 The next item of business is a debate on motion 1.6.1.2, in the name of Alison Harris, on early years. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons now, and I call on Alison Harris to speak to and move the motion. Ms Harris, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the motion in my name. In October last year, when the Scottish Conservatives last brought this topic to the chamber, we highlighted some very concerning and urgent issues regarding the implementation of the expansion to 1140 hours of funded childcare. Those are focused mainly on the private, voluntary and independent, or PVI, sector. Those problems were many, but four key issues kept appearing. 1. The lack of access to capital funding for expansion in the PVI sector. 2. The lack of partnership between local authorities and the PVI sector. 3. A material variation in the revenue funding rates offered to partner providers across local authorities. 4. The staff drain from the PVI sector to councils. What has changed? The Scottish Government and the Minister will say that they have taken actions to address those key issues. However, those have come far too late into the implementation period and, for the most part, have been of little substance with not much effect. In December 2018, the Scottish Government published a delivery support plan for partner providers. However, in its 20 pages, only two of the new measures in the document actually tried to address the key problems that we highlighted in October. Therefore, those four key issues are still very much outstanding. In terms of access to capital funding for the PVI sector, there has been some progress, but bear with me. Back in October, the majority of local authorities had allocated no capital funding for the PVI sector expansion to 1140 hours. I asked the minister to clarify the position on capital funding to each local authority. Her team wrote to all councils on 14 November to say that they were permitted to use capital funding for PVI sector expansion. However, that was subject to, and I quote, legal and financial restrictions on the ability to use capital funding. This is little help when the confusion around legal and financial restrictions was often the very reason that funding was not allocated. However, the recent establishment of the ELC partnership forum has allowed for some progress in that respect. Councils such as Angus and Murray have successfully devised a working method of allocating capital funding, and they have been able to share that process with other local authorities. It seems inconceivable that it took until late 2018 before a successful method of allocating capital funding to the PVI sector was actually shared. Moreover, it took numerous calls from Scottish Conservatives and other stakeholders before the Government intervened to help in that regard for something that should have been planned for when the policy was announced several years ago. Despite the Scottish Government's letter, I have been informed that some councils are still not allocating capital funding. The lack of access to capital funding, which was brought up in October last year, is still an issue nearly six months later. Maureen Watt, you just have a little conversation? Maureen Watt, please. I wonder if the member is aware that, in Aberdeen City Council's budget discussions, the recommendations were of approving funding for the delivery of early learning and childcare expansion and that ministers and chief officers gave the business case in respect of the following projects related to early learning and childcare. East Tory new bills, Northfield colleagues— That is quite a long intervention, Ms Watt. ...chillies row nursery and seat nursery, et cetera. That is local council's appearing for it. Can I say that there is time in hand? You will get your time back. Right. Thank you for that. There is a valuable picture across the whole of Scotland, and I am listening to the private sector. The next major problem in the roll-out that we raised was the lack of partnership between local authorities and the PVI sector. The ELC partnership forum has at least introduced a dialogue between councils and the PVI sector, where in some cases no dialogue existed. However, one provider recently told me that some local authorities are unwilling to meet with funded providers who are already in partnership, or indeed they are only willing to meet when a council-run nursery needs holiday cover. Partnership is vital to the success of the 1140-hour policy, and I know that the minister agrees that partnership is vital, but it is still not happening in far too many cases and is putting the policy in jeopardy. The minister said this morning that everything is on target and that the policy will be delivered on time. However, that is the opposite of what the PVI sector is telling us. So minister, who is wrong? The third key problem is the huge variation in revenue funding rates for the PVI sector. The total revenue funding from the Scottish Government is rising, and that is obviously welcome. However, significant variations in funding rates across local authorities still exist. Those variations are creating a postcode lottery for partner providers in Scotland. That is implications for partners where the funding rate is lower in their authority. They are prevented by the Scottish Government from charging top-up fees to bridge those funding gaps, but the funding rate alone is not sustainable for their businesses to succeed. I would like to clarify with the member that it is currently unlawful to charge parents and carers to top-up fees for a child statutory early learning and childcare hours, and that is a long-standing legal position. It is laid out clearly in statutory guidance, which was passed by this Parliament in 2014. That position is reiterated in the new national standard to be introduced from August 2020. Does the member agree that statutory early learning and childcare hours should be free at the point of access, or is the member advocating for a change in the law, Ms Harris? Yes, I agree, but it has to be properly funded. That has resulted in those providers now considering pulling out of the partnership, and indeed some already have, as we have seen with St George's school in Edinburgh this week. The final key issue is that the staff drain from the PVI sector to local authorities. The Government says that they are encouraging local authorities to promote from within council staffing pools, but staffing is still a major issue. Just last week, a job posting went up on My Job Scotland for a childcare practitioner at North Lanarkshire Council. The typical salary for an entry-level practitioner role is around £20,500. However, the posting advertised for an entry-level practitioner with a salary ranging from £25,000 to £29,000. There is no way a PVI sector nursery can compete with that. If you were a practitioner working in the industry, which job would you be going for? That is having real knock-on effects on businesses. Recently, one provider lost a manager, a deputy supervisor and two qualified staff from one setting in a matter of weeks, with all those staff moving to local authority services for more money and who can blame them. Meanwhile, the PVI sector's hands are tied with no top-ups allowed and they cannot compete because of the variation in funding rates across Scotland. In many ways, the implementation of this policy is frustrating because we keep hearing from the SNP that everything is on track, partnership is working and everyone is happy. It is just not the case. The motion calls for the Scottish Government to urgently intervene to fix those flaws in implementation. If they do not, we are going to see many more examples of businesses withdrawing from partnership or leaving the sector altogether. That is only to the detriment of children and parents across Scotland. The minister has acknowledged that the expansion cannot happen without the PVI sector. With August 2020 around the corner, there is not much time left to fix this, and that is why I hope that the whole Parliament will support my motion. Thank you very much. I call on Mary Todd to speak to her and move amendment 16122.1. Minister, five minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I move the amendment. Beg your pardon, six minutes. I will speak more slowly then. In partnership with local government, we have made an ambitious commitment to almost double the funded early learning and childcare entitlement for all three and four-year-olds and for eligible two-year-olds from August 2020. It is heartening that today's motion recognises and celebrates the commitment right across Parliament to this transformative policy. We all know that the earliest years of life are crucial for every child, and we all want every single one of Scotland's children to grow up in a country where they feel loved, safe and respected and able to reach their full potential. Evidence tells us that if our early learning and childcare offer is to give children the best start in life and contribute to closing the poverty-related attainment gap, it has to be of high quality. A child's statutory funded hours must also be free at the point of access so that no child is held back due to household circumstances. We do not shy away from the scale of the challenge that we face together in achieving our ambition for 2020. No single part of the system can achieve that alone. Meaningful and genuine partnership working is fundamental to the success of this expansion. We want parents and carers to be able to choose from a range of setting types, offering different patterns of provision and all of which meet the national standard, and that means that local authorities are working in partnership with a range of early learning and childcare settings in addition to the nurseries that they run in-house. Our partnership working is not always easy, but it is testament to the commitment, passion and determination of nurseries, childminders, representative organisations and local authorities right across Scotland that we are making good progress together in our preparations for August 2020. Iain Gray I agree that the best way of respecting the commitment, for example, of the NDNA, a representative body, is by listening to what they are saying about the problems. Minister. I certainly do agree, and I meet regularly with representative bodies, and I am meeting with Parmina Tsukana from the National Day Nursery Association later this month. We have put in place a joint delivery board to oversee progress across all aspects of the 1140 hours expansion. I chair the board jointly with the cosless spokesperson for children and young people. The work of that board is informed by regular submission of data and intelligence from local authorities on progress with delivery in a number of key areas. We published the first report on progress in December 2018, showing that local authorities are broadly meeting forecasts for delivery progress and remain on track to deliver. It is important to be clear that the expanded entitlement to 1140 hours will come into force from August 2020 onwards. Legislation to underpin the expanded entitlement will be brought forward to the Parliament later this session. We are on a journey to 2020. Local authorities have been asked to phase in the expanded offer and to ensure that those children who stand to gain the most from extra-funded early learning and childcare are the first to benefit. Oliver Mundell, I thank the minister for taking the intervention. Does she not accept that it is a bit insulting to some nurseries when she says that we are on a journey when they are being asked to deliver 1140 hours now and are not receiving enough money to cover the cost of doing that? As I said, I meet regularly with private nurseries. I was in a private nursery on Monday this week. I met last week with people from private nurseries who are members of the 2020 Together We Can group. My door is open. I am more than happy to hear and I am more than happy to work with them and improve the partnership relationship with local authorities. Liz Smith, you said in the last debate on the issue that quality sits front and centre of our vision. That is something that we all aspire to. We are getting a lot of evidence just now that the independent, voluntary and private sector do not feel that they can deliver that quality because their policy does not give them sufficient investment. I am very confident with the multi-year funding that we agreed last year with the local authorities. I am very confident that the rates will increase and that they will be sustainable and deliverable. We can achieve that policy by 2020. The transition period is hugely important in allowing time for local authorities and partners to work together to refine local plans for 1140 hours. It is unfair to accuse local authorities of failing to achieve the ambition of 1140 hours already, with 18 months until the full national roll-out. I am grateful to the minister for giving way. Is the minister aware that child watch in North Ayr, in my constituency, is about to close in March, due in part to poor funding rates being provided at £3.50 per hour by South Ayrshire Council? Will the minister be able to intervene in that case, which means the loss of this vital facility, serving approximately 200 children? I am more than happy to meet with the member and discuss that and to hear more detail from him. I cannot comment on the individual case. It is not one that I am aware of, but I am more than happy to hear from him and work with him to solve that. I tell you that today is an opportunity for me to share with the Parliament some examples of positive progress in partnership working. At our early learning and childcare—I will talk about North Lanarkshire, because last time that we debated it, it was very much the focus of everyone's attention. It has made incredible progress in strengthening partnership working, which has led to all funded providers in the area being involved in the failed phase roll-out of 1140 hours from August 2019. North Lanarkshire has also invested additional revenue funding from the Scottish Government in creating a new grant scheme just as you asked for, which is supporting private providers to prepare for 1140 hours. We have ambitious aspirations to help to ensure that our children can realise their full potential. Neither COSLA nor the Scottish Government underestimates the scale of the challenge involved in achieving our ambition, but we are committed to working in meaningful and genuine partnership to achieve that ambition for 2020. I now call on Mary Fee to speak to and move amendment 16122.1, Ms Fee, in five minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In opening for Scottish Labour, I thank the Scottish Conservatives for bringing this debate back to the chamber following a similar debate in October of last year. At the outset, I state our support for the policy of the Scottish Government as we have done in the past. The debate is not about opposing the ambitions of delivering the 1140-funded hours. It is about expressing the confidence that we have in the Scottish Government to meet the 2020 deadline that delivers for children and families with the backing of all early years providers. Our confidence in the delivery is not because we have a dislike for any one party or any one organisation. It is based on the feedback that we receive from providers, parents and bodies such as the NDNA and Audit Scotland. Scottish Labour believes that childcare should be flexible, affordable and of high quality for all ages all year round. The delivery of 1140-funded hours is an important step in meeting the needs of parents and of children. I will repeat what I said in October that our childcare system is in need of urgent reform. The current system is not one that would ever be designed from scratch. However, we are at a point where the Scottish Government's policy can only be delivered using the current mix of providers, and it is vital that we address the problems and the issues that remain for those providers. The flexibility of the policy is of particular concern. Although the Scottish Government wants to leave it for local authorities and partner providers to decide how flexible a service that they provide, we have to ensure that that does not lead to a postcode lottery with regard to the type of early learning and childcare service that parents and carers can access. Partner providers have once again contacted me ahead of this debate, and I appreciate all their comments and concerns that they have reasonably set out. At the heart of those concerns is a frustration at the lack of parity between private providers and council providers. First of all, there is a postcode lottery across Scotland, with local authorities setting a different rate for funded providers. The NDNA is calling on the Scottish Government to rerun the Ipsos Murray survey, originally carried out in 2016, which identified a sustainable rate of £5.31. However, by the time that policy is fully introduced, that figure will be four years out of date and is based on the 600 hours of funded hours model. That is grotesquely unfair on the private nursery sector, who are expected to pay the living wage to staff delivering the funded entitlement. Further to that, there have been concerns raised that the current plans for expansion could lead to a two-tier system whereby some early learning and childcare providers pay the living wage and some do not. Instead, it should be the case that there is parity between providers when it comes to wages as well as terms and conditions. Unison and the STUC have also highlighted disparity in pay between the private, voluntary and public sectors. With unison questioning why early years practitioners would put themselves through training for less pay than jobs requiring less qualifications. At the heart of our amendment is an acknowledgement that local authorities are under severe financial pressure to deliver a range of public services. Although a £1 billion deal has been agreed between COSLA and the Scottish Government to deliver the policy, we have concerns that any underfunding to councils to deliver the policy will have major consequences on other services that are delivered by councils. If we are serious about tackling the poverty-related attainment gap, then we must be serious about addressing the wider issues of poverty. We need to address jobs growth, jobs quality and low wages. Otherwise, the policy of the 1140 hours will not do anything to address the problems that affect children of the lowest earners. That, Presiding Officer, should be a priority for everyone in this chamber. I move the amendment in Iain Gray's name. Iain Gray, thank you very much. Hanna Colland-Tavish Scott, open please for minutes, Mr Scott. I think that it is entirely reasonable for Parliament to press Government on the implementation of this broadly agreed policy, given the scale of the monies that are to be invested in this area, and indeed the challenge of implementation. There is a big difference, as many know, between ministerial visits and endless meetings. and the actual action needed to make a policy work. That debate, it wouldn't be necessary if MSPs have all political persuasions on right across the Parliament without hearing of the practical concerns that exist right now. One of those came up this morning at the Education and Account Committee of this Parliament when the members of that committee had evidence on an inquiry into additional support needs. Dwi'n glynch o'r trofi fan bod eich andynt gan ddeithasio, oherwydd ffaith y ddraf, ddorod o'r trafiach wasiadol, ddorod o'ch ddreitio a'ch ddweud y sector. Dwi'i ddweud yma yn rywbeth yn maswm gadci o'r trofi a'r ddysgu'r trofi perddiaeth. Professor King, if that the policy is to work, one of the aspects that does strike me is important given that one in six children in an average P1 class right across Scotland gotlen i chi'n meddyliadau wneud aethol iaer iawn. Mae'r progres yn rhoi ar y prіш-o-rheiff accommodation a'u byt gan gael ein hyn o'r newid ar gweithio'r arweithio'r newid. Gweithio'r newid ar gweithio'r newid a'r byd yw'r datblygu a'r wyf yn perioch ar yr ysbyt yn edrychwyr ar y gweithir iawn, ac yn fawr, ond, yn dweud yn ddod i'r ddwyngo gyda cyhoeddon. Mae'r ddwylo i gwybod yr hyn oes fydd yn gweithio ar hyn olaf, is not clear to Parliament. Never mind to all the practitioners that they have yet been fully addressed. Just as recently as January, reports illustrated that private nurseries were pulling out of council funding arrangements for three and four-year-olds on the basis that the new extended R scheme, offered by the Government, was not financially viable. Nurseries complained that the Government funding would not cover staffing costs and they were barred from asking parents to top up fees to make that difference. That point has just been clarified across the front bench. Edinburgh council have confirmed that two nurseries have announced their intention to end that partnership from 2020. Willie Rennie told me just before this debate that the nursery in Cowdenbeath, where he used to send his son before he went to school, closed last week. Again, citing the challenges of losing their staff to the council nursery. Again, as Alison Harris rightly said, who can blame people for choosing to move on when there is a better salary to be gained elsewhere? That is a really significant challenge, not just I suspect in Fife, not just in Edinburgh, but in Brighton across the country. I certainly know that it is a very significant challenge in Shetland as well. The Government is going to have to find some way to address that. Strathclyde University's Professor Alain Wendy Dunlop from their School of Education said the other day that, if the Government has the ambition to put equity for all children with a close and a gap agenda, it cannot afford any further attrition in early years teachers' numbers. That seems to me a pretty fair assessment of the situation. In January, Edinburgh council announced its plans to replace nursery teachers with early years practitioners to save money and tackle teacher shortages. There are raft of issues that are pretty evident to what is currently going on. I therefore hope that the Government will accept the representations that are being made to members from such organisations as the Scottish Child Minders Association, recognising that there has been a 4 per cent decrease in the number of child minders between 17 and 18. I look to make some serious proposals to address those issues before the policy becomes literally too difficult to implement. Thank you very much, Mr Scott. Open debate, speeches of four minutes. There is a little time in hand for interventions. I call Liz Smith. We are followed by Claire Adams. The minister said unequivocally in her BBC radio interview this morning, and she has repeated it again this afternoon, that she is wholly confident that this policy will be delivered and delivered on time. In the debate in October, the minister admitted that there were several problems. I am keen in her summing up if she could explain to the Parliament what it is that convinces her that this policy will be delivered in light of the evidence that I think all parties, including the SNP, are getting from the various private, voluntary and independent providers. We come back to what the National Day Nurseries Association said about the lower rates that are being paid to partnership providers, the lack of access to the capital funding, the lack of full involvement of the private, voluntary and independent sector, but also about the imbalance that they believe exist because local authorities are much more likely to concentrate on the three- and four-year-old provision from which it is much easier to deliver economies of scale and cost savings in comparison to the staff-intensive one- and two-year-old provision. That is an issue that is very much coming to the fore, as we speak. Simply to reassure the member that the first tranche of data that we looked at showed that we were ahead of what we were expecting in terms of recruiting two-year-olds. 26 per cent more two-year-olds in the system currently than we were anticipating at this stage. That is at odds with what we are being told by many, but they are making the claim minister very strongly that they do not feel they are in a position to be able to deliver this policy. You have said several times over that the Scottish Government and COSLA are working very hard on the policy to ensure that it will be delivered, but we are finding—I am sure that it is true for the other political parties in this chamber—that the actual evidence is pointing in the other direction. Here we are when—well, you are seeking a head minister, but I have to tell you that we have got a lot of casework. In fact, we could give you a whole chapter and base we could spend all day in this Parliament debating a lot of the casework that we are getting. We have people like Mrs Alex Hems at the St George's Nursery that my colleague Alison Harris mentioned, who are withdrawing from partnerships. That surely is not a good basis on which this policy can be formed. If we are trying to deliver greater choice and greater flexibility, which I think is what we all want to be able to do, does the Scottish Government recognise that, if we do not sort some of those issues, the very opposite is going to happen? If it is a level playing field minister that you are wanting, what update do we have on providing some answer to the fact that there is this discriminatory anomaly that will see non-profit-making charitable nurseries in the independent school sector be liable to be hit by the withdrawal of the business rates relief when a private sector provider, which in theory could be making profits, be entitled to that business rates relief? Not only does that make no logical sense, but it does not help in terms of the choice and the provision, especially if some of those groups are going to be pulling out of the policy. I will be very interested again in the minister's summing up if she could tell us a little bit about that. If we accept that there is a very significant supply and demand issue here, what this Parliament is telling the Scottish Government is that, on the supply side, we are not confident, as the minister seems to be, that there will be the ability to deliver this policy either on time, but with the flexibility and the choice, and, most importantly, with the quality that is what parents are wanting. That is something that you must address. I will finish my remarks at this point, but, minister, in your summing up, I would be grateful if you could address those, because I think that they really bother an awful lot of people in the private, voluntary and independent sector. I call Clare Adamson to follow by Joan Lamont. I am delighted to speak in this debate, as I did in the last debate when this was brought to the Parliament, having just recently, at that time, joined the Education and Skills Committee. One of my first duties, as a convener of that, was to attend a forum in Rutherglen town hall on 29 October last year, where we had the opportunity to speak with private sector providers, with local authorities, with childminders and with parents who had a concern and an issue and wanted to feed into the committee's scrutiny of the area. I think that, when we have a debate like today, it is quite often easy to forget. At that meeting, what struck me was the overwhelming support from everyone in the room for the delivery of 11 to 40 hours and how that was such a transformative, ambitious and welcome policy of the Scottish Government. When we know that it has to be delivered in partnership, I have been really glad to hear from the minister today that even some of the issues that were raised at that forum, some of the concerns that have been echoed in the chambers today, but action was taken at that time. The minister listened to the concerns of childminders and private providers. The introduction of the early learning child care partnership forum is a really welcome way forward for people to feed into the process. We also have to remember that, in the delivery of this transformative policy in child care for Scotland, we are also protecting the interests of the people who are delivering this and absolutely ensuring that everyone who is working in this area to deliver the policy ambitions of the Scottish Government will be paid the real living wage. I think that that is highly important to remember that. Also, the number of modern apprenticeships and apprenticeship opportunities that are being given to young people, young men and young women, and there is a concerted effort to improve the number of young men coming into this area. When we think of the opportunities and the doors that out-opens for young people in taking up a career in care, it is really important. The minister mentioned North Lanarkshire Council and the changes that it has made in the last year, and I also want to commend them on the introduction of their care academy, where they are actively going into schools and speaking to young people about the possibility of foundation apprenticeships, modern apprenticeships and opportunities in the care sector going forward. I am sorry, I will not take an intervention today, it is a very short debate and I really want to make some progress. Following the trials that were discussed at length at that meeting, the Government produced the report on the trials and the evaluation found that the expansion was positively received by staff and parents and highlighted the importance of good communications with parents, sharing practice and building relationships and partner providers, including childminders. The evaluation stated that the focus and high-quality professional learning for the existing and new ALC workforce is essential. I believe that that still is at the heart of the process. It is about quality, it is about delivering a really beneficial service to our young people. I agree with Tavish Scott that it is absolutely important that we scrutinise this process and the Government's delivery in this model, but, as the minister said, it is a journey and we are learning from it. I think that the most important thing that I have heard this afternoon is the minister saying that her door is open to anyone with those concerns, and she will be meeting with the private providers in the near future. I think that it is really important that progress is made in this area. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I am happy to contribute briefly to this debate on early years provision, but I would reflect again as I did the last time that the Opposition brought a debate on education. We really need to see the Government giving some of its time to discuss the wide range of issues in relation to education and childcare, so that we are not all constrained in what we can do, but we have that deeper conversation. I can say to Clare Adamson that the easy bit is signing up to the policy. The easy bit is to say yes when in favour of increased provision. The challenge is to make sure that that is actually deliverable. For the Government minister, just to say that there is no problem when we are all being told that there is a problem is simply not good enough. If we want meaningful partnership, we do not just put in a motion to urge ourselves and others to work tirelessly to promote meaningful partnership working across the country. Why does the Scottish Government feel the need to encourage itself to seek meaningful partnership working? I do not know, but meaningful partnership means listening to people, responding to them and believing that, if they are saying that there is a problem, that needs to be addressed. Some of that might simply be about negotiations with the private sector and the voluntary sector. I respect that. However, there is no doubt from the representations that have been made to me and others that there is a problem here. It may be an unintended consequence, but it is not sufficient for the minister to cross her fingers, hope for the best and say that if we all believe enough, that will happen. We know that Audit Scotland has raised concerns. We know that local authorities have raised concerns of voluntary sector, private sector and childcare groups. The very groups formed to impose on the public mind the need for a change in childcare provision. They are all highlighting issues, and we really need to address them. If we are going to rely on private and voluntary sector providers to deliver on the hours that we all seek, we need to have confidence that they are able to do what is asked of them. The way in which their funding is provided is accurate and meaningful, but it is equally important that the pressure on local authorities is properly understood. It cannot possibly be the case that you can cut millions of pounds from local authorities such as Glasgow and expect them to take on extra burdens and the kinds of burdens that are represented by the transformation in childcare. We need to understand the benefits of increased hours, but there are two different policy purposes here in the time that I want to address them separately. We want to support parents and carers to work. Too many families working in fragile work. The mother works during the days and the nurse the father works at night as a taxi driver. That kind of provision could be transformative for them, and therefore it is essential that it is flexible and available locally to people. That will be the challenge. The half-day provision, too often given in the past by local authorities, is not good enough. However, there is another policy imperative that the minister has highlighted and talked about the importance of the benefit of this policy in closing the poverty attainment gap as a consequence of the increasing hours. However, simply offing the hours is not enough for some of our most valued vulnerable children and families. To be clear, a policy of increasing hours without a proper and effective strategy for reaching those families whose children would most benefit from early learning will not contribute to closing the attainment gap if they do not do that work. They will not simply fetch up at the nurse's union. I would be interested if any analysis has been done already whether there is an increased provision, the extent to which the poorest families are taking that up, or indeed the most vulnerable, because I think that that is critical in terms of closing the attainment gap. It is a contradiction in policy terms to increase hours, but at the same time through cutting local government funding and losing the services that can work with the most vulnerable families in our communities. I am proud of the work that has been done, for example, by the home start Glasgow south and the carers centre and others who support vulnerable families to access services. However, we know that there is an increased pressure on those groups and that there are limited resources and that they are chasing funding at the very time when their intervention could make most difference. In conclusion, if the policy is to be poverty-proofed, it needs to be put in the context of broader spending decisions that are made by the Government. I urge the minister to give her own commitment on childcare to ensure that those choices are also addressed. Rona Mackay followed by Brian Whittle. We know that the transformational policy of rolling out free, flexible childcare to 1140 hours will bring phenomenal benefits and huge opportunities for children and families throughout Scotland. No one can argue that giving children the best quality early years education is a bad thing. It is agreed across the chamber that giving parents the choice to shape childcare to suit their lifestyles can only be a good thing. Alison Harris's motion states that there is a growing concern between private voluntary and independent providers with regard to the implementation of policy. As I said in the debate that we held on this subject last autumn, a project of this size and complexity was never going to be plain sailing during the planning stages with so many variables between local authorities at play and I don't think anyone would reasonably expect it to be otherwise. During that debate, we did hear of a disconnect between some private care providers and local authorities and I certainly have witnessed that in my constituency. However, at a meeting last month with the early years and Education Directorate East and Bartonshire Council, I was reassured that much progress had been made in those issues and it is on track to ironing out remaining issues. Most private partnerships are now on board and happy with how the roll-out is progressing and I am genuinely sorry to hear that this is not happening in other areas and I agree with Mary Fee's comments that this should not become a postcode lottery. So it might not be perfect and there certainly were teething problems in my constituency but regular meetings with stakeholders and focus groups, that is better communication, has largely sorted that out. I believe that it is incumbent on us as MSPs to engage with local authorities if we are not already doing so in our constituency or regions to follow progress and issues involving the roll-out. I am aware that some private providers have concerns, particularly about the agreed rate being offered from local authorities and I hope that that can be resolved quickly. During my visits to private providers, I learned that, while they want to pay the living wage, for some the funding allocation makes this difficult. They also had concerns that pay was leading to an exodus of trained staff moving to local authorities. The Government has been at pains to stress that private providers should be an equal partnership with local authorities and we know that they are vital in ensuring that this roll-out succeeds. The Scottish Government has engaged with the independent school sector throughout the process, but, as we have heard, two independent schools have announced their intention to withdraw from partnership from August 2020 as they will be unable to charge parents the top-up fees. The fact is that, as we know now, it is unlawful to charge parents and carers top-up fees for a child's statutory early learning and childcare hours. That is the long-standing legal position and it is laid out clearly in statutory guidance. I understand that it is the legal position, but does the member understand that, as a practical position, it is very difficult for nurseries to provide care for children when they are not getting enough funding to pay their staff and keep the nursery open? Rona Mackay Of course, I understand that, but the law and the guidelines are there and there has to be other arrangements made to help those nurseries. I understand the difficult that they are in. As the minister said, those guidelines will be reiterated in the new national standard for early learning providers to be introduced from August 2020. Parents and carers should not be required to pay top-up fees or by additional hours in order to access their child's funded early years entitlement. In conclusion, the Government is on track to deliver, despite the issues that are still prevailing. As I have said before, failure is not an option in those initiatives, but we have to work together to make that happen. That is going to transform family lives and give our children the best possible start in life. I am grateful to, once again, the opportunity to debate the early years childcare policy. The right policy is poorly implemented. How often do we hear that in political discussions? However, this is such a crucial piece of legislation with such far-reaching consequences. In so many ways, the Scottish Government does not have the luxury of not getting this right first time. Just to be clear, the Scottish Conservatives fully support the principles of the bill, just as the partnership nurseries welcome the bill's intention. The problem is, of course, as the Scottish Conservatives have brought to the chamber on many occasions, the good intentions of the bill are not being consistently reflected in practice on the ground. Partnership after partnership nursery has raised their concerns and issues with members across the chamber, as we have heard today. If the minister will remember Alison Harrison, I tried to bring those concerns directly to the minister by arranging a meeting between partnership nurseries representing 24 local council areas. That is far too important to play party politics. With that in mind, we thought that it would be much more likely that the minister would respond constructively if we kept politics out of it. However, the minister had the audacity to suggest that her colleagues would be Alison Harrison and I just do not understand the nuances of the policy. How condescending, Deputy Presiding Officer. Well minister, let me tell you that we do understand the issues all too well. Why? Because we in those benches continue to listen to what the partnership nurseries are saying. We understand that the inequalities and pay structure between council and facilities in partnership nurseries are causing the massive exodus of qualified and dedicated staff from partnership nurseries to council nurseries. If you look at the advertisements for childcare by councils, it is too obvious that there is a lack of equality in the eyes of certain councils with a lack of information for parents on the variety of options available to them. Exactly the opposite of what the Scottish Government claimed to be delivering choice, the minister confirmed that herself. We understand that, in some cases, decades of quality childcare provided by the partnership nurseries is under threat. We understand that if we lose partnership nurseries, that quality will be very difficult to replace. More fundamentally, we understand that without the full integration of the partnership nurseries, that policy cannot be successful. We have experienced staff leaving partnership nurseries with a long-term relationship with the children in their charge to the detriment of all concerned, and most concerning for me will be the ability of the childcare sector to ensure adequate cover for under three-year-olds, impacting those parents who want to go back to work, as Liz Smith has highlighted. The care inspectorate is downgrading nurseries because of the turnover of staff, and there is nothing that the partnership nurseries can do about it. They have to accept what funding rates they are given. However, we also understand, in listening to the partnership nurseries, that we know that they feel sidelined, ignored and treated like an afterthought in the whole process. There is a huge disparity of approach across councils. In south Asia, for example, we now hear that the 1,140 hours will be available for families from SMD1 areas and perhaps some SMD2. Some nurseries have no children in those areas, so they will be excluded. That is not what your policy document says should happen. To let us be clear here, Deputy Presiding Officer, this is a Scottish Government policy not being properly implemented as per the Scottish Government's framework. You cannot duck responsibility here and just leave it to the councils to deliver. This is a crucial piece of legislation. The policy must work first-time round. There is no time to tinker around the edges, because if the Scottish Government does not get it right first-time round, when they come back to try again, they will find the partnership infrastructure so crucial to the success of the policy has collapsed. It is time for the minister and the SNP Government to get their heads out of the sand and listen to what is actually happening on the ground and make the changes to this policy that it needs to be successful. Until you do, the Scottish Conservatives will continue to give the partnership nurseries and the parents the voice that they need and will continue to press the minister and the Scottish Government to accept its responsibility. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am going to start by talking about a visit that took on Monday of this week to Townhead primary school in my constituency. It is clear from that visit that they have a very strong early years ethos and promote outdoor learning as an example of that. I was privileged to take a tour of the facilities by the very enthusiastic Miss Cowan. We also spoke about the potential development of a new local authority nursery on campus, which seems generally welcomed by the community and will meet the needs of youngsters in the area. That is just one example of the amazing work going on in the early years across my constituency and Scotland as a whole. I need to mention my own wee boys nursery, who I cannot thank enough for all that they do. The Scottish Government, as the minister outlined in her remarks, is clearly making notable progress towards implementing the fully funded 1140 hours of fairly learning and childcare expansion. As others have said, the Scottish Government found that the overwhelming majority of parents are satisfied with the quality of funded provision and benefits for their children. The data that is being gathered shows that we are currently on track to deliver this ambitious aim. Despite a slight shortfall on recruitment, we are still on track, and more than 11,000 children are enjoying access to more than 600 hours of learning. The shortfall on recruitment is a factor that has been tackled by the Government. There has been a bit of talk about the vacancies rate. It is below the national average, with around 11,000 additional workers being required. However, I welcome some of the initiatives that the Government has set up. I welcome, for example, the main and early years challenge fund, which will seek to attract more males into the profession via funding for colleges. I also applaud the Scottish Government for working on the 1,500 additional places on HNC courses for 2018-19. We will also see more practitioners becoming trained up through vocational training routes well in place at nurseries across the country. We also have a national recruitment campaign that will attract school leavers and those looking for a different career path. That is all good news, but from the Tory speeches in motion today, you would not think that there is any good news at all. That brings me on to saying that, of course, there are difficulties. I think that the minister has outlined them in other speakers, even within the SNP benches. I have also outlined them, too. I have talked in here about what view and part view nurseries and excellent facilities in my constituent. I mentioned them in here before, and I agree with what the minister and my colleague Claire Adamson have said. Over the past few months, the North Lancer Council, for example, has turned round its engagement with the private sector. I do not think that I will have time for that. It has turned round its engagement with the private sector nurseries to the extent that they are now working together. Even just in discussion with the manager of that nursery today, there are still raising concerns over, as Alison Harris raised, the disparity of wages between the private sector and the local authority sector, in that they are looking for the council to try and address through those discussions. I want to conclude by giving mention to the Give Them Time campaign and how that fits into this motion that I recently put forward. I thank members for signing it. I would also like to take this opportunity on record to thank the minister for her engagement with the group. The campaign is based on a fairly simple principle. The choice to defer a child to P1 is for the parents or carers and not local authorities. It is not campaigning for children to defer or to have automatically. It is just campaigning for the choice to be where it lies. Unfortunately, the parental experience of that is inconsistent across local authorities, with many being quite negative and obstructive in terms of funded nursery placements for children of parents who choose to defer. I will go into that in more detail if I am lucky enough to get a member's debate on the issue. In the meantime— We will have to await your member's debate. The local authority must apply the law as it stands. I am sure that everything you are doing will be done in 140 hours. I am being nice, thank you. For the time being, I call on Ian Gray to close for Labour, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As many members have mentioned, this is a debate that we have had before us recently as of October. It is a pity that we have to keep returning to it, because the minister was right when she said that there is much agreement across the chamber that high-quality, flexible and affordable childcare is critical, and the expansion to 1140 hours is a policy that is supported right across the chamber. There is agreement 2 that that will have to be provided by a mix of different providers if it is to be delivered at all, but if it is to be delivered with a degree of flexibility in which parents will wish to see. There is agreement 2 that that means that we need to pursue common standards, common levels of training and qualification, and indeed the payment of the real living wage for those delivering funded hours, whatever sector they are working in. We also, I think, agree with something that the minister said this morning on GMS, which is that the delivery of that is challenging. Indeed, I think that many of the speakers today have been trying to say that, although they agree with the minister, they think that that is rather a bit of an understatement. It is extremely challenging. There are some authoritative voices who agree with that. Audit Scotland, who, as we know, expressed considerable concerns, particularly about the ability to recruit the required workforce. I think that they are doing an update on that work and it will be interesting to see what they say. Unison, who organises, of course, in the sector and has raised concerns about the disparity in wage levels in the public and private sectors and the consequences of that, which I think is also featured in this debate. Of course, we have the NDNA, who are still telling us that around half of their members are saying that they will not be able to be involved in this 1140-hour expansion at all, but we do not really need the NDNA to tell us that. Of course, all of us have nurseries in our constituencies who are telling us all of the things that have been discussed and debated today. Here is one nursery from a colleague's constituency who told her that, over the past 18 months, they have lost three of their most qualified staff to the state sector because they are pursuing better pay. Here is another colleague who has an email from a partner provider nursery talking about three local authorities, contiguous local authorities, all with similar demography and socioeconomic profile, offering partner providers the difference between £4.76—£4.76 an hour and £5.55 an hour. That is quite a significant difference there, and you can understand why they are concerned by that. They are also being offered different numbers of hours in transitions. There are problems here. Voice is raising real concerns and John Lamont is right. It is not good enough to just shrug those off. We do have to understand that, although there is an agreement with COSLA about funding for the policy, it is less than the sum of what individual authorities ask for in their plans. We have to understand the context of local government at the moment, which is about squeezed budgets. All that debate asks is for some acknowledgement of all of that. The minister has said repeatedly that our door is open. The trouble is that her ears and her mind seem to be closed to some of the problems that we are being told exist. Both the Tory motion and our amendment are measured and mild to say the least. They do not denounce the policy, they do not demand that ministers be dragged to the tumbrils so that we can see heads roll. They just ask for a little humility, a willingness to listen to the concerns and the evidence of councils and providers, to acknowledge them and to seek to address those problems before they compromise the policy that commands support across the whole chamber. Surely that is not too much to ask. Thank you. I call on Mody Todd to close with the Government. Let me begin by assuring you that I am listening and that I am willing to address all of those problems that are being mentioned today in the chamber. Thank you to colleagues across the Parliament for today's debate. As I said earlier, it is heartening that, hearing throughout today's debate, we have heard that shared commitment across Parliament to this transformative policy ambition. We are 18 months away from a national roll-out of 1140 hours for all three and four-year-olds and eligible two-year-olds and we are on a journey together with our partners in local government and in early learning and childcare settings. The length and breadth of Scotland. I do not underestimate the challenges involved, but I am determined and I am confident that, together, we will deliver for Scotland's children and families. Could the minister provide to the Parliament the evidence that makes her feel confident that that will be delivered on time? That would be helpful if we could have that evidence, given the conflicting evidence that we are getting from our casework. Absolutely. There has been much discussion this afternoon about what progress the data does or does not show. I would point colleagues to the early learning and childcare expansion delivery progress reports published by the joint delivery board. That board is working, along with the improvement service and the Scottish Futures Trust, to collect data on the progress of the delivery of expansion programmes across all councils. That is a rich data set covering all aspects of the expansion. The first of those reports was published in December 2018, covering the period from May 1 to September 2018. That did demonstrate that local authorities are broadly meeting forecasts for delivery progress and remain on track to deliver. Indeed, the number of children already benefiting from additional hours is exceeding local authority projections. I am hugely proud that more than 11,000 children are already benefiting from access to more than 600 hours of funded early learning and childcare, including 1100 eligible two-year-olds. That is 26 per cent higher than we anticipated. We are already hearing about the positive impacts for children, their families and practitioners working with them. I understand what the minister is saying about the rich data set and the numbers that she has, but does she know how many children are waiting to go into the 1140 hours and of that number how many places are still available in local authority places and how much is reliant on the private sector? That is where your gap is. At the start of the expansion, the proportion of the market that the partner providers occupied was around 23 per cent. At the time of completion of the expansion, it will be around 23 per cent. In the meantime, we have not committed to delivering 1140 hours until 2020. To answer Ms Lamont's point about Glasgow City Council, it signed off plans just recently to accelerate the expansion of early learning and childcare. From August this year, families with household income of up to £45,000—90 per cent of families in the area—will be able to access 900 hours of funded early learning and childcare in local authority and private settings. I think that everyone in the chamber—well, nearly everyone in the chamber—certainly expect my colleagues on this side to welcome the fact that up to 8,000 staff will benefit from those working in 960 partner provider settings will benefit from a real living wage, a largely female workforce, with regard to the point regarding ASN training that Mr Scott raised. There is a £2 million inclusion fund that allows settings to bid for funding to support children with additional support needs and to access ELC. There are funds for staff to receive appropriate training, equipment and adaptations. The most recent funding round closed on 22 February, with regard to the point raised by my Conservative colleagues about the rates relief for independent school nurseries. At the moment, the non-domestic rates bill may well remove the relief, ending the inequality, which is unfair. Independent schools are charities that benefit from non-domestic rates charity relief, and council schools do not qualify, so that will be ended. We did introduce a 100 per cent business rates relief for premises that are wholly or mainly used as day nurseries in April 2018, and that will remain unchanged. I want to take the opportunity to express my appreciation for the valuable contribution made by the national representative organisations. As I said in one of the interventions, I look forward to meeting the chief executive of the national day nurseries association later this month and continuing dialogue with colleagues at early years Scotland, including speaking at their conference later this year. Later this month, the Scottish Child Minding Association, the Care and Learning Alliance and the Care Inspectorate will all support a dedicated summit for local authority colleagues on involving childminders in the 1140 offer. It is a hugely important area in terms of flexibility and choice for families, and I am grateful to all those organisations for their involvement. My door is open to anyone who wants to talk about early learning and childcare. In my role, I have the opportunity to visit settings right across Scotland on a regular basis, and it is incredibly valuable to hear at first hand about progress and challenges. I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. The message from today's debate is clear that this flagship policy is under pressure. As with many issues under this Government, the rhetoric coming from the minister does not match the reality on the ground. I say gently, because I do not want to make this too political, but you can, on the one hand, try to claim credit for a noble policy ambition, and on the other hand, just ignore its shortcomings and challenges. The Government is at its worst, and parents and young people deserve better. It is time for the minister to take responsibility for ensuring that a live in 40 hours is the success that so many families in Scotland need it to be. The problem is that the minister has ignored the problems from members right across this chamber that we have been raising over the last year, and the task is becoming harder and harder because trust is breaking down. We have heard numerous examples this afternoon, but I will focus on a few from my constituency, which I think will sum up the debate that we are having. It is all very well to say that this policy is going well in some places, but the point is that this is meant to be about universal access to live in 40 hours in every local authority in Scotland. One nursery owner got in touch with me ahead of today's debate to say that the situation in Dumfries and Galloway is fraught. There is no consultation nor any trust or partnership. We are committed to performing high-quality early learning in childcare, but unless something is done, there is a high chance of us going out of business. Meanwhile, another nursery has been in touch with me to tell me that it has been turned down to offer funded places because the local authority has taken the decision not to commission any new providers while there is an existing local authority nursery. That is despite having invested thousands of pounds in opening a new nursery following the closure of the only other childcare facility in the town, and they are meeting an otherwise unmet need of working parents. An angry and confused parent has been in touch with me. Minister? Just on that particular issue, and I'm freezing Galloway. The share of provision and partner providers and child managers at the start of this expansion in 2016-17 was 38 per cent. At the time of completion in 2021-22, the share is expected to increase to 40 per cent, and, of course, the number of hours available will be greater. Mr Mundell, I thank the minister for that intervention, but that gets right to the nub of the issue. If those partner providers aren't there, your policy will fail. I can see that it's all very well talking it up, but, as an angry parent who's been in touch with me says, the refusal to allow this nursery to open and offer funded places when the only provider offering 51 weeks of the year is discriminatory to single parents and that there are people who will not be able to go to work because it's impossible to obtain the childcare that has been promised. Another parent believes that the nursery in question is best placed to deliver outcomes for their child who requires additional support and will benefit from being in a smaller environment. However, the next issue is perhaps even worse, where a nursery has been told that their business lease is to be terminated, which is in part of a school that they have operated in for 13 years. When they asked why their business lease was being terminated, it turns out that it is to make room for a local authority nursery. Those three examples follow a case that I have raised with the minister before Christmas, where there was a nursery in Annan who has been asked to deliver 1140 hours in January. At 4 o'clock on 21 December, they were still trying to find out from the council what their funded rates would be. That doesn't sound like partnership working to me, minister. I have chosen not to name the nurseries in question because I don't want to alarm parents still further, but I wonder if the minister would be willing to personally investigate those unresolved cases and give a guarantee that the policy that is delivered on the ground is the same policy that the Government has announced. I also wonder if the minister would accept that such serious issues and failings at this stage so systematically within one local authority is enough of a problem for the Scottish Government to step in, or are we just meant to wait until it is too late? Even the Scottish Government's own deputy director of early learning and childcare appears to recognise the problem. In a recent email to directors of education, I quote, there is a continuing sense at foreign meetings that not all providers feel that they are being equated by their commissioning local authorities. That same official was concerned to hear that the national standard requirements were being incorrectly interpreted in some areas. If that really is a national policy, when are we going to see national leadership from the Scottish Government to iron out those differences and ensure that the whole sector is valued and that the existing skill base and talents offered by the private and voluntary sector are put to maximum use? In conclusion, the time for warm words and positive aspirations is over. If that policy is going to deliver on its potential, we need action. We need firm commitments from the minister that she is going to intervene and get that policy back on track. The question is, is the minister ready to take full ownership of that policy, or would he rather blame individual local authorities and focus on regional inconsistencies? I know that, like the Scottish Conservatives, parents and young people would rather just see the policy fixed, and I urge the chamber to support our motion at decision time. Thank you, Mr Mundell. That concludes the debate on early years, and it is time to move on to the next item of business. I will have a short pause while the front bench members take their positions for the next debate.