Full text of my speech in Parliament:

I welcome you to your position and the Cabinet Secretary for Education, Culture and Gaelic to her position.

This may surprise you, Presiding Officer, but this is by no means my first speech in this place. However, it will be my first speech as the MSP for Glasgow Kelvin and Maryhill, with the substantial boundary changes that were put in place ahead of the 2026 Scottish Parliament elections. It was a privilege to represent areas such as the Garngad, Springburn and Milton, but that now passes on to Ivan McKee MSP. I look forward to continuing to represent my constituents across the wider Maryhill corridor, however, and the many new communities that were formerly part of the Glasgow Kelvin constituency.

The real reason for mentioning the changes is that it allows me to mention Glasgow Kelvin. I pay tribute to Kaukab Stewart, who was the MSP for Glasgow Kelvin from 2021 up until the election. Kaukab was the first woman of colour elected to the Scottish Parliament, and she served diligently as a hard-working constituency MSP and as a Scottish Government minister. She will be a loss to this Parliament.

I turn to the substantive debate on the Scottish Government’s ambition to expand early learning and childcare provision. The Scottish Government has already presided over a more than doubling of free early learning and childcare for three and four-year-olds in Scotland, as well as eligible two-year-olds. Although that doubling has not been without its challenges, some of which I hope to refer to during my speech, it is still a tremendous achievement, and that should not be forgotten in the debate. That achievement was driven and secured by an SNP Government. However, it was delivered on the ground not by politicians but by early learning and childcare professionals employed by local authorities or by providers in the private, voluntary and independent sector, which is often referred to as the PVI sector.

The 1,140 hours have been in place since 2021, by and large, and have been worth more than £6,000 for every eligible child each year. That has benefited my family, and we have used our hours mixed between a local authority provider and an independent provider as we have tried to best match our family needs with the available provision.

That mixing and matching of provision to best meet family circumstances will be a common experience for families. Flexibility is essential. The Scottish Government is, of course, aiming to move towards year-round childcare provision for children from nine months old up to the end of primary school. It was a central manifesto commitment. More than £0.5 billion has been earmarked for expenditure on that endeavour, and that will have to be kept under review as we plan for the next five years.

I think that we can all agree that achieving that aim would be hugely welcome and transformational.

I very much hope that the policy will command strong cross-party support, receive constructive and meaningful scrutiny along the way and have the good will of Parliament. Achieving the ambition to have as much childcare as necessary to fit around family needs and circumstances will be challenging—it will also be expensive, I suspect. It will require innovation, flexibility and a mixed-model approach to delivery. Our councils will and must remain the cornerstone of successful delivery.

Our councils will, and must, remain the cornerstone of successful delivery. However, it will be vital that we have a truly meaningful, respectful and constructive partnership with the private, voluntary and independent sector, as well as with childminders. I welcome COSLA’s acknowledgement of that in its briefing to members for this debate. Although that partnership has often worked well, we should also acknowledge that the issue of councils paying PVI providers a sustainable rate has been the subject of much debate by those in the sector, who do not always feel that that has been forthcoming from councils. That must be addressed—I hope that that will reassure Mr Rennie. I very much hope that that key relationship can be developed and that the matter is addressed.

The success of our transformational childcare offer will also require a major uplift in the early years and childcare workforce, and that has to be considered strategically. It is a great opportunity to develop a pathway back to employment for some, often women, and to support others to increase their working hours, given that underemployment, as well as unemployment, is a challenge for society. It is ironic that the absence of affordable childcare when required might have been a barrier for some who might now, with the policy, be able to consider employment. That new workforce might require specific additional and transitional support.

I acknowledge Mr Dunlop’s expertise, however, and if he has concerns in that area, he is absolutely right to bring those to the Parliament and work through them as part of the positive, constructive scrutiny of this policy proposal.

I understand that the childcare workforce increased by 8,000 to 46,000 individuals to support the doubling of early years provision, and that colleges were supported to assist with the upskilling of the sector. I hope that those statistics are right, because they are on the Scottish Government website. Many more will now be needed to expand early years childcare further. Well-paid and supported workers will be central to the delivery of the commitment, and anything that we can do to address the associated costs and make it more affordable would be very welcome.

I will make one suggestion. Perhaps the Scottish Government could reach out to the UK Government to look at changing rules over employer national insurance contributions where employers seek to expand their early years workforce. Such dialogue and potential co-operation between the Scottish and UK Governments should be the norm, and should be supported cross-party in this place, irrespective of our constitutional positions. I hope that, on these types of things, we can start to make common cause. After all, moving someone into employment or providing someone with further hours reduces the benefits bill and bolsters the tax base, and it is a better outcome for all involved. The cost to an employer of NI contributions, however, can be as much as £2,800 each year.

In closing, I will say a bit about wraparound childcare and all-year-round childcare for young people of primary-school age. Breakfast clubs, after-school clubs and holiday clubs have been a mainstay for many years now. Some provision may look like a more traditional after-school club, but there is also the growth of emerging additional provision that is based around various activities such as football and dance, in particular during the summer holidays.

In my constituency, I am lucky to have various providers such as Summerston after-school care, Maryhill mobile crèche, Achieve More! Scotland, and North Kelvin Sports Development Group, to name just a few. There are huge opportunities to expand provision in exciting, innovative ways; however, how and when delivery will take place will have to be co-ordinated. That also applies to funding, which can come from different pots of cash—for instance, for the Scottish Football Association’s extra time initiative partnership with the Scottish Government. Local organisations offering different opportunities and models of delivery, often with very different cost bases, must be seen as partners, not competitors. Planning will be crucial.

Given the time that I have taken, I will draw my remarks to a close. I hope that we can come together as a Parliament and deliver this transformational Scottish Government policy.