Chamber and committees

I thank Jeremy Balfour for lodging his amendments 20 and 21 and very much appreciate and value his concern to ensure that residential outdoor education meets the needs of pupils who attend special schools. The statutory guidance will be important in supporting implementation, so I understand the desire to specify matters that that guidance must cover.

It seems to me that amendments 20 and 21 seek to ensure that provision included in statutory guidance about the year group of pupils for whom a course of residential outdoor education should be provided should reflect the arrangement of classes and year groups in special schools, which might, understandably, be different from such arrangements in mainstream schools. The amendments would also require regard to be had to the specific needs of pupils attending special schools.

I contend that new section 6B(4)(c) of the 1980 act would already allow for that to happen as the guidance would have to provide for education authorities to

“assess whether outdoor education is suitable to a pupil’s age, ability, aptitude and any additional support needs”.

That implies inclusion of the needs of children and young people attending special schools, so I do not consider amendments 20 and 21 to be necessary.

However, again, I would be happy to discuss the intention behind the amendments with Mr Balfour ahead of stage 3, to determine whether something useful could be added to the provisions on the guidance, perhaps in relation to consultation or engagement including pupils who attend special schools, to understand those specific needs. I hope that Mr Balfour will not press amendment 20 or move amendment 21; if he does, I encourage members to vote against them.

I welcome Liz Smith’s amendment 16, which would provide greater clarity on what the statutory guidance must include on Gaelic-medium education. That follows discussions with Liz Smith on how we might strengthen that provision.

From 30 November, when the relevant provisions come into force, the Scottish Languages Act 2025 will amend the Education (Scotland) Act 2016, to require education authorities to

“promote, facilitate and support ... Gaelic medium education”

and

“have regard to the needs and interests of all pupils”

who receive such education. It will also amend the definition of

“school education”

in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 to clarify that it includes

“Gaelic learner education and Gaelic medium education”.

As such, I believe that there is little room for ambiguity that residential outdoor education should be provided in Gaelic for those pupils who receive Gaelic-medium education. Liz Smith’s amendment would therefore strengthen and clarify how the statutory guidance that stems from the bill would align with existing statutory duties in relation to the Gaelic language and Gaelic-medium education. For those reasons, I ask members to support amendment 16.

I start by saying that this is the first opportunity that I have had since stage 1 to acknowledge and welcome the extremely constructive approach of the member in charge of the bill in working with me and my officials to identify ways in which we can improve the bill’s provisions. Group 2 provides an important example of the outcome of that work. The two amendments in the group—amendments 13 and 14—seek to strengthen the deliverability of the bill, and I very much welcome Liz Smith’s agreement to lodge them.

The amendments recognise the real-world challenges and circumstances outwith the control of an education authority or grant-aided school that might mean that they are unable to ensure provision of residential outdoor education for some pupils, despite their best efforts. We have heard examples in relation to centres, but some challenges or circumstances might relate to pupils, too. For example, a pupil might move school in year, and their new school might have determined that the most reasonable approach to residential provision was to offer it to their year cohort on an annual basis. In that circumstance, it might not be reasonable for the law to require the school to arrange an additional residential trip solely for the individual pupil if it has already provided the opportunity to its wider class cohort earlier in the term.

I do not believe that it would be. I am glad that Mr Balfour has brought up that point, because it relates to Mr Mason’s point, too. I hope that, through the amendments that we will be seeing and speaking to this morning, many such issues, including those to do with financing and teaching, will have been resolved in advance of the bill’s commencement. Only external factors that are outwith a school’s control should then fall under the amendment.

Another example is where a pupil is unwell and cannot attend the residential at the time that the school has arranged it. It seems important that we build in that degree of protection and flexibility for education authorities in those cases where external factors make it impractical for the duty to be met. I ask members to support the amendments.

I acknowledge Ms Smith’s earlier concerns, which she has put on the record. I want to be clear that, in supporting the amendments, the Government absolutely does not intend to water down the overall duty or to weaken the expectation that every effort will be made to offer residential opportunities that meet the bill’s intent. That is in line with my response to Mr Balfour’s comments.

I want to finish responding to Ms Duncan-Glancy first. The view that I have received from the teaching unions is that legislating in the way that the bill does pre-empts the SNCT. Amendment 28 would take that a step further, which is why further consultation with the unions is the key to moving forward.

It is reassuring that there is a shared commitment and intent across the Parliament to ensure that residential outdoor education becomes more inclusive. That includes the need to ensure that the ability or otherwise of a parent to pay for their child to participate in residential outdoor education, particularly when the child and their family might face additional costs in that participation, is not a factor that leads to the child’s exclusion from the experience.

I apologise for the length of my speaking notes for this group. Please bear with me.

I welcome this group of amendments, which are concerned with funding the provision of residential outdoor education. The bill’s affordability has been an important point of debate for the committee and for the Parliament more widely, and between me and the member in charge of the bill. Affordability is fundamentally related to the deliverability of the legislation, and the Government is clear that the bill must be fit for purpose.

That is why I welcome the first amendment in this group. Amendment 15, which was lodged by Liz Smith, seeks to ensure that current approaches to funding residential trips through mixed sources, which includes parental contributions, can continue to operate. I have spoken with the member in charge about the importance of ensuring that the bill does not detract from existing good practice approaches to provision. That means recognising that, currently, parental contributions towards the cost of residential trips often form an important component of the overall funding package that a school or education authority draws together to enable delivery. That may be alongside funding that is raised by the parent council, central funding from the education authority, or specific funding initiatives to target measures aimed at reducing the poverty-related attainment gap, such as pupil equity funding.

As I have said, I think that the bill already makes provision for the issue. Addressing the point in the guidance would allow time for the Government to consult outdoor education providers, young people with additional support needs, parents, carers and other relevant stakeholders. However, I appreciate what Mr Balfour says about guidance and its enforcement, and I would be more than happy to have further discussions on that in advance of stage 3. At the moment, I ask Mr Balfour not to move amendment 22, and, if he does, I encourage members to vote against it.

Through amendment 23, Mr Balfour rightly raises the issue of young carers and the specific barriers that they may face in accessing residential outdoor education. I am slightly concerned about the potential for overreach into the ambit of health and social care, as that could create some unhelpful ambiguity around responsibility for delivery as well as budgetary responsibility. I also think that the needs and interests of young carers, as pupils with additional support needs, would already be covered by the provisions on guidance. Moreover, I return to our position on Liz Smith’s amendments 17 and 18 and the Government’s preference to remove the general duty to fund from the bill. It would be inconsistent to replace that with specific duties in relation to children and young people with specific needs and interests. Nevertheless, I am willing to give that more consideration ahead of stage 3. I therefore ask Mr Balfour not to move amendment 23. If he does, I encourage members to vote against it.

I welcome the amendments in this group and thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for lodging them and explaining their intent. The amendments, which concern the impacts of the bill on staffing, look to address some important and tangible considerations.

Before considering the detail of amendment 28, which seeks to protect the voluntary nature of teacher participation in residential outdoor education provision, I put on record the Scottish Government’s recognition of and appreciation for the amazing efforts of so many teachers and other education professionals and staff, who currently give freely of their time to provide residential outdoor education for their pupils, enriching their educational experience.

I also appreciate that there are teachers and education professionals and staff who, due to their personal circumstances, may not be able or wish to attend or support a course of residential outdoor education. It is important that the bill does not interfere with teachers’ ability to make such decisions for themselves.

Liz Smith and I have met teaching unions throughout the bill process to better understand their concerns, including those related to teacher contracts. For assurance, the Government will continue to consult with teaching unions throughout the legislative process and, should the bill become law, the implementation phase. I hope that the member in charge of the bill will also be keen to make such a commitment.

Although I appreciate what Pam Duncan-Glancy is trying to achieve with amendment 28, careful consideration must be given to the approach that it presents.

I absolutely support the position that the involvement of teachers and associated education professionals, in giving their time and energy to support residential outdoor education, should remain voluntary. However, it would not be appropriate to provide for that in the bill.

As we have already alluded to, the terms and conditions of teachers and associated education professionals are governed by the Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers, which is a non-statutory tripartite negotiating arrangement that is entrusted with agreeing the terms and conditions of employment for our teachers and certain other education professionals. The national terms and conditions are set out in the SNCT handbook of conditions of service. I suggest that the best way to change those terms and conditions is by negotiation and agreement via the SNCT, and not by the imposition of legislation in relation to one area of those conditions alone. I therefore cannot, and do not, support amendments that cut across that long-standing arrangement between the teaching unions, local government and the Scottish Government.

That is the impression that I got from unions—that teachers really buy into these experiences—and putting that provision in the bill could jeopardise that.

There are also technical issues in relation to amendment 28. I mentioned that the SNCT is a non-statutory arrangement, so we should not try to make law that relies on definitions and processes that, rightly, continue to evolve through engagement and agreement. I am very conscious that there has been no formal consultation with the SNCT on the desirability or otherwise of that amendment. However, there will, of course, be an opportunity for the SNCT to consider the intent behind the amendment and to agree to make an appropriate change to the SNCT handbook, which is why the engagement is very important. I want to reassure Ms Duncan-Glancy that, should the bill be passed at stage 3, it is the Scottish Government’s intention to engage positively with the SNCT on any implications for teachers’ terms and conditions. Therefore, I hope that she will not press amendment 28. If she does, I could not support it, and I would urge members to vote against it.

On amendment 29, I have met with Scotland’s teaching unions on multiple occasions to discuss the bill, and I fully value their input and feedback on understanding the practicalities of how the bill might affect teachers. I am clear that, should the bill become law, the Government would absolutely look to continue to engage with the teaching unions to help to inform implementation. Given how critical the teaching workforce is to implementing the bill’s measures, it is only right and appropriate to acknowledge that in the bill itself, to make it clear that they will be consulted. I encourage the committee to support amendment 29.

I support amendment 30, which directly follows on from amendment 29 by defining what is meant by the term “recognised trade unions”. The definition is in line with existing legislation. However, I also acknowledge that not every teacher will necessarily be a member of a trade union, and that, in line with our fair work principles, we should ensure that their voices can also be heard, so I will further consider whether an amendment at stage 3 might be appropriate to make that clear.

On amendment 6, I want to be clear that, as with any new piece of legislation, it will be important to establish robust monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, should the bill become law. Therefore, I acknowledge that the intention of amendment 6 is valid and valuable. It is important that there are procedures in place to monitor the impact of legislation in order that local government, the Scottish Government and providers can adjust and evolve their approaches as necessary. However, under provisions of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, ministers have the power to require education authorities to provide information, and grant conditions enable that for grant-aided schools, too. These provisions are sufficient to establish appropriate monitoring and reporting, so I do not consider that such a detailed approach to monitoring and evaluation in the bill itself is necessary.

However, I have asked officials to consider for stage 3 how we might incorporate a general duty on reporting, so I hope that that reassures Pam Duncan-Glancy that we have a shared acceptance of, and commitment to, the importance of the matter and that she will not press amendment 6. If she does, I encourage members to vote against it.

Amendment 7 is a consequential amendment that makes provision for the parliamentary procedure that would apply to regulations that ministers would be empowered to make if amendment 6 were passed. Amendments 1 and 2 are technical amendments to enable amendment 7 to be made. I cannot support amendment 6, and so it follows that I do not support consequential amendments 7, 1 and 2.

That is why what is done in the coming months on the review and the data that needs to be gathered will be important. I have previously discussed with the member in charge the potential for leveraging private funding in relation to improving the estate. I am not saying that that will be the proposed approach; I am saying only that there are options, because I appreciate what Mr Balfour says about the hefty investment that would be required. I am just trying to emphasise the importance of the work that will take place in the coming months to establish a route forward.

I agree with much of what Ms Duncan-Glancy has said. As I have committed to, I am more than happy to discuss those issues further. I do not have an answer at the moment as to how we tackle some of the problems that she brings to me, but I am happy to make a commitment to work further to ensure that those young people do not lose out. Again, I ask Mr Balfour not to move amendment 23. If he does, I encourage members to vote against it. I have put on record my commitment to discuss the issues further.

Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 24 seeks to ensure that the amount that is provided to grant-aided schools for the purposes of the bill must be in addition to their core grant funding. It would also bar the managers of grant-aided schools from using any other funding to meet the duties in the bill. I appreciate his intention to ensure additionality in funding and to ensure that day-to-day education provision in grant-aided schools is not impacted, but it would directly prevent mixed-funding approaches from being used by a grant-aided school to support provision under the bill. That is particularly important, given that education authorities also provide funding for individual pupil places at grant-aided schools, and schools that are run by a charity often create specific fund-raising initiatives to augment their provision. I return to the case that was made in favour of Liz Smith’s amendment 17, which is also relevant. For all those reasons, I ask Jeremy Balfour not to move amendment 24. If he does, and it is not pre-empted, I encourage members to vote against it.

I am sure that the committee will be happy to hear that I now turn to the last amendment in the group, which is Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 25.

I recognise and share Jeremy Balfour’s desire to ensure that the bill expands access to residential outdoor education to all those who face barriers to participation. I am aware that disabled children can face additional barriers and that the needs and circumstances of disabled young people can be multiple, complex and highly individual. However, not all disabled children and young people are entitled to or claim child disability payment and might be in receipt of other relevant benefits, some of which are not necessarily devolved. I feel that it is slightly counterintuitive to seek to remove the duty to fund in general and to replace it with specific duties to fund. However, I am again happy to assure Jeremy Balfour that the needs and interests of disabled children and their families, and their ability to participate in residential outdoor education, will feature in the discussions with COSLA as part of the nuanced considerations that are needed to implement the bill. I therefore ask him not to move amendment 25. If he does, I encourage members to vote against it.