Seòmar agus comataidhean

::I thank Roz McCall for securing this debate. It is important to see how the ELC system is working and how it can be improved.

It is worth remarking in passing that, in Scotland, ELC is free to all parents and carers of three to four-year-olds, whereas in England it is means tested. The basic test is whether parents and carers take up the extra hours of funded ELC—I know that there are some practical difficulties; I do not have time to get into them, but I agree that there are some, across various councils—and what improvement that contributes to the wellbeing and development of the children, to the family and to the economy. The policy also saves parents and carers about £6,000 per child annually.

The 2022 ELC parents survey found that 74 per cent of parents of three to five-year-olds mentioned that it had enabled them to work or look for work, and 71 per cent said that they were able

“to think about what they may do in the future”.

Overall, take-up of funded ELC among three and four-year-olds was 97 per cent in 2023. I understand from the Scottish Parliament information centre that, to date, it is about 100,000 per cent—I do not mean 100,000 per cent; I mean 100 per cent. What was I thinking?

However, in 2025, the estimated uptake for two-year-olds was 55 per cent, which represented a small decrease on previous years. The 2022 ELC parents survey found that two-year-olds were less likely to access the full 1,140 hours than older children. Access for two-year-olds is means tested—parents require to receive certain benefits, such as income support or universal credit. There appears to be an issue with parents’ awareness of the availability of that provision, which I hope that the minister will address when she sums up the debate. Currently, the Scottish Government provides about £1 billion per year in funding for ELC.

The Covid-19 pandemic had a profound impact on the lives of families in Scotland, and there is growing evidence from a range of research studies that suggests—unsurprisingly—that many young children and their families have been negatively affected. The benefits that are provided by ELC are extra; they do not come on their own. We cannot assess the benefits of ELC on their own. There are other interventions, such as the Scottish child payment, which helps low-income families with children under 16. Each child under 16 gets £27.15 per week, which will rise to £28.20 from 1 April. There is no limit on the number of children in a family who can get that payment. The Scottish child payment also helps families and carers. In fact, it supports 5,785 children in the Borders and 6,320 children in Midlothian.

::I thank Roz McCall for securing this debate. It is important to see how the ELC system is working and how it can be improved.

It is worth remarking in passing that, in Scotland, ELC is free to all parents and carers of three to four-year-olds, whereas in England it is means tested. The basic test is whether parents and carers take up the extra hours of funded ELC—I know that there are some practical difficulties; I do not have time to get into them, but I agree that there are some, across various councils—and what improvement that contributes to the wellbeing and development of the children, to the family and to the economy. The policy also saves parents and carers about £6,000 per child annually.

The 2022 ELC parents survey found that 74 per cent of parents of three to five-year-olds mentioned that it had enabled them to work or look for work, and 71 per cent said that they were able

“to think about what they may do in the future”.

Overall, take-up of funded ELC among three and four-year-olds was 97 per cent in 2023. I understand from the Scottish Parliament information centre that, to date, it is about 100,000 per cent—I do not mean 100,000 per cent; I mean 100 per cent. What was I thinking?

However, in 2025, the estimated uptake for two-year-olds was 55 per cent, which represented a small decrease on previous years. The 2022 ELC parents survey found that two-year-olds were less likely to access the full 1,140 hours than older children. Access for two-year-olds is means tested—parents require to receive certain benefits, such as income support or universal credit. There appears to be an issue with parents’ awareness of the availability of that provision, which I hope that the minister will address when she sums up the debate. Currently, the Scottish Government provides about £1 billion per year in funding for ELC.

The Covid-19 pandemic had a profound impact on the lives of families in Scotland, and there is growing evidence from a range of research studies that suggests—unsurprisingly—that many young children and their families have been negatively affected. The benefits that are provided by ELC are extra; they do not come on their own. We cannot assess the benefits of ELC on their own. There are other interventions, such as the Scottish child payment, which helps low-income families with children under 16. Each child under 16 gets £27.15 per week, which will rise to £28.20 from 1 April. There is no limit on the number of children in a family who can get that payment. The Scottish child payment also helps families and carers. In fact, it supports 5,785 children in the Borders and 6,320 children in Midlothian.

::The point that I am making is that three and four-year-olds do not benefit only from free nursery education. There are lots of other supports for children, especially for those of families that face economic pressures. In this short debate, I do not have time to address the practicalities that I have encountered, such as Edinburgh nurseries charging people from Midlothian. The member was quite right to raise that issue, and the First Minister addressed that.

We have other new funding. There is the national breakfast club provision and the expansion of after-school clubs. There is also the best start funding. In the Borders, 6,130 families have received best start grants and food payments. That is worth more than £3.4 million.

I say to Roz McCall that it is right that we assess the benefits of ELC, but it is difficult to disaggregate the benefits of ELC from those of the other support that is available to families. I would like to know how we might do that. There are pressures on how ELC is delivered—that is a separate issue, which relates to competing pressures in councils. It is difficult to disaggregate the wellbeing benefits of ELC from the benefits of other support. In this short debate, I have been able only to take a glance at the issue.

13:07

::I am trying to be helpful. Does the member think that remote working, which is not available to everybody, has helped to build in some flexibility for parents?

[Made a request to intervene.]

To amend the record, I was quoting Richard Leonard, who said that, despite the bill’s flaws, he would vote for it. I could not understand the rationale behind that position. I admire Richard Leonard in many respects, but not for that comment.

I spare no one in commenting on legislation being flawed, including members in my own party group, and I have made such comments since I came to Parliament. As a former solicitor—as the member is, too—I cannot say that I am content to pass something that is flawed and that could, in fact, be made better.

rose—

Thank you for taking my late request to speak, Presiding Officer.

There are two reasons why I will not support the bill. First, the review of by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee must be undertaken, given the huge flaws in the process. Secondly, I want to refer specifically to Richard Leonard’s summing up on behalf of the Labour Party. He said two things that, in my view, were actually reasons why the Labour Party should not vote for the bill. I very much support having the means to recall Parliament and deal with miscreant MSPs. However, the first thing that Richard Leonard said was that he would support the bill

“for all of its flaws”.

Then, to justify that, he said that the bill sends a message. Legislation can, indeed, send a message, but it should not be flawed—not from the outset. That is my major concern.

This is a serious business. For legislation to be effective, it must be tightly drawn, it must be just and it must not have unintended consequences. In this case, it should not be introduced ahead of the review that is already due to be carried out.

For those reasons, I cannot see why the member and the group on the Labour benches are supporting the bill. Like Richard Leonard, I will be retiring, and to hear someone in here supporting flawed legislation is simply wrong.

rose—