. We recognised that it might not all come back to the Exchequer. It might not have those optimistic desired effects, so we took a cautious approach, which is the approach that treasuries take across the world. They do not assume that it will be the golden opportunity that comes and will definitely come. They recognise that it might fall a little bit short of that. They still have ambition and desire to make that change, but they are cautious with it. It is the particular problem that we have with this. That is where Alison Johnstone was right. We need to scrutinise proposals, because we do. It does not mean that we do not have ambition. I was disappointed with Joan McAlpine's contribution, because she was criticising the Labour benches for lacking ambition. You do not lack ambition if you question. You have to have the right to be able to quiz, to question, to scrutinise. That is what this Parliament is about. The reason why it is particularly important on this occasion is because, if people vote for independence—I will come to Jamie Hepburn in a second—if we vote for independence on the basis of more childcare, and they are wrong, and it does not deliver the benefits that they say that it will bring to the Exchequer, then there is no way back. We cannot reverse the decision. We cannot decide to reverse independence. That is the difference between this spend-and-save proposal. They shout doom and gloom. They cannot accuse me of lacking ambition on nursery education. Bob and I recognised together that we had done a lot on nursery education. We had pushed it when many others were sceptical in this chamber. I do not think that it is right for people to criticise Bob and myself for lacking ambition. Absolutely. It is the lovin. Bob Doris and I refer to each other by our first names. Just because we question does not mean that we lack ambition and it is disappointing for some to do so. Christine Grahame talked about blaming Westminster for the lack of funds. Can I just gently remind her that, in England, they are delivering for 40 per cent of two-year-olds that is far more than is being delivered in Scotland on the same budget? Do you dispute the figures on the continuing debt of the UK and the continuing payments that are now at £1.2 trillion? Do you dispute that? She seems to be implying that Scotland would be debt-free. The reality is that Scotland would have an equally terrible financial circumstances. It is no different. It will be the same. The reality is that she blames Westminster but, in reality, she is doing far, far more in terms of delivering nursery education. At the heart of all that is our desire to make a transformational change for childcare. We all agree in this chamber, despite misquoting on various occasions. Stuart Maxwell talked about it very passionately, I thought. Jane Baxter, Ken Macintosh, Alison Johnstone, all talked about the different strands of benefit that nursery education brings. Getting people back to work, getting mothers back to work, clearly a distinct benefit. It has to be affordable. We have to have a childcare that is affordable so that they can get back to work and it makes work pay. Child development, which Mary Scanlon talked about, is about child development as much as education. As a liberal, I strongly believe that education is the route out of poverty. This particular education, at this early stage, makes a significant benefit. Professor James Hickman, my favourite academic, talks about investing before the age of three to make that transformational change. We all agree that this is the way to progress. It is how we do it. I think that it is not unreasonable to question the SNP's sums. It is not unreasonable for them to be forthcoming with a little bit more detail. It is not just a normal manifesto proposal. It is a referendum proposal, from which we have no way back if they are wrong, and that is why it is important that we have the detail so that we can scrutinise, so that people can go to the polls in September with full understanding of what the policy means. Given the heated exchanges in some aspects of the debate, I do not think that there is any chance whatsoever that childcare, or I thought that Alison Johnstone made a very good point about perhaps we should be talking about care of children, will be moving out of the political limelight. Therefore, the first commitment that is part of the Labour Party's motion is absolutely guaranteed, and that is a good thing. However, I hope that this is the case not because of the arguments about the referendum, but because of the crucial importance of the care of children to the dynamic of social and economic policy in this country. Excellent points that were made by Malcolm Chisholm, by Jane Baxter, Ken Macintosh and Jamie Hepburn, who I thought talked very well about the principle. Together with the provision of nursery education, it is not just the centrepiece of the early years strategy, but also of education policy more generally and, of course, of the demographic influences on employment. As such, there is absolutely no surprise that all parties in this chamber are on record calling for childcare provision to be broadened, for greater focus to be laid on its qualitative features, something that I think everybody in this chamber has agreed is just as important about the number of hours that we can actually deliver. While it is perhaps tempting to take Freud's dictum about the narcissism of small differences when it comes to childcare, there are, as the Labour Party has pointed out, substantive points to be made. Not about the general principles of the policy direction, but what has actually been set out within the SNP's white paper in terms of timescales and in terms of funding commitments. I say at this point that nobody doubts the scale of the finances that are required to deliver what we would all like to see, or indeed the challenge that Claire Adamson referred to when she talked about the wider context of what we have to do in terms of policymaking. Nobody doubts that. However, as my colleague Mary Scanlon rightly argued earlier, the Scottish Government's figures, especially in relation to boosting female involvement in the labour market, do not stand up. That is largely because there is not sufficient evidence that the childcare policy under discussion will—not might—will lead to the 6 per cent rise in female employment, as outlined in the Government's various statistical bulletins. We have seen several bulletins. The dispute here is not about different political parties arguing on different figures. The fact of the matter—in a minute, if I may, the fact of this debate is that we do not have a policy model against which to make the judgments about this policy. I give way. I thank the member for taking the intervention. She talked about the evidence. She will be aware that both the OECD and the European Commission have presented evidence that increasing childcare and making it more affordable does increase the number of women in the workforce. Is she suggesting that that is wrong? In any way, what I am disputing are the specific figures that have been put forward as the guarantee—and that is a guarantee—that it will deliver the 6 per cent rise in female employment. That is the problem, and that is something from which the SNP will find it very difficult to argue otherwise. Willie Rennie, in his eloquent speeches, is absolutely right when he says in his amendment that it makes plain that the problem is a fundamental concern at the root of the current policy. Can I pay tribute to Willie Rennie and to Malcolm Chisholm for their commitment over a long period of time in making very positive contributions to the debate? He is quite right to say that it is not a problem to question the whole point of a Parliament is to scrutinise. That is again part of the frustration that Kezia Dugdale rightly put out in her opening remarks. There is a problem about the lack of scrutiny in that, and that is something that I think that Tom Gordon had when he was looking at this when he was responding to some FOI request. That is the great difficulty that we have. It is not about the different views that we might hold. It is about the problem of the lack of scrutiny. Presiding Officer, I think that there are three essential aspects of policy development on childcare. It is availability, it is quality and it is affordability. The minister has said that there is good progress on the first two and there is. Let us rejoice in that fact and admit that. I do not really think that it is in any dispute around the chamber, but there are questions about its affordability, as Alison Johnstone rightly said, because different local authorities take a different approach. There are wide variations across our local authorities, but that is something that I think that we can probably get round. If we are to move forward—and this is nothing whatsoever to do with the referendum—if we are to move forward in the way that we want to do as a Parliament, we have to accept that we must put forward credible and costed policy. That is the judgment against which we all will be asked by the voters to decide what we want to do in our manifestos. On that basis, Presiding Officer, we will support the Labour motion and, indeed, the amendment in the name of Willie Rennie. I want to start at the outset by agreeing both with Liz Smith and with Kezia Dugdale, because it is true that the first sentence of the motion will be retained by the amendment in 18 Campbell's name, and it is true that it is the thing that unites us, as Liz Smith has said. The Parliament does resolve it. It will resolve it. I am sure that it will go on resolving to keep childcare at the top of the political agenda regardless of the referendum result, because childcare should unite not divide this chamber. It is a measure, I am sorry to say, of Labour's failure in Scotland, not just in losing yet another election this week but in seeking to divide yet again on something that should work for all of us, because we all agree on the need for transformational childcare. However, if you can believe that it can be achieved without the full fiscal powers of independence, you need to come to this chamber with ideas about how that can be done. Instead, regrettably, in the first 14 minutes that we had, we simply had an attack on others. It was in its entirety, if I say so, I say so charitably, a litany of negative gurning. No proposals, nothing new, not even a timescale, just negativity. Clare Adamson asked a very germane question at the very beginning. She said, does Labour mean it? I think that it probably does, to be fair. I think that what we have heard today from Labour is a failure of politics rather than policy, even if that policy is, as Spice has pointed out, out of date and threadbare. The parallel, if I can say it, quite genuinely in this chamber is this. It is 2003. In 2003, I was a member of an opposition in this chamber that thought that the Labour Administration was evil, deceitful, idle, all sorts of other things. We just needed, as an opposition, to tear away the mask. We demonised our opponents, and we lost that election. Negative is always beaten in politics by positive. That is an important lesson. The longer that Labour fails to realise it, the longer it will go on losing elections just like it did last weekend. Character assassination is not a policy, hatred is not a policy, resentment is not a policy, pious hand-ringing is not a policy, action is a policy and there is action aplenty from this Government. Willie Rennie commended to us the importance of fact, Presiding Officer. That is a little rich in a day when Professor Dunleavy has questioned the Lib Dem approach to facts. Facts show that transformational childcare cannot be delivered under devolution as it exists. That is a fact. Mary Scanlon attacked me with my remarks on deconstruction, but I repeat them. The Tory approach in this chamber is often that we want that policy, but we do not want the SNP to have the credit for it. I want to make a lot of progress on that, because it is important. We will attack the Government for not publishing enough, then we will attack the Government for resenting scrutiny, and when figures are produced, we will dismiss them without even considering them. What we will not do, what the Opposition will not do, is publish their own plans. What the Opposition will not do is dare face the fact that there are limits to devolution. There are some things that can only be delivered by independence, so they will deconstruct, undermine and destroy because they know what they want. I want to finish this, because they know that what they want cannot be achieved by devolution. That is why the Opposition is so scared. When the penny drops, it will be absolutely clear that the only way to achieve transformative childcare is through independence. I take issue with him when it comes to costed interventions. The Scottish Conservative Party for the last two manifestos has given a full commitment on its costings. You might not agree with those policy objectives, but we have given the costings and I would appreciate if you could recognise that. I recognise it, but nobody believed them. You were elected because nobody believed those costings. Donald Mackay gave evidence to economic energy and tourism committee last month. That is the reality of the policy. No financially responsible Scottish Government would dare to implement childcare proposals under the fixed block grant funding of devolution unless they were prepared to take an axe to existing programmes. That is the truth. That cannot be done under devolution. What we have heard this afternoon is a measure of frustration. No, I do not want to take these points because frustration will show again. Mr Bibby's frustration that he knows that this cannot be delivered unless he has the powers of independence. Ken Macintosh talked about the sincere commitment of the Liberal and Labour Administration. It was a sincere commitment. It is coming now to the limit of what can be achieved under devolution. The truth of that lies in the remarks of Lucy Powell, Labour's shadow minister for children. Talking about those policies, enabling women to go back to work and want to go back to work will increase revenues to the exchequer significantly such that, over time, it pays for itself. If we do not have the fiscal powers, we do not have the exchequer, we cannot make it pay for itself. That is the truth of devolution. I am afraid that that is the truth. When you cannot face the truth, you twist the words. The spice briefing does not say purely what Labour says. Certainly, there is a paragraph that starts off with that, but then it goes on. The very next sentence, the sentence that Labour has not actually quoted, seems to be funny, perhaps they have not read it. Maybe the only bit they were given was the bit that stood up to Kezia Dugdale's argument. It says, in order to achieve the model scenarios, the policy would need to influence the Labour market decisions of a larger group of women, which could include women who do not currently have children, who have children under age 1 or over 5, future groups of women, either before or when they have children, which could extend the timescale of the impact. In other words, spice recognises that the policy operates over more than one year and women who re-enter the labour market as a result of free childcare stay in the labour market even when their children get older. Without the help that we propose, too many would never do so. I want to bring to an end my remarks with some thoughts on a very wise contribution to this debate. It came from Joan McAlpine. She was quite right to draw attention to the contrast between the passionate ambition of what you might call transformative labour and the managerialism of the current Labour Party. Faced with what Jackie Brock in Children of Scotland called a game changer, extremely exciting, it retreated into the Bain principle. If it is coming from the gnats, we do not support it, not now, not ever. Joan McAlpine, Presiding Officer, said that Labour today had no route map. Absolutely true. There is no sat-nav, no gazetteer, no atlas, no compass, nothing to guide them at all. Their very principles have been lost in a fog of resentment about their electoral failure at the hands of the SNP. In what you might call to use a local analogy, this heart of anxiety about the positive message of independence, that is the vehicle that is going to transform childcare and transform so much else. There are limits to devolution. We have reached those limits. The time is to go forward with this and independence. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Labour brought forward this debate today because we are committed to supporting families with childcare and we want to see real action. There have been a number of good contributions on how that can be achieved. Malcolm Chisholm, Alison Johnstone and Liz Smith made very good speeches and I think Willie Rennie and Jamie Hepburn made very important points as well. As Kezia Dugdale said in opening, this debate is because we recognise the need to develop a long-term strategy, a strategy that improves and increases preschool provision and expands wraparound care for primary school pupils too, and a strategy that reaches a consensus across party lines, which is why we have repeated our call from a year ago to tackle the issue on a cross-party basis in the form of a Scottish childcare commission. As our motion says, we should all share a determination to put childcare at the top of the political agenda, no matter the referendum result. Childcare is not a constitutional issue. Childcare is an important social and economic policy, but it is not a reason to break away from the UK, particularly when powers over childcare have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament since 1999 and under the responsibility of SNP ministers for the past seven years. Unfortunately, the nationalists have sought to make it a constitutional issue when they launched a white paper in November. If the nationalists want to make childcare a constitutional issue, they need to offer the substance and evidence rather than wishful thinking. The spice briefing, early learning and childcare, blew apart the SNP's childcare claims and today we have heard the same old arguments with no new evidence when they had the opportunity from the Scottish Government. I want to deal with some of the claims that the nationalists have made today and in the white paper. I want to make some progress. The first one that we heard from the minister, George Adam, Stuart Maxwell, we need the powers of independence to improve childcare. That is not true, because you already have the powers. You just have not used them until very recently. We have also heard the minister say that the SNP's ambition is transformational childcare. If the SNP has always been so ambitious about childcare, why is childcare provision lagging behind the rest of the UK right now? In August this year, 40 per cent of two-year-olds in England will get nursery, but only 15 per cent in Scotland. Some ambition. Perhaps the biggest claim that has been made by the SNP that has been completely discredited by SPICE is that the reason that we need independence for childcare is that it will be completely self-funding. I have no doubt that more childcare can help more women into the job market if childcare meets their needs. There are jobs available, they have the skills they need and, crucially, it suits their circumstances to go back to work. The SNP has said that an increase in female employment of 104,000 would fund the policy. The very big problem that it has with that claim is that SPICE found that, in 2011, there were only 64,000 women with nursery-age children who were, as it describes, economically inactive and, out of them, only 14,000 wanted to work. We know that the SNP wants to suspend the rules of arithmetic in this referendum debate, but 14,000 and 104,000 do not go. However, the new claim for SNP ministers and members today is that, ignore SPICE, there are more than enough women. We have heard the SNP make up lots of things ahead of this referendum, but the one thing that you cannot make up is human beings that do not exist. There are at least anywhere between 40,000 and 90,000 missing moms for this policy to be self-funding, enough moms to fill Hamden Park or even Wembley stadium. Now, without any evidence to back it up, we hear the claim from the SNP that it will not happen straight away. This will happen over time. Really? How long will it take to your policy to be credible? 10 years, 20 years, 30 years? Christine Grahame said that there would be cuts to childcare if we vote no. Talk about scaremongering from the SNP. I would be interested to know if that is the official SNP line. Are they really going to say that there will be no increase in childcare if we vote no in the referendum in September? I noticed they are not making any comment on that. Obviously not the official SNP line. Mr Bibby, I was reprimanding you for shouting across the chamber. Mike Russel and Joan McAlpine also said that we lacked the ambition of Naya Bevan. I would just say to Joan McAlpine that she is no Naya Bevan. I would say to Mike Russel that he is no Naya Bevan either. Today was the opportunity for the SNP Government to come to the chamber and dispute the evidence from SPICE that their policy is unfunded and uncosted. The only new thing we heard today was from Bob Doris, who said that Trident is going to pay for childcare. I thought the policy was self-funding, Bob Doris. That is the things the SNP have told us, but what haven't they told us in terms of costings? I have asked the minister for children and young people for a total cost of the policy before today, since the white people's publisher is again today and has consistently refused to answer that question. How incompetent is this Government when they cannot even tell us the total cost of their flagship policy? Perhaps it is not surprising when John Swinney cannot know what tell us 100 days before the referendum what the set-up costs of independence would be. I am happy to take an intervention if any of the members want to tell me what the set-up of independence will be. No takers. We know in terms of childcare SPICE have given us an answer. They have estimated that it will cost in the region of £1.2 billion and could be even higher at £1.5 billion. What else have they not told us about the SPICE facts and findings? That the modelling that has been published is not even directly related to the SNP childcare policy, because it does not consider whether that policy would cause an increase of 6 per cent in female labour market participation. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the white paper childcare commitment would result in Scotland's female participation rate matching that of Sweden. The SNP has also based their figures on all women working full-time, when we know that women want to work part-time. The SNP does not base any calculations on the average female wage of £17,000, but on the £26,000 annual figure for men and women. It does not tell us that, in 2013, women's gross average early pay was 17 per cent lower compared to men. There are many other issues, including the potential downward pressure on real wages identified by SPICE. There we have it. The SNP's white paper childcare policies have never seen such a demolishment of a misleading policy claims that the SPICE briefing in April is not full cost things, not self-funding, when there have been calculations based on the rogue figures all to be paid for without an increase in tax at the same time as cutting co-operation tax and also to be paid for without cutting other public services by £1.2 billion. However, the most revealing aspect of how little substance the SNP's childcare policy has is the lens that it is going to hide the figures behind the policy. The journalist Tom Gordon, under freedom of information, sought to find out if ministers had modelled their actual childcare policies. He was told no, then the Scottish Government quickly retracts that and says yes. But guess what? The Scottish Government says that it is not in the public interest to publish it. How can hiding the truth be in the public interest? We have asked for this modelling to be published and written questions and oral questions and again hearing this debate today. It is not in the public interest to publish it. It is not in the SNP's interest to publish the full economic modelling and costings. Why else would ministers go to such lens to keep it hidden? I will ask one more time whether the Scottish Government publish all the economic modelling and costings. Yes or no? Well, since they did not say yes—since they did not say yes—and they have not disputed the spice claims, we need to get back to using the powers that we have in this Parliament. We need to form a cross-party childcare commission to look at the issues, identify the problems and fund the childcare that our families desperately need. It is regrettable that, yet again, the SNP chose to put the constitution before childcare. Thank you. That concludes this debate on Scotland's future. I have a point of order, Alison McInnes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. On a point of order, I refer to Standing Order 7.3.1. During the statement on the sleeper franchise, I referred to the proposal to abolish the sleeper service north of Edinburgh. In response, the transport minister said in a quote that Alison McInnes is just making it up when she says that we proposed to abolish this. She's just making this kind of stuff up and she's completely wrong. However, any member can go to the Scottish Government's website and follow the link to Transport Scotland, where the real 2014 paper states at paragraph 11.12. We are considering a number of options for the future provision of sleeper services, for instance, removing or increasing financial support at SemiColon and reducing the provision, either through removing the highland or lowland service, or by running the lowland services to and from Edinburgh only. Given that we have an out-of-touch transport minister who doesn't know what his own agency was suggesting, will there be an opportunity for the minister to come back to the chamber, Presiding Officer, after he has done some basic research and admit that the sleeper service was under a threat and the only outrage from the people in the north-east of Scotland in a highlands changed that? I thank the member for the advance notice of her point of order, as the member is well aware. The Presiding Officer is not responsible for the veracity of the comments that members make in the chamber. The next item of business is consideration motion number 10134, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau's technical business programme. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press the request to speak back now. I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 10134, minister. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 10134, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next item of business is consideration of four business motions. I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, to move motion number 10135 to 10138, setting out stage 1 and stage 2 timetables for various bills in bloc. I propose to ask a single question on motion number 10135 to 10138. If any member objects to a single question being put, please say so now. No member has objected, therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 10135 to 10138, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motions are therefore agreed to. The next item of business is consideration of a parliamentary bureau motion. I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 10139, on approval of an SSI on single use carrier bags charge Scotland regulations. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press the request-to-speak button now. I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 10139. Alex Ferguson has indicated that he wishes to speak against the motion. I now call on Alex Ferguson. You have up to three minutes. Having opposed this instrument when it came before the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee last week, I think that it is only right that I explain to the chamber why I took that action. I very much share the Government's desire to reduce litter and reduce the use of single-use carrier bags, as do my colleagues, but I simply do not accept that this piece of legislation will bring about those laudable aims. We have been assured that the legislation is evidence-based, but I have asked myself several times on what evidence it is based because much of that evidence seems to me to be conflicting. In Ireland, it was claimed that the use of plastic carrier bags fell markedly, indeed up to 90 per cent following the introduction of similar legislation, and yet the demand for plastic film rose by over 30 per cent to some 29,000 tonnes as consumers turned to different types of carrier bags, different types of plastic carriers for their convenience. In Wales, the use of paper bags also fell dramatically following its legislation, but paper bag usage is now back to the same level as it was before the Welsh legislation was introduced. Those evidence bases have apparently been ignored largely by the Scottish Government, but my main concern lies in the field of food safety, and I believe that the Government is wrong to include carrier bags for the fast food and food-to-go sectors within this legislation. There is evidence that the single paper biodegradable bag in which you receive and transport your carry-out meal can actually help to reduce litter by acting as a receptacle for all the various individual items of packaging that such a meal requires. Those bags will not and indeed should not be reused, and there are some very valid concerns being aired that show that the reuse of any bags for edible food purposes, especially hot food, carries very real health risks with it. If that is not enough, I hope that those members who represent Cercodi are aware that Smith Anderson of Cercodi, major suppliers of paper bags to both Burger King and McDonald's, estimate that this legislation would cost as many as 40 jobs out of their workforce. I do not believe that this measure will reduce litter. I do not believe that it will reduce the overall demand for plastic. I think that there is a very real risk of reduced food safety by the inclusion of the food-to-go sector within the legislation, and I, for one, do not wish to see 40 jobs disappearing in Cercodi as a result of this legislation. I said in committee that I hope I am wrong about this, but the evidence that I have seen suggests that I will not be. I now call Richard Lochhead to respond, cabinet secretary. Thank you. I wish to respond to the Conservative's objection to what I believe will be one of Parliament's most progressive environmental policies. I am disappointed by Alex Ferguson's stance, but not surprised that the Conservatives have chosen to try and block what is a very good environmental measure. As I told the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee last Wednesday, Scotland uses around £750 million single-use carrier bags a year, each and every year, from supermarkets alone, more per head than anywhere else on these islands. The committee agreed with me, by a margin of eight to one, that it is time to take action to reduce the number of these bags given out. That is part of our wider work to tackle Scotland's litter problem. Carrier bags are a highly visible and damaging part of the litter problem in our communities, by our roadsides and, of course, particularly in our seas. That is also about challenging the throwaway society by placing a value on bags. We want to promote re-use of bags and other items in our society to help get the most out of our increasingly limited resources and cut carbon emissions at the same time. Those regulations are designed to offer a proportionate response to this issue. We have been careful to ensure that the administration will be as light-touch as possible, particularly for small businesses. It is a requirement to charge not a tax. Shoppers can, of course, avoid it by bringing their own bags to the shops. It is clear that there is support for this measure from many retailers, from their customers and from environmental organisations as well. Indeed, last year's consultation saw a strong response in favour of the charge, and we have had constructive dialogue with all stakeholders during the process. I certainly believe that the public support this measure. Indeed, Keep Scotland Beautiful's opinion poll just last week indicates strong public support with almost two to one of those questions in favour of the charge. Similar charges to what we are proposing are working well in Wales and Northern Ireland. Indeed, even the UK Government is set to introduce a charge in England. The Scottish Government's proposals are coherent and thorough. Mr Ferguson and his colleagues would have us make our proposals less coherent and less thorough, rather than what the UK Government is doing. Indeed, DEFRA's proposals to exempt paper and buy degradable bags have been roundly criticised by the Westminster Environment Audit Committee, in comparison, of course, with the Welsh scheme, which is in line with its proposals. That committee said that exemptions for small retailers and paper and buy degradable bags make it confusing for consumers, potentially harmful for the recycling industry and less effective than the Welsh scheme, where bag use has been reduced by over 75 per cent, with the straightforward five-pence charge and all disposable carrier bags. Therefore, it is clearly time for Scotland to take action on this issue, and it urge members to back those regulations. The question on this motion will be put at decision time. The next item of business is consideration of a further parliamentary bill of motion. I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 10140 on the suspension of standing orders. Moved. Question this motion will be put at decision time, to which we now come. There are five questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is at amendment number 10131.3, in the name of failing Campbell, which seeks to amend motion number 10131, in the name of Kezia Dugdale. On Scotland's future, be it agreed to, are we all agreed? Parliament's not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 10131.3, in the name of failing Campbell, as it follows, yes, 64, no, 48. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to. The next question is at amendment number 10131.1, in the name of Willie Rennie, which seeks to amend motion number 10131, in the name of Kezia Dugdale. On Scotland's future, be it agreed to, are we all agreed? The Parliament's not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 10131.1, in the name of Willie Rennie, as it follows, yes, 48, no, 64. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is at motion number 10131, in the name of Kezia Dugdale, as amended. On Scotland's future, be it agreed to, are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 10131, in the name of Kezia Dugdale, as amended. As it follows, yes, 64, no, 48. There were no abstentions. Therefore, the motion, as amended, is agreed to. The next question is at motion number 10139, in the name of Dolfox Patrick, on approval of an SSI on single-use carrier bags, be it agreed to, are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 10139, in the name of Dolfox Patrick, as it follows, yes, 100, no, 12. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 10140, in the name of Dolfox Patrick, on suspension of standing orders, be it agreed to, are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time. We now move to members' business. Members should leave the chamber, should do so quickly and quietly.