 yw'r prif lí yogurt ac yn ymaethau i'w eich anilla wedi bod y mae'r z muscles a'i ein gwataeth i ein panodol i'i gyrraeth. Ac mae heatedron liniural gyda hedagol ein sgwestian, ar amsryd atair, y wych passion newid y rai calwnachai, allan diddorol yn gyrfa patterns iawn sy mi fwrolede, yn sy Beweg dda gennym agreeingur ac n Ramadan, tro dim ond diwrnod o gefnogi a sydd mwyn chw Mercedes Smith yn byłbarth o dadaeth y 넣uf. I doon't think it really matters which academic, economic or social measurement is chosen. Scottish universities are held in high esteem across the world. That's because they have a very long standing and proud tradition of attracting the very best students and staff of achieving academic excellence and maintaining their international competitiveness. That together with the fact that higher education is one of the key sectors of the Scottish economy contributing 6.7 billion ann nearly makes them hugely significant institutions which both define and enhance the academic, social and cultural life of Scotland. What are the features that have allowed them to do this? Well, firstly, it is their diversity, 16 universities including the open university and three specialist higher education institutions, the Glasgow school of art. They're all conservatory of Scotland and Scotland's rural college. Their ages range from two to 601 and i gael i gael i gael i'r cyfnodau ar gyfer y cyfnodau neu'r cyfnodau. Rwy'n gael i gael i'r cyfnodau ar gyfer y cyfnodau, rôl charters 5 yn 1992, yng Nghymru, Scotland, ac ym 1 yn Llywodraeth Cysylltu Cynsaint, ac ym 4 yn Llywodraeth Cymru. Ond yn fawr, mae'r cyfnodau yn gael i'r cyfnodau unig ar y cyfnodau ar gyfer y cyfnodau ac yn ei gael i gael i'r cyfnodau ar gyfer y cyfnodau ac yn y cyfnodau. Time after time, those in the sector point to the crucial importance of maintaining that diversity if Scotland is to continue to lead the way. A point stressed by Louise Richardson in her recent speech to Schis and by several other principles who seem increasingly prepared to express in public their fears that increasing the amount of government regulation is detrimental to the diversity of the university system. That's not personal opinion, but it's because of professional expertise and the fact that the OECD studies across the world have found a direct correlation between institutional autonomy and the quality of the education offered. Just three weeks ago, Professor Peter Downs of University Scotland and the principal of Dundee said that the Scottish Government should reflect very seriously on the wide range of evidence that says that the proposals in the Scottish Government's consultation paper on governance will damage university's success. And he added that it was not just a comment from the sector but from many voices in Civic Scotland. That's a very strong comment from the sector, which bends over backwards to be non-political and objective in its analysis. University autonomy until now has never really been in question for the simple reason that it has allowed the institutions to employ their expertise and professional judgment when it comes to teaching and to investing in the future. Something that quite clearly gives them the versatility that is so crucial if they are to respond effectively to the demands of the global world. I'm being in no doubt about the speed with which that versatility must operate as universities respond to the intense international pressures which are constantly upon them. But a third factor is because they have enjoyed good governance. Governance structures that have continued to evolve over the years to ensure that there is effective, inclusive and transparent management of the universities as they seek to be fully accountable for both the public and the private funds that they receive. I've looked very carefully at the submissions in the consultation. Criticisms from some, notably the UCU and the NUS, that the opposite is true, that there is very little transparency when it comes to the management of the universities and that they are somehow out of touch. I've read their submissions very carefully and I note their concerns about the levels of principles pay and reference to FOIs about senior management remerations which the UCA claims were not sufficiently transparent. But, apart from that, I am struggling to find any evidence whatsoever that supports the claim that the current form of university governance is a major issue. This, Deputy Presiding Officer, is a very serious matter because it seems that the Scottish Government is hell bent on meddling in governance and exerting more and more control over the sector. But to what end? Where actually is the evidence that the current governance structures are in any way having a detrimental effect on the educational experiences of our students on academic standards and on the ability of institutions to attract the best staff? We note one proposal from the Scottish Government to ensure that there are elected chairs of court, voted in by a much wider electorate than just the members of the court. But what happens to the crucial working relationship between the chairman and the board if a successful candidate is not one whom the board has any confidence in or whom they didn't actually vote? Is it not already the case that boards include staff, students and alumni, as well as the diverse range of independent members who bring expertise from a very wide range of backgrounds, whether that is in the public, private or third sectors? In any case, why should the composition of senates or academic bodies be a matter for any Government? In the context of those institutions that are constituted as companies such as the Royal Conservatoire, would it actually be legal for the Scottish Parliament to legislate to require a company to change its articles as association? Or in the case of charitable status, which our universities enjoy, how would moves to amend the powers of boards sit with the regulations required by Oscar? But there is another worrying proposal from the Scottish Government that says that it wants to legislate to include in the statutory requirement about academic freedom and it must have the exploration of new ideas. Why? Haven't the universities proved over many generations that they are perfectly capable of fostering new ideas without any Government telling them what to do? The Scottish Government says that it also wants to force university governing bodies and courts to include representatives of particular interest groups. That is something that is actually contrary to the Nolan committee principles of property within public life and again it would undermine the independence of the governing council. Yet again, the Scottish Government has not provided one shred of evidence about why that should be necessary. Is it perhaps because it believes that university governance perpetrates inequalities? I do not think so, because the current system of governance has the full support of the equality challenge unit, the equality and human rights commission and the Scottish funding council. Is it because there is a gender equality issue that too few women are in governance positions? No, because no fewer than five out of the last six appointments to chairs of court are women and 42 per cent of all the recent appointments to governing bodies are women and they are on there because of merit. Or is it because they are not seen as sufficiently accountable? I do not think so either, because recent research has shown that universities are involved in no fewer than 550 lines of reporting to Government and external agencies and not one of those has made a complaint about reporting procedures. I come back again to ask where is the evidence that there is any sense of failure among the current structures of governance that are undermining the performance of our universities? Would it not be better for the Scottish Government, rather than trying to tackle a problem that does not exist, to concentrate on the problems that do exist, on the real educational priorities such as raising literacy and numeracy levels, closing the attainment gap and the provision of much better bursary support for poorer students? For all the SNP's boasting about free higher education, it hides the truth that students from poorer backgrounds are proportionately worse off now compared to what they were when the SNP came to power. That is something that has prompted Lucy Hunter Blackburn, who used to be the Scottish Government's higher education officer back in 2000 to 2004. She said very recently that Scotland is unique in having a system that assigns the highest student debt to those from the lowest income groups. Indeed, non-repayable grants in Scotland form a significantly lower percentage of total student support than is the case in other jurisdictions. There is a serious issue about the claims when it comes to student support. It does not sit well with the Scottish Government, which claims that social justice is at the very centre of its policy focus. Of course, all that raises the much wider issue about what is a more equitable and sustainable method of university funding. The SNP has made playing many times that it is committed to free higher education, and that is its choice. In doing so, it must explain the following. If it chooses to fund free higher education, how will it finance it? Will it cut college budgets again, or in other areas of public expenditure, or will it raise taxes? How will it close the funding gap, which is undoubtedly growing between Scotland and other parts of the UK? Will it continue with its highly discriminatory policy, which means that domicile Scots and EU students pay no fees while their counterparts in the rest of the UK and non-EU foreign students do? How will it raise sufficient bursary funds to support poorer students? Those are the real issues, Cabinet Secretary, which the Scottish public want answered before the Scottish election next year, rather than some vindictive bureaucratic and completely unnecessary attack on university governance that shows no sign whatsoever of having any problems. How will the Scottish Government explain to the people of Scotland that it has that as a priority rather than all the other pressing issues in education? As we await the Scottish Government's legislative response to the consultation exercise, can we ask them to take stock carefully and consider what really is in the best interests of our universities? A sector that is autonomous and free-thinking, or one that is increasingly enthralled by the Government and its restricted practices? I move the motion in my name. I now call Angela Constance to speak to and move amendment 133, 13.2. Cabinet Secretary, up to seven minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased that the Conservatives have chosen to discuss higher education today, because that gives me the chance and the opportunity to celebrate Scotland's universities and the achievements of their staff and students. I want to highlight the commitment of this Government to invest in our universities, to benefit all learners, to grow our economy and to enhance the international reputation for teaching and research that is enjoyed by our institutions. It is clear that universities make a pivotal contribution to Scotland by enabling a better educated workforce, by fostering inclusive economic growth and supporting links and collaboration with our neighbours in the UK, the EU and other nations across the world. Rankings from October 2014 show that Scotland has four universities in the top 200 in the world, more per head of the population than any other country apart from Switzerland. Scottish higher education is thriving. In 2014, Eurostat figures highlighted that Scotland had the highest percentage of population with tertiary education attainment of all European countries listed at 46.5 per cent, and that is 6 per cent higher than the UK figure at 40.5 per cent. I absolutely agree with those statistics, but on what grounds does the cabinet secretary believe that universities have achieved such outstanding success? A million pounds of funding every year that the committee to buy this Government has made some contribution. There are, of course, many other people who should be congratulated, not least the staff, the students and the institutions themselves. To move on to some of the substantive points that Ms Smith raised in her opening contribution, this Government, just to make it clear, values the autonomous nature of universities. That is part of the reason that we have had the confidence to invest more than £4 billion in the higher education sector since 2011, and funding of more than £1 billion is planned for the next academic year. However, with many areas of Government expenditure under pressure, it is not easy to maintain this heavyweight financial commitment. As part of the return for this investment, we expect institutions to adhere to the highest standards of governance. Building on the work that has been done since the publication of the review of higher education governance in 2012, we plan to introduce a bill to Parliament in the very near future. This new legislation will enhance governance arrangements in our universities. Essentially, as a Government, we want to work with universities to ensure that their governance arrangements are always evolving, modern, transparent and inclusive. Our legislative plans are designed to complement work that is already taken forward by our institutions. The autonomous nature of our universities has many benefits. However, in return for substantial investment, the Scottish Government wants to help to ensure that all parts of the university community have their voices heard in a more consistent way. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary again. The cabinet secretary explained why she thinks that Professor Downs said that the Scottish Government should, and I quote, reflect very seriously on the wide range of evidence that says that the current proposals in the Scottish Government's consultation paper will damage universities' contributions to Scotland's success. We are considering the wide range of evidence that is available in Scotland and across the developed world. We also have the consultation that was conducted earlier on this year. We, of course, as an open transparent Government, have published that consultation. We have been very open about that. I appreciate and understand the views of people such as Professor Downs. On the other side, I have representations from organisations such as the University and College Union of Scotland, which delivered 1,400 of those postcards, which are currently sitting up in my office calling for improvements in higher education governance. It is important to stress that existing Government structures, which have been informed by the code of good governance, have served institutions well. However, I believe that higher education is capable of further improvements in that greater inclusivity and more transparent governance can only help our universities to develop and adapt to the challenges that they face in the future. The Government is rightly proud of its defence and maintenance of free tuition. Elsewhere in those islands, students have expected to accumulate loan debt of up to £27,000 to pay for their period of study. Of course, it is possible that the UK Government might allow that figure to increase further. We recognise that positive contribution that our universities make to Scotland's economy and society and the benefits that they and Scotland derive from levering additional funding from Europe and welcoming international students. The Government will continue to push for the reintroduction of the post-study work visa. Scotland's higher education progress and achievements are all the more impressive, achieved as they are against a backdrop of a UK Government focused on austerity, a UK Government focused on restricting access to study in the UK for international students and a UK Government focused on fostering instability by taking forward plans for an in-out referendum on membership of the EU. I can just briefly share a couple of facts about what universities and government have achieved by working together. We know that Scotland's domiciled first-degree university entrance has risen that 57 per cent of those students are female. It is important to recognise that the time available is difficult to tell the whole story of the collective success of universities, but it is clear that Scottish universities have a world-class reputation for research with 77 per cent of the research that is assessed as world-leading or internationally excellent in the 2014 research excellence framework. I look forward to the debate this afternoon. I rise to move the amendment in my name. That amendment leaves intact the first half or so of the Conservative motion before us this afternoon. For the very simple reason that there can really be no disagreement that our universities make an outstanding contribution to the academic, economic, social and cultural life of our nation or, indeed, that they enhance our international reputation. We punch well above our weight when it comes to universities and speakers already this early in the debate have pointed out that we have four of the top 200 universities, the highest concentration of world-class universities per head of population anywhere in the world. Ms Smith pointed out that the sector's economic impact estimated at over £6.5 billion and, indeed, £1.3 billion of export earnings generated by the sector. The cabinet secretary mentioned post-work visas and overseas students, some 30,000 students from over 180 countries who come to Scotland to study here. We know, and Ms Smith made reference to that, too, that competitors in the rest of the developed world and in fast-growing economies are making rapid progress in competing with our higher education institutions. The truth is, if we try to stand still, we will find ourselves going backwards. Now, the Scottish Government has invested in the sector, certainly in comparison with FE, for example, where 140,000 students have been lost to our colleges or, indeed, schools with over 4,000 fewer teachers there than when the SNP came to power. However, there are worrying signs in HE2. Last year's budget—this year's budget—approved by this Parliament just recently allocated to higher education a flat-cast settlement of just over £1 billion. Days later, university funding was cut by £21 million, resulting in the abolition of the global excellence fund that was only launched two years previously and resulting in cuts to research funding in all our major universities. Capital funding, too, was cut in that budget to a historic low. I have also raised questions about transfers of higher education resource to SAS to support student funding, creating funding pressures elsewhere. That amounts to £14 million a year and, combined with the clawback, the reality is that university settlement this year is down by around 2.5 per cent. Those pressures are having a real impact with job cuts threatened in Aberdeen, in Dundee and at the Scottish Marine Institute in Oben. That is exactly how a standstill budget can quickly turn into decline if the warning signals are ignored. Nonetheless, our universities are the recipients of very large sums of public funding. Yes, they are autonomous, and that autonomy should be properly guarded, particularly in terms of what they teach, what research they do, and what academic challenge they might mount to whosoever they choose. However, they also properly have an obligation to face the degree of accountability, transparency and consistency in their governance and administration. That was the conclusion of the Prindinské review into higher education governance. That lack of accountability has been symbolised above all by the high levels of principles pay with significant increases and bonuses to paid in many cases throughout the period of public sector pay restraint. All this at a time when the sector was one of the worst offenders in the public sector at least when it came to low pay and the use of zero hours contracts. I am happy to acknowledge recent progress on the living wage zero hours contracts and, indeed, governance in the sector, although one does wonder the degree to which the imminence of the potential legislation that we debate today had to do in pushing the sector in that direction. However, that progress has been slow and sporadic, so we cannot agree with the main thrust of the Tory amendment. We do not believe that the Government's proposed legislation compromises the academic autonomy of our universities nor do we believe that the voluntary introduction of the governance review will provide the required transparency and consistency. We do support the election of chairs, although there is much work to be done on the detail of that, greater diversity on ruling bodies and direct representation for trade unions on governing bodies. So autonomy, yes, but responsible autonomy, ancient institutions, yes, but redesigned for the modern world as they must indeed be in order to maintain their crucial and pivotal role at the centre of our nation. I now move to open debate and I call on George Adam to be followed by James Kelly. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I agree that our university sector does make an outstanding contribution both academically and socially and culturally to Scotland. That is why the Scottish Government is maintaining university budgets, while the UK Government cuts its funding for English universities. However, the major points for me in today's debate are that, as the cabinet secretary has already said, Scotland is a leading nation in higher education, with the four universities in the world top 200, as has already been mentioned, and four education institutions undertaking research of world-leading quality. The important fact is that education is free of fees in Scotland. Free tuition saves over 120,000 undergraduate students up to £27,000 compared to the cost of study in England. My final point that I will develop further, as well as the public, is that we have the right to expect universities to be accountable. That is why we must look at the governance of our higher education. However, the Scottish Government is maintaining university budgets, while the UK Government is cutting for the ones. It is an investment that Scotland's universities support the world-class high-impact research and help them to build links across the world. It has already been mentioned by many of my colleagues here how successful that has been. It is also providing over £1 billion per year for higher education sector in 2014-15 and 2015-16. Scotland's reputation in the university sector is well known throughout the world, but that reputation is proven internationally in the fact that Scotland is a leading nation in higher education. The whole idea is that the full body of the editor of TES rankings said that Scotland was really standing out as one of the strongest higher education countries in the world. That alone tells us, Presiding Officer, just what other people think of the higher education sector in Scotland. It has also been mentioned by some of my colleagues that the public has a right to expect universities to be accountable. That is why, quite rightly, we expect higher education institutions to adhere to the highest standards of governance. The aim of the higher education governance bill is to modernise and strengthen governance by embedding the principles of democracy and accountability in the higher education sector. If, Presiding Officer, we were looking at the higher education sector at this point from day one, we would not necessarily create the governance model that we currently have. Obviously, our universities and institutions have such a rich history, and that is part of the issues that we are dealing with. Those issues are some of the most autonomous institutions in the world, but we must find a way to be able to balance that to ensure that we can see that the public money is accountable and that we have trade union representatives and other organisations, and that universities become part of their local community. That is one of the most important points that we need to make sure that they must continue to have strong democratic accountability in their governance arrangements and remain fit for purpose in modern Scotland. Professor Ferdinand von Prondinski, principal and vice chancellor of Robert Gordon University, has already said that the proposals that are set out by the Government are important elements in getting this balance between autonomy and public confidence right. Scotland's universities are a great success story, and they have nothing to fear from the proposed legislation and a lot to gain. That is one of the most important points here. Any proposals that are brought forward by the Scottish Government will add to the fantastic work that is already done by our universities. That is about ensuring that our universities continue to thrive internationally and locally, but being open, accountable and modern institutions will continue to deliver for Scotland. I welcome the fact that the Conservatives are using their time this afternoon to look at the key issue of how we organise our universities in Scotland. The issues in the debate are around governance and on the funding of universities. That has to be seen in the context of what we are looking for from our universities. We see them as institutions to allow our young people to go forward and receive good quality education so that they can then play a proper role in society and contribute to a growing economy. We see them as institutions that attract support and investment from overseas. We also see them as places of research and development that can develop our skills and specialities so that Scottish education has become so famous. It is against that backdrop that we need to look at the governance and funding issues. I know that the Conservatives seem to take a free market approach to the governance issues. Will the member accept that what we are taking is not a free market approach, it is a fundamentally liberal approach, and that is the approach that is completely missing right around this chamber except for this corner? I was going to go on to say that where legislation should not be used for legislation's sake as Mr Gray and others have pointed out, huge amounts of public money are invested in our universities, and the students and the wider public, the taxpayers, are entitled to a certain amount of openness and transparency. On what grounds is the member arguing that there is a serious problem in higher education? Where is the evidence that we are failing because governance is not good enough? Let me go on to the next point in my speech, which I was going to develop. I believe that there are more fundamental issues that we have to address in the university sector than simply governance. Governance can be used to help, but if you take the skills shortage and the economy as an example, we have now got a real development in the app economy. There are 5.8 million app jobs across Europe, and that is anticipated to grow to 5.8 million in 2018, but we have got a real shortage in Scotland. Across the UK, there are over 900,000 job shortages in engineering skills and IT. I think that there is a real job for our universities with proper leadership from the Government to tackle the issue of shortages in engineering and information technology. In order to do that, you need proper governance that is aligned with leadership from the Government and proper funding. That is why it is extremely regrettable that we see a 21 million reduction in university funding that has affected our research funding and therefore undermines our ability to contribute to specialities such as the app economy sector. The debate has to be viewed in a wider context. Governance is one part of it, and I accept that it is not just a case of introducing legislation. It has to be tested so that it works. We also need to look at fundamental issues such as the skills shortage. I very much welcome the opportunity to speak in this afternoon's debate on the important contribution that our universities make to Scotland. Liz Smith is right to highlight the positive educational, cultural and economic benefits that our universities bring to Scotland. As others have said, with four universities ranked in the world's top 200, there is no question that Scotland's higher education system is one of the best in the world. We continue to punch above our weight as evidenced by the times higher education rankings, which now show Scotland ranked first when measured by GDP and ranked second when measured by population. Recent studies have suggested that Scotland is the most highly educated country in Europe and the best place to study in the UK. We have managed to create the circumstances in which Scotland's universities can thrive as testament to the support and indeed the investment provided by the Scottish Government. Restoring free education to Scotland and thereby ensuring that university education is based on the ability to learn, rather than the ability to pay, is undoubtedly one of the SNP's proudest achievements. Last year, I asked Spice to look at how much free higher education saves Scottish students. It was found that over 120,000 undergraduate students save up to £20,000 compared to the cost of studying in England. To put that in context, tuition fees rose to £9,000 in the rest of the UK. In the first three years that they were in force, the cost students there were around £14 billion, while Scottish domicile students attending Scottish institutions have saved almost £1 billion in fees over the same number of years. That is an enormous sum of money that the Scottish Government has saved Scottish domicile students and it is something that we should be proud of. The current funding arrangements for universities down south result in tuition fees, which put higher education out of the reach of many young people. In Scotland, we have been able to use the powers of this Parliament to protect free university tuition and open the doors of opportunities to many young Scots. We should be proud of our universities. They are a true national asset and are worldly leading in many areas, but that does not mean that we should not strive to make them better. The Scottish Government has invested more than £4 billion in higher education over the past four years. That is a significant amount of public money, and our constituents have the right to expect their universities to be transparent, accountable and adhere to the highest standards of governance. Professor von Brunsinski's review of higher education governance has been integral to informing the Scottish Government's work and strengthening the sector. It is vital that the framework for the governance of our universities is fit for purpose for a modern Scotland in the 21st century. Writing in the Herald in April, Professor von Brunsinski spoke of the importance of striking the right balance between restoring public confidence and protecting the autonomy of our universities, because there is no argument across the chamber that their universities have to retain their autonomy. However, he concluded by saying that Scotland's universities are a great success story. They have nothing to fear from this proposed legislation and a lot to gain. I agree very much with that sentiment. The Tory motion suggests that those proposals are somehow a threat to the success of our higher education sector in Scotland. I would argue that, instead of those, the reforms will go a long way to ensuring that our world-class universities continue to thrive, creating a modern framework for decision-making that benefits the institutions, the staff and the students. It seems to me that the real threat to the international standing of Scotland's universities is the refusal of the Tory UK Government to reintroduce the post-study work visa to Scotland. We debated that at length in Parliament some weeks back, but the point remains that the UK Government's immigration policies are restricting Scotland's ability to attract and retain the best international students and graduates. International students make a valuable contribution to Scotland, but higher education stats show that there has been a drop in the number of attending Scottish universities. A strong case has been made for the restoration of the post-study work visa. To conclude, I am proud that the SNP has defended free education throughout our time in office. The Scottish Government continues to strongly invest in the higher education sector, and I look forward to our world-renowned universities going from strength to strength in the years ahead. Presiding Officer, let me declare an interest. My alma mater is the university of Strathclyde, of which I am an honorary fellow. Not surprisingly, I hold my former university in high esteem. I owe it a lot. When establishing my career as a lawyer, it was a privilege to be invited to serve on the university court, a role that I discharged for a considerable number of years. Uncertain about what was involved, I rapidly realised that I was part of an exciting and a fascinating forum with challenging responsibilities. I found myself an inspiring company, impressive academics, people from other professions and businesses, leaders of industry, a member of Glasgow City Council, one Hanzala Malik, with, if I recall correctly, a recently retired very senior civil servant, a representative of the non-teaching staff and the president of the student union. There was even then a significant presence, Presiding Officer, of significant women. The backgrounds were diverse, but this grouping aggregated into a powerhouse of knowledge, skill, experience and wisdom, reflecting a collective ability that was impressive. We did not represent sectoral interests, our collegiate focus was the best interest of the whole university. The group was also comfortable with its knowledge of each other about deciding who was best placed to chair the court. The discussions were amongst the most well-informed and well-argued, it has ever been my privilege to take part in. The university benefited from enlightened and strategic decision-making and effective governance. I know that some politicians feel uncomfortable about that. Shortly after I entered this Parliament, a political opponent, a former MSP, observed that, because universities were public bodies receiving public money, they should be more under the control of government. I think that a sentiment is being echoed by the cabinet secretary. Fortunately, having attended a university where I was encouraged to question such intellectual candifloss, I pointed out that, although universities derived a proportion of funding from government, they raised the rest themselves hence in no way conforming to the definition of being a public body. As Liz Smith has said, we now know from that OECD survey across Europe that there is a direct link between the autonomy of universities and the quality of universities. Each university is different in character and culture, very different and far from demonstrating any weakness of inconsistency, that vital diversity is a huge strength. In Scotland, our universities over centuries and decades have showcased the best in learning, research, academic freedom and independence of approach. That is no casual platitude. That is the intellectual forum, which is the lifeblood of any seat of learning. It should exist to question, to challenge, to stimulate the mind, to explore and to discover the new by examination, by analysis, by research and by deduction. Above all, universities should be free of any whiff of political control, state intervention in or state prescription about governance. Without any supporting evidence, the Scottish Government wants to wreck that autonomy, trample over freedoms and demolish the fundamental elements of good governance. I have to say that that has echoes of the chaotic debacle that surrounded the botched attempt to abolish corroboration. However, let me now utter a platitude. Fools rush in in where angels fear to tread. The cabinet secretary is a highly intelligent woman, she is no fool. When the Scottish Government proposals to change university Governments meet serious and compelling criticism from University Scotland, from the principle of Dundee University Professor Peter Downs, from the principle of St Andrews University Professor Louise Richardson, herself moving to a very senior position Oxford University in the near future, from the Royal Society of Edinburgh, from the Scottish Council for Development Industry and numerous others, and when the system of governance has the full support of the Scottish Funding Council, the Equality Challenge Unit and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, I would not be treading where the cabinet secretary proposes to go. Only one conclusion will be drawn. Please have the courage and the wisdom to withdraw these unnecessary dangerous and inept proposals. Thank you very much. Now we call on Nigel Dawn to be followed by Richard Baker. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Can I say that I'm very grateful to Annabelle Goldie for describing how it can be done so very well? I think the point in any sensible society is that we want to make sure that it is always done very well. Alex Johnson tells me that this is all about a liberal approach. A liberal approach is undoubtedly what I would want to see, but I do think that we want to follow the public pound, at least well enough to ensure that the body to which that money goes is accountable. I do hear some very loose descriptions of accountability and control, and it seems to me that accountability to the general public, whether or not it's this parliament, is one thing, and control is something very, very different. We have in our society, Presiding Officer, all sorts of discussions between those who have some kind of embedded value and of vested interest and those who see an opportunity using their own talents and abilities. In classical economics, that's actually capital versus labour. I would prefer the idea in this kind of educational debate that it has something to do with the institutions, and our universities are fine ones, and the opportunities which students and staff recognise. I'd like to pick up briefly, because it is inevitably brief this afternoon, on three different issues that have emerged in the consultation. I first of all point out, Presiding Officer, that as I read through the summary of the responses to the governance bill, I am struck on several pages by the very different views that I get, and I'm going to use the terms loosely, from the management of the universities and everybody else. It's not universal, but it does seem to me that there are two very different aspects and views of our universities coming through, which I find slightly discouraging, because I would have hoped that there could have been slightly more unanimity within those and among those who work there as to what the collective vested interest was, and what the public interest was. That diversity of opinion seems to me to be sharp enough that those who are in charge might like to think about why that gap is there. Secondly, I'd like to look at the issue of elected chairs, because it did strike me that there was a very strange thing in here. If I may pick up from page four on the consultation written responses, which members will have seen, quoting from one to four, most universities oppose the proposal that chairs should be remunerated, with a common view being that the post of the chair is essentially a voluntary one, with those putting themselves forward doing so on a pro bono basis as part of a public service commitment. I think that that belongs to a different generation, possibly century, if that isn't the same thing. Why on earth is it that we should be restricting it to those who cannot afford to be there pro bono, or if they can't and they're being employed by somebody else? Why on earth should somebody else be paying them to do the job? Everybody else in universities paid quite well at the top, and I'm not at all clear where that comes from. Lastly, Presiding Officer, may I look at the issue of the way in which universities change? I was reminded when I looked at this of my time as a student in the 70s, and I discovered that I was reminded that we as students wrote a report that we put to the college officers about how it might be that students should be represented on the college body. That was written in 1975. We eventually got two things done. The first was that our college in Cambridge allowed women to come in as students. That took 10 years, and the idea that there should be student members on the college council was, as far as I can see, enacted in a 2009 statute. I conclude simply with the comments that that report, and my fellow student, was none other than the right honourable Oliver Heald QCMP. No nice suspect to my Tory colleagues. The point is that, as students, we did see it differently, and the issues that we raised then as students still apply. Thank you very much. No call on Richard Baker to be followed by Gordon MacDonald. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and please Parliament has this opportunity to debate the challenges facing our universities because, in Aberdeen, the issue of support for our university sector is a very current concern. Our local university has announced it is to lose 150 posts. That has caused great anxiety among staff and students. It raises very real questions of how our universities are equipped to perform their vital role in our country. In Aberdeen, the impact on our local economy of both Aberdeen University and Robert Gordon University cannot be overstated. It is also, of course, of great importance nationally in terms of support for our oil and gas industry and skills and expertise there. We must hear today from the Minister, from the Cabinet Secretary. How the Scottish Government will ensure that our universities will receive the resources that they need to recruit and retain the staff that they require in the ferociously competitive global higher education sector, and specifically how they will support Aberdeen University and ensure that there are no compulsory redundancies. Higher education is an area in which we have long had a competitive advantage. It is not one as a nation that we can afford to lose. Staff at Aberdeen University should be rewarded for their efforts rather than face redundancy and this demands a response from the Scottish Government. The contributions to the debate today from most members reflect a consensus that has been established that free tuition is the right policy for Scotland. Of course, in Labour, we had hoped to reduce fees in England that would have provided a financial boost for the sector here. However, I think that any temptation there is to say that we have free tuition fees in Scotland, so that is the job done for higher education here. That must be resisted. I am not sure that it has been over the past few years. We have long debated the impact of the cuts in further education, and the University Scotland submission outlines funding challenges in the higher education sector in Scotland as well. On capital funding, we can understand why the constraints are there, the context in which the Scottish Government works, but on research funding, cuts in that area can only be damaging to institutions and to our economy. There are wider issues as well. Some of our institutions have seen the worst drop-out rates in the UK, and I would not be surprised if they were among the worst in Europe. That is an opportunity wasted for those students who drop out and wasted investment for the state, but it is certainly not discussed enough in this Parliament. If we want our universities to be the best they can be, to be as proud of them as we should be, ministers must get to grips with this issue as well, to understand it and to seek solutions. We are also still not doing enough to widen access, and, as has been discussed, to both those issues, student support is of crucial importance. The level of grant that is available to students from low-income backgrounds is of massive importance to the success of their studies. Of course, students here are benefitted from free tuition, but in other parts of the UK there are better grants and student support, and that is an issue that requires more debate and scrutiny in Scotland. On the issue of governance, of course, it is important that university courts are properly inclusive, that staff are represented and, looking back, we previously had elected chairs of courts through the roles of rectors. As Ian Gray said, reform is important and accountability is important, but in that context the independence of universities must also be respected. This is a Government that has been quick to take powers to itself rather than devolve them and to seek to control from the centre organisations like colleges, which should be empowered to make the decisions locally which best fit their distinctive needs. In the same way that universities must have proper local accountability, beyond that, their independence is important, not largely against reform but against an overbearing approach from central government and accountability to staff and students, not simply to ministers. Our universities are held in the highest team, they are high achievers, our job is to enable them to continue that vital role for Scotland. I am afraid that I have to advise members that there is absolutely no time, please stick to your time. My constituency has two universities within its boundary, Edinburgh, Napier and Herriot Walk. I take a great interest in both institutions, not only because I am a member of the education committee but because my son has graduated from those universities. Edinburgh and Napier is in the top 20 of UK universities for graduate employability, with 95 per cent of undergraduates and 92 per cent of postgraduates still employment or further study six months after graduating. Importantly, Edinburgh and Napier has over many years worked with partners to build aspirations for higher education amongst those from low participation neighbourhoods and non-traditional backgrounds. Community engagement takes place in schools, colleges, resulting in 2,292 students joining Edinburgh and Napier directly from Scottish colleges in 2013-14. Herriot Walk University is ranked second in Scotland and 18th in the UK by the Guardian University guide, although the UK ranking hides the fact that it is second in the UK for civil engineering, third in the UK for electronics and electrical engineering and accounting and finance. To encourage a widening of access to its courses, Herriot Walk awards £6 million in scholarships and bursaries to over 400 students each year. As others have said, Scotland is a leading nation in higher education, with four universities in the world's top 200 each of our higher education institutions, undertaking research of world-leading quality. That is in part due to the funding that our universities have received in recent years from the Scottish Government. Last year and this year, the Scottish Government is providing over £1 billion per annum to the higher education sector. Given that level of investment of public funds into universities, it would be a miss of the Scottish Government if it did not take an interest in the sector. The report of the review of higher education governance in Scotland, submitted to the Scottish ministers in January 2012, highlighted why it was important. Universities in today's world play many roles of direct significance to society, going well beyond the personal interests of those embarking on higher education, well beyond the organisational ambitions of individual institutions and well beyond the expectations of those who employ graduates. They stimulate economic development, they provide a focus for cultural growth, they are engines of social regeneration, they play a major part in establishing a positive view of Scotland internationally. Universities are major employers and providers of livelihoods, and they own and control buildings, land and infrastructure that are vital assets for communities. They instigate and nourish public debate and provide necessary critical analysis of the ideas and actions of public bodies and politicians. For all those reasons, university governance is not just a private matter. Indeed, the public interest in university governance arguably extends beyond that, which applies to corporate governance in the business world. It is not just a question of assuring the integrity and transparency of processes, it is a question of allowing society to protect its broader investment in education, knowledge and intellectual innovation in a way that makes the most of a long Scottish tradition adapted to the needs of the 21st century. Our higher education institution should reflect society that we live in and, as the NUS Scotland president-elect stated in the press recently, as public bodies rightly and receive a well over £1 billion every year, we want to see our universities open themselves up to greater transparency, democracy and accountability, staying relevant to and representative of the people we serve. The proposed reforms to higher education governance gives us a great opportunity to ensure that that happens. Thank you very much. I have now turned to the closing speeches. I call Ian Gray, no more than four minutes please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. This has really been, although short, a two-prong debate, hasn't it, some debate around the success of our universities and their funding, but mostly around governance and the need for reform. I think that we have all across the chamber celebrated the success of our university sector, but I have to say that, from some of the SNP speakers to a degree perhaps from the cabinet secretary herself, there has been a degree of complacency about that. For example, the figure, and I used this figure myself, of four universities in the top 200 in the world. That has been used by a number of speakers in the course of the afternoon, but we should remind ourselves that it was a short 18 months or so ago when we had five universities in the top 200. We have to be a little careful about the direction in which that is going. Mr Adam spent some time—in fact, he said three times—that the Scottish Government had maintained funding in the higher education sector when that had not been maintained in England. If Mr Adam had listened, I quoted figures from Lucy Hunter, the former head of higher education in the Scottish Government, which showed that that is not in fact the case. This year's budget has seen the resources available to universities cut by 2.5 per cent—21 million clodd back after the budget was set, and a further 14 million, which has been transferred to the student awards agency in a little bit of unusual accounting, I think that we could say. Mr Maxx will focus rather much on what a wonderful world it is in Scotland for students. That too, I think, rather stepped over the reality that students face from day to day. I do not agree with Liz Smith that free tuition fees has created a funding gap between Scottish universities and those in England. I think that the very helpful briefing the NUS provided for this debate to give some detail too much to go into in the short time I've got, which shows that that funding gap is rather illusory. Mr Maxx will also say that this meant that Scotland was the best place in Britain to be a student. As Mr Baker pointed out, that is certainly not the case if you are a student from a poorer family, because the level of bursary and grant support available to you will be significantly less. Your level of indebtedness will be significantly higher in order to live, and perhaps that is why we have a lower proportion of poorer students in our universities, and as Mr Baker pointed out, a higher drop-out rate. As for governance, Liz Smith has asked on a number of occasions where is the evidence of failure, but in her own speech she indicated that the most egregious evidence of failure is the lack of transparency and very high levels of principles pay. Even in the last year, principles pay has risen by between 7% and 13% at a time when most public sector workers are lucky to have 1%. The UCU has pointed out that, even though universities claim transparency now, when they ask for details of remuneration committee minutes, two thirds of institutions failed to provide them with that information. That is a failure. It is a failure of governance, and there is no reason at all why we should not consider introducing transparency and consistency. If she talks also to those who take part in the current governance structure, such as staff reps, she will find that they believe that the governance system is not working either, that they are not trade union reps, but are often treated as such. As I said in my opening statement, autonomy, yes, but responsible autonomy for a modern day. I start by saying to Mr Gray that, although I have many, many faults, I am sure that he is familiar with a few of them, complacency is most certainly not one of them. On the fight on today's debate, it struck me that Liz Smith, in her opening remarks, used some uncharacteristically strong language for her. She described the Scottish Government in pursuing the higher education governance bill as vindictive, bureaucratic and meddling. I would like to point out that the EUA autonomy score board identifies Scotland's higher education sector as one of the most autonomous in the world. What our proposals most certainly are not about, they are not about increasing ministerial control. I welcome the fact that most members in this chamber today recognise that diversity, inclusiveness and partnership within the higher education sector is not just the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do. We are now in the three-week pre-introduction phase of the higher education governance bill, and it is difficult for me in the context of this debate to discuss and debate in detail of the bill that will be introduced to Parliament in the very near future. I am confident that we will be able to demonstrate that we have been listening to principles, chairs of court but also crucially to staff and students. The commitment that this Government makes is that, post-introduction of the bill, we will continue to work with partners, we will continue to collaborate across the sector and, indeed, across the chamber. That has to be a two-way process, and I want to ensure that, if possible, the sector can work together and move forward as a community. We have had some discussion today, as you would expect with regard to funding, and it is important to stress that the Government of Year, the Scottish Funding Council, plans to invest £282 million in core research and knowledge exchange. That is a very modest increase of half a per cent, and that is building on the increasing levels of research funding since 2007. It is important to reflect that higher education resource funding since 2011-12 up to the financial year 2015-16 has increased by 12 per cent in cash terms, more than 5 per cent in real terms, at a time when the Scottish Government's fiscal budget has reduced by 9 per cent in real terms and, of course, our capital budget has been reduced by 25 per cent in real terms. Nonetheless, we have, in response to Mr Gray's point, said at the funding council to proceed with very firm commitments that they can make firm spending plans on £1,041 million. Indeed, we have asked them to hold back £22 million, roughly 2 per cent, so that we indeed have flexibility across the post-16 education budget. Of course, there has been a transfer of resources, but it is important to recognise that there is no impact on the level of support that is available to students, and SASS-funded student support funding is demand-led by the criteria that is published, and which Parliament and Government decide on. It is demand-led and therefore responds to the needs of students. Of course, as a Government, we will always endeavour where possible to increase resources to support students within our available resources. Of course, there was some improvement to the overall love and support package that I announced a few weeks ago. I also want to clarify another issue for the record. There have indeed been changes to the distribution of the research excellence grant, which has seen six institutions see a reduction in their funding, but 12 institutions have seen an uplift in their research funding. It is not true to say that every institution has had a reduction in their research funding. It is true to say that the Global Excellence Initiative Fund, which was always a time-limited fund, no longer exists, has an impact on institutions in their deliberation. However, it is important to recognise that the change in the distribution of the research excellence grant is due to the general improvement of Scottish universities in the UK-wide REF 2014. If I can also say to Mr Baker, who is demanding a response from the Scottish Government with regard to job losses in Aberdeen, job losses in any institution, in any sector, the length and breadth of Scotland is always regrettable. However, it is important to say that the savings being sought at Aberdeen are not related to changes in research funding. The university has said that they are seeking to make savings of £10.5 million, but the reduction in research funding is just £350,000 for the next academic year. I will happily close there. I appreciate that time is present. Many thanks. I now call on Mary Scanlon to wind up the debate in maximum eight minutes, please. I think that this has been a very good debate with wide-ranging and thoughtful contributions, including Annabelle Goldie, with her experience on the board of governors at Strathclyde. It has also been an excellent opportunity for all of us to put on record the success of our universities, a topic that is almost too rarely debated in the chamber. I am very pleased to hear that the cabinet secretary has listened to University Scotland and will respond. That is very helpful. I think that on this day of commemoration in another House for Charles Kennedy, it is worth putting on record his role as director of Glasgow University, particularly in this debate on Scotland's universities today. I hope that members do not mind. Thank you to members for that, and obviously as a Highland MP. But no-one connected with higher education in Scotland or who aspires to be can be unconcerned about what the future will hold. Specifically, how we can look to protect and enhance our academic traditions and the autonomy of our universities, which almost all members spoke about, given their incredible history and, of course, their incredible success, consistently ranking among the best in the world. I think that it is worth taking a brief look at this history, at this success, demonstrating the tradition and the autonomy of our institutions. St Andrews was founded in 1413, only 602 years old, by a group of Augustine masters, mainly graduates of Paris, initiating a school of higher studies in the town. Then, of course, our next oldest university, Glasgow, was founded in 1451 and the students of today walk in the footsteps of some of the world's most renowned innovators from John Logie Baird to the best-selling author of the Times, Adam Smith and his book, The Wealth of Nations. Then a relative newcomer, Aberdeen, founded in 1495, to train doctors, teachers and clergy for the communities of Northern Scotland and lawyers and administrators to serve the Scottish crown. As many MSPs will remember, this Parliament sat in Aberdeen when we used to be evicted for a week each year from our old place for the General Assembly. Then the newcomer, Edinburgh, founded in 1583, has played host to scientists, philosophers and politicians who have shaped the modern world. Edinburgh graduates signed the United States Declaration of Independence, founded Ivy League universities and wrote some of the world's most widely read books. Scotland's long and distinguished tradition of first-class higher education continues with four of our universities ranked in the top 200 of the world, which, as you will all agree, is no main achievement. We remain a popular destination for academics from all corners of the world, exceeding in research, ranging from Peter Hegg's eponymous boson to Aberdeen's burgeoning gaming industry and considerable world-renowned health research, so we should be rightly proud of our traditions and ensure that this stellar work continues. We have unprecedented levels of entrance to higher education despite budget constraints and we can hold our head high in research, UK-wide, EU-wide and world-wide, but there has been something happening in governance that few speakers have mentioned. That is that university governance was recently modernised through the new Scottish code of good higher education governance 2013. In fact, a review of the new code last year reported that, after only one year, the achievements of the new framework include five out of six new appointments of chairs are women on merit, and 42 per cent of new appointments of independent governing body members are women. There is improved accountability and the inclusion of students and staff on nomination committees for principals and chairs, so the need for further action and interference is quite unclear given the positive moves achieved through the new code and indeed achieved by improved working between universities and the Scottish Government. I am sure that members will understand that, after one year, we can make some judgments, but many places on the boards are for three to four years and we will have to wait until they fulfil their term of office before replacements can come forward. Surely the principle of academic freedom is fundamental to higher academic institutions. I make no apology for repeating, as Liz Smith said. The OECD conducted studies across Europe and found a direct correlation between institutional autonomy and the quality of the institution. Furthermore, the Royal Society of Edinburgh's higher education governance response to the Scottish Government contends that the Scottish Government proposals to interfere in university governance are, and I quote, inappropriate, unnecessary and potentially counter to good governance. I hope to reassurance we have heard today from the Cabinet Secretary that she has listened, she has taken on board many of the views. I hope that that will go some way to allaying those fears. Of course, we are in favour of legislation to address problems and we will always seek to improve and make things better in terms of the public spend or to further positive viable outcomes, but we do not see our universities as a problem, we do not see them as broken, we do not see them as needing additional bureaucracy or interference from politicians as they are clearly excelling for centuries as they are. I hope that the Cabinet Secretary will take on the board the many contributions that have been raised today and, like the rest of us, ensure that the success of Scottish universities will continue. Many thanks. That concludes the debate on Scotland's universities and it's now time to move to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 1, 3, 3, 1, 2 and the name of Liz Smith on nursery vouchers. I invite members who wish to participate. Please press the request to speak buttons now. Unfortunately, we have already had to inform a member who wish to speak that there will not be time to call them and therefore I ask members to keep to the time because we are still short of time. I call on Liz Smith to speak to and move the motion maximum 10 minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and can I move the motion in my name. On 20 November last year, in her First Minister's Questions, Nicola Sturgeon gave a very firm commitment that her door would, and I quote, always be open to sensible policy discussion. A month later, on 11 December, again at FMQs, she assured Ruth Davidson that she would listen to sensible suggestions from all opposition parties. Since that time, the Scottish Conservatives have tried on three separate occasions to ensure that the First Minister keeps that promise, and today we will try again for the fourth time. We will do so to use the Cabinet Secretary for Education's line from her speech at Glasgow University two weeks ago on the basis of what works and not from dogma or ideology. Presiding Officer, on Thursday last week, Ruth Davidson cited the case of Marissa, a single mother in Glasgow, who turned down three job offers because she could not find a nursery that could take her daughter during the hours that she suited. A situation that we believe is not only unacceptable on educational and economic grounds but is directly contrary to the stated aims of the Scottish Government's social policy. While everyone in this Parliament supports the move from 475 to 600 hours provision and, of course, the additional money that has been put in place to support that policy, we can surely never be content until all parents can access their entitlement. The issue is not so much about the number of hours on offer but about parents' access to them and the current inflexibility of when these hours can be taken. The First Minister, whilst acknowledging the concerns of some parents about this issue, does not seem as yet to recognise that the situation cannot improve until there is a radically different approach. Additional hours are no use unless they can be properly accessed. So, if I may, I want to spend a little time on the detail of the problem before I set out what we think can be the solution. In the first instance, the problem relates to the fact that neither the Scottish Government nor the local authorities seem able to provide the full facts. This is because data is weak or incomplete or, in some cases, meaningless. For example, the Scottish Government is persisting in using what it describes the registration figure, which it believes shows a 98.5 per cent uptake. Parents' groups, however, are struggling to understand that statistic, given that the evidence on the ground shows something entirely different. It is their opinion, from the evidence that they have compiled, that the figure is closer to an 80 per cent uptake, which obviously tells us that one in five children, the problem is still acute. Fair funding for our kids has looked at the 2014 nursery centres to find that 2,802 children were registered in partnership providers in Glasgow, but in terms of the number of places, at the time, it was only 2,089. In other words, 713 children are not receiving the funding that had actually been included in the registration statistics, which incidentally correlates with nearly £1.5 million worth of funding. Glasgow City Council runs a system called the NAMS system that registers any child at a partnership nursery, where there are partnership funding places that are irrespective of whether that child is in receipt of a partnership funding place. Glasgow City Council has to get their ship in order in terms of counting the children accurately in the local authority area. Liz Smith? I think that that is only half the story, because I think that what registrations are also doing is to include children on waiting lists, and they could actually be on more than one list. Those children do not actually quite have the entitlement that they deserve, and the registration figure is not an accurate reflection of the demand. The fair funding for our kids statistics—I know that they have spoken to the First Minister about that—is that 29 out of the 32 local authorities have registrations of three-year-olds that are above 100 per cent. That obviously tells you that there is a serious problem. Just to come back to the Glasgow situation, the 47 partnership nurseries in Glasgow, 873 children out of 1,600 eligible children received their entitlement in West Lothian. It was 23 partnerships that were looked at, and only 335 out of 673 eligible had their funding. The statistics that have been compiled very methodically, I have to say, by parents groups, tell quite a lot about the story. The Scottish Government is facing criticism from local authorities who are clear that it does not have enough money to make the necessary provision for the additional places, because the fatal mistake has been made of thinking that, as costs rise in the same proportion to the additional hours provided, that is actually not correct, because local authorities say quite clearly that the Scottish Government is failing to recognise the need for additional staff and the additional infrastructure, and they quite rightly point out that, obviously, from August later this year, the definition of the vulnerable two-year-olds will, in fact, change. Thus, there is no chance that local authorities will fulfil their statutory duties, as is set out in paragraph 159 of the Children and Young People's Act. It says quite clearly there that the annual incremental increases in funding for the Scottish Government will enable education authorities to increase the flexibility and the choice on the annual basis, but that is simply not happening. However, that has an added detrimental effect, because many providers are not receiving as much money as they need from the local authority, and, therefore, they are pushing up the costs to the privately funded hours, making it more expensive for parents and, in some cases, defeating the purpose of the policy. Whilst on the subject of choice, can we just deal with the myth that private nurseries are making a profit, because they most certainly are not? However, what they are in the business of doing is to provide that additional flexibility that the state nurseries cannot. For example, they are open for much longer hours and they offer holiday cover. Let us also remember that, for some families who are using childminders and nannies, they are not able to access free hours at all. However, the real issue for parents is the restriction of choice, because we know that, in East Dunbartonshire, East Lothian and Glasgow, they have all restricted the number of places that they can fund in partnership nurseries, which means that many parents are having to move their children from one nursery to another if they can no longer get a funded place at that existing nursery. That is why many parents believe that thousands of children are missing out on the provision, because the local authority nurseries are unable to provide the suitable hours for working parents. Obviously, if it is a flagship policy, cabinet secretary, it was a very clear flagship policy before the referendum, then it is some flagship if thousands of children are not getting that entitlement. There is also a marked variation across Scotland in the allocation process, meaning that parents are often open to a lottery. Local authorities purchase partnership places using different procurement processes, set against different criteria. For example, in Glasgow, geographical lots are drawn, giving the most places to nurseries that have the highest rating of five. That has the potential to be a very good thing, I have to say, in terms of driving up standards, but not if the same practice is supplied to other nurseries, because it could mean that very good nurseries which receive a rating of four are pretty good, but not quite a five in the area of the city with a high number of those. Obviously, they are going to lose out, so that is a system that is not fair. Again, that comes back to the evidence that has been provided by many parents. Those issues combined make the current funding arrangements both restrictive and unfair, and they are happening at the same time as the Scottish Government persists in its perverse logic, which denies that all children born in the winter months have the same nursery provision afforded to those born in the summer months. The First Minister, when questioned on that, said that her commitment to ensuring that childcare was real, genuine and strong, said that her commitment to ensuring that childcare was real, genuine and strong, while so far nothing has happened, and that is painfully disingenuous. There is absolutely no equitable defence of that birdie discrimination, and again, I ask the Scottish Government to have a look at it. Many times, there has been consensual agreement in this Parliament about the importance of the early years and therefore the policies that surround them, but it is translating warm words and manifest commitments into reality that we absolutely need. It is patently clear at the moment that we have the warm words, but we are actually very far away from the workable policy that will allow all children to access their entitlement. Not for the first time in this Parliament, members have rejected a Scottish Conservative policy simply because it contains the word voucher, but let's be clear about this motion, because it reflects exactly what is happening in Edinburgh City Council, where the activation of a code given to the parent by the council allows the parent to access the necessary care. It is a virtual voucher, if you like, and it works because it allows the money to follow the child. That is something that has been patented by an SNP and Labour-led council, so I hope that, out of dogma or any kind of ideology, it will not be rejected. We see that as a hugely significant issue. Indeed, we will make it a priority manifesto commitment for 2016. Parents must have choice, they must have the flexibility and they must be able to have the entitlement that has been promised by the Scottish Government. Many thanks. I now call Fiona McLeod to speak to and to move amendment 1, 3, 3, 1, 2, 0.3, maximum seven minutes, please. I welcome this debate and I rise to speak to and move the amendment in my name. I welcome this debate as timely. Only 10 months after the commencement of this Government's huge commitment and huge growth to 600 hours of early learning and childcare, that is a 45 per cent increase in the numbers of free hours of early learning and childcare for children, since we came into government in 2007. The Scottish Government is committed to developing a high-quality, flexible system of early learning and childcare that is affordable and accessible for all, focusing on those most in need in the first instance. We know that high-quality early learning and childcare benefits children, especially those who are most in need, and can contribute to narrowing attainment and inequality gaps. We also know that lack of accessible and affordable childcare is a major concern for families and a barrier to work for many parents. Our aims are to improve outcomes for all children, especially those who are most disadvantaged, and to support parents to work, train or study, especially those who need those routes into sustainable employment and out of poverty. The Children and Young People Scotland Act 2014 ensured that all three and four-year-olds are now legally entitled to 600 hours a year of funded early learning and childcare. The Children and Young People's Act 2014 also extended that entitlement to our vulnerable and disadvantaged two-year-olds. In the act, we created for the first time a statutory duty on local authorities to introduce flexibility and choice based on local consultation. I very much welcome the steps that she has outlined. She will be aware that, while welcoming the moves in relation to disadvantaged two-year-olds and the extension applied this summer to 27 per cent of two years, we are keen to see that rise to around 40 per cent similar to south of the border. Is there any update on when the Government expects that further extension to be achieved? As Mr MacArthur knows from our debate yesterday in committee, the extension to 15 per cent of two-year-olds last year and 27 per cent of two-year-olds this year was last year to ensure that the children of parents who were out of work and this year the children of parents who are in low paid employment get the support that is needed. That is about a phased and sustainable support for the most vulnerable children in our society. I know from going round the local authorities and nurseries in the last few months that local authorities are already consulting with and engaging parents and families to ensure that the design and delivery of provision will be flexible enough to meet local parents' demands. In fact, on my travels, I have already heard of local authorities providing extended hours following the consultations. The purpose of the legislation was also to set the stage for longer-term expansion and improvement. To that end, the First Minister announced a commitment to increasing the hours further to match those delivered in primary school by the end of the next parliamentary session. I thank her for doing so. I just listened carefully to what she said just now. The minister gave me a parliamentary response recently, and when she said that the model for adapting the actual spend from the Government was the same model that had been used for when it was the 475 hours, could the minister just explain where she believes that there is sufficient funding to do exactly what she has just outlined? If I can refer to Ms Smith to the written parliamentary answer that I gave her, we took the work that we did last year with COSLA on our providers to upscale to 600 hours and then upscale that to the further hours that we are looking for in the future. That was all there in the parliamentary answer. When we introduced the 600 hours last year and with the extension again this year, that was challenging timescales, and we absolutely understand that. I think that we have to look at this debate in the context of those additional hours, additional children and additional flexibility. In that context, it is reasonable to expect that an increase in flexibility and choice will be achieved in a phased and sustainable basis on a year-by-year growth. It is important to say that the Scottish Government fully funded the ground-breaking policy, with £329 million committed over the first two years of its implementation, a figure arrived at with our delivery partners in local government. We are talking about early learning and childcare, and part of that is important in supporting women back into work. We have already begun to see some of the results of that, with figures just recently showing us that Scotland now has the lowest rate of female unemployment of any country in Europe, while the female employment in Scotland is at a record level, and the gap between male and female employment is at a near record low. The Conservatives suggested that one way to increase flexibility is to let parents have vouchers. However, we need to consider such a decision and ensure that that decision is made so that we can manage our education system to be the best that it can be for our youngest children. We need to consider that policy, whether we think that a market-led consumer approach to purchasing early learning and childcare will guarantee sufficient quality, will guarantee an integration with our education system and with the curriculum for excellence, and will guarantee integration with policy objectives, such as getting it right for every child. Education Scotland and the care inspectorate are there to inspect and ensure quality within our providers and to help them to improve their provision. We have committed to extending universal early learning and childcare to 30 hours a week by the end of the next session of Parliament. I hope that everyone will believe that we should test the proposals for early learning and childcare against the principle of high-quality support to our youngest children to give them the best start in life. Transforming childcare is certainly one of the most important challenges that we face. As a mum of three young children, it is an issue close to my heart. I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and to move the amendment in my name. Last night, alongside the minister, I attended the launch of one-parent family Scotland's programme for change, and at the heart of the priorities identified by the single parents was the need to transform childcare to make sure that it is high quality, flexible and affordable, to enable parents to work and study while also meeting the development needs of children and to address the inequalities that continue to impact in children's life chances. Earlier this year, it was revealed by the family and childcare trust that only 15 per cent of councils in Scotland have enough childcare capacity to meet the needs of working parents. That compares with 43 per cent in England. One of the biggest challenges right now, as Liz Smith has already outlined, is that many thousands of children are missing out in the 600-hours early education that they are entitled to right now. We often hear in the chamber about the apparent 98.5 per cent take-up of free places, but that simply does not reflect the reality on the ground. To quote directly from the fair funding for kids campaign, it says that, for many children and working parents, the system is not delivering a model of childcare that meets the needs of the modern working family. Right now, thousands of families across Scotland are unable to access their legal entitlement to free childcare, because most council nurseries do not offer suitable hours for working parents. For parents who work full-time, access in a free space that is only available for three hours and 10 minutes a day for 38 weeks a year simply isn't an option. How many children across Scotland are being offered places that are just so inflexible that working parents can't access them? How many children are unable to access their 600-hours at all because they attend a private nursery and all the funded places have been allocated? How many children are attending nurseries that aren't partnership providers so there's just no money available at all to fund their place? How many children are attending a preschool nursery but not benefiting for the full 600 hours? The provision simply doesn't fit in with the school day and that poses a problem for parents of children at school too. While not denying Ms Hilton that we haven't got full flexibility into the system as yet, would Ms Hilton agree with me that we're 10 months in and this is a huge programme of improvement that we want to roll over to 2020 and we're doing not bad already? The reality is that this was a promise that was pledged back in 2007. I think that that's plenty of time to get it right and the reality is that parents are missing out. The answer to the questions that I've asked before is that we can only speculate because no one actually knows how many parents are missing out in the 600 hours that are universal for every child in Scotland because we've got no national oversight or scrutiny of this flagship policy to make sure that it is being delivered and to ensure that the spirit of the act is being fulfilled. That's why Scottish Labour is calling for effective national oversight of this policy, to ensure that it does work for every child and we want to see a full audit too of how the policy is being delivered across each local authority because right now too many parents feel that they are being robbed of their rights. They want to see action to ensure that their children receive the childcare that they've been promised, not a promise of change in the future when their children will probably be at school. We support much of Liz Smith's motion, although, like Fiona McLeod, we don't accept that the introduction of our virtual voucher scheme is necessarily the way forward. However, we do agree with the fair funding for kids campaign numbers to form Scotland that all— Liz Smith briefly. Does the member accept that an Edinburgh council, Labour and SNP led that that is exactly what's happening? Does she support that? Carrie Halton, you're approaching your last minute. That may well be the case, but it's just the idea of the concept of vouchers for public services. It could be a slippery slope. It might need to have more discussion, but it's certainly not an idea that we're supporting today. In respect of the amendment table by Fiona McLeod, we're going to be abstaining on the basis that we don't accept that the 600-hours policy is fully funded. Local authorities are telling us that they don't have the resources to deliver it fully for the reasons that Liz Smith outlined earlier. We're also sceptic of the claim that more women with three and four-year-olds are re-entering the labour market thanks to a three-hours-a-day childcare policy. I certainly don't know of many jobs that fit around a three-hours-10-minute nursery place. Our amendment highlights the observations in the commission for the childcare reforms interim report that the focus on three and four-year-olds has not been matched with a co-ordinated investment in the needs of working families for preschool childcare, out-of-school childcare and holiday provision. In today's debate, we're rightly calling for the Scottish Government to take steps now to ensure that 600-hours is a reality for every child. We know that this does not fix the childcare challenges that Scotland faces. Those are challenges that don't begin when a child is three. They don't end when a child starts school, and the spiralling cost of childcare is a huge headache for working parents. Unfortunately, I've totally run out of time to that thanks to all those interventions. Can I just conclude by saying that, given a quote from the fair funding for kids campaign, what they say is that nobody has got a grip of childcare policy? Promises of 30 hours in the future would sound a lot more convincing to parents if parents were actually receiving the 15 hours that they're entitled to now. We've got to ensure that a better deal for parents right across Scotland. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you. We turn to the open debate. We are very tight for time. Four minute speeches, please. Members, please check the press to request to speak buttons. Bob Doris, to be followed by Liam McArthur. Thank you, Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I've met a number of occasions with the fair funding for our kids campaign. I've engaged directly with many of the issues that they raise. I have to say that I think both Cara Hilton and Liz Smith have a mature leash in not recognising the huge increases that have been in childcare provision across Scotland. Because of the time constraints that we have, I wouldn't list through all of those achievements that there have been. Mr Doris, could you pull your microphone up? I'm having difficulty hearing. That's not usually something that I'm told, Presiding Officer. I'm happy to speak louder. I have to say that significant and profound advances in childcare provision right across Scotland. However, where I do concede is where, of course, we have to go further and we have to provide more choice and we have to provide more flexibility. I just say that it's chirlish not to suggest that there hasn't been substantial, significant and sustained improvement right across Scotland. I think that that is not reflected in the motion of the amendment that is before us today. I want to raise some of the points of fair funding for our kids have mentioned. They talk about over 1,000 children in Glasgow not accessing the entitlement that they are entitled to. They have identified limitations in Glasgow's childcare structures and how working parents—not just mothers, I have to say, to our front-bed spokespersons this afternoon—accessing five half-day placements across the course of a week and needing to block those together, for example, so that they get two and a half days solid where they have childcare arrangements by the local authority of partnership nursery rather than spread over five days. That's not something that Glasgow City Council has been particularly good at doing. They also have under 2,000 extended places in the city and there is a need for more. Of course there are problems there, things are improving, but of course there are issues there. I have to say that the old local authority model of going to the local school nursery may not fit in with working patterns as they are today. Sometimes mothers and fathers need to use the nursery close to their grandstays or close to where their work is or where a former partner stays as part of a joint parenting strategy or close to the primary school that a sibling is in because they use the breakfast clubs there. In that basis, I should put on record that I am rather worried about Glasgow City Council seeking to close breakfast clubs right across the city, which will have a direct childcare impact and anti-poverty strategy impact on my constituents. There is guidance in relation to the statutory duty to make a place available for each child and that that should be flexible, but perhaps I have to tease out more about what a reasonable offer should look like. The offer is not always going to be a nursery place around the corner of a place of employment or around a corner from the ground or from a former partner or whatever, but there should be the offer of a reasonable place. There is a concern that sometimes local authorities, particularly Glasgow City Council, would rather see a local authority nursery place sit empty in order to save cash rather than fund a partnership nursery place. We have to look at how we scrutinise and how we put pressure on them. I would like to raise an issue in Glasgow City Council where a lot of parents from the fair funding for their kids went to a partnership nursery quite deliberately for their two-year-olds on the expectation and the hope that there would be a place there from their child to turn three. However, Glasgow City Council had a procurement strategy that actually withdrew places from those partnership nurseries when the children reached three and no place was able to be offered. I think that that was just wrong and they have to get better at doing that. Can you draw to a close, please? Yes, I will draw to a close by saying that vouchers are not the way to do it. The funding should always follow the child, but we have to significantly increase partnership nursery places. We do not need legislation for that, because if Labour and SNP can do this jointly in Edinburgh, we can do it right across Scotland. I am afraid that I will have to cut members off if they do not keep to four minutes. Liam McArthur is to be followed by James Dornan. I thank Mary Scanlon for her very generous remarks about the sudden and untimely death of Charles Kennedy. He was a gifted politician, a liberal to his core and a Highlander first and last. For my part, I had the privilege of being able to call on my friend, but I know his passing is mourned by those across the political spectrum and far beyond. The minister is well aware that we share her aspiration for a revolution in child care. At consecutive budgets, we have pushed for extended provision for two-year-olds. As a result, 27 per cent of Scotland's two-year-olds will, as the minister confirmed, benefit. That is good, but I am concerned that it still lags behind the 40 per cent of those from disadvantaged backgrounds who benefit elsewhere in the UK. I hope that the next phase of the revolution will see more of Scotland's two-year-olds getting access to those opportunities. After all, there is overwhelming evidence that investment in the first few years of a child's life is crucial in shaping their life chances. Investment in child care later on is welcome, but addressing the attainment gap and reducing inequalities to be achieved requires ruthless focus on investment in quality learning in child care in the very early years. It is an argument that I have made many times before and making no apologies for doing so again today. As we look at future provision, however, we must make sure that what happens now is of high quality and meets the needs of both children and their parents, that it is not simply determined by the constraints of local government and that it is key to achieving that is, as others have said, increasing flexibility. Flexibility that I think by the Government's own admission is not yet available in the way we would like. Across Scotland, delivery of the current child care offering is sketchy. Some councils offer partnership arrangements to many nurseries that fit with parents' wishes. Others are more cautious and limit some of them severely to the partnership funding and partnership status. I encourage the minister to see what more can be done to encourage councils to provide genuine flexibility through an increase in the number of partnership nurseries, taking into account the wishes and needs of parents. Briefly, in the time available to me this afternoon, I want to address something that is not contained in the motion or indeed the amendments, but which is obviously key to the success of childcare and the early and earlying in Scotland, and that is the workforce. The pressure on those working in the sector has inevitably increased through the expansion in entitlement. With further expansions on the horizon, we must ensure that Scotland has the early years workforce that it needs to provide first-class care and education for our children. That means training more specialists as well as ensuring that those who are already working in the sector remain content in their careers and equipped to deal with the new demands that we are placing upon them. I understand that a review is under way. It would be helpful perhaps in her closing remarks if the minister could update Parliament on the progress with that review and when we might expect recommendations to emerge from it. I too, like others, welcome the fact that we are continuing to have that focus on early and earlying and nursery provision. There is, I think, cross-party support for more hours of high-quality childcare, but there is a long way to go before the delivery catches up with our aspirations, and that is something that we must be aware of and work quickly and creatively to resolve. Thank you very much indeed. I now call James Dornan to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm. Over the past months, I have had a considerable number of parents upset and disheartened by the way Glasgow City Council has dealt with partnership nurseries in Glasgow. The council has to recognise that the needs of many parents and children cannot be met by local authority-run nurseries and should be doing much more to ensure a wider availability of nursery provision. There seems to have been an arbitrarily dropping of funding from one year to the next for no apparent reason in many of the partnership nurseries in my constituency, in a suspect across the city. In a matter of different types of nurseries and nursery provision, I want to talk about the great work that Castleton Nursery and Castlemall are doing as a community-led nursery. In 2007, Castleton Stables transferred from council to community ownership and has since developed into a facility that hosts community events, offices, training suites and, of course, the nursery. This nursery opens five days a week from 7.30 am until 6.00 pm, including public holidays. It is available for all and is open during the vast majority of people's working hours, solving the problem that a lot of parents have with part-time nurseries, which are found only to be open for a section of the day, making it, as we have already heard, impossible for parents to either drop their child off or pick them up as these times will likely clash with their working hours. Any child from just six weeks old up to the age of five can attend a nursery and enjoy opportunities to develop their social skills and take part in a wide range of activities under the supervision of the excellent professional, highly qualified staff that run the organisation, led ably by their manager, Susan Palmer. Castleton Stables Nursery is the only nursery in Glasgow to provide a forest kindergarten for children aged three and under. This initiative works in partnership with the Forestry Commission, which has helped to train the staff, as well as participating in activities such as walks in the forest, setting up camp, building dens and balancing in logs, and, if there is time, sitting down for a quick drink and a snack. One of the key aspects of this nursery is flexibility—flexibility for parents who use it as well as an ability to react to local circumstances. I thoroughly believe that Castleton Nursery is a great example of a community-led nursery and a model that I think could be usefully utilised across Glasgow and across the country as a whole. This flexibility inherent in Castleton is unfortunately lacking a lot of the work that Glasgow City Council, in my case but in particular, is doing. Many of the constituents who contact me have been turned down for a place in a partnership nursery because the council will not fund that place, yet, as we have heard, the funding is being made available from the Scottish Government. Instead, they are only offering a place in a nursery that might not be suited to the parents and, crucially, the children for a whole number of reasons. Those services must be run for the benefit of children and parents, not for the convenience of the council. That is why I welcome the provisions in the Children and Young People Act, which has introduced the statutory responsibility for local authorities to consult parents about the required flexibility in nursery provision. As well as the commitment to look further into how we gather data around this to ensure an increasing level of flexibility and choice from discussion with parents, it is clear that flexibility is key in nursery provision. Presiding Officer, we know that there are examples of good practice on this around the country, such as Edinburgh and Dumfries and Galloway councils. Much like taking lessons from the good practice of castle to nursery, I had implored Glasgow City Council in particular to investigate how it tender for partnership places and the number that it offered to parents. If Glasgow City Council started looking at statutory duties to provide nursery places in a different way that was more reflective of the needs of parents and children across the city, I know that that would have a hugely positive impact. The funding is there from the Scottish Government to do so. The want is there from the parents to look into this more. The benefits to children across Cathcart and Glasgow more broadly are huge. I welcome the Government's 600-hour policy and its on-going work to deliver it more flexibly, but I also support much of the Conservative motion. Although I did have a bout of deja vu—I saw the word nursery vouchers at the top of it because, before the 1997 election, that was a major point of controversy. I even managed to find my speech of 29 January 1996, winding up the Scottish Grand Committee, which was introduced by Michael Forsyth. I will spare you the contents of that speech, but I am a bit mystified why they want to revisit those words, because clearly a virtual voucher is a bit different from the real thing, so I think that it would have been wise not to use that word at all. One of the things that I did say in those speeches was to emphasise quality. I will talk about what Edinburgh does, because Edinburgh has been mentioned several times in the debate, and whether its virtual vouchers are not, I really have not got a clue, but I do rather admire what Edinburgh is doing. The starting point of its policy is quality. It will only accept partnership nurseries if they meet strict quality criteria. Many do, and the cabinet secretary will expect me to mention North Edinburgh childcare, because I always do childcare debates. They obviously are of the highest quality. I should declare an interest. I am on the board now, but they obviously meet the criteria, as do many others. 40 per cent of the provision in Edinburgh is from partnership nurseries, so I think that parents generally cannot get a place in such a nursery if it suits them. There is actually a problem that I heard about recently, which surprised me about the funding arrangements for that, because apparently Edinburgh also ends up paying for children from West Lothian, East Lothian and Midlothian. I think that they are working on solving that, but I was rather surprised that that happened. The problem in Edinburgh, in fact, is not too little partnership provision, but in some cases too little council provision. However, I should pay tribute to the council, because they are on the case. As we speak, they are building a new nursery at Wardy primary school in my constituency. I know that there are similar building works in other parts of the city, with which I am not so familiar, and they are also working on developing more flexible options. One that I heard of—I do not know how attractive it will be to how many parents—was to have two days when you get all your entitlement in two days. That is being piloted. As I say, I do not know how many people will find that attractive. However, because of the need for more capacity in the council sector, it means that there are some children who are only getting one year in a council nursery. If you think about it, some parents only want that provision, because perhaps they are working part-time or not working at all, and it is not possible to get in a partnership nursery just the 600 hours. There is a problem, and particularly for children born after the 3 August. I know that there are some nurseries, and I can think of at least one in my constituency that tends to fill up in August, because that is when everybody is left in the summer, and then getting a place throughout the year is difficult. Of course, that combines the problem that Liz Smith reminded us of in her speech, as she has done before, for anyone three after August. Even in the best of circumstances, they do not get two years of nursery education, so if you are born in November, you get five months, and that is the best scenario. If you are born in January, you get four months, and that is the best scenario. Remembering that, as I have said, some are only going to get three terms because of the problem that I described, I meant terms. I do have a worry that there are some children going into primary school, and the youngest ones, who are only four, are also the ones who have had the least nursery education. There is a double disadvantage there. I am not sure what the solution is, but I think that we ought to be aware of the problem. My colleague Liz Smith opened the debate, referring to the statistic from the Family and Child Care Trust, in which research showed that just 15 per cent of local authorities in Scotland had enough nursery places for parents who work full-time. That is simply not good enough. Governments, both Westminster and here in Edinburgh, talk a great deal about the benefits of flexible childcare. We now have record employment levels—something that we should all be proud of. However, there are still too many parents who want to work or work longer hours than they are currently doing, who are held back by a lack of childcare places and inflexibility in the system. Despite all the promises being made by the Scottish Government about increasing the level of provision, a promise that is welcome in itself, those words will appear to be hollow if they cannot sort out the inadequacies in the existing arrangements. I have got some personal experience of these issues, as the parent of two young children both now at primary school and recently at nursery. Our experience was a positive one, because our local council engages with partnership providers. As a result, we were able to choose the nursery that we wanted for our children. We chose one close to where we lived—one that had an excellent reputation and one where we were impressed with staff and management. Our experience was entirely positive. I would say to the minister that there is no evidence of poor standards or inadequate curriculum development. If parents choose their nurseries properly, we will not face those problems. However, I know that too many other parents are not so lucky, because rather than having the right to choose and flexibility, they are left having to take the children to the nursery place that the local authority provides. They are left with the inflexible hours on offer, which means that trying to fit childcare into the working is virtually impossible. Flexible childcare permission for us meant that our children could attend nursery three days per week on a full-time basis. As Kara Hilton pointed out earlier, too many other parents are left in a situation where they are offered a block of three hours per day, either 9 to 12 in the morning or 1 to 4 in the afternoon, five days a week. There are very few jobs, if any, that a working parent could do that fit in with that childcare pattern. If we are to have proper support for working parents and allow parents to take up employment opportunities, then we have to have flexibility. I have only got two minutes left, so the member will forgive me. Liz Smith referred to the fact that at least three local authorities, East and Bartonshire, East Lothian and Glasgow, have restrictions on the number of places funded in partnership nurseries. That causes real headaches for working parents and needs to change. That is precisely why we are calling for more flexible arrangements and virtual vouchers. I do not really care what we call them. I think that the principle is what is important, that we allow flexibility in the system, because the current piecemeal approach is not working. There is a second issue when it needs to be addressed, and the one again that we have raised on a consistent basis, and that is the issue of birth date discrimination. Again, I can illustrate this from personal experience. My daughter was born in late August and was entitled to seven terms of funding for a nursery place. My son was born in January and was funded for just five terms. On no level does that make any sense. We know that there are substantial benefits from early childhood education. We know that the Scottish Government promotes the concept of two years nursery provision for preschool children, but in reality very few children actually get the full two years of funding. When Liz Smith attempted to amend that in the Children and Young Person Scotland bill, every party in the chamber barred the SNP supporter. The SNP talks a good game on nursery provision. It talks about fairness, but what it is doing is defending a system that is inherently unfair, which discriminates against children born in the first six months of the year. That costs parents and does nothing to spread the benefit of early years education to those who need it. That is not an area where more powers are needed. It is an area where action could be taken today. We need flexibility for working parents and we need to end the unfair birthday discrimination. I welcome the debate as it gives us an opportunity to discuss the on-going progress that is made by the Scottish Government in nursery provision for families across Scotland. We must also work with local government to deliver the policy. I have come at the debate as a former councillor and MSP, so I have seen both sides of the argument when you have, as a local councillor, to have to deliver government policy. Surely we have heard much about councils that can actually deliver the policy, and councils that do not. Is there surely a way that we can actually work to ensure that all the councils do find out the best practice to move forward? As one of the things that I was quite frankly presiding off, sick of hearing as a councillor was hearing how we are going to actually share practice with other local authorities best practice in ways forward. I think that this is a perfect example of how we should take what is good in certain areas and move it elsewhere, because I know that we all want to move towards that. As the ministers already said, since the Government came to power, there has been a 45 per cent increase in nursery entitlement from three to four-year-olds from 412.5 hours in 2007 to 600 hours in 2014. The fact that the Children and Young People's Act set to expand free childcare provision and increase flexibility year on year is very important for our children's future. That is why the Scottish Government is looking to expand that further. We must ensure that we work with our partners in local government to ensure that this can be delivered, but at the same time, we must continue to look to the future, because we must develop that further and provide further support for Scotland's families. Childcare is expensive, but what it delivers is priceless. The Scottish Government is looking to the future, and it has already pledged that the SNP 2016 manifesto will set out a plan to increase childcare provision by the end of the next Parliament from 16 hours to 30 hours per week. The First Minister went on to move to increase free early learning and childcare provision to 30 hours, which is one of the best investments that any Government can possibly make. The minister mentioned that by 2019-20 annual review spend on early learning and childcare will have increased from an anticipated £439 million this year to around £880 million. As I have already said, childcare is not cheap, but it is worth making that investment, because I think that we are all agreed by this very debate that this is important to families throughout the country. There will also be a promise of additional extra capital spending by the Scottish Government, and the First Minister made it clear that if re-elected the great infrastructure project of the next Parliament will be investment in care and learning facilities to ensure that our early years provision matches our primary school provision. That is ambitious. That shows the way forward that we can do. We have looked at various—the big capital spends of the past couple of Administrations have been massive bridges, roads and infrastructure. That might be less visible than the Queen'sbury crossing. It might not be as sexy as a nice shiny new bridge, but at the end of the day, what the difference it can make to the start of our young people's lives and giving families the support that they need and ensuring that women get the opportunity to go back to work, all of those are absolutely priceless and will show that Scotland leads the way in childcare. The amendment from Fiona McLeod says that we should recognise that the progress that has been made is more than under any previous administration. You would want to think so, given that the current Government has been in power for over eight years. However, I would readily acknowledge the progress that has been made during that period of time. What I would say is that—a couple of points. One is that this brief from fair funding for our kids asks for a place at the table. I heard the minister on the BBC radio this morning saying that local authorities have got to consult with parents. A place at the table, it seems to me, is something that I would be very supportive of for parents to be able to have and representatives in every local authority area. I also heard Liz Smith this morning talking about the Edinburgh example. I certainly will follow that up and ask Edinburgh so that we can look at that example. For me, it ties back to that in each local authority area, the local authorities should be engaged more. The minister on the BBC talked about working alongside COSLA. COSLA, no doubt, has a role. However, if we are serious about delivering a lot of those services, the more localised we can go and work with local authorities. In each authority, no doubt, we will come up with different solutions. If Edinburgh is an example of best practice, we should be highlighting that to other local authorities so that they can look at that. Crucially, at that local level, we would then be engaging with parents and ensuring that parents—I would have to say that, as a grandad, when my granddaughter went to nursery, it was a mix and match, the council, private nursery and myself and her gran that was able to provide childcare. I did recognise and see how difficult it is for working parents and how costly it can be for working parents. It is a real barrier. I had a group of parents in here earlier today from Inverkeeden. They were talking about the flexibility and the need for more flexibility. In Fife's case, I think that what they moved was that they went an extra half hour in the morning, so it started at 8.30, and an extra half hour in the afternoon is causing some difficulty for parents who have kids at school. However, moving beyond that, there is no doubt that, as it is currently set up, councils have not set up to support a lot of working parents that work different hours. One of the parents that was in here today pointed out to me that a lot of jobs these days require weekend work-in, and even in work-in, and she was a single parent and was talking about how the major barrier for her going into employment is the lack of affordable, accessible childcare. It is, of course, a major issue. I would finish by saying that the other area that we need to look at with local authorities is the capacity within the local authorities, so that there will be different alternatives. If we had been able to purchase that childcare within the local authority, we would have probably went for that option. There was not the capacity there to do that, but I would urge that, through a localism agenda, working with local authorities, we can achieve the objectives that I believe the Scottish Government is trying to achieve. Many thanks. That brings us to the closing speeches and a call on Mark Griffin. Four minutes, please. A lot of the comments in the debate this afternoon are focused on the campaign run by fair funding for our kids who are highlighting the difficulties that parents are having in accessing that. They are very welcome legal entitlement to 600 hours of free childcare. They have highlighted the need for an audit of the spending in that area, which is not insignificant, as George Adam pointed out from the figures that we have spent today and the figures that were projected to spend going forward. When we hear about the problems that some parents are facing and the importance of that policy to young families, that call is one that the Government should listen to. Mr Griffin, could you pull your microphone very slightly forward? They have flagged up the issue that Liz Smith pointed out in the opening speech with registration figures, which I think have been used to show an overwhelming success story with uptake, but they feel that that masks an underlying issue of children not accessing their legal entitlement. The Scottish Government uses registration statistics from the annual early learning and childcare census to assess uptake of funded places, but fair funding for our kids believes that that method is grossly overestimating the number of children in receipt of their entitlement. They have stated, as they pointed out earlier, that, where the Government suggests that less than 2 per cent are not receiving their entitlement, they believe that the actual figure is closer to 20 per cent not receiving that entitlement. In their briefing for today's debate, they set out the reasons for the statement where partnership provider registrations include all children attending partner providers, regardless of whether funding has been allocated by the local authority and gave the example of Glasgow according to the 2014 census. There were 2,802 children registered in partner providers, but the number of funded places awarded at the time of the census was 2,089. That means that 713 children who were not receiving funding have been included in that registration figures in one local authority alone. I take the point that Bob Dorris makes on his intervention in local authorities getting their house in order, but I think that the big question is why are the Government using those registration figures to calculate the uptake of entitlement when we all accept that that is not the case when there is a disparity of over 700? I think that that calls into question the statistical accuracy of uptake. Despite the 600 hours being a universal right for every child in Scotland, as Cary Hilton had said, there is no effective oversight at a national level to ensure that that is being delivered. That is why we are calling for that effective oversight of this policy to ensure that that works for every child. We support the call for a full audit from fair funding for our kids of how that policy is being delivered. We want to see action now to ensure that every child receives the funding that they are entitled to. Many thanks and to now Colin Fiona McLeod minister up to six minutes please. Thank you Presiding Officer, quite a lot to cover in that debate, but can I say at the outset a very useful debate, and I think that the tone and temper of this debate shows that everybody in this chamber and across all the parties understands how important early learning and childcare is not just for our young people but for our economy and to support parents but especially women into work. Can I go through a number of the items that were raised by a number of people and try and answer them if I can in the short time that I've got? Liz Smith, Cara Hilton, Mark Griffin and almost everybody mentioned about data and the data collection. Now I think that we have to, I'm not going to justify everything that we're doing here, I'm going to answer the question but I think that I have to start by saying in September every year we do an annual census which is a well established method of counting heads in educational establishments and a lot of the figures about the thousand here and the 800 there that don't have places are based on results from just two councils, so I think that we have to use our figures carefully but from both ends of the argument I will accept that. I agree with some of what the minister has just said, notwithstanding that, would the minister accept that the actual registration definition is not actually accurate? What I have to say is that everybody is clear that our statistics are not robust for any side of this argument and there is variability across councils, never mind on either side of the argument, and it is something that the First Minister has charged the chief statistician with having a look at how we go about this but also I can tell you that on the 11th of June, how many days away is that, the statutory guidance group that we set up to take through the statutory guidance to support the Children and Young People Act will be talking about this at their meeting on the 11th of June and that is a group that has been working together to deliver this for a long time. In just a few days, we will start to really think about this in much greater detail. Liz Smith and Cara Hylton said that it is not fully funded. I really have to say to both of them that since January 2014, when we set out our ambition to have 600 hours of childcare by August 2014, we have worked closely with Closla and with our delivery partners to ensure that the £329 million funding that we gave was what was agreed, was needed. We have continued to work with all our delivery partners until most recently, when I was able to say at education committee tomorrow that the £600,000 that we estimate will cost us to introduce to 27 per cent of two-year-olds, we have worked that figure out and we have budgeted for it and we have come to that. Our work, the funding, is well worked out with all our partners. I will say to Cara Hylton on timescale that she said that the 600 hours that we would have had plenty of time to work on when I had been saying that I think that 10 months is pretty good for where we have got to already. It was in January 2014 that the former First Minister said that he would hope to see 600 hours by August 2014, so I think that we have made great strides, but we were also determined and we said at the time that we would do this in a sustained and sustainable phased way. Flexibility is something that everybody is talking about. I have to reiterate what I said in my opening remarks. Flexibility must never be at the expense of quality. We heard from James Dornan about the quality that Castleton Nursery can give, but the flexibility of hours that it can give. We also heard from Murdo Fraser about his exceptionally good experience for his own children. I would come back to flexibility must never be at the expense of quality. How can we ensure quality? We have regulators in the Care Inspectorate and Education Scotland to ensure that, when we go as parents or when a local authority goes to look for partners, we can look at the registration and regulation experience and know with confidence that those nurseries will provide quality education and childcare for our youngest people. Liam McArthur, on 1 June this week, the cabinet secretary responded to the report on workforce development for childcare. She said that we will answer all the recommendations by autumn this year, but she also announced £1 million to put into workforce development for the early years childcare workforce. Flexibility is not just about nurseries. We are working really hard to talk about employers being flexible employers. We are funding family-friendly working Scotland partnership to say to employers, think about how you employ your families. Much else that I wanted to talk about and really do not have time because I want to finish with, as I did in my opening remarks, I think that today's debate has shown that we have more in common across the parties about our commitment to earlier education and childcare to ensure that every child in Scotland gets the best start possible. I thank all the speakers in the debate for their contribution. I am very pleased that Fiona McLeod spoke about what we had in common, because that is exactly what I would like to start my speech with. I would like to look at what we all agree on. We agree with and welcome the Scottish Government pledge for a legal entitlement of 600 hours of free early learning and childcare. We all support proposals to extend universal free early learning and childcare to 30 hours a week for the school year by the end of the next parliamentary session. We all highly value the work done in our nurseries, as Liam McArthur and others mentioned, along with the increased training for staff, as well as the quality-driven care inspectorate and education Scotland regime. There is an issue of low pay for many staff in this sector, where historic low pay has prevailed, and this should be changing given the qualifications and training required, as well as meeting the high care inspectorate standards. The responsibility of assessing each and every child when they enter nursery, then to plan how to support and help that child throughout the year, then to evaluate the progress made, is an exemplar model of identifying development issues and providing support in preparation for school, and we would all commend that. All that we welcome and agree with, and we cannot even criticise the Scottish Government for not putting money in, but what we are focusing on today is how this policy is implemented, and can every child access the 600 hours of free childcare, and the answer is no. For a start, the provision of free childcare is only available in many nurseries during term times, which does not suit most working parents with the normal statutory entitlement of holidays and public holidays, and is even more difficult for single parents. Secondly, the 600 hours is not available in every nursery in Scotland, which means that, for some parents, they would have to take their child to nursery, mainly council, offering the free childcare for three hours a day during term time, then pick them up after three hours and take them to a nursery that offered full day care, and I am sure that all members will understand that this is just not practical from a work point of view, but it is also likely to be very disruptive for any child. Therefore, parents are forced to use full-time nurseries in order to fulfil hours of work. In many cases, such as SNP Labour-led Edinburgh, we commend the council for allowing the 600 hours of free childcare to be purchased at these independent partnership private nurseries, whatever we call, but in other cases, this is simply not allowed. If it can be done in Edinburgh by Labour and the SNP, why cannot it be done elsewhere in Scotland? When it comes to quality, all nurseries must achieve the standard set by the Care Inspectorate and Education Scotland in terms of environment, staff training and early learning, so there is no issue relating to the quality of the provider, public or private, given that they all have to meet the same requirements. I do not often say this, and it is not often said from these benches, that I actually have to commend James Dornan—oh, there he is. James Dornan and Bob Doris, because I thought they had an absolute crystal clear grasp on what is happening in Glasgow, they understood the problems, they understood the nurseries, and they understood the problems that parents faced. I commend them on that. Glasgow is an example where hundreds of families are unable to access their legal entitlement to free childcare because most nurseries do not offer suitable hours for working parents, and not all eligible children are able to access their entitlement in partnership nurseries due to the limited number of funded places. As I said, the majority of funded places are in council nurseries, made up of a three-hour session morning or afternoon, and, as Kara Hilton and others said, try getting a job that fits in with a three-hour stint at the nursery. In those circumstances, for parents in full-time work, a private nursery is a necessity, it is not a parental choice. The fair funding for our kids campaign estimated that around half of the children in Glasgow and West Lothian are currently unable to access their entitlement. That is something that we cannot ignore, and it should not be ignored by the SNP after eight years. It seems longer in government. The point is that, if it is a legal entitlement that is not available to many children, we should now be asking the Government to listen to parents and address the issue. The National Day Nurseries Association in Scotland also carried out research last year on this issue and discovered that the average funding per child per hour in Scotland was £3.80, with some local authorities paying as low as £2.80 per hour per child. I would hope that the Government would also work with local authorities to ensure that every nursery is resourced in order to provide the quality standards of care, but also to ensure that staff could be paid a reasonable wage for the responsible work that they do, the work that we all value. What is even more worrying is the quote from the NDNA, and I quote, the knock-on effect of low funding is a rise in the cost of parent paid for hours as nurseries are forced to make up the losses. As the funded places rise from £475,000 to £600,000 and more than £1,000 in the next session, the increased hours of low-rate funding will mean that more will be required from parents who pay to make up the losses. With 87 of Nurseries' Surveys, it is said that the hourly rate from councils did not cover their costs, resulting in an average loss per hour of £1.72. That is a significant burden of payment from other parents. In other words, the increase in Government funding for increased hours will result in some parents paying more due to the losses made by council funding. When a Government policy with a free legal entitlement of 600 hours of free childcare cannot practically be delivered in a way that is accessible to the many parents who work, then the Government must step in. Our answer is funding should be more flexible, it should follow the child, it should be respectful to parental choice and not disruptive to the child. That concludes the debate on nursery vouchers. The next item of business is consideration of business motion number 13346. In the name of Dolfitts Patrick, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme, I call on Dolfitts Patrick to move motion number 13346. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press the request speak button now. No member has asked to speak against the motion therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 13346, in the name of Dolfitts Patrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The next item of business is consideration of business motion 13347. In the name of Dolfitts Patrick, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a stage 2 timetable for the Scottish elections reduction of voting age bill, any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press the request speak button now. I call on Dolfitts Patrick to move motion number 13347. No member has asked to speak against the motion therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 13347, in the name of Dolfitts Patrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next item of business is consideration of two parliamentary bureau motions. I would ask Dolfitts Patrick to move motion number 13348 on approval of an SSI and motion number 13349 on suspension and variation of standing orders. The question is on these motions will be put decision time to which we now come. There are eight questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is amendment number 13313.2, in the name of Angela Constance, which seeks to amend motion number 13313, in the name of Liz Smith. On Scotland's universities be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast votes now. The result of the vote and amendment number 13313.2, in the name of Angela Constance, is as follows. Yes, 101. No, 14. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to. The next question is amendment number 13313.1, in the name of Ian Gray, which seeks to amend motion number 13313, in the name of Liz Smith. On Scotland's universities be 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 and amendment number 13313.1, in the name of Ian Gray, is as follows. Yes, 38. No, 77. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is at motion number 13313, in the name of Liz Smith, as amended. On Scotland's universities be 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 13313, in the name of Liz Smith, as amended, is as follows. Yes, 101. No, 14. There were no abstentions. The motion, as amended, is therefore agreed to. I now remind members that, in relation to the debate on nursery vouchers, if the amendment in the name of Fiona McLeod is agreed to, the amendment in the name of Cara Hilton falls. The question is the amendment number 13312.3, in the name of Fiona McLeod, which seeks to amend motion number 13312, in the name of Liz Smith, on nursery vouchers, be 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 amendment number 13312.3, in the name of Fiona McLeod, is as follows. Yes, 64. No, 18. There were 33 abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to, and the amendment in the name of Cara Hilton falls. The next question is at motion number 13312, in the name of Liz Smith, as amended, on nursery vouchers, be 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 13312, in the name of Liz Smith, as amended, is as follows. Yes, 63. No, 19. There were 33 abstentions. The motion, as amended, is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 13348, in the name of Jofix Patrick, on approval of an SSI, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 13349, in the name of Jofix Patrick, on suspension of variation of standing orders, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes the decision time. We now move to members' business. Members should leave the chamber, should do so quickly and quietly.