 The next item of business is members' business debate on motion 15976, in the name of Fulton McGregor, on give them time. That debate will be concluded without any questions being put. Would those members who wish to speak in the debate please press the request to speak buttons? I call on Fulton McGregor to open the debate for around seven minutes, please, Mr McGregor. I would like to take this chance firstly to thank all my fellow members across parties in this chamber who signed the motion. I would also like to thank the give them time campaign, some of whom are in the gallery today, for their tenacity in highlighting the issue of deferment for children who are four at the start of the school year and for their hard work and determination in ensuring that those who are choosing to defer their four-year-olds are given the support that they deserve and should be entitled to. I think that any member across the chamber who has got Twitter will have at least had some contact with the campaign team. Of course, I would like to pay a particular tribute to the campaigners from my constituency in Cotebridge and Chrysyn, who first raised the issue with me and invited me to the campaign launch event in Edinburgh at the end of last year. I also want to express the thanks from the campaign to both Marie Todd, who facilitated a meeting late last year following the launch and to John Swinney for his responses to my questions here in the chamber a month or so ago. Those interventions are very much appreciated by those in the gallery today and further afield and regarding those crucial contributions in moving the debate to where we are now. Give them time are not a political organisation or a affiliated teni political party. There are two very simple principles and objectives to the campaign. The first and as I stated in my motion is this, deferment of a four-year-old child should be the decision of the parent or legal guardian. That is simple. That is the law in Scotland under the Education Scotland Act 1980. It should be noted that while individual members of the campaign have their own views, give them time are not directly involved in debates about what age a child should start school or what sort of early years approach should be taken. Although I would note that I have had many positive conversations about the Government's play-based approach, it is much more straightforward than that at its essence. If a parent is a parent that should decide if their four-year-old starts school or not, there is no argument made by the campaign that should be deferment for all four-year-olds as standard. Indeed, far from it, there is a general consensus that a majority will continue to send their children when they are four if eligible to do so. Why is that an issue, Presiding Officer, if it is already a law? Simply put, it seems that the vast majority of people in Scotland do not know this to be the case. A national survey carried out by Githam Time showed that, on average, 19 per cent of parents knew about the legal right to defer, September to December, born children, compared to more than 80 per cent knowing that January and February born children can be deferred. Local authorities are clearly not highlighting us for children born before January, and the examples where even staff themselves often do not know the law on the right to defer. I have to admit, Presiding Officer, that I fell into this category until I met members of the campaign. I, myself, was not aware that children born September to December could be deferred. I am in a position where this will not impact on me anyway, as both my children will be five and a half and five and three months respectively when they start school. What it did show and highlight to me is that there is a real need to highlight this issue more broadly. I hope that the Government, local authorities and MSPs here today can work together to do this. That is the first aim of the campaign. We move on to the second aim and principle of the given time campaign. We have established that, at this present time, if we decided to defer entry for a child with a January or February birthday, he will be automatically entitled to an additional year of funding pre-school education. That takes so much pressure off parents at such a crucial time. Unfortunately, this consistency in terms of access to another funding year across local authorities is not there for those children who are born between late August and December. If he chooses to defer entry for a child with a birthday in this period, he will not automatically be entitled to another year of funding pre-school education. He can apply to his local authority for an additional year, however the place will be offered only at his discretion. That, in some cases, is ultimately holding many parents to ransom. Families are often put through rigid, time-consuming and stressful processes. Those processes often include collating information from various professionals such as nursery, speech and language therapists, social workers and many others, using up-value with time, resource and expense. Only for a panel to then refuse and then an appeal process to start. A council panel rejecting the recommendations, often if its own professionals, would seem to be somewhat ironic, but it does happen. There is also likely to be a quality issue at the core, with more affluent families perhaps being able to put resources into challenging decisions and, ultimately, getting more favourable outcomes on a more regular basis. That is not consistent or fair, and I am aware that my colleague Rona Mackay will pick up on some of those points in her contribution. It should be said that there are wide variations in how local authorities approach the additional year of funding with Falkirk Council, for instance, being held up as an example of good practice. However, that inconsistency on a matter of such importance, as our children's start to their formal education, is not acceptable. It is totally against the very idea of getting it right for every child and child centre practice even threatening, never mind carrying out, taking a child out for provision, where parents feel that they are safe and thriving. It is those very experiences that led to the campaign being formed, parents and carers with similar experiences in using the power of social media and the internet to come together and seek change. Improved consistency across the country is what we need, and that is the second main principle and name. Presiding Officer, how might we go about achieving this? Firstly, I would encourage every MSP in here to write to their own local authority education department and ask that their policies change to one that ensures that all children whose parents choose to legally defer are given continued funding nursery provision for that year, with the amount of investment and time given into the 1140 hours free childcare and the predicted relatively limited uptake for the deferment of late August to December born children around 1100 that is anticipated. That should be an achievable goal. Indeed, if you use the data from the 2017-18 local government benchmarking framework, there may actually be a small saving for councils in there too. Helpfully give them time, we will write to MSPs over the coming days with a template letter that can be used if you so wish. That will include information on encouraging councils to raise awareness of the right to defer and changing policy on a funded nursery. It may be, however, that councils are reluctant to change policy and therefore, if failing this, I would also suggest writing to your council leaders or group leaders as appropriate and asking them to bring forward a motion to full council. I am pleased to say that in North Lanarkshire Council, SNP councillor Alan Stubbs has made this proposal, where I have also been informed that a five councillor has done likewise. Those proposals, indeed like that motion, are very much cross-party and non-party political issue. I would be very surprised if any councillor or any persuasion was not to back a motion in front of them. I would also encourage the Government today to raise awareness with the issue and discuss further with COSLA, whose response and briefing for today's debate I fully welcome on how consistency can be promoted Scotland-wide. Finally, by having this debate today, by raising awareness of the legal right to defer when a child is four, and by strongly encouraging councils to adopt a more child-centred approach to this issue in terms of funding nursery placement, that is in line with this Government's progressive policies, we can make the necessary changes to ensure that the given time campaign has been a success and that no child in Scotland will ever be denied deferal if their parent or guardian has decided that that is the best thing for them. May I ask those in the public gallery to desist from clapping, please? Or from booing, if you do not like what you hear, whatever. I move on to the open debate. I ask members to keep their speeches to four minutes, please. I call Oliver Mundell, followed by Rona Mackay. Can I start by commending Fulton MacGregor on securing support to bring this important debate to the Parliament this evening? I also join him in congratulating and thanking campaigners for the clear success that they have had in at least moving this up, the political agenda. I also join him in paying tribute to them for the broad consensus that they have built and the ability to help us as politicians to understand what is going on in our area and to understand what the legal position is. I was like Fulton MacGregor and I suspect many others surprised by the huge variation across the country. This is the third debate in two days. I have taken part in where variation between local authorities has come up in education. It is very hard, because the legal rights are the same for parents no matter where they live in Scotland. The legal expectations of education are the same for all young people. It is the expectation that decisions would be taken with the best interests of a child at the heart rather than based on arbitrary policies. It is quite worrying that, in many local authorities, there seems to be a lack of understanding about what the law is and what best practice looks like. Secondly, parents do not understand their right. The fact that only 20 per cent of parents know about this information should give us all cause for concern. I was particularly struck by a number of the quotes that were provided in the briefing for this debate, in which parents were given no real guidance. I found the process completely bewildering. Rather than listening to the case that parents want to make and respecting their rights, as the leading expert often and almost always in the education of their own child, just to receive no formal guidance or information, no communication and for those parents to feel that decisions were predetermined yet were made to jump through a number of hoops does not sound good at all. That is backed up by the views of many nursery teachers and those working in early years. I think that seeing that information come forward is surprising when you consider that many of those who are most affected by the issue are actually unkeen to cause a fuss. They would rather try and navigate their way through the system and do not always want to speak out about the poor experience that they have had because they are concerned that they may lose their funded entitlement. More than that, it is, as Fulton MacGregor has said already, about thinking about what impact that has on education. We know very clearly here, and I know that the minister has spoken out on this previously. However, if we do not get things right for children at the start of school, if we do not make sure that they are ready and equipped to go into that slightly more formal educational setting in primary 1, if we get that part wrong, we are setting that child up for a difficult education experience right the way through primary school, sometimes into secondary school and making it more difficult for them later in life. Some of those issues would be difficult to fix, and local authorities do not always jump just because MSPs write them a letter. However, I certainly think that there is a duty on all of us to push the issue and make sure that parents and local authorities are working together in the best interests of the child. I am grateful to my colleague Fulton MacGregor for bringing this debate to the chamber, and I congratulate him for enabling this important issue to be discussed. When your child starts school, it is one of the most important milestones in their lives and in appearance. To ensure that the time is right for that child is a hugely important decision and not one that is ever taken lightly. We know that children develop at different rates and that the early years are the most formative of their lives. That is why deciding when the right time is for your child to start school is so vital. The concerns of the grassroots campaign group give them time or transparency awareness, and I would add fairness. As Fulton MacGregor said, only 19 per cent of parents know about the legal right to defer September to December born children's school start date, compared with 80 per cent knowing that January and February born children can be deferred. My own son was born in December, albeit 23 years ago, and he went to school at four and a half. I had no idea that he could have waited until he was five. No information was communicated, so I did not think about it. I am not sure if the same rules applied back then, but that is of no consequence. This is 2019, and parents should have all the important information available to them at this crucial time. Local authorities' websites explaining the process are, in the main, woefully inadequate. Indeed, some staff who advise parents in deferral do not even know about the legal right to defer a mid-August to December born child, and that is not to blame the staff in any way. It has to do with the leadership of that council and the appropriate training. It is incumbent on council officers to ensure that policy and legal information are easily available and easy to understand on their individual websites. My own local authorities from Bartonshire council say that people have the right to apply for a deferment for children born between September and December, but they do not guarantee funding, only that it would be considered by the early years community assessment team. That creates much uncertainty and anxiety for parents, and I intend to write to them, asking them to look again at this policy. That brings me on to the important point regarding equity and fairness. The fact is that local authority processes for dealing with funding requests for the extra month's nursery funding vary widely, and it appears to be another one of those postcode lotteries. Some authorities are much more likely to fund a further year of nursery for a mid-August to December born child than others. Furthermore, when a further year's nursery funding request has been rejected, some councils allow parents to finance a child to remain in a local authority nursery while others do not. That is despite the fact that if the nursery is not at full capacity, no extra cost to the authority should be incurred. That is where the question of equity arises, because if an authority refuses to fund parents for the extra month's parents who can afford to pay will, more often than not, parents who cannot afford to obviously have no choice. That does nothing to narrow the attainment gap, which is the Scottish Government's priority, and I believe that everyone's priority. Of course, the process itself can be flawed, as Fulton MacGregor stated. Decisions are often made by panels consisting of people who do not know the child involved and the opinions and professional judgment of the people who know the child best, such as the early-year staff. Of course, the parents are often given little weight. Surely the solution is that all children being deferred should have a further year of nursery automatically funded, and that would level the playing field. As Fulton MacGregor said, we are transforming our level of early-years care with record amounts of funding, and that should be achievable across the board in Scotland. The Scottish Government believes in getting it right for every child. Let's all work to encourage local authorities to do the same. Claire Baker, followed by Alison Johnstone. I'm pleased to speak in this afternoon's debate, and I congratulate Fulton MacGregor for securing the time. It is a motion that is widely supported by members across the chamber, and I hope that this debate provides some insight and maybe even some solutions to the situation that many parents are facing. On one hand in Scotland, we have legislation that is clear that a child does not have to start school until they are aged five, and on the other hand, the practice of starting school at age four if their birthday is between school commencement and December, while parents whose child is four in January or December have the choice to defer the child's entry. What we are hearing through the Give them Time campaign is that the policy has been applied differently by different local authorities, and some parents whose requests are accepted are not being provided with an additional year's nursery place. There are a number of issues with that. I exaggerated the word defer. As the legislation says, a child doesn't need to register with a school prior to a fifth birthday. Why is it seen as delayed when it is following the legislation? I exaggerated the word additional for a year at nursery because the reality is that those children who start school at four typically have the least time at nursery as they start in January following their third birthday, so they only have one and a half years of nursery rather than two. They are the youngest in the school year but with less preschool education. The situation exists where the parent could decide that they want to defer, having gone through what some describe as a bureaucratic and difficult assessment, the education authority then decides that they can't support deferral, and while the child can legally still wait a year, the education authority doesn't need to provide what they see as an additional year's nursery provision. We shouldn't forget that a child who starts school at four will be starting high school at 11, being almost a whole year younger than others, at a challenging time in their education when they are entering a period of exams, increased stress and adolescence. The debate about high school starting age is as relevant as primary school. I cannot help to feel that some of those tensions could be resolved if there was clearer information to parents, and I note that COSLA have briefed us that they are agreeing to a consistent approach. Importantly, if there was some discussion at an earlier stage, when a child turns three and a parent is offered a January nursery place, at that point there could be a discussion with the parents, there could be an initial discussion about options, perhaps then a parent could be offered the opportunity for a younger child to delay the start of nursery until the August intake when they would then receive two full years of nursery as the majority of other children do and then start school at five. A few years ago, we had a campaign for a January intake for three-year-olds, but that was principally because those children were only getting a year because they were being admitted to school at four years old. Parents could be given an informed choice over whether or not to accept a January intake if that then meant that their child would start school at four. That would also need to be a bit of flexibility. A child's development is not entirely predictable, but both parties could be more informed. The parallel discussion to that, and I recognise that it is not an aim of the give-them-time campaign, is about the right age to start school. We have one of the lowest formal education start ages in Europe. I am convinced that four is too young to start school. I believe that many parents accept this situation because we have a culture that puts that expectation on young children. There is a lack of affordable childcare for parents and school can make working easier. Nursery maybe does not meet the needs of all children or the parent does not know that they have a right to defer. There is a lot of evidence that children benefit from longer and a play-based setting, learning important social and educational skills outside of a former classroom. Much is made of primary 1 being play-based, but the evidence to support that is questionable, and that is before we talk about P1 testing. I am always a supporter of a fairer funding deal for local authorities, but that does not appear to be governed by funding. In many cases, there is available space in a local nursery to enable nursery provision to continue. I do not think that parents should have to self-finance, which excludes lower-income families from taking the decision. I support better information and more meaningful discussion for all involved in the decision, and I support the aims of the Give Them Time campaign and hope that those issues can be resolved. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thank you to Fulton MacGregor and to the excellent Give Them Time campaign, whose work has ensured that a fully transparent, consistent approach which puts the child at the centre of decisions to defer entry to primary school that work has ensured that this issue is being debated in the chamber this evening. I would like to make it clear from the outset that I am wholly supportive of the campaign and its aims. The campaign is necessary because too many families have experienced, indeed are experiencing, needlessly difficult and stressful situations that, despite the best efforts of all involved, can be very unsettling for parents and children. Starting primary school should be a really exciting experience, one that everyone in the household looks forward to, but that excitement, some of that can be lost when there is concern about when the right time is, when there is a feeling that children are being asked to attend before they are ready. Why is it the case that only 19 per cent of parents are told in the excellent briefing from Give Them Time? Why is it the case that only 19 per cent of parents knew about that legal right to defer children born between mid-august and December? Frankly, I was quite astonished to realise that not all staff working in this area are aware of this. This is a legal right, and it just shows what happens when we don't understand what our rights are. I think that all credit to the campaign already succeeded in raising awareness of the fact that it is a legal right, so more people will become aware of it, and that is important progress. If we do not know what our rights are, we cannot act on them. My own party, the Scottish Green Party policy, is that children start school at six. I realise that we are not having that debate this evening. I appreciate that the primary one experience has changed to a play-based one, but it still takes place in the school setting where specific requirements, specific timings, where the length of day is a certain length, still applies to everyone in that building. That is an experience that all children of what is currently in this country considered school age in Scotland are not already for it, and the people who look after them closely know that. Let's do all that we can, and this debate is doing that, to make sure that people know that they have a right to defer children born between mid-august and December. We know, too, that some local authorities are more likely to fund a further year of nursery for a child born between those dates than others, and that, across the country, processes for dealing with those funding requests vary. We have learned that, when a further year's nursery funding request has been rejected—Rona Mackay highlighted that—some councils allow parents to finance a child to remain in the local authority nursery, while others do not. Some parents can afford to fund that option, others can't, so that is simply inequitable. Frankly, we cannot have that. Colleagues will know that I wholeheartedly support greater devolution of powers to local authorities, but when it comes to the wellbeing, when it comes to the education of our youngest citizens, we need to make sure that the very best practice is in place, that the best practice is accepted and that that best practice is available to all our children. That best practice is that all parents and carers know about the legal right to defer children and that all children being deferred have a year of nursery automatically funded. That best practice must surely mean getting it right for every child. I have heard through this briefing that we are hearing about generic letters of refusal. That is not about individuals, that is just a template going out. Uniform, cut and paste rejection simply isn't good enough. I am running out of time, Presiding Officer, but I would like to thank and give them time for their briefing. As they say in their briefing, we want our children to thrive, not just cope, and it can't be put better than that. Iain Gray, followed by Maureen Watt. My congratulations to Fulton MacGregor for bringing the debate forward and doing so much to help to give them time campaign. However, the greatest congratulations do indeed have to go to the campaign, which in a short time has created a very effective mobilisation. I, like other colleagues, was not aware of the issue until constituents caught up in decisions made by my local council, which I have to say I disagree with. I brought that to my attention. Some of them are here this evening. The campaign has been a very effective user of social media, of direct communication with MSPs and has produced a very clear briefing for the evening's debate, so that is a great deal of good work that has already been done. Colleagues have described in some detail the key issues around deferral, the postcode lottery of decision making, but also, even prior to that, the very poor communication and low level of understanding of the possibility of deferral school entry at all. However, there is a danger that we overcomplicate this issue. There is a core issue here, and that core issue is a policy contradiction, and it is a national policy contradiction. I think that we should press our councils to be more accepting of those parents who defer. There are two national policies here that are contradicting each other or seem to be in contradiction. One is that parents have a legal right to defer if the child is four. The second is that three and four-year-olds have a legal right to funded hours in early years in nursery, and we all support those two things. It makes no sense that exercising one legal right takes away the other legal right for a family. It just makes no sense. It is not logical. Mr MacGregor talked about the replies that he and I received from John Swinney when we asked questions of Mr Swinney about that. I felt that the reply I got was quite unsatisfactory, if I am honest, because Mr Swinney said that those decisions must be based on what is best for the child, and he made it clear that what he meant there was what is best for the child by professionals, and I guess, presumably, one of those panels, perhaps of councillors, as well. However, the right to defer is an absolute right for parents. It is an absolute parents' decision. The logic of Mr Swinney's position when I thought about it afterwards was that he was saying that if it is only that panel and the professionals who can decide what is best for the child in terms of funding for nursery, that is an argument for saying that they should be able to decide on the issue of deferral as well. However, I do not think that he was really suggesting that. I think that he does want parents to be able to defer. The only logical solution to this, the only logical position here, is to change the law and to protect both the right to defer and the right to funded hours at nursery. All of the problems—not all of the problems, the issue of communication about the right to defer would still be there, but the issue about the postcode lottery and the process that families are being put through would disappear. We should have a legislative vehicle to do that coming up, because we will have to legislate for the 1140 hours entitlement. That would be a perfect opportunity for us to get out of this illogical position, give parents the right not just to defer, but to have their funded hours at nursery as well. If the minister could tell us that she is going to do that tonight, that would be a tremendous success. Maureen Watt, followed by Alison Harris. I thank Fulton Greger for submitting that motion and for securing time to debate this important subject. As Alison Johnson has already said, for many parents and carers, this stage in a child's life can be one of the most stressful for them, even if not for the child. Making the right decision is not always obvious or easy. Parents can receive very conflicting information and views on what is best for their child, but what is best for the child should be paramount and all aspects of the child's development should be taken into account. As Rona Mackay has said, this is absolutely what getting it right for every child is about. Those are the principles that must be adhered to by all local authorities. The debate is about parents wanting to defer entry of their child into P1. In my case, although not yesterday, it was the other way round, there is only 17.5 months between my son and daughter, who is a February birthday. The primary school were adamant that higher entry should be deferred for a year, not because they did any evidence that Kirsty would not cope, but that it had a boy in the same situation at the previous intake, who definitely had not coped and did not want to repeat that experience. It is notwithstanding that girls at that age tend to grow up more quickly than boys. Kirsty had been going to nursery on the days that I had council business, and more importantly, she had been looking over her brother's shoulder at the reading and writing that he would be doing. Eventually, with the nursery staff supporting comments, Kirsty was allowed to start school. At the first parents' evening, the school was gracious enough to admit that I had been right. It was always in my mind that it stums further stage. Kirsty might struggle and might have to repeat a year, which also has its difficulties, but then I was the one who was wrong. She did not need another year and is now the proud owner of a first-class honours degree in business management in French from Glasgow University and working in Paris. I used this example to illustrate that it is not one-size-fits-all and that GERFEC must apply to every child. There should be no difference in schools or local authorities. There is no doubt that an extra year has crept into education over the years, but that is a debate for another time. I would like to mention the importance of smooth transitions. Those are most often used in the context of transition from primary to secondary, but are important in all transitions, including from nursery to primary. I know that the youth Parliament and the CAMHS leads were looking at this in relation to one of the actions in the mental health strategy, and the minister might be able to tell us how that is progressing. As the ambitious roll-out of nursery provision to the same hours as primary school continues, and the wonderful increase in pay-based learning continues in nursery and the elderly years of primary, I hope that giving them time becomes much less of an issue. Alison Harris, followed by Elaine Smith Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am happy to be speaking in today's members' business on giving them time campaign. I am also thankful to MacGregor for bringing this debate to the chamber. There are many problems in relation to childcare here in Scotland, but today is not an opportunity to discuss all of those problems. Today is an opportunity to talk about one of them. In 1980, the Education Scotland Act made it possible for parents to defer entry of their children in the first year of primary school if the child was aged between four and five at the start of the school session. There are many reasons why parents might take this decision, but, ultimately, it comes down to a feeling that their child is just not ready to enter school. Parental choice is an important aspect of early years education. As we have heard, this choice is limited in several local authorities. In many councils, an extra year of funding childcare is often granted, along with such a deferral. That allows parents to continue living their lives as they wish. Sadly, though, this is not the case everywhere. Some councils do not offer another funded year to parents, meaning that the decision on deferring their child is controlled by the family's financial situation and not the parental choice to defer. As we have heard, give them time is a grassroots campaign aiming to make it possible for parents to have a legal right to another year of funded childcare for their child. As others have pointed out, many councils do offer an extra year of funded childcare on a needs basis. I know that in my region of Central Scotland, for example, in north and south Lanarkshire, through to Falkirk, the picture is varied. Whereas, just slightly to the north, sterling is only granted around a quarter of requests last year. That is the type of postcode lottery situation that we see too often with childcare. A parent residing in one council is able to make a choice about the deferral of their child freely, while a parent in another authority has the shadow of costs hanging over them. Give them time wants to eliminate this postcode lottery so that all parents who are eligible to defer their child can receive another year of funded childcare. It is not a child's fault that they were born in a certain month, so why should they have to suffer and be pushed into school early because of where that month falls in the school year? Give them time has wide-ranging support too, and I am happy to have backed this motion so that parents receive equity in treatment. However, that is only the first step. I have heard worrying reports that, in Fife, parents who wish to defer their children and receive funded childcare are told that that provision must take place in a council nursery. That is not in the spirit of equity, fairness or parental choice. It echoes the problems that we have seen in the expansion to 1140 hours of funded childcare that private voluntary and independent sector nurseries are excluded. Parents should be free to choose to defer their child for a year if eligible without worrying about additional costs for childcare. They should be able to choose for this childcare provision to be held at any service that meets the national standard. They should not have to pull their child out of one nursery to send them to another. So, in supporting this campaign, let us also commit to the principle of parental choice. To reiterate, a need for equity and fairness was the reason given that giving them time was founded. So, let us ensure that the same stays at the heart of our discussions. The last of the open debate contributions is from Elaine Smith. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and, like others, I also thank Fulton MacGregor for bringing this important campaign to the chamber. The level of cross-party support for his motion is a testament to the importance of the issue, and, like others, they can also commend the Give Them Time campaign, operating in Coabridge and across Scotland for the work that they are doing to highlight the issue and to welcome them to the chamber. As mentioned, a national survey found that 80 per cent of parents were aware that children were born in January and February had a legal right to defer their school staff and receive nursery funding, but, by contrast, only 19 per cent knew that children were born between mid August and December had the right to defer. In addition to issues of awareness, there is no guarantee, obviously, as we have heard, of the necessary funding for the nursery. Age remains a sole determinant on whether a child is ready to attend school, but the primary school starting age in Scotland is a left-over from the Victorian era, and it has been the same age since the 1872 Education Act, so, while Scottish children start school between the ages of four and a half and five and a half, like Clare Baker, I have always personally thought to be far too young. In many countries around Europe, the starting age is six or even seven. In fact, the UK has got one of the youngest starting ages in the world. In reality, a child readiness for school has got more to do with the development in their age, and some studies suggest that children who begin their education later tend to do better academically in the long term, notwithstanding my colleague Maureen's daughter. There are many reasons why a parent might wish to defer their child's entry to primary school, and the important thing is that the choice must be there's a point that I think that Maureen was making since they know their child best. The significant regional variation in whether an application to defer will be accepted is also a matter of concern. There's clearly a need for a national standard being set across all local authorities, and parents should have an opportunity of being involved in all decisions that are made regarding their children's education. The process of applying for a deferral does not seem to me to now be fit for purpose, and that is obvious in the testimony of the parents who are concerned with the issues that many of whom, regardless of local authority area, are actually reporting the same issues. A number of parents have complained about a lack of involvement in the application process, and there have also been reports of decisions being made by panels of senior staff members who have never met the children involved, so they have got little prior knowledge of the case. It is understandably frustrating for parents to need to seek the approval of health and education professionals only to then have approval overruled by the panels. The campaign has also highlighted the experience of parents who felt as though nursery and school staff were actually being encouraged to discourage them from using their right to defer, and there are some interesting quotes in the anonymous survey that was done, if I might just read out a few of them. Lack of communication from council, uninformative and largely predetermined—probably the worst one—diabolical system, unfair and disappointing. Those are some of the comments that parents have made. No one understands the progress and development of their children better than parents, so ultimately decisions should fall to them, and the Government should support parents in making that decision. That was a point very strongly made by Iain Gray. That is why I support the campaign's proposal to ensure that staff dealing with applications are fully trained in parents' legal rights, and that information offered is clear and consistent, and I am pleased to say that COSLA appears to have agreed with that in its briefing for today. However, parents should not have to resort to funding their own places, and as such, it is important that deferred pupils have nursery places funded automatically, otherwise, as Fulton MacGregor pointed out in his opening speech, there will be implications for access equality and there will be issues of poverty. While that is a serious matter for parents, I understand the financial constraints that local authorities have been working under in recent years. Of course, that might influence decisions, but that is another reason why it is so important for the Government to be proactive in helping to resolve the inconsistencies around that issue. As Iain Gray pointed out, that might well have to include the opportunity to legislate on the matter. The campaign to give them time will no doubt continue, and I look forward to the minister's views in responding to the debate. Once again, I thank Fulton MacGregor. I now call on Marie Todd to respond to the debate for around seven minutes, please, minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thank you to Fulton MacGregor for raising this issue and supporting the parents involved in the campaign who want to improve information and awareness for parents. I gather many of you in the chambers to welcome to the Parliament. It is really fine to see you here. I met with the parents from Give Them Time in December, and I appreciate that this is a very personal issue for many families. Of course, it is important that they have the information that they need to make an informed choice for their children. I am pleased to confirm to Parliament that Scottish Government and COSLA officials have been working together since my meeting with Give Them Time to improve the information for families around the deferral process. That includes changing us to the information on the Scottish Government and Education Scotland websites to increase the clarity for parents and carers about their rights. To begin, it is important to be absolutely clear about current policy. All children who are still four at the start of the school year can be deferred and start primary 1 the following year. Those children with a birthday in January or February who defer school entry are automatically entitled to another year of funded early learning and child care. Where a child's fifth birthday falls between the start of the school year and December, parents can choose to defer entry to primary 1 and request a further year of funded early learning and child care. It is then for local authorities to consider carefully any request for additional funded early learning and child care based on an assessment of the child's needs. As decisions about access to additional funded early learning and child care for children whose fifth birthday falls between the start of the school year and December are a matter of discretion for local authorities, it is important that local authorities listen to the campaign's concerns about parental awareness. I am grateful to the minister for her words. Will she write to the 32 local authorities encouraging them to look at inquiries favourably and to report that there is a cross-party view of the miss-parliament that they should be funding for those children? Will she write to local authorities to encourage them to do that? As I said, my officials have been working along with COSLO officials to improve the communication of parental rights since we all met. I am more than happy to do whatever is required to improve that situation. Where deferral is being considered, it is really important that parents are given accurate information. Let me be very clear about that. It is very important that parents are fully involved in the decision making process, which is in line with guidance and the Government's expectations around parental involvement and communication. The Scottish Schools Parental Involvement Act 2006 placed duties on local authorities and schools to involve parents in their child's education. Good-quality communication is a really important part of that. Indeed, it is one of the key goals in the Scottish Government's learning together action plan on parental involvement and engagement that was published last year. I welcome the minister's comments on parental involvement. Is there any barrier to the suggestion that you approach a family when the child is approaching three and have a discussion about the fact that the child will start school at four? You can wait until the summer and you start school and you get two full years. Are there any problems with adopting that type of approach? Mary Todd? That is certainly something that I am willing to explore, so I will look into that. I thank the member for that suggestion. If a local authority makes the decision that they are not going to fund the additional year of early learning and childcare, it is really important that parents understand the reasoning behind that decision and that they are reassured that if they send their child to school, their child will get the support that they require. Oliver Mundell raised the point that this is the third debate in two days that we have had about the variation between local authorities, and there is undoubtedly a tension between central control and local discretion. I come from a part of the country where we really value that local discretion. I continue to believe that it is right for decisions about access to additional funded ELC for children between September and December to be made on a case-by-case basis by local authorities. Let me reiterate again that parents should be fully involved in that decision making. In this afternoon's debate, we also heard concerns from Rona Mackay and others about the impact on the attainment gap, and closing the poverty-related attainment gap is a priority for this Government. We believe that the expansion of funded early learning and childcare will make a real difference for Scotland's children. I know that local authorities are similarly committed to ensuring equity and excellence for all and that they will continue to give full and careful consideration to request for additional funded early learning and childcare for those children whose parents believe deferals the best choice. We know that the transformative impact that high-quality early learning and childcare can have, particularly for children from a more disadvantaged background, and that is why we already provide an additional year of early learning and childcare to those two-year-olds who are likely to benefit most. Around a quarter of two-year-olds are entitled to extra funded early learning and childcare, and local authorities have further discretion to support other two-year-olds that they feel would benefit. We also heard—I want to make this point very clear—that we believe in Government that schools must be child-ready rather than children being school-ready. In Scotland, we have taken the important step of fully integrating our early years in school curricula, the early level of curriculum for excellence. It deliberately spans early learning and early primary education. In response to some of the points that Alison Johnstone raised, as a result of this collaboration, early learning settings in primary schools often work very closely together to ensure a smooth transition. In many cases, that can mean a play-based learning approach that extends into the school year's education. I have mentioned a number of schools in which I have not been able to tell the difference between the nursery classes in primary 1. There are no deaths in primary 1. I say that I love to visit a nursery that is like a Mary Celeste children are outside playing. It is a real strength of our system that Scotland's curriculum enables practitioners to introduce a play-based child-centred approach throughout the learner journey and specifically to support the transition into P1. The children facing the greatest socioeconomic disadvantage benefit also from the additional resource provided through the pupil equity fund. There are excellent examples of PEF supporting transition arrangements in early years, with funding being used for outdoor learning and for the early years for practitioners to move to the school or the nursery class or for the school teachers to move in there. If you wish to minister quickly, Alison Johnstone, I appreciate that the minister is highlighting all the good things that go on when you get to school. However, it seems to me that the crux of the issue is that parents and carers feel in very many circumstances that the child should not be in that environment. What concerns me here is that we have a right for some people, but a child who is born one day later loses out on the funding. It just seems to me to be entirely unfair. I wonder if the minister will address that issue. I understand the concern that you have, and I have said, I have reiterated several times how important it is for when the local authority is making the decision for the parents who are, as many people have said, the greatest experts in that child to be fully involved in that decision. That is the way forward that I would advocate, is that those parents should be absolutely a part of the decision that is made about what is best for the child. In closing, I would like to thank Fulton MacGregor and the members who have given them time campaigns, some of whom are in the gallery today. I know that the issue is very close to their hearts, and I am more than happy to meet them again to continue our discussions. I also thank all the members who have contributed to the debate. That concludes the debate, and this meeting is closed.