 I think that it's long cut in it already. Can I say the next item of business is a debate on motion 10650 in the name of Michelle Ballantine on early years in childcare? I can invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak and to press their request to speak buttons now. I call on Michelle Ballantine to speak and move the motion now. Is the motion with Ballantine 13 minutes please? I'm pleased to have the opportunity to bring this motion to the chamber, and I move it in my name. Early learning and childcare is one of the most important areas for any Government. Not only does it shape the lives of whole generations, it creates the foundation for Scotland's future. High quality early learning can play a key role in reducing the attainment gap by giving all of Scotland's children a level playing field on which to build their learning. There is compelling evidence to show that early access to high quality early learning and childcare can significantly reduce the impact of socioeconomic disadvantage before starting school. High quality early learning provides nurturing, stimulating experiences that help children grow and develop. It can support parents, particularly mothers, to access education training and work, as well as providing support to vulnerable families. The provision of early learning and childcare is quite simply a policy that no one would want to oppose. It is an investment in the very fabric of our society, and it is for this reason that I am bringing this debate to the chamber today. The Scottish Government has, in its words, set out the most ambitious expansion of funded early learning and childcare this country has ever seen. However, I am afraid that it did so without undertaking the level of planning and consultation that might reasonably have been expected, and in doing so have created significant challenges to what I see as a flagship policy. Today is an opportunity to explore those challenges in what I hope will be a constructive and thoughtful manner. Today is about ensuring that the issues raised in the joint report issued by the Accounts Commission and the Auditor General are scrutinised, and that we in this chamber—perhaps more importantly—the local authorities, nurseries, childminders and parents who are trying to navigate their way through what is being offered ensure that the end result is something to be celebrated. In opening this debate, I want to cover just a number of the issues raised in both the report and from my visits and many conversations with early years practitioners and both local authority and private nurseries and childminders. On Thursday last week, the First Minister told the Parliament that we delivered the commitment on 600 hours when so many people across the chamber were sceptical that we would do so. We delivered it, we have shown a track record in delivering expanded childcare and we are on track to deliver the next expansion. However, the Accounts Commission and Auditor General's report clearly states that the Scottish Government failed to set out clearly the improved outcomes for children and parents that the expansion to 600 hours was designed to achieve. Furthermore, there is a lack of evidence that increasing funded hours in this way that the Scottish Government has done so far will deliver improved outcomes. I would therefore ask the Minister when she comes to speak, how are you measuring the success of the 600 hours roll-out and how do we know that it has been delivered and has been a success? To me, it is clear that the Scottish Government did fail to set out clearly the improved outcomes for children and parents that the expansion was meant to achieve and equally how it would assess the impact of that additional investment. There were no measures to indicate success nor was the baseline data available and these basic steps should have been addressed in 2014, if not earlier. It would appear that these issues have also carried over to the 1140 hours expansion with a recent freedom of information request from Reform Scotland, revealing that the Scottish Government has confirmed that it does not know how many children are currently eligible and entitled to preschool provision but are unable to access it or are on a waiting list. Additionally, research by the Scottish Government, the National Day Nursery Association and Fair Funding for our kids have found that one in five children are missing out on their current funded hours and yet the Scottish Government claimed that there is a 97 per cent registration for funded childcare. Are we talking about registration or are we talking about access and delivered? When it comes to planning an expansion on this scale, should the Scottish Government not start by getting these essential facts right, not because we want to pull them up on it and not because we want to make an issue of it but because if it is not right, then we are going to get it wrong for our children, a generation of children who will not get a second opportunity. Deputy Presiding Officer, the Scottish Government needs to be clear about the priority of this policy. Is it for children? Is it for parents? Or is it for both? As in its current state, it largely fails to achieve the outcomes for both. Indeed, in January, the Scottish Government published an initial evaluation of the expansion of early learning in which it states that the expansion from 475 to 600 hours in 2014 is not expected to lead to measurable change in children's outcomes. We have also seen that reflected in parents' responses to the expansion, particularly around flexibility, accessibility and payment. Research by Fair Funding for our Kids has found that, after the implementation of the expansion to 600 hours, nine out of 10 parents who want to change their working situation say that their main barrier is lack of appropriate childcare. The Scottish Government then estimates that the cost of delivering the 1140 hours of early learning and childcare will be around £840 million a year. Councils, on the other hand, have placed their initial estimate for the expansion at around £1 billion a year. That is far higher than the Scottish Government's estimate and raises serious questions about the feasibility of the policy and risks councils being left to deal with a £160 million black hole. To further add to the confusion around funding, the Scottish Government is saying that there is a big difference in the essential changes to childcare infrastructure, with local authorities setting aside £600 million capital funding between 2019 and 2020. The Scottish Government has only allocated £400 million for that purpose. At a time when councils across the country are feeling pressure on their budgets, they will struggle to make up the shortfall. Michelle Ballantyne is concerned about the issue of funding. How, then, would her party actually have paid for and funded that policy if there was going to be another £500 million reduced to all the Scottish budget? I think that, if she had taken the time to read our manifesto and our approach to this, they would have found that we would not have gone about it in the same way. We would have taken a staged approach to it, starting with the most vulnerable one-and-two-year-olds and working forwards. In many ways, this is about how you plan it, not just a good intention. We do not disagree with the intention. It is about whether we can actually deliver it. I say we, because in the end this is about all of us. It is about all the local authorities and about all our children. Areas are such a midlothian, which is one of the ones that will struggle. It is the fastest-growing local authority in Scotland, and they will be particularly hard hit as they struggle to find both the revenue and the capital funding that is needed to implement this policy. This will only be compounded by pressures on partner provider areas in the area, such as after school clubs who are already struggling and seeing their rents raised as budget cuts are made. In addition to those financial pressures, the Scottish Government has estimated that an additional 8,000 whole-time equivalent staff will be required to implement the expansion, and yet the council's estimations show that they need 12,000 more staff, including staff in training and central staff. I am aware that the Scottish Government has launched a recruitment drive, but this is still a daunting figure and a significant difference in numbers. The First Minister told the chamber on Thursday that the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council is offering about 1,500 additional places, and there are 836 additional graduate-level places. I am not denying the efforts that are being made, but is this really going to be enough staff to complete this ambitious expansion of childcare in Scotland? Research by Skills Development Scotland cast doubts on that, showing that although partner providers are optimistic about retaining existing staff, 63 per cent are already finding it difficult to recruit suitable new employees. Indeed, partner providers may well struggle with the introduction of the 1140 hours because 41 per cent are not confident about their ability to accommodate the expansion. That might be due, for them, to a loss of staff because they are finding a drain from the partner providers to council providers who can offer more generous paying conditions. I noted that recently on a visit to a nurse who is an exemplar. It was indeed an example. It was an excellent example of how 1140 can be delivered, but the problem is that they had a purpose-built building that was already there. They had all the staff that they needed, and they were heavily oversubscribed. I think that we have to give some real thought to how our partner providers are actually going to cope. I visited several private nurseries across the country and spoke to many of the managers and owners who have confirmed that this is the case. If partner providers continue to lose their most qualified staff, that will impact on the future quality of childcare that is available to parents, as well as pushing up the fees in order to retain the staff. That, in turn, could limit parents' choice in finding a local high-quality nursery or lead to private nurseries closing down. I would be very interested to hear today what the Government's position is when it comes to the money. The partner provider offer at the moment, which is sitting between usually £3.45 and £3.75, will not cover the costs that private nurseries need to deliver the offer that they are in is intended. I can absolutely understand why the member is concerned, because in England, where the Tories are in charge, the NDNA has said about the expansion process. The Chancellor has given a clear message that this Government is not interested in properly investing in early years and just expects the sector to get on with it while faced with all of those increases. NDNA will continue to lobby the Government to address this appalling situation until a fair, hourly funding rate and business rates relief for nurseries are forthcoming. In contrast, do you agree— I think that that is a long intervention, minister. I think that that is a good point, that it is a long intervention. I will give you your time back. I think that the two things from that, minister, if you are reading all about that and you feel there are real issues south of the border, then this should be a learning curve for you in terms of what to do. It is an interesting one because they are rolling out the 1140 hours at the moment parents in England are accessing the 1140 hours and the complaint is not around their ability to access it. I think that there is learning to be had, both negative and positive, but it does not immediately address the issues that I just raised and the question was not one that was pertinent to what I just said. The Accounts Commission has added that many council's expansion plans do not include detailed information on how they plan to recruit all those additional staff. Often, the plans do not take account of the numbers of staff that are required by partner providers. I wonder whether that may account for some of the differences that we are seeing between the Government numbers and the numbers that are coming forward from local councils. There are many other issues that I am sure will be raised today around that, but my key issue in all of this is that we have to do right by our children and by our parents. For our children, we will only do right by them if we have high quality provision. We know and evidence shows us that poor quality provision will do more harm. It will actually lessen the chances particularly of our more vulnerable children in their life chances going forward. We cannot have high quality provision unless we have good quality staff, which means that we need to roll out provision that is staffed by people who have good quality learning themselves, good quality qualifications and experience. I worry that, in this rush, there is not going to be the time to develop the staff adequately so that many of our initial children will suffer from poorer quality provision than we intend to give them. The expansion of funded early learning and childcare will transform our children's life chances. By 2020, we will provide all three and four-year-olds and eligible two-year-olds with 1140 hours of high quality nursery education and will ensure that all our children get the best start in life. Such ambitious plans always come with challenges, and I do not deny that they exist. However, we are absolutely committed to addressing them in partnership with local authorities and other delivery partners, and we are on track to deliver the expansion. Can the minister tell me how and on what basis is the evidence that you are on track to deliver? Audit Scotland has looked at the process at a point when there is still some distance between our figures and local authority figures. It is right and proper that both sides take the time to challenge and refine cost estimates, and that is exactly what is happening at the moment. The gap is currently closing. We have said that we will fully fund this. We are working in close partnership and we expect to reach agreement in the next few weeks. Expanding funded early learning and childcare is the right policy. The socioeconomic gap in cognitive development starts before primary school, and it is widely acknowledged, including by the OECD, that universally accessible and high quality early learning and childcare helps to provide children with skills and confidence to carry into school education, and that is a cornerstone for closing the poverty-related attainment gap. Parents recognise the benefits of high quality early learning and childcare for their children. Audit Scotland's own research found that parents were overwhelmingly positive about the quality of early learning and childcare that we are providing, and quality will absolutely remain at the heart of our expansion plans. We are offering children new and richer experiences through the expansion. I, too, am visiting many nurseries. Last week, I visited the City of Edinburgh Council's Forest Kindergarten at Lloriston Castle, and I saw how outdoor learning affects children's confidence and wellbeing and can encourage a lifelong love of the outdoors. We are working with inspiring Scotland and councils to encourage a much greater use of outdoor environments as part of the expansion. It is a real opportunity to change the offering that we provide, and we are investing over £800,000. Nobody is denying in this chamber that there are a lot of good things in the report, too, particularly about the strategic objectives that the Scottish Government has. However, the specific point is that, up to the 600-hour policy, the Scottish Government does not appear to have any convincing analysis about the benefits and the delivery of that output. Could I ask the minister why that analysis has not been done? There is a huge body of evidence from around the world on providing this to close the attainment gap. Are you suggesting that we wait longer before we do that? I know that your party does not support this expansion. We do, and we are going to do it. We must never forget that the fundamental purpose of the policy is to improve the early years' experience of our children. However, we know that it will also support parents and help to lift families out of poverty. By increasing the funded hours of childcare, we will support parents to work, train and study, unlike the offering down in England, where it is only for working parents. Without the burden of massive childcare costs, the full entitlement to 1140 hours will save families more than £4,500 per child per year. The near doubling of funded entitlement offers parents greater flexibility of provision. Flexibility should be determined by local authorities, engaging with their communities to understand and respond to their needs, all within a framework of high-quality provision. The feedback that I have been getting from parents is that the actual childcare is inflexible. Does the minister agree that this is preventing women from getting back into the workplace because of that inflexibility? Yes, that is because the 600 hours is limited. That is precisely why we are expanding to 1140 hours. We committed to fully funding this expansion as we more than fully funded the expansion to 600 hours and the introduction of eligibility for two-year-olds. We recognise that reaching timely agreement on a multi-year funding package for expansion is absolutely critical. That is why the programme for government commits to agreeing a funding package and that is why we have been working so closely with local authorities ever since to reach a shared understanding of the investment that we need to make. I am confident that we will do that by the end of April. Daniel Johnson The minister raised a point about eligible two-year-olds. A quarter of two-year-olds are eligible for childcare, but only 10 per cent seem to be taking up according to the Audit Scotland figures. Why does she think that that is the case? There are definitely a number of challenges involved in identifying and targeting the offering to those two-year-olds. We are working on it with local authorities. We are also working with the DWP to identify and target and share data and identify and target them, but there is an issue there, I accept that. There is a huge body of work going on behind the scenes to deliver the expansion. In the last year alone, we have produced an ELC quality action plan on which the NDNA will be very interested to hear said of the offering in Scotland. It really shows that the Scottish Government has listened to and worked with the sector, including NDNA Scotland, in its proposal to improve quality in early years. We have produced a skills investment plan, an online resource for childminders, plans for an additional graduate and nurseries in Scotland's most deprived communities from August this year, a multidisciplinary delivery support team to work with local authorities to provide innovation and redesign capacity, phase one of a national workforce recruitment marketing campaign to positively promote careers in ELC and updated guidance for careers advice organisations. Many of those actions relate to the need to expand the workforce and, in fact, we estimate that up to 11,000 additional workers will be required by 2020, creating job opportunities across all of Scotland. The investment to do this is already well under way. To support the first phase of the workforce expansion in 2017, we provided local authorities with £21 million additional revenue funding, boosted ELC capacity in colleges and universities, and increased ELC modern apprenticeship starts by 10 per cent. I am afraid of them in my last minute. We estimate that the combined effects of the investment will have supported over 2,000 additional practitioners to enter the ELC workforce in 2017-18. We will build on that next year, in 2018-19, with an additional £52 million for local authorities for workforce expansion, providing 1,700 additional HNC and over 400 additional graduate places and a further 10 per cent increase in ELC modern apprenticeship starts. Our approach to phasing in the expanded entitlement prioritises those communities where the children need it most. Families across Scotland are already benefiting from early roll-out of the expansion, with more than 3,000 children receiving the expanded entitlement. Yes, there are challenges, but we are on track and we are confident that we will meet them. I hope that all parties represented in this chamber can unite behind our ambitions for Scotland's children and support us in working in partnership with local authorities, private and voluntary providers, and parents to deliver the expansion and entitlement. I move the amendment to my name. I am currently giving speakers time back for interventions, but I warn you that only a few minutes are left to spare. I am sorry that I had to say that when you were about to rise to a degree. I am about to open for labour. Seven minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I do expect to get the time back for your own intervention. There is a certain irony in us having this debate on a day when the childcare arrangements of families across most of Scotland have collapsed under the weight of the snowfall with nurseries and schools closed. I bow to no one in the capacity to blame the Government for almost anything. However, even I cannot expect them to be able to stop the snowfalling. We should also acknowledge that parents face the collapse of childcare arrangements on a regular and entirely predictable basis. Every time schools and nurseries go on holiday or when their children reach the age of five and suddenly have to be at school later or finish school earlier than their previous arrangements. Allowed parents really need childcare to be full-time, flexible all-age year-round and affordable beyond what free hours might be on offer at nursery. That was the message that the independent commission on childcare gave so strongly to us only a few years ago. Breakfast clubs, after-school clubs, early morning and twilight wraparound care all can make or break childcare, especially in as much as it allows parents and especially women to work. To be clear, the commission supported the expansion of free nursery hours and so do we, but they were critical of a Government focused exclusively on those free hours for three and four year olds to the detriment of other elements of childcare. Nonetheless, that has been the approach of this Government. It increased to 600 hours per year and the promise of 1,140 hours by 2020, and so it is that, which has been considered by Audit Scotland and the Accounts Commission. That report is not positive, although it does have a few positive comments, pretty well, all of which the minister has harvested into her amendment. In fact, with regard to the current provision of 600 hours, the report is clear that the expansion was not properly planned, that no economic modelling was carried out, that no appraisal was made of options for delivery. The Government has never made clear whether that is a measure to allow parents to work or a measure to improve educational outcomes for children. It has talked always, and I agree about quality, but it is never defined. Audit Scotland tells us what it means by high quality. I am interested in what Mr Gray would suggest that the Government should have done in identifying either this to be a measure to improve outcomes for children or to enable parents to get back to work. What would his judgment have been in that respect? Iain Gray? My judgment is, as I think Mr Swinney would agree, that both are important, but, primarily, this is about improved educational outcomes for children and addressing inequality. Audit Scotland is clear that some decisions about how the policy has been delivered have not taken that view, but rather taken the view that it is about making it possible for parents to work. The figures appear to suggest that most three and four-year-olds do access funded hours, but Audit Scotland is clear that the effect of multiple registration makes those figures highly unreliable. As Mr Johnson indicated a moment ago, only half of eligible two-year-olds are registered. If the purpose of the policy is about allowing parents to work, the most parents tell Audit Scotland that the 600 hours has had a limited impact on their ability to work. The minister acknowledged that in responding a moment ago to an intervention. That reflects the research fair funding for kids that has done with parents, repeatedly raising the issue of families unable to access their entitlement because of inflexibility. The Audit Scotland report saves its greatest concerns for the implementation of the new promise of 1,140 hours. It identifies significant challenges and major risks, points out that detailed planning should have started earlier than it did. Even when it did, councils were asked to plan in the absence of clear information that they needed from the Scottish Government. The report provides chapter inverse on risks around finance, infrastructure and workforce. On finances, as we have already heard, by 2021 a £160 million black hole between the annual running costs, estimated by councils, and the finances promised so far by government. With regard to infrastructure, the story is the same, though largely worse. With councils planning to spend £747 million in new accommodation and buildings, the Scottish Government is proposing at any rate to provide not much more than half of that requirement. The biggest challenges lie with the workforce. Councils estimate that they will need only 12,000 full-time equivalent additional staff to deliver the policy. That is a 128 per cent increase. The truth is that the Scottish Government does not know where those staff are coming from. At First Minister's questions last week, the First Minister reeled off what she said was her plan to deliver, a plan that we have heard repeated by the minister again today, to increase apprenticeships in graduate places. However, the trouble is that all those measures are right here in the Audit Scotland report. Audit Scotland simply concludes that this will only provide a very small number of the additional places needed. It is not enough. Let us be honest. The Scottish Government is to workforce planning what Eddie The Eagle is to ski-jumping. When the same First Minister was— When the same First Minister was health secretary, she had a plan for the nursing workforce, didn't she? What do we have now? We have a fourfold increase in unfilled nursing posts. In her top priority of education, she has managed the incredible outcome of losing 3,500 teachers' posts and still creating a shortage of teachers and hundreds of unfilled vacancies. There is no rational reason or credible evidence to allow us to believe that the Scottish Government can find and train 12,000 early-years workers to deliver that policy. In there, always polite and courteous and understated way is what Audit Scotland tells us here. It is difficult to see how all the challenges can be overcome in the time available. You may be confident that you are going to reach agreement and resolve all those challenges. Audit Scotland is telling you that it does not believe you. Not enough revenue funding, not enough capital funding, not enough staff and not enough leadership from this Government to deliver that flagship policy. That is the wake-up call that this report delivers. The Government should listen and take her to action. You were given an extra minute and the clock did not start until you stood up to speak. I was quite generous. Oliver Mundell followed by Jenny Gilruth in the open debate. I have been extremely disappointed so far with the tone coming from the Government. I think that, from this side of the chamber, we have already heard a very reasonable considered argument that recognises some of the benefits of this policy and some of the success that we have seen for families already. Instead, all that we heard was some moans and groans about what is happening south of the border. I think that it is time that the Scottish Government went away and looked seriously at what members across the chamber are saying, what outside bodies with responsibility for scrutinising the Government are saying, what parents and families are saying and what providers and local authorities are saying. It is a bit of a coincidence that everyone else feels that there is a degree of doubt about the achievability of this policy, yet the Government still has full confidence in itself. I recognise that many families are benefiting already, but that whole process is far too random, and in some cases it is entirely a postcode lottery. In rural communities such as mine and Dumfrieshire, we do not see a good level of flexibility for parents. People do not have a lot of choice, and providers are struggling, and they recognise themselves that they are struggling to deliver the quality of early years childcare and learning that they wish to provide and be associated with. I am very pleased to have found out today that the minister has agreed to meet with me and some of those private providers and voluntary providers to hear some concerns, because I am gravely worried that all 20 providers in Dumfries and Galloway have said to Dumfries and Galloway Council that they wish to halt the procurement process. They have said that because they are worried that they will not have capacity, that they will not have the staff to deliver the policies, and that they have not had access to the capital funding required. Gillian Martin Mr Ballantyne will come from the same part of the world. Have you made representation to the education committee in the local authority to ask why that is not happening? I thank the member for the intervention. I would gently say that people living in Dumfries and Galloway would consider themselves to come from a different part of the world than the Scottish Borders. In terms of approaching the council, I have met them on a number of occasions. I have taken council staff out to meet providers and have facilitated conversations. The council met a number of occasions with the Scottish Government and expressed concerns. It is worried about how it will find enough staff for its own in-house nursery provision. It is worried about what that will mean for the private and voluntary providers. Everyone is on exactly the same page, apart from the Scottish Government. We have got to this point, because it is a Government that has decided to overpromise with no thought to how it will deliver. It is the same issue that we see time and time again when it comes to policies that come forward. It is all very well and good to say that things have good intentions behind them, but if they cannot be delivered on the ground, all the promises and warm words are meaningless. I am very worried, as well, that we are seeing a fall in the number of providers. We have lost 637 since this Government came to power. In my hometown of Moffat, we have lost the sole childcare provider there. I have been approached by Consti— I am afraid that you cannot. During your last minute, if you do, you must stop at five minutes. Sorry, I thought I had six minutes. I beg your pardon. I am dreaming. I am grateful to Mr Mundell for giving way. I share his concerns about providers leaving the industry, which is why I am so anxious to make sure that there is good dialogue between local authorities and those providers to enable there to be a role for those providers in the expansion of early learning and childcare. Does he agree with the importance of that dialogue to take place to make sure that we can have breadth of provision and assist in getting a contribution to the delivery of this policy objective? Mr Mundell, I will give you your time back then. I have no spare time after that. I absolutely agree with that. That is why I have contacted the minister to arrange a meeting to try to make sure that all parties are working together. The private and voluntary sector is absolutely vital, and we cannot underestimate its importance. At present, just one in 10 council nurseries are open between 8 am and 6 pm, and certainly in Dumfries and Galloway, in the vast majority of communities, the sole funded provision comes from private and voluntary providers. I just believe that they do not feel well supported at the moment. They feel that they are being asked to do something that is unrealistic. Those are people who are absolutely committed to this sector. They are people who have juggled a lot of challenges and changes, most of which they welcome and recognise are important. All they want is a fair hearing and for the Government to stop and take stock of the suggestions that are coming forward and the concerns that people have on a cross-party basis. I would urge the Government to listen and work constructively with all parties involved. There is a ozi up there, so I can just change my hours at short notice. The nursery is open all day. I can just tell them how long I want Leila to be there for. Page 24 of the Accounts Commission report, parent story 18. She did start speaking just before she went to nursery and since then it has come on leaps and bounds. She is more articulate. She is using new words. Honestly, the things I do not have time to sit down and do with her on a regular basis, parent story 26. The funded hours allowed me to get qualifications that I would not have otherwise got, so looking for a job might be a wee bit easier because I have qualifications. It gave me skills. It makes me feel more useful like I can actually do something. It gives you confidence, parent story 21. Those are real examples from the Accounts Commission report. Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. For some parents, for some carers, for some children, this policy is working and it is working well. The Government commitment to fully fund the expansion of early learning and childcare to 1,140 hours by 2020 is undoubtedly ambitious, but it is also about growing the economy. It is about tackling inequality. Crucially, it is about closing the poverty-related attainment gap, as Michelle Ballantyne alluded to in her opening statement. Indeed, the report cites to 2014 closing the attainment gap study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which found that the gap between children from low incomes and high-income households can be 10 to 13 months at just age five. Today's Conservative motion begins with the recognition of the strong cross-party consensus for the expansion of childcare. Although there is a general agreement for the principles behind the policy, it is also clear from the Accounts Commission's report that the individual experience of ELC provision vary across the country. Page 28 of the report details the differing models used across the country to deliver the ELC entitlement. The part-day model, which allocates three hours and 10 minutes, has remained relatively static between 2014, 15 and 16, 17. However, the key difference, if you look at that page, is the increase in shorter part-days and longer part-days in full-day provision in additional funded hours for flexible use and in extended periods beyond the school term time. Crucially, more councils in 16 and 17 were looking at a range of models. I think that we should all be cognisant today about the different needs of families. There can be no one-size-fits-all approach to childcare provision. The Accounts Commission states that councils do not always provide clear information to help parents to understand the complex system of how ELC works. The report highlights parents' and carers' confusion over the application process that is required for a funded place, with some administered centrally and others unclear about the use of a catchment area for nurseries. As parent story 3 illustrates, it took me a few years to get him somewhere when they said that you go get a form and you put in three choices, so I put in three choices but none of them could take him. It is just as well that I went to another nursery as he still did not get a place at any of the ones on my form. The expansion of early learning and childcare is predicated on accessibility, which is therefore essential for all local authorities to ensure that they have systems in place that engage parents with a wide variety of childcare options that best meet their needs. Indeed, the report further more highlights the differing admissions criteria used by councils with some prioritising older children, some prioritising ASN children and others looked after children. I make a suggestion to the Government today that a clear commitment is given to care experience to young people through the work of the care review. The Government is committed to the work of the care review to care experience young people, so I hope that the Government will now consider looking at how local authorities work to prioritise children in terms of their ALC entitlements, especially those who are looked after. The report recommends that councils develop a range of ALC on offer locally in response to parental consultation and design choice around that. However, some 10 councils, including five council, Murray council, restrict the numbers of children that they will fund in partner providers. I have previously highlighted five councils' refusal to use childminders in the entitlement offered. Five is a rural and urban local authority area, and childminding is a popular method of childcare for many working parents and carers. The authority blocking that type of provision is, however, arguably limiting the potential flexibility that is offered by ELC. Indeed, as Maggie Simpson, the chief executive of the Scottish Childminders Association told me yesterday, it is certainly not a case of simply providing more money. We need to be looking to provide a balanced range of places, not necessarily bigger nurseries, but the sensible use of small family-based services provided by childminders that allow for outdoor learning and support for parents. That policy is not what is really at fault, but it is the implementation from local authorities. Yes, I will. Rachel Hamilton I thank Jenny Gilruth for taking the intervention. The SCMA says that some local authorities are biased towards childminders. I just wondered if you believe that that is true and if it is the case how the Scottish Government can improve the relationship between childminders and the Scottish Government to enable more flexible and indeed more hours of childcare to be delivered. I thank Rachel Hamilton for that intervention. I am not necessarily sure if I can comment on whether or not they are biased. I only have experience of Fife as a Fife MSP. I know that Fife does not use it. If they were to invest in using childminders, we could move forward. In October last year, the Scottish Government published an action plan to ensure that quality is at the heart of ELC provision. That set out 15 actions to strengthen quality childcare provision, including promoting greater use of outdoor learning and empowering parents to make the choice of ELC setting that is right for their child. Councils therefore, like Fife, need to reflect on how they are empowering parents and carers to have that choice. Before concluding, I want to return now to the purpose of this legislation, particularly in terms of driving productivity, because the report acknowledges that access to childcare is a factor in helping women back into work. Women like my mum, who had to give up their careers in the 1980s to have their families because that is what was expected. Unlike their mothers, they often had to return to work as the unpaid hidden labour that they carried out in the home, providing the state with free childcare, had not allowed them to progress up the career ladder. I am afraid that—I am sorry—you must conclude that I said no time in hand and that you would have to absorb interventions. I am grateful that you took one, but we have to move on. I call Jenny Marra to be followed by James Dornan. We are this afternoon discussing the obstacles to the expansion of childcare and what Audit Scotland has identified as the difficulties in the delivery of the increased hours. However, I would like to focus this afternoon on outcomes, as this is something that Audit Scotland has addressed in its report. There seems to be a huge gap in what we are expecting childcare to deliver and, indeed, how to measure that. The Audit Scotland report says that the Scottish Government failed to set out clearly the improved outcomes for children and parents that the expansion to 600 hours was designed to achieve. Audit Scotland also says that the Scottish Government did not identify what measures would indicate success or ensure baseline data was available. I think that that is one of the key questions in the report. If childcare is really going to help to close the attainment gap and improve outcomes for children, not just through their childhood but the rest of their lives, we must find some way of measuring it and we must find some benchmarks to assure ourselves what quality childcare provision is. If it is a policy aim that childcare improves outcomes for children—this is one of the Scottish Government's policy aims that is stated in the document—that does accept the premise that quality of childcare improves when the parents hand the child over to the nursery or the childminder. In some circumstances, that may be true, but for a society, I find it a difficult premise just to blithly accept that, when the children are put into nurseries or childcare settings, the quality of the care that they get improves drastically enough to accept their outcomes. I think that it is a bit sad for our country just to blithly accept this on a policy level. A few years ago, we used to be in a situation where social workers were able to support parents in their own childcare preventative work. Social workers had the time and capacity to convene parenting groups, to share techniques, play language, games and discipline tactics for stronger parenting skills with the parents in that context. There is now precious little time, if any time, for any of this work to be done in our communities. I know in Dundee that social workers are now completely consumed by high-tariff statutory cases, which must, of course, be properly and sensitively managed, but it does leave that gap. That gap is supporting parents who want to upskill their own parenting skills—something that I think all parents recognise that they need to do regularly. I am also making an observation, which may be a little controversial. Just last month, we got the city's report that told us that 260,000 jobs across Scotland will go by 2030 due to automation. In my own city of Dundee, 25 per cent of jobs will disappear. Nobody is welcoming those figures or, indeed, prepared to accept an economy where the scale of that is realised. However, what we must do is recognise that, even if we try to reverse this trend or curtail it, there will be more parents in future looking after their own children. It is vital that we support more parenting work in that context and in a preventative context to support them to achieve their own aspirations of the highest quality of care. However, if I can turn, Presiding Officer, back to outcomes in a childcare setting, I think that the Government must strive to continually improve the quality of childcare, or that Scotland points out that the Scottish Government stresses the importance of high-quality childcare but fails to define high quality. Is that not a huge emission in policymaking? I know myself that when choosing childcare, quality was one of my highest priorities. Why is there no benchmark for parents who are making choices all over the country? I conclude, Presiding Officer, by drawing the minister's attention to the fact that, in Dundee, the council still does not know what their funding for capital and revenue in 1819 will be. As the Scottish Government has not decided on its distribution by local authority, perhaps the minister can update me on that today. I am happy to take an intervention. Well, you are in your last minute and you are getting no extra time, so it is up to you. Perhaps the minister will update me in his own speech later. Overall, I think that Audit Scotland has given the Government a stark warning, not just on the implementation of ours but on the policy objectives behind childcare and how we improve quality and measure outcomes. Thank you very much. I now call James Dornan to be followed by Alison Jordan and Mr Dornan. Thank you, Presiding Officer. While recognising the concerns raised by the Auditor General, I would like to start by welcoming the positive comments in the Audit Scotland report on expanding childcare from the existing 600 to 1140 hours. I also welcome the cross-party support that is shown to the principle of the policy across this chamber, given the huge importance of this proposal. Although Mr Gray's contribution was his usual ray of sunshine in an edryd eagle-type way, lots of complaining and no positive suggestions about how we could improve the roll-out of this important policy. There is absolutely no doubt that the role of the parent has changed. We are long gone from the days when the male worked and the female stayed at home with the children. Families have changed, work patterns have changed and the needs of childcare have of course changed alongside that. Given the cross-party support previously mentioned, I have no doubt that every member across this chamber recognises that childcare is a huge barrier that prevents many women and indeed men returning to the workplace. Many parents and guardians who have at one point sought out childcare from older relatives, such as aunts, uncles and grandparents, find that with the pensionable age constantly increasing, this is no longer a viable option for most households. Scottish Government has set out a further plan to rectify some of the many issues, which not only prevent parents seeking gainful employment but would mean a sure start for our young children. You will note my use of the word plan. Just like any plan and or major project, the early days require a lot of work, investigative process and adjustments. It is clear that the Scottish Government is taking a responsible approach to implementing this policy. There are very positive considerations taking place with local authorities and producing a multi-year funding package. Of course, it is not unusual—actually, it is extremely common—at this point in the life of a major project for people to have different ideas as to the final costs. What is not in doubt is that the Scottish Government has pledged to fully fund this policy. The Scottish Government is working towards having full agreement with the convention of Scottish local authorities on the matter by the end of April. During its consideration of the draft budget, the Education and Skills Committee, which I am convener, explored the expansion of early years with the cabinet secretary for education. Among other things, we asked him about funding to support the expansion and upskilling of the early years workforce. Also, when the committee is concluding a letter in the draft budget, we asked the Scottish Government for more details than the number of qualified teachers in the early years workforce that would be supported in the 2018-19 budget. Looking forward, the committee is holding a series of evidence sessions with ministers in March and Audit Scotland's overview of the early years sector will be very valuable context for this. The committee will be hearing from the Auditor General in 21 March, and that session will be followed directly by evidence from the minister for early years and childcare. The committee will be looking for questions from individuals and stakeholders through social media for the session with the minister, so minister, you have got that to look forward to in the early part of March. As you can see, the Parliament, at least through my committee, will be keeping a close watch on the progress of the expansion of childcare. Having previously commended the Conservatives for the support and principle to the expanded target, I really still have to make a comment on the difference between the way that this Government is supporting the early years compared with the party of government of which she is a member. The early years national funding formula intended to abolish the funding disparity across England has, in fact, reduced the average nursery's budget by £13,000 due to Westminster's underfunding. A nursery owner said, Let's not be lectured in well-thought-out policies that are beautifully executed by the Tories when counties such as Suffolk are seeing preschool establishments resorting to bucket collections and are likely to see the closure of many early learning establishments. No, there is no time for interventions, unfortunately. I understand that there is concern around funding, but this project is, as I stated, several times ambitious. It is absolutely fair to say that there will be a sufficient amount of groundwork and research done to ensure that we can meet the proposals that are set out, but this Government has pledged to do just that. While I accept there is much to do to achieve our ambitious targets, it is clear that this Government is serious about making life better for our children and families. I have either been happier to hear your opponents come up with practical ways in which they could have helped to achieve this rather than suggest that we postpone it until some unknown date in the future. The expansion of childcare to three and four-year-olds and eligible two-year-olds has been welcomed by parents, caregivers and educators across Scotland. It is about time that all parties come together to ensure that we deliver it. I see that I have a wee bit of time, and I am more than happy to take an intervention, if you wish. Liam Kerr Thank you. You were talking about the UK Government. Can I ask Mr Dornan whether he welcomes the UK Government's scheme of tax-free childcare, which can save parents up to £2,000 a year in childcare costs? That is part of the whole overall package that has ended up with many of these nurseries in early years' places closing, so anything that is going to benefit parents would of course be welcomed by anybody. If it even comes from the UK Government, it may well be a surprise to most people that still would be welcomed by us. In that note, I suspect that I will close down and support the Government's amendment. Alison Johnstone, to be followed by Tavish Scott, Ms Johnstone, please. Thank you, Deputy convener. Research has shown that the greatest rate of child development occurs in the first five years of life. By the age of three, almost half of our language capacity is in place, and by the age of five, when many children first enter primary school, that figure is as high as 85 per cent. The evidence from psychology, neuroscience and biology is clear. Our experiences in our early years are the greatest determinant of our capacity to grow into confident, resilient adults who are able to handle life's ups and downs. That is why the expansion of free childcare is hugely welcome, but only when it is high quality. I have some sympathy with the points that Jenny Marra raised regarding support for parents looking after their own children. Clearly, this is a really ambitious move from the Government in terms of the scale of change that is needed in the Scottish early years and childcare sector, and this goes some way to explaining some of the problems raised in the Audit Scotland report mentioned in the motion. On the issue of staffing, the Scottish Government has estimated that between about 6,000 and 8,000 whole-time equivalent additional staff will be needed to deliver the expansion by 2020, but councils estimate that 12,000 might be closer to the mark. That is a huge increase. Audit Scotland shows that pay for childcare staff is substantially lower in the private partner provider sector. The average salary for practitioners in local authority settings is estimated at 28,000, but it is only 15,000 in partner provider settings. On average, for an early years practitioner, the public sector spends two thirds more than the voluntary and 80 per cent more than the private sector on staff-related costs such as wages and pensions. The same report says that that might be explained by the higher proportion of practitioners who are still in training in the partner provider sector, but the matter is far too important simply to theorise about, because, as welcome as it is, we do not want the expansion of free childcare to be delivered by increasing the number of low-paid childcare workers who lack good pensions, decent pay and the vast majority of whom are women. I think that shortages in the care sector 2 will impact on staffing in this sector, and those are issues that I would like the minister to address in closing, in particular how she will ensure that the recruitment of the additional staff needed will be done in concert with the Scottish Government's fair work principles. This is really important work. It should be highly valued and well paid. I warmly welcome Jenny Gilruth's support for childminders. I think that the recruitment of more childminders will be crucial to ensuring that the 1140 hours can be delivered to everyone. Childminders feel that they are treated like the poor relation in early years in childcare in the sector, but they can offer excellent care and do so with great flexibility. I think that that is an area that needs to be focused on. I am pleased that Audit Scotland estimates that childminders will deliver 6.5 per cent of total-funded hours for eligible 2-year-olds by 2020-21, compared with just 1.6 per cent in 2016-17. On that issue of eligible 2-year-olds, Daniel Johnston raised the low take-up of the means-tested entitlement for some 2-year-olds. He is right to state that about 10 per cent of all 2-year-olds were registered for funded ELC in September 2017, with less than half of the 25 per cent who are entitled. The report suggests that registration figures do not include 2-year-old provision offered through childminders and that councils do not get information from DWP and HMRC about eligible children in their areas. The minister has addressed that to some extent, but I would be interested to hear exactly what the minister is doing to access UK Government data for this purpose, especially as it was recommended to the Scottish Government in a report that it commissioned as a major priority in March last year. I do not think that those are insurmountable problems and I would be interested to hear what the Government is doing to resolve them. The same research shows that both parents and professionals identified that personal contact and relationships with health visitors and other professionals and with friends who used free ELC was key to promoting the provision and encouraging take-up, and that very much times with the health care welfare children project now being rolled out nationally, which has helped parents access thousands of pounds a year by training health visitors and midwives to sign posts to benefit advice. I think that there is a real opportunity here for the new social security system, as some of the new forms of assistance being established are similarly means tested. Ministers have pledged to increase take-up of benefits by raising awareness and helping people to apply for what they are eligible for, so there are lessons to be learned from the lower than desirable take-up looking at what we could do about the two-year-olds offer. It has been agreed within the Parliament that this is a group of our youngest citizens who really would benefit from earlier introduction to early learning and childcare, and clearly too many of them are not accessing that provision. As well as the total amount of childcare and its flexibility and accessibility, we should use this roll-out to explore new innovative models of childcare. The City of Edinburgh Council, as the minister notes, has been piloting the forest kindergarten approach. Children spending the majority of time outdoors in a woodland setting, learning through, exploring through natures. I did see the photos. You are clearly having a fun day, but I would like the minister to touch on what more innovation could be introduced to this sector so that it is as fulfilling as possible for those who are receiving it, for those who are delivering it. Thank you very much. Tavish Scott, followed by Rona Mackay. Mr Scott, please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I take Alison Johnson's point about childminding based on the end of schools being closed tomorrow, as she will well know as well? I have been doing a bit of childminding arrangements on the text in the last half hour or so, which I am probably not allowed to do, but these things have to be done. At the moment, the choice seems to be sledging down off the seat or organising five-side football in the garden lobby, so we will see how that goes. I was still trying to make the comparison between the First Minister and Eddie Eagle, but I have not quite got there yet, but anyway, that is neither here nor there. I just wanted to take the theme of this debate as the vision and ambition around expanding childcare, which few, if any, would disagree with, compared to the policy's implementation. What I hope that the Government's front bench would expect and indeed understand is that, for many of us, certainly in this party, we are absolutely with the Government on the vision of what is sought to achieve here in expanding childcare. For all the right reasons, and many colleagues from across the Parliament have set out, I think that the cogent arguments as to why that is the case—indeed, the minister rightly mentioned the international research that exists in that—shouldn't be discounted. That's actually pretty important stuff as well, but that does differ from the policy's implementation. Many of us, irrespective of where we are and which part of Scotland we represent, do have some concerns that are fair and need to be articulated in Parliament. Audit Scotland and the Auditor General are not to be dismissed on that one in any way, because what they did was to bring most of that together in the report that was published just a few weeks ago. I understand the point that the Government makes about the financial gap between councils and the Government. That, of course, will exist, but there are a number of steps behind that, which I just want to touch on, which I hope that they would concede are important in resolving that gap, in making sure that those things are brought together. Some councils only received the revenue letters for the £18-19 financial year last Friday. As yet, and I'm very happy to be corrected on this, they haven't yet had confirmation on the capital that they are to receive for the £18-19 financial year. I hope, again, that the Government would accept, the front bench would accept, that it is difficult, particularly on the capital side, to plan effective spend and, indeed, value for money if the indicative or, indeed, the actual amount that they are due to receive has yet to be forthcoming. John Swinney I'm grateful to Mr Scott for giving me a chance to address the point that Jenny Marra raised. The resource allocations have been made and agreed and distributed to local authorities. The capital allocations that we were requested are discussed within the settlement and distribution group, which involves local authorities. Local authorities have asked us not to distribute the capital allocations until we have made further progress in the resolution of the individual plans by local authorities. The Government has said that there is £150 million on the table that is able to be allocated, but we have been asked not to allocate that at this stage by the settlement and distribution group. The Government would happily allocate it today, but we are not being encouraged to do so. Tavish Scott I am sure that Mr Swinney might accept that. He might show the difference between individual authorities and COSLA as a whole. He can shake his hands around it as much as he likes. I am not criticising the Government here. I do not understand why John gets worked up on the front bench, but the fact is that some councils are simply making the case, which I think is a pretty reasonable one, that if they have not received their capital allocations, and this is now the end of February, to make and plan capital projects in the next financial year, is, I think, a reasonably tall order. If COSLA are saying—I will be again happy to check this with COSLA myself—that, as Mr Swinney has just said, do not want those capital allocations until the plans are finished, I will be interested to hear that argument. However, I think that it is also important to separate, at the point that I wanted to make, the 18-19 financial year and the implementation of 18-19 from the three-year funding deal that has yet to be resolved. That, the First Minister made clear last Thursday, is due to be concluded by the end of April. Therefore, it is assumed that councils will hear what that is in May. The point about that, which I think is important, is that the three-year allocation will give some basis for both the longer-term capital allocations that are necessary to make in order to meet the objective of expanding childcare in terms of provision, but also the revenue amounts, which of course relate to the workforce, and the point that many colleagues have made about the scale of the workforce challenge. The bit that I have not understood, both as a member of the education committee that James Dornan mentioned earlier on, is that, when Mr Swinney and the previous minister gave evidence to the Scottish Parliament education committee, I believe that they led the evidence that we expected there to be 12,000 staff needed across the whole sector. Now, we can all go and check the official report afterwards. The number that is now being presented is very much less than that. I would be very grateful if, in the wind-up that the Government is going to make today and the final speech that the Government is going to make today, it would set out indeed what that difference is and why, when Audit Scotland concludes as it has, that that figure seems to be so far apart. The final observation that I would make is that the recommendation that Audit Scotland made, which appears to be the most important one, is that, to both the Government and to the councils, it must urgently finalise and implement plans for changes to the workforce and infrastructure that are necessary for the delivery of this report. To do that in the timescale that is necessary is exacting but must be achieved. Everyone in this chamber wants the best start in life for our children and appreciates how crucial it is that children are given quality, flexible and affordable care as early as possible. Doubling entitlement to free early learning to 1140 hours per year by 2020 for all three and four-year-olds and eligible two-year-olds provides an historic opportunity in Scotland. Quite simply, no other policy has such potential to transform the lives of children and their families while improving the prospects of Scotland's economy in the short and long term, as acknowledged by Michelle Ballantyne in her opening speech. Of course, achieving that vision and reshaping how we care for our children cannot happen overnight. Of course, that requires substantial increases in the workforce in investment and infrastructure, as well as new, innovative and flexible models of delivery. If concerns are raised by stakeholders, then of course it is right that they are listened to and we address those concerns. That is why we are working collaboratively with those in the early learning profession and with local authorities to make that work. Why on earth would we jeopardise this historic chance to put Scotland on a progressive, groundbreaking path by simply ignoring those people who we depend upon to make it work? Answer, we will not. We are engaged in meaningful dialogue with all concerned parties. We are listening and will act on any concerns. It is in no one's interest not to. That is why I am dismayed and a bit depressed by the Opposition's negative approach to this fantastic initiative. Instead of welcoming such a transformative plan, they instead choose to play politics with it and dish out their SNP bad card. The recently published Audit Scotland report recognises that the Scottish Government and councils have worked well together to expand provision. Does the member recognise that the figures that we have brought up today on all sides of the chamber and the concerns that we have raised were contained in the report by the Auditor General and the Accounts Commission? That is not playing politics. That is visiting some very real concerns by people outside of politics who are looking independently at what is going on. Rona Mackay. Yes, I understand that, but that is why we are stressing that we are working and we are listening to them. It is important that we do that. We are not dismissing them, but we just think that the negativity might not be helpful. Well, there has actually. The recently published Audit Scotland report recognises that the Scottish Government and councils have worked well together to expand provision. Parents are positive about the benefits. In summer, I received several emails from concerned parents whose children were about to begin attending a nursery in my constituency, which is piloting the 1140 hours scheme. Their concerns reflected the issues contained in Michelle Ballantyne's motion. However, I am pleased to say that all of their fears were unfounded by the time their children began nursery last August. When I visited the nursery just after the term had begun, I learned that the concerns that parents had had at the outset were also shared by staff, but they had worked alongside the local authority during the summer to eradicate those issues, which were no longer problematic by the time the term began. Parents reported to me that increased flexibility, huge savings in childcare costs and amazing benefits to their children's social development. The Government is working with councils to help them to develop their expansion plans, and they recently reached agreement with COSLA to agree the multi-year funding that was needed. As the First Minister outlined at FMQs last week, plans to have full agreement with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the matter by the end of April. Scottish Government is striving to make Scotland the best country in the world for a child to grow up in. Policies that the baby box, the expansion of the early years provision, are paramount to that and are crucial in growing our economy, closing the attainment gap and tackling inequality. Yes, there will be challenges and difficulties along the way, as there would be with any scheme as ambitious as this one. However, the Scottish Government is on track to deliver by the target date of 2020. That has not changed. Also, what has not changed is the saving of 4,500 per child per year to Scottish families. Of course, we have invested in early years apprentices with a record number expected to start this year and plans are to recruit 20,000 new practitioners. I said in the last debate that we had an early years provision, and I am happy to say again that early years practitioners are not glorified babysitters. Their skilled, qualified workers are doing one of the most important jobs there is. Jenny Marra rightly asked about the quality of childcare, and, like Alison Johnstone, I agree that support to parents at home is vital and should be considered. However, the new practitioners will learn about the importance of the attachment-ledd ethos about ACEs, adverse childhood experiences, which can affect every aspect of a young person's life. Their skill and knowledge will enrich our children's lives, so our programme is not all about quantity, it is about quality first and foremost, and childminders must be a pivotal part of the initiative. To address Alison Johnstone's point, fair pay is also at the heart of our plans. We will enable payment of living wage to all childcare staff after delivering the funding entitlement by 2020. Since the SNP came to power with increased nursery entitlement by 45 per cent for three, four and vulnerable two-year-olds, saving families so far up to £2,500 a year. However, a bit like Groundhog Day, the Opposition told us then that we could not deliver it, but we did. Let us not forget the purpose of the policy to improve the experience in the early years of our children and to prepare them for their school years and beyond, and it is about helping parents to work without having massive childcare costs to pay. I urge the Opposition to work with us on this, not to be negative from the sidelines and shout SNP bad. This is about our children and our grandchildren's futures and is more important than politics. I call Rachael Hamilton to be followed by Gillian Martin. Everyone in this Parliament agrees that childcare is of utmost importance. Good to quality childcare is crucial for our children's development. The SNP will tell us that its plans to double free childcare are ambitious. Indeed, they may be well ambitious, but ambition does not mean that the SNP Government should not listen to those who have raised concerns. For what this SNP Government needs is an achievable ambition, and what that means in simple terms is an ability to listen to constructive criticism and act accordingly. I know that the SNP does not like taking lectures from the Tories, another favourite phrase, but, Deputy Presiding Officer, will they take lessons from Audit Scotland who have said that there are significant risks in the implementation of their childcare plans? Figures compiled from the Care Inspectorate early learning and childcare statistics show that childcare availability for poorer families has decreased, while for more affluent families it is increasing. The findings demonstrate that, in 2013, there were 54.4 childcare providers per 10,000 residents in Scotland for the most deprived families, which shrank to 53.6 by 2017. That is in stark contrast to the least deprived families, where, in 2013, the figure was 107.3, and last year that figure rose to 110.3. That is a significant issue, as the evidence suggests that the gap starts in preschool and only widens throughout the years, making the attainment gap even harder to close. There is another reason why it begs belief that childminders have been sidelined throughout their expansion plans, when they should be utilising them to ensure that every parent has full, flexible and high-quality childcare. I certainly will. John Swinney. I am grateful to Rachel Hamilton, because the purpose of my intervention to Oliver Mundell was to stress the diversity provision that we are interested in encouraging. Indeed, in the pilots that we have undertaken, 10 of the 14 trials involve childminders. That is hardly sidelining childminders when we have provided for 10 of them in 14 trials to include childminders to make sure that they are central to the delivery of this policy. Rachel Hamilton. I disagree with John Swinney. The figures that I have been looking at have looked at 6,000 childminders across Scotland and only 100 being included in the partnership process. However, we can argue over those figures. However, what the Scottish Board of Councillors is saying is that the childminders support over 800 families, offering them care all year round, including the elusive hours of before and after school, as well as during holiday times. That flexibility is crucial for working parents. I hope that, going forward, even though John Swinney is trying to defend the pilot projects and the partnership that has been going on within those pilot projects, he is able to listen to the concerns of childminders. As I said, just 100 of those 6,000 childminders in Scotland are being commissioned by local authorities to deliver funded childcare. That highlights a serious issue with the delivery. It represents another example of the SNP Government committed to an idea, but not the delivery. Audit Scotland makes it clear that the SNP Government did not carefully consider delivery because, I will quote, identify measures of success before committing almost £650 million to the increase, making it difficult to assess whether it is delivering value for money. It also said and agreed to the expansion without evidence that it would achieve the desired outcome for children and parents, without considering other ways of achieving those objectives. You can make an intervention, but that was a quote. I ask you, when the Conservative Party supports this expansion, or does it not support this expansion? As far as I can hear from you, you are saying that we think that it is a great idea, but hang on, do it in the future and let's research it a bit more. Your budget proposals have taken £500 million out of the budget. You are not willing to fund it. You do not think that it is affordable. You do not agree with universitality. Can you make that clear, please? Rachael Hamilton What Audit Scotland said is that the SNP's expansion of about 600 hours of funding provision was done—this is the 600 hours—without considering the range of different options to improve outcomes for children and parents. The lack of foresight to even explore alternative methods is characteristic of the SNP Government deciding on an end goal and pursuing it, regardless of the costs or results. If you disagree with Audit Scotland, please speak to them and write to them. Those are glaring omissions and show a real lack of focus when it comes to trying to fulfil what the SNP has described as a flagship policy. The Scottish Borders are already struggling to deliver childcare and will again struggle to meet the SNP's aims, but this is not—could I just speak, please? Could we stop the show-ting from city positions? This is not a problem that will only be felt in the Scottish Borders. Graham Sharpe, chair of the Accounts Commission, said that the scale of change needed over the next two years is considerable and there are significant risks that councils will be unable to deliver that change in the time available. There is now an urgent need for plans addressing increases in the childcare workforce and changes to premises to be finalised and put in place, and yet we have nothing that resembles a plan. The report also found that parents' third funded ELC had a limited impact on their ability to work due to the hours available and the way in which those hours were provided. Concerns were also raised that increasing infrastructure to the required levels and increasing the workforce in the short time available will be difficult to achieve. In fact, Audit Scotland has said that the SNP Government should have started the detailed planning with councils earlier, giving the scale of the changes required. Deputy Presiding Officer, the Scottish Conservatives do have a plan and a cunning plan at that. Scottish Conservatives want to see parents have access to three hours of childcare wherever and whenever they want the childcare system to be much more flexible and responsible, responsive to parental demand. The focus should be on children— No, you must close, please, Ms Hamilton. I will sit down. I have Gillian Martin, please, to be followed by Daniel Johnson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. For me, the policy in doubling free childcare in Scotland is potentially the most transformative policy of this Government for families, education and the economy. Is the plan bold? Yes. Is it challenging to effect such a massive change? Absolutely. By my experience of things, they make the biggest difference or the hardest to achieve. Better provision of high-quality and flexible early years education and childcare is at the heart of every piece of evidence given to every inquiry into the gender pay gap, the inequality of women, household income and the attainment and wellbeing of our children. It is the key part in the jigsaw of unlocking our children's potential, our country's economic potential and providing quality of life for families. It is the part of the SNP manifesto that I genuinely think is the most transformative. Let's let me get started, Mr Kerr, and then we'll take you in later. It recognises that there are shortcomings of the existing provision, which Jenny Goverth rightly pointed out, varies from local authority to local authority. I totally agree that flexibility must be inbuilt. If I take my own situation, I chose to go with childminders and nursery provision as a combination for my children, because that is what will work for me, for them and for me and my husband's jobs. Something so transformational is not going to be easy to put into place, but it must succeed. That is why I am looking at the Conservative Party motion today, and I am accepting that I hope that the criticism is constructive and well-meaning, and that they want to see this Government's endeavour succeed. Mr Kerr, if you want to give me an intervention now, I am happy to take one. Liam Kerr. I do thank Gillian Martin. I do not necessarily disagree with the setup, but does the member agree with me that the SNP Government does appear to have failed to model the transformational impact and the economic impact, the markers of success, when it was bringing in the 600 hours? Gillian Martin. I probably place less importance on that than delivering it. We are working with councils to deliver it. We have a bold ambition. We want to get it done in a timescale that is going to be meaningful for families who have children now, so I am not totally hung up on this. I am more hung up on the fact that I am not going to take another intervention, because I have taken one already and I have lots to say. I would be delighted if today's motion signals a change in Conservative party policy across the UK, because my brother and his wife are considering starting a family, and they look at us and think that they wish that we could have a commitment towards free childcare for us. I think that a change in direction in helping women across the UK from the Tories is long overdue, but maybe it's just too difficult, maybe it's just too radical. Michelle Ballantyn seems to think so. She wants us to take a step back and do lots of reviews and audits over that. Thank goodness that we have the can-do Marie Todd leading this programme. The picture is one that I don't recognise, frankly, that's coming from the Conservative benches. In my area of Aberdeenshire, I'd like to tell you what's going on there. They are making preparations for the flexible 1140 hours, and they're well under way through a range of partnership approaches between childminders, private nurseries, Aberdeenshire council-run nurseries, colleges and schools. Innovative approaches are also being considered. For example, Geary Sports Centre in Inverrory, which is a community-led organisation, are gaining up to provide childcare to meet the demands of the target from my area. They already provide after-school care, but they're currently expanding and recruiting. I was the chair of my local after-school club for three years, and the facilitation of the expansion of clubs like these could be a real focus for taking an existing facility and talent base and realising its potential. In the next few weeks, Aberdeenshire council expansion plans will begin to release additional places, starting with nine local school settings and focusing on those who need it most. During the next academic session, they hope to add in additional 20 settings, meaning that 30 per cent of local authority nurseries will be offering 1140 places well ahead of the 2020 deadline. We of course need more people to consider childcare as a career, both adults transitioning from other careers and young people assessing options for their future. As members will know, I worked at North East Scotland College for many years, and I am encouraged to hear their plans to train many of the North East childcare workforce, which, of course, has a very long history of doing, forefront in ensuring that we have the highly qualified workforce that we need. Nescol is a key partner in the early education and childcare academy due to be launched on 6 March at the beach ballroom in Aberdeen. The academy is made up of representatives from Aberdeenshire City, Aberdeenshire councils, as well as money councils, STS, partners from private nurseries, senior schools, North East Scotland College and University of Aberdeen. Already extensive work has been carried out to create a one-stop shop to allow anyone interested in their career in the early years to quickly access the information that they need. It will help to show the flexible nature of training and education in the area, as well as how to progress in the industry. Nescol has created an additional class of HNC childhood practice. They have currently got 60 students, and they reckon that at least 50 of them will move directly into employment. However, can I end on a personal note? My 14-year-old daughter is currently applying for work experience and is expressing interest in early years education. I am hoping that she could be one of the highly qualified workforce of childcare professionals to deliver this key government policy. I would be really proud if she did that. I think that it is testament to her own childminders and our own nursery teachers. Carol Marshall, Susan Steen, Mrs Forsythe and Mrs Thow, who still in her mind meant so much to her and delivered her early years education. However, a debate on how we can encourage more young men into childcare is what we should be having. It is with a degree of irony and guilt that I am standing up speaking in a childcare debate on a day like today, because my wife is at home working from home looking after our two daughters, because both the school and nursery that we use are closed. However, it does underline one brutal reality. While we talk about the flexibility of childcare, there is one brutal bottom line of inflexibility in that you have to provide childcare, that you have to look after your children and, therefore, you must flex your work around whatever childcare arrangements you have available to them, whatever they may be. In that sense, that is why it impacts so hugely and so significantly on equalities issues, because unless you have access to affordable childcare, you cannot work. Therefore, if you cannot work, that will impact on the means that your family has available to them and whether your family is in poverty or not. Likewise, we have heard many speakers talk about the attainment gap and the impact that early years education can have on that. That is why that issue is so important. Indeed, Ian Gray touched upon the independent commission on childcare reform. We should always look back to their recommendations. They recommended 50 hours a week a year round of childcare, capped with a sliding scale, so that childcare costs did not exceed a proportion of family income. Most importantly, they recommended that childcare be flexible to parental needs to remove the stress of mixed provision. That should be our benchmark. That should be our ambition. To those people who have decried the Opposition benches for being critical or negative, we make our comments not because we want to see the Government fail. We say those things because we want the Government to succeed. We make the criticisms and comments we make not because we think that that is easy. We know that it is hard, but we know that you need to be serious and have clear and coherent plans if you are going to be successful. However, above all else, we want to see the Government bring forward those plans, to have those credible proposals, to make sure that we see the investment that we need and, importantly, to have the measurable outcomes that we can measure them against, because there is an issue in terms of the progress and the reality of what has been delivered so far under the Government's proposals. Yes, the 600 hours has delivered a great deal, but ask any childcare provider, ask any parent and they will say that what is provided is welcome, but there is the reality of funding, the reality of availability, the reality of flexibility. There are two key components in terms of the way that childcare is delivered. Those components are partnership nurseries and local authority funded nurseries, and there are issues in both of those sectors. If you speak to anyone in the partner provider sector, they will tell you, first and foremost, do not call them free hours, they are not free, they are funded, and the reality is that when you look at the breakdown of the funding, and the NDA figures are clear, that £3.64 per child, per hour, when you are looking at staff ratios of 4 to 1, and you are having to pay the living wage, it is pretty obvious that you are not going to be left with much over. Indeed, the NDA states that, for every three and four-year-old looked after in a partnership-provided nursery that they make a loss of £1,000 per year. Indeed, that is critically important because partner providers are 20 to 30 per cent of provision, they are a critical part of this expansion, but likewise local authority provision has issues and constraints, particularly around flexibility. Fair funding for our kids findings showed that one in 10 local authority nurseries do not go beyond the hours of 9 to 5, that it is marked by fixed slots of morning or afternoon sessions. Indeed, last year I showed figures from the financial review of childcare that over half of local authorities could not even provide lunch. The reality on the ground is that, while we talk about flexibility, that is the flexibility that parents have to provide around the provision that is available to them. It is not flexibility for parents, and that is why fair funding for our kids found that 40 per cent of parents are dissatisfied with their childcare arrangements. We should welcome the Audit Scotland report, because it confirms many of the findings that many of us have been trying to raise in this chamber for a number of months and indeed years, and it reinforces them. It reinforces the inflexibility that many find in the system. It reinforces the complexity that many find. Indeed, when we look at the take-up rates for two-year-olds, we see the real issues in terms of the actual provision of what is being intended. Above all else, one of the starkest findings in the Audit Scotland is that we do not actually know how many three- and four-year-olds are actually benefiting, because the double counting that is taking place in the Government's own figures, which is why Audit Scotland were led to conclude that the impact of the expansion on outcomes for children is unclear, and the Scottish Government did not plan on how to evaluate it. It went further, saying that there is no evidence that the additional investment has improved the quality of ELC services. Those are, I think, concerning and worrying insights. The reason they are worrying is because the expansion of 1140Is is hugely ambitious and almost doubling of the capacity, but one for Audit Scotland are clear. There are shortcomings in terms of recruitment of people. The minister acknowledged that 11,000 additional staff are required, but we know that the Scottish funding council has only brought on 1,000 additional extra places. We need to train 4,000 people a year on the basis of the minister's assessments, but we are going to be short by almost two-thirds unless we do something radical in the next 12 to 24 months. Likewise, on buildings, we are almost short by half in terms of capital expenditure. You must close, please. I will close on that note. Thank you. I call Bob Doris to be followed by Liam Kerr. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I have actually quite enjoyed the debate despite some of the two in the throne of the debate. You would not know the tone of it from time to time that actually the Scottish Government amendment does not delete one word of the motion that we are debating here today. There is actually a lot of agreement in this chamber, not that we would know it. Some political snowballs have been thrown back and forward, and I think that we can perhaps appreciate that. One of the issues that has been raised is, within the substantive motion, the difference in estimated costs in relation to planning for this childcare strategy in terms of revenue and of capital. It is worth noting in the financial year about to commence that there is £243 million additional money that has been put into childcare. An additional £54 million specifically in relation to workforce and £150 million to build the bricks and mortar and renovate much of the fabric of the estate out there. Some of that might go completely lost within the debate. On top of that, there is yet again an additional £52.2 million to local authorities for revenue. Actually, by 2021, with indicative budgets already, that will be a doubling of childcare investment to £840 million by that year. By any quantum whatsoever, that is a huge, significant, massive investment in the sector, and let's not forget that now. It is only fair to say that, if the Tories have a cunning plan in relation to childcare, it can actually be that £500 million out the Scottish budget. There is no credibility for the Conservative Party in relation to this debate, but I have a better plan. Let's not do the Bulgwick Tory plan, let's do the Jerry Maguire plan, because Jerry Maguire said, show me the money, and the Tories won't show how they will raise one single penny for childcare. They just want to cut, cut, cut and promise the earth. That is a political snowball back towards the Conservatives, but they have no credibility within this debate. Let's look at the moneys that it takes in relation to building the fabric of childcare. I convened the local government and communities committee, and I have to say that I have been here long enough now to know that Governments, including SNP Governments, seek to fund as efficiently as possible any new initiatives that they give local authorities. I also know that local authorities like to maximise the projected costs. You get a low-end projection, you get a top-end projection, and they eventually get there. I trust that that will happen on this occasion. That is not just the responsibility of the Scottish Government but also of COSLA and individual local authorities. I am confident that we will get there. We do need more information in multi-year budgets. Of course we are hoping that blockage that the Deputy First Minister mentioned in relation to allocations across local authorities for the coming financial year could not just be unblocked for this financial year but those multi-year indicator budgets for the three years ahead to let them go on with their planning. I would be quite keen to hear about that in some of the summing up. I would also be quite keen to know about the massive amounts of capital expenditure going to local authorities. How partner third sector organisations might be able to bid for some of that to invest in their business to develop extra childcare capacity in the partner nursery sector? I would like to hear more information on that from the Government. Much has been made about cost-benefit analysis in relation to the money that we are investing in childcare. I appreciate that that is vitally important for auditing purposes and for accounting purposes, but we know the benefit of good quality childcare. We are putting auditing and accounting to one side, not dismissing it. The Government should address those issues, but let us look at the benefits that it brings. I am actually minded in relation to Sir Harry Burns, the former chief medical officer, in relation to the benefit of pro-health opportunities. Harry used to beat his wits end about giving us more evidence. He just said, we know what works, can we get on and do it? I think that is what Gillian Martin was saying. If it is good enough for Harry Burns, it is certainly good enough for me in relation to this. In terms of measuring the quality of childcare or the benefits of childcare, I think that Jenny Marra had some really quite important points to say in relation to that. It is absolutely right. We need to look at that quality of care. From my personal experience, my two-year-old wee boy does one day at nursery. I have to say that we have seen him go on leaps and bounds in terms of socialising with other kids. It has been wonderful to see how that has helped him. That is just my personal experience. However, we have to capture that in a non-anecdotal way and in a more structured way. I absolutely accept that. In capturing some of that improvement and benefit, I would ask the Scottish Government how it captures the views of parents. The views of parents when they are at a part time, when they have no nursery place and they get one, what is the difference they see in relation to the quality and development of their children or their apart time place and that goes to a full time place? Are we capturing some? Are we capturing patient opinion in the NHS? Are we capturing parent opinion within the childcare sector? I think that that would be very powerful as well. One final thing that I would like to say, a couple of things that we have to iron out. Some nurseries have partnership status and others do not. That can change in the course of the life of your kid. He started off with your kid and a partnership nursery paying for it in overnight. The council decides that that is no longer a partner nursery, so your kid then qualifies for a childcare place that you do not get partnership funding. We need more stability for parents. Of course, there is room for improvement in that massive ambitious plan, but let all of those things upscale towards the end of that plan, and I have every confidence that we will come together as a parliament, that the SNP Government will deliver that and the Parliament will support that. In November 2014, the SNP pledged to almost double childcare provision from 600 hours a year to 1,140 a year by August 2020. In principle, I support increasing the number of hours on a targeted basis, and speak as someone who has relatively recently availed myself of the current provision. I can accept that the effective provision of childcare to new parents potentially, subject to the matters raised by many in this chamber, can assist children's educational attainment and could close the attainment gap. However, it also impacts economically. The challenges around Scottish productivity and growth have been well rehearsed in debates in this chamber, and regardless of one's view of the causes, I cannot imagine anyone's doubts that removing unnecessary barriers to entering the workplace is a key prerequisite of economic activity. I also think that this is a gendered issue. The Scottish Government's own figures from the growing up in Scotland publication show that, currently, as many as 70 per cent of all adult women in Scotland are in employment. However, for mothers with a child of 10 months old, that falls to 62 per cent. Twenty-one per cent of mothers of five-year-olds had not been in paid work since they had their child. I also think that there is a socio-economic angle that Rachel Hamilton touched on. 66 per cent of mothers from the most deprived areas with three-year-olds who seek work are unable to find it, but in the least deprived areas, that is 3 per cent. Having a child appears to affect one's ability to work, particularly for women and particularly for those in more deprived areas. A childcare extension made available to those who need it most should not only assist in closing the attainment gap from an early age, but could also ensure that mothers who want to get back into the workforce are able to. However, only if it is accessible. That is where I think that there is a fundamental underlying problem, because if the increased or even the current places are neither accessible nor compatible with work commitments, they arguably become valueless in terms of economic activity. Let us assume that a parent has a nine-to-five job. To be of value, the childcare must fit around those hours in order to allow the primary caregiver to return to work. Yet fair funding for our kids stated just last week that 90 per cent of council nurseries do not provide full working day ELC places. Just 10 per cent of council nurseries are open between 8 am to 6 pm or longer, the hours according to campaigners during which parents need the childcare. Although 23 councils claim to offer some children full day places, in fact only 3 per cent of all council nursery children have places starting at 8 am or earlier and just 2 per cent have places ending at 5.15 or later. I have not even touched on the fact that most local authority nurseries offer places that are only available during school term times. Ian Gray made that point at the outset. What is particularly interesting in the context of economic activity and poverty is that the more deprived areas then seem to have less choice in terms of providers and the longer hours. That has a practical impact. According to fair funding for our kids, 90 per cent of parents say that a lack of appropriate childcare is the main barrier holding back their career. Daniel Johnson reported that 40 per cent of parents feel dissatisfied with their childcare arrangements, but that report goes on to say that half of that 40 per cent said that the hours available were too short or did not suit their working requirements. Of course, those parents who need to go back to work who have not got access will have to pay for the childcare themselves. Scottish Government research has established that two thirds of families with preschool children have experienced difficulties in finding the money to pay nursery fees. According to one report from last October, childcare is costing parents 41 per cent of their average salary. It is all very well having the extra hours, but if parents cannot access them or take advantage, the perfectly laudable aims are defeated. Gillian Martin I agree that it is also important that people want to train as childminders to get flexible education. Being a member from the north-east, you will know that North East Scotland College has flexible course arrangements for people who want to transition into that sector. Liam Kerr Yes, I agree. I will come on to the childminds if you do not mind, but I note in the Accounts Commission report that there is a point about linking the education and training to parents coming back to work. I think that the point is well made. On the solution, we have long said that parents should be able to access their free hours of childcare wherever and whenever they want. The most straightforward way to do this is to give parents the freedom to redeem their entitlement whenever they need it at approved childcare providers. That ensures that funding follows the child. It is what families have been calling for, childcare providers have been calling for and what we have been calling for. I hope that the SNP will act on that. On that note, we would also look to increase accessibility to a broader range of accredited childcare providers such as childminders. I heard John Swinney's intervention that childminders were not excluded, but just a few months ago, the Scottish Child Minding Association said that their members were being excluded from the SNP's expansion plans. They suggested that the 6,000 childminders in Scotland are only 100 that are currently commissioned by local authorities to deliver childcare. At a time when there are fewer childcare providers and fewer qualified teachers, particularly in the north-east and limited flexibility, it is absurd to be ignoring childminders who can provide high-quality flexible childcare. The SNP has made a flagship commitment to improve the hours of childcare, but there is no point in extending hours if they cannot be used effectively. Parents need to be given a real choice about the provider that they use and the flexibility of the hours that should be tailored to their needs. That is the sort of innovation that will deliver the real benefit of the hours that are promised, deliver women back into the economy and deliver access to early learning and childcare that will help to give our children the start that they deserve. The last of the open debate speakers is Claire Hockey. Excuse me, Ms Hockey, if you are not turned on if you excuse the expression. Can we have a look at Ms Hockey's microphone, please? Can you take your car down and put it back in again? Ay, that's it. Claire Hockey. Thank you, Presiding Officer. From listening to today's speeches, it's clear that we all agree, no matter the party, that supporting our children in their earliest years enables them to have the best opportunities in learning and development. The upbringing of our children will help to shape the people they turn out to be in later life, so the time and effort that we give them in this early stage is immeasurable. Presiding Officer, as has been clearly outlined during the debate, the SNP is committed to ensuring that all of Scotland's children get the best start in life, no matter their background. That flagship policy for supporting children during their early years is a massive expansion in good quality, flexible childcare, a policy that will help lift families out of poverty and reduce inequality. It would be remiss of me not to concede that the expansion will be difficult, however it is a challenge that the Scottish Government has pledged to meet. It is not unusual at this point in the life of any major project for people to have different ideas as to the final outcomes and costs. However, what is not in doubt is that the Scottish Government has pledged to fully fund this policy. The plan to nearly double early learning and childcare entitlement in Scotland's single most transformative infrastructure project and will make a vital contribution to our priorities to grow our economy, tackle inequality and close the attainment gap. It may not be as structurally challenging as the Queensbury crossing, however it will be equally as demanding. As we have heard, it will require substantial levels of investment in infrastructure over the next three years, alongside the recruitment of up to 20,000 additional qualified workers. Today's motion rightly argues that the Scottish Government should engage closely with local authorities to deliver on the target, as the Audit Scotland report states, that the Scottish Government and councils have worked well to expand provision. It is local authorities themselves who deliver early learning and childcare, whether through their own provision or through partnerships with the private and third sector, so it is vital that the Government and COSLA can continue to work constructively together. I wish to mention that this Saturday I am officially opening a partner-provided nursery in my constituency of Rutherglen. Ace Place is an innovative nursery that is committed to supporting our young children. The children in their care spend the majority of their time outdoors and their particular nursery that I am opening in Burnside has actually been expanded to take into account the increased childcare provision to support by the Scottish Government. Alison Harkin, the director of Ace Place, told me, every year of a child's life is precious. However, when it comes to their development and the first few years, they are the most important. Our overriding priority is the health and happiness of our children. If we can achieve that, we will ensure that our children get the best possible start in life. That is why I welcome the on-going commitment by the Scottish Government and the recognition of the role that private and third sector nurseries have in meeting their ambitions for expansion. Alison Harkin added that the plans are incredibly ambitious and, if realised, it will be a revolution in early years education and childcare in Scotland. As an MSP representing a South Lanarkshire constituency, it would be remiss of me not to mention today's events in the council headquarters during the setting of the local authorities budget. I think that it is rich that the Tories are trying to portray themselves as a party of families and the party of early childcare. I have heard the Tory amendment for the South Lanarkshire council budget, which was passed in Hamilton today, thankfully, without the Tory amendments. Within that, there is cut after cut. The SNP's administration's proposals for holiday lunch cuts in areas of high deprivation are cut from the budget. The SNP administration's proposals for uplifting school clothing grants and automatic enrolment are cut from the budget. The extension of concessions for under-16s clubs are cut from the budget. From the Tory amendments, it appears that they wish to remove the new initiatives, all the initiatives that will help the most vulnerable in our society within my constituency and their families, so that they can save households a few pounds per year in council tax. The SNP administration in South Lanarkshire shares the concerns of the SNP in Holyrood that our overriding priority should always be that of our children and certainly not at the expense of the richest in our society. In summing up, working towards educational excellence for all and closing the gap in attainment between our young people from the most and least deprived communities is a defining mission of the SNP and one that I am extremely proud of. We now move to the closing speeches and time is tight, so no more than six minutes please, Mary Fee. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. In closing for Scottish Labour today, can I thank the Conservative Party for bringing this very important debate to the chamber? The Audit Scotland early learning and childcare report is a crucial analysis of where we are as a country in delivering for the needs of children and for the needs of parents. In the report, while highlighting some good aspects, it does not make good reading for anyone hopeful that the policy of almost doubling free early learning and childcare will be ready for 2020. Four years on from the announcement and only two away from the proposed implementation, Audit Scotland warns that there are significant risks that councils will not be able to expand ELC to 1140 hours by 2020. Those warnings are addressed in the motion by Michelle Ballantyne MSP and they have our support. We want to ensure that children in early years education and childcare receive the very best start in life. The increase in free nursery education is a necessary tool in reducing inequality and narrowing the attainment gap that follows far too many children as they move into primary and secondary education and on into adult life. High quality, affordable early learning and childcare is essential for children from poorer backgrounds. However, the reality is that nursery fees in the UK are some of the highest in Europe and within the UK Scotland is higher than many regions in England. The savings in monthly childcare will be a very welcome relief for many, as will creating the opportunity for parents, especially mothers, to return to the workplace. When women have the opportunity to return to the workplace, it should not have to be in a reduced capacity in terms of hours, in terms of role or in terms of status. The reality is that three quarters of women continue to play the role of primary caregiver, meaning that they are too often restricted to the type of employment that they can access. A contributing factor to that is the availability and the flexibility of early learning and childcare. The recent findings by fair funding for our kids show that only one in 10 council nurseries are open from 8 am to 6 pm, and other speakers this afternoon have highlighted that issue as well. That situation might be suitable for a minority of parents, such as those working 9 to 5, with a short commuting distance or parents not in work. For the majority, nursery hours must be more flexible. Many parents who work in shift patterns or in zero-hour contracts will find themselves with additional problems in balancing their childcare commitments. Many parents are lucky to have a support system of friends and of family who can help. However, we should be doing more to make childcare much more flexible and to create a wraparound system that meets parents' needs and, most important, their expectations. The Audit Scotland report warns us that the current uptake of 600 hours-free childcare is lower for vulnerable two-year-olds than it should be. There are issues of making parents aware of their entitlement, and that has been highlighted in today's debate. The report offers some very strong recommendations in promoting childcare hours. However, for those vulnerable children who are missing out now, it could be too little, too late, in improving their life chances. We will support the SNP amendment tonight. However, in giving our support to the SNP amendment, it is important to point out that, by highlighting some positives in their amendment, they are ignoring the many negative aspects in both the Audit Scotland report and the concerns that have been raised by parents. They need to come back to this chamber and address those concerns. Action is needed now to ensure that we have a system that works and a system that provides the service that parents want and the service that children need. We need to have more than a positive spin that gets us through an afternoon debate by talking about the good and completely ignoring the negative. Finally, the lack of oversight by the Government in planning for the roll-out of the 1140 hours is a concern. As I said earlier, it was 2014 when the policy was announced and, with two years to go, the Audit Scotland report shows the mismatch of financial estimations between the Scottish Government and local government. As councils prepare cuts to budgets in the coming weeks, the Scottish Government should be working to ensure that every single council is fully funded to meet their childcare policy. That is what Scottish Labour would do. We would create a more flexible, all-age, all-year, wraparound, affordable childcare system that benefits every single child. If I have succeeded in anything this afternoon without even uttering a word, it is to rebalance the contents of what might have been approved by Parliament tonight by putting in place some positive reflections on the contents of the Audit Scotland report. It may be the questions why we have not got any negative parts, but we thought that there was enough in the Conservative motion to begin with, so we are simply rebalancing the debate. That has been a very constructive debate, and I thank the Conservatives for bringing it forward. It gives us an opportunity to reflect on an important report about the roll-out of early learning and childcare. I want to be clear at the outset of my contribution in closing the debate, that I agree with Iain Gray that the purpose of the roll-out of early learning and childcare must be to contribute to the achievement of the best outcomes for children, but also to create greater opportunities for their parents to enter the labour market and to provide those opportunities to do so. Of course, I will do that in a moment, and of course some of those opportunities will come in the expansion of the workforce, which is arising out of the changes that we are making. I will give way to Mr Gray. Iain Gray. I appreciate Mr Sonny's point. I did want to ask him the question that he asked me, and I am glad that his answer was the same as mine. Does he accept that Audit Scotland makes the point that sometimes the primacy, if that is the right word of outcomes for the children, are not clear? What he says is that it is not always clear which of those priorities should be given greater weight, so is he suggesting that it will be the case in the future? This is where Mr Gray will not be surprised to hear that I part company with Audit Scotland on some of their analysis. It is pretty obvious that, given the Government's wider policy framework and the intense focus that we have on getting it right for every child, that is the policy driver of the agenda. To make sure that young people, and a number of colleagues have made this point, Gillian Martin and Claire Hawking have made the point that the early years of young people's lives are utterly critical in the formulation of their cognitive ability. I think that that is crystal clear. That is why I question why Audit Scotland challenges the Government about the business case and the rationale that we should apply to the policy. To focus on what Mr Doris said, Bob Doris quoted Sir Harry Burns, who essentially says, we have looked at all the evidence. I have heard this from Sir Harry Burns on numerous occasions in my ministerial life. We have looked at all the evidence. We know what we have got to do, so we just get on and do it. That is how I feel about the policy. We are trying to get on and do it. I just question why Audit Scotland labors so extensively the need for us to have looked at alternative business cases when we know that the evidence tells us early intervention to support the cognitive development of young people through quality early learning and childcare is invaluable. If I could develop the points a little bit further, I will give way. That brings me to the point on outcomes that Jenny Marra raised. In the survey that was undertaken about the impact of the 600 hours, and I am not trying to suggest that the 600 hours are panacea, because we are building on the 600 hours, so we cannot believe that it is a panacea, at paragraph 60 of the Audit Scotland report in page 23, it talks about the improvements in outcomes in speech and language, improvements in cognitive development, improvement in social skills, improvement in behaviour and improvements in children's ability to be ready for school when it starts. Those are some of the outcomes that have been achieved as a consequence of the existing policy preserve. I will give way to Michelle Ballantyne. When you talk about the evidence of what has happened and what we should be doing rolling out forward and whether other approaches are necessary, is that not around things like the vulnerable 2s and the vulnerable 1s, which would benefit incredibly from early years' input and childcare that was targeted? Whereas the 3s and 4s do not show that uplift in the advantages of care that the 1s and 2s would? John Swinney? There is a blend there, because we have a comprehensive provision that we are planning for three and four-year-olds and very targeted interventions for eligible two-year-olds to meet their needs. However, there are a whole host of other interventions that the Government makes through the agenda of getting it right for every child to make sure that we tackle those issues of vulnerable to the young people face. I want to talk a little bit about the delivery and the time remaining. The Audit Scotland report recognises that we are working well with local authorities to formulate those plans. I welcome that and I welcome the contribution of local authorities. However, we have to go through a process of understanding fully and properly the financial estimates of local authorities. If we did not do that, Audit Scotland would be on our back for not doing it. That would be its next report. Audit Scotland does not suggest that the Government has got its numbers wrong, it suggests that there is a gap, and we are addressing that gap. I would be failing in my duty to the finance minister and to the Parliament if we did not properly scrutinise those plans to make sure that the local authority plans are valued for money. I need to make a couple of other points to close. My intervention to Mr Mundell earlier on was designed to be helpful because I want to see childminders and partner providers part of the solution. I do not want to see them carved out of that. I say that clearly to the Parliament, but I need local authorities to embrace childminders and partner providers. Colleagues in all parties have colleagues that lead local authorities around the country. I have many local authorities led by my party, the Conservatives and the Labour Party. It is important that we use our political influence to encourage our local authority colleagues to— There is no time, Mr Mundell. I am happy to exchange with Mr Mundell later on, but I want to give the clearest signal to Parliament that the Government wants to broaden that participation, but we need our local authority partners to be with us in so doing, and any support in that respect will be welcome. The last point that I want to make is about workforce. We estimate that we will need around 11,000 headcounts to deliver that policy. We have commissioned early starts into that, and we anticipate about 3,000 in this year, and that will rise in the course of the next two years to ensure that we are ready to implement it. It is a big challenge, but we are taking forward the very active communication campaigns to ensure that we can motivate individuals to participate in the NLL in Chalkia and to improve and create the best possible outcomes for the children of our country. I call Michelle Ballantyne to wind up the debate. Can you take us to decision time, please, Ms Ballantyne? Can I start by apologising on behalf of Liz Smith, who should be closing for us today? She has been called away to deal with a family issue related to the weather. The Presiding Officer very kindly allowed it. This debate has shown clearly the considerable importance that all parties in this chamber attach to the expansion of childcare, but it has also shown clearly the extent of the challenges. Most especially those faced as we try to strike the right balance in terms of extending the number of hours available and the qualitative issues in terms of ensuring that there is much better accessibility and flexibility, both of which are so important to parents. Which will be the defining issues about whether or not Scotland succeeds in delivering a world-class childcare system. There is no point in extending hours if they cannot be used effectively and that those things have been picked up by Jenny Gilruth and Jenny Marra during this debate. There is a demand and supply issue to this whole debate and we need to accept that there are some tensions, more of which I will speak about in a minute. Like any effective policy there ought to be a solid base of evidence which underpins it and it is on this issue that I want to concentrate the early remarks, as we cannot hope to know what will make the most effective delivery of childcare if we have not undertaken the necessary cost-benefit analysis of what works and what doesn't work. The Audit Scotland Accounts Commission was scathing in its comments that whilst the ambition was in line with the national strategic objectives, the Scottish Government did not undertake any effective analysis once the 600 hours were in place. We are now five years on from that point. The Scottish Government had implemented the increase in hours without comparing the cost and potential outcomes of expanding childcare or looking at the different economic models of childcare and how they compare in terms of delivery. In other words, it did not identify what measures would indicate success or what baseline data was available, and it has not evaluated— John Swinney I would be grateful if Michelle Ballantyne would set out what other model the Government should have examined. If she believes that we should have examined some other model, she does not agree with us that we should be expanding to 1,140 hours. Michelle Ballantyne I do not think that it is as simple as that, cabinet secretary. When we talk about other models, there are models all over the world in terms of delivering effective childcare. We personally choose to look at those who are most vulnerable first and focus on them. My point is that you chose not to. You are playing on with it, regardless. The impact of £650 million of additional funding—sorry, I have lost my place, the baseline was available—has not evaluated the impact of the £650 million of additional funding. Crucially, there is no evidence to show how increasing the amount of three or four-year-old spending nurseries is advantageous to them. I make this point about evidence because we have seen outside bodies criticise the Scottish Government in other areas of policy for a lack of good quality data, the assessment of the curriculum of excellence being an important example. Likewise, the report highlighted the fact that the Scottish Government still has much work to do with the Department for Work and Pensions and HM customs and revenue to establish exactly where the eligible two-year-olds are so that they can be the focus of more accurate targeting. Perhaps one of the most telling parts of the report is the criticism that the Scottish Government has not defined what it means by high-quality childcare, and I want to dwell on that. Ask any parent and it is this matter which rightly has the highest priority. Firstly, parents will talk about the right numbers of fully qualified staff. We know in Scotland that early learning staff have fallen by 44.8 per cent since 2008, so not only is this the main reason behind local authorities projecting an additional £160 million cost than the Scottish Government has estimated since this is largely the staffing shortfall that would have to be addressed, but there is also the issue about different staffing ratios which are required for different age groups, and some of that analysis does not appear to have been factored in appropriately. Likewise, in an age when many professionals feel less secure in their jobs, there is the additional training that is required to ensure that staff are fully qualified to meet the modern challenges of early learning, because listening to staff, they are more substantial than most of us realise. However, although the quality of staff is probably the main concern from parents, so too is the quality of the learning environment and here lies the issue about providers. There are now 848 fewer early learning and childcare services than there were in 2008. A decline that has predominantly occurred in the more deprived areas has coincided with a decline in the number of childcare services rated good or better, which now stands as its lowest point in half a decade. Those are just the ones that we know about. Last year it was reported that since 2011 nursery inspections had fallen by a third, so there is a strong message here for the Scottish Government about quality of delivery. The questions that I have about provision relate to the emphasis being in the right place. Our local authorities are not showing strong levels of interest in the area of one and two-year-olds, and that is an area where the Conservatives believe that there should be the most important focus, especially when it comes to our most vulnerable children. We base that supposition on the extensive research about where early learning can make the most substantial difference. Related to that is the fear amongst many private sector providers that local authorities are much more likely to want to concentrate on the three- and four-year-old provision from which it is easier to deliver economies of scale and cost savings in comparison with the more staff-intensive one- and two-year-old provision. Such an imbalance would be unfortunate, and I urge the Scottish Government to think carefully about the potential repercussions. Can I once again ask the Scottish Government to reconsider the illogicality of its plans to allow private profit-making nurseries to enjoy the full 100% business rate relief, but not those of not-for-profit nurseries that are within charitable foundations, which, after all, are in a position to provide additional places to assist local authorities with meeting increased demand? That does not make any sense at all, at a time when there is such pressure being applied to parents for a better service. Those nurseries are often some who can offer more flexible hours as well, and we should also remember that many parents are looking to ensure that their nursery feeds into their choice of primary. It is to the issue of flexibility that I come next. The Scottish Conservatives believe that this issue is of primary importance, and therefore it is crucial to listen to the providers and to the parents about what exactly they want when it comes to making the important distinction between choice and flexibility. Those two issues are related, but they are also different, and this matters. We want parents to have real choice about the kind of provider they wish to use, but we also want them to enjoy the additional advantage of flexible hours a point that has continually been made by fair funding for our kids, whose published research shows that only one in 10 local nurseries provides the length of care to cover the full working day. In 19 out of Scotland's 32 local authorities, there are no public nurseries during the full stretch of 8 till 6 pm, and that must surely tell us something about the lack of incentives within the system. Because if we are to live up to parents' aspirations for top quality childcare, then flexible access is key. I thought that the Scottish Government was moving in the right direction on this, but things seem to have got stuck. On 23 March 2017, when Liz Smith asked Mark McDonald, the then children's minister, what he was proposing when he mentioned the possibility of a childcare account, he said, and I quote, My officials will work in partnership with local authorities to develop the detail of the funding model and the national standard, and I can announce that we will commission a feasibility study to explore the potential costs and benefits of introducing an early learning and childcare account in the future. Liz Smith welcomed that at the time, as the Scottish Conservatives are quite sure that the account stroke voucher system is the best way of delivering both more choice and greater flexibility. For those local authorities who have moved closest to this system, e.g. here in Edinburgh, where there seem to be more satisfied parents and a better quality of provision, so can I ask this children's minister what progress has been made on this feasibility study, and when will we see a childcare account, and when, as was flagged up by the Accounts Commission, you winding me up, are you? Very quickly then, summing up then, it's abundantly clear that these reports have lied bare the extent of the challenges we face. I hope you have listened to some of the comments today and I hope that your sense when you go away is not one of people being here to attack, but of a chamber that wants to see this succeed, but we need you to listen to everybody to achieve that. Thank you very much, and that concludes our debate on early years in childcare. The next item of business is consideration of two business motions, motion 10721, setting out a business programme and motion 10722, on a stage 1 timetable. If any objects, please say so now, and could I call on Joffith Patrick? The next item of business is consideration of five Parliamentary Bureau motions. I ask Joffith Patrick on behalf of the Bureau to move motion 10724 on designation of a lead committee, motion 10725, on referral of the local government finance order, motion 1076, on approval of an SSI, motion 10746, on designation of a lead committee, and motion 10751, on meetings of committees. Moved on block. Thank you very much. We come to decision time. The first question is that amendment 10650.3, in the name of Marie Todd, which seeks to amend motion 10650, in the name of Michelle Ballantyne, on early years in childcare, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. And the next question is that motion 10650, in the name of Michelle Ballantyne, as agreed, so as amended, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you very much. I propose to put a single question on the five permanent review of motions. Does anyone object? No. The question is that motions 10724, 10725, 10726, 10746 and 10751 all be agreed. Are we agreed? Yes. We are agreed. And that concludes decision time. We'll move on to members' business, the name of Claire Hockey, on eating disorders and we'll just take a few moments for members to change seats.