Official Report 921KB pdf
Good morning and welcome to the 25th meeting in 2025 of the Education, Children and Young People Committee. We have received apologies from Ross Greer. I welcome Liz Smith and Roz McCall, who are joining us for part of the meeting.
The first item of business is an update on the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill. I welcome the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise, Natalie Don-Innes. She is accompanied by Scottish Government officials Saskia Kearns, team leader for learning for sustainability and outdoor learning; Lewis Hedge, deputy director for curriculum and qualifications; and Kirstie McKerron, a solicitor in the legal directorate.
Minister, I understand that you would like to make an opening statement.
Good morning. I welcome the opportunity to further discuss Liz Smith’s member’s bill with the committee and to set out the work that I have undertaken to consider the areas of outstanding concern that have been identified by the Government and, importantly, by the committee in its stage 1 report. I also welcome the opportunity to reiterate the Scottish Government’s support for outdoor learning, including residential education, and the work that we are already delivering to improve provision and access.
We recognise the important role that is played by residential outdoor education in a young person’s development. Our support for such experiences and for all forms of outdoor learning is reflected in our learning for sustainability action plan. Our Scottish outdoor learning strategic working group has worked over the past year to develop recommendations on how we and our education delivery partners can further strengthen inclusive provision and access. Part of that group’s consideration included discussion around the valuable work that is under way by the Association of Heads of Outdoor Education Centres and the Scottish Advisory Panel for Outdoor Education, with the support of Education Scotland, to develop a new quality residential framework. The group is due to report to me shortly.
The curriculum improvement cycle, which is led by Education Scotland, is already delivering systemic change and ensuring that key themes and the context of learning, including sustainability and outdoor learning, are strengthened across the three-to-18 curriculum. Members of the national outdoor learning strategic working group have been informing that work. We are also funding partners to ensure the on-going delivery of specific learning for sustainability activities and outdoor learning programmes. We are providing resources to support practitioners, including the essential “Going Out There” guidance, which we have worked to maintain with the Scottish Advisory Panel for Outdoor Education. The guidance helps schools keep off-site visits safe for all children and young people, and, importantly, for staff. Education Scotland is working with the Association of Heads of Outdoor Education Centres and the Scottish Advisory Panel for Outdoor Education to develop a training resource for outdoor centre instructors and support staff so that children’s experiences are impactful and enjoyable while also being tied to education outcomes.
All that work in the delivery of residential outdoor education in many local authorities is taking place—and will continue to take place—without any specific statutory requirements.
Liz Smith has been pivotal in raising awareness of the benefits and value of residential outdoor education for children and young people through her member’s bill. Her leadership on the bill has brought to the fore issues that relate to inclusion, affordability and deliverability. I have been seeking to address those key issues since stage 1, liaising with members, key stakeholders—particularly the teaching trade unions—and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
I am happy to take questions and to update the committee further on that work.
To start things off by way of an update, will you outline what amendments the Scottish Government and you, as a minister, have drafted to Liz Smith’s member’s bill?
As I confirmed during the members’ business debate yesterday, I have not yet drafted any amendments to Liz Smith’s member’s bill. I discussed areas for potential stage 2 amendments with Liz Smith at our meeting on 1 July, at which she indicated that she would be open to a more targeted approach to funding and to changes in commencement provisions. However, I made clear to her at the time that, procedurally, we are not at the point where producing draft legal text of stage 2 amendments is appropriate and that doing so would pre-empt the decision on the financial resolution.
Do you recall the evidence that you gave to this committee on 11 June?
Yes.
You committed absolutely to bringing forward amendments during the summer—
That was to discussing proposals for potential amendments.
These are Liz Smith’s words:
“Can I get it on the record that, at the same meeting, the Scottish Government will be doing the same”,
that being “bringing forward … proposed amendments.”
I can read you the whole quotation. Let us go back to what Liz Smith said:
“I will be bringing forward some proposed amendments. Can I get it on the record that, at the same meeting, the Scottish Government will be doing the same thing and proposing amendments, as the committee has requested?”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 11 June 2025; c 68.]
Your response was one word: “Absolutely.”
If that was the impression that I gave, I apologise to the committee. I have been given advice that we are not at the appropriate time to be producing amendments, because of the decision on the financial resolution. If I gave the impression that I would be bringing forward amendments, it was with my intention to discuss potential proposed amendments.
Do you accept that that is more than giving an impression? That is giving a cast-iron guarantee to a parliamentary committee that you would be doing that.
I have given my answer to the convener. I apologise if that was how that came across.
The committee was looking for those amendments, and we got your reassurance in June that you were going to bring forward proposed amendments. There is no ambiguity at all in the wording. It is very clear.
I have given you my—
You have, and I welcome that.
At any point after that meeting, did your officials tell you that perhaps the evidence that you gave to the committee was incorrect?
No, but, as I say, I have received advice, which I am happy to bring legal officers in on, to—
Okay. Mr Hedge, having heard—
No—sorry—
Sorry—Ms McKerron, having heard what the minister said on 11 June, do you now have concerns about the commitment that she gave that she would “Absolutely” bring forward “proposed amendments” to meetings with Ms Smith in the summer?
My understanding of the process in bringing forward amendments at this stage is that we are not quite at that stage yet—
My question is more about the wording—I can read it again—that the minister used on 11 June to this committee, which is a committee of this Parliament, that she would “Absolutely” bring forward “proposed amendments”. Did anyone in the minister’s team say, “Actually, what you’ve just said is not possible”? It is difficult for me, as convener of this committee, to find out months later that a commitment given was never going to be realised.
I can bring in Lewis Hedge to provide further clarity.
I reinforce what the minister said: getting to a point of negotiating on specific language in amendments would have been stepping into that part of stage 2 at which we prepare for votes on amendments. That happens after a motion on a financial resolution is lodged. To get into specific legal texts would have been stepping beyond the financial resolution point.
But the minister told us that she would do that.
Our advice was: do not present legal text, but do—as the minister did—have a detailed conversation about areas where amendments would be discussed and considered. Those are the points that the minister flagged.
That is very contrary to what the minister actually said in person to the committee.
I took great comfort from what you said, minister. I was very encouraged by what you said and how you said it. However, it seems that that was never the intention. Having previously served as a minister, I am concerned about that, because when I appeared in front of a committee, if I said something that was incorrect, my team would normally say, “Maybe you should write back to the committee because you misspoke. The impression that you gave was not one that is reflected in what you can achieve.” Others may look into that.
I return to where we got to in the chamber last night with the financial resolution. We are now only a couple of weeks away from the deadline of 26 September. When will the Cabinet discuss it?
I made clear last night that the matter is subject to on-going consideration and that the Government will consider its position by 26 September. I have made clear that the work that the member in charge has undertaken over recent months and has shared with me, as well as my own engagement and the work that my officials have been undertaking, will be used to inform that.
I should now make clear that this is not a Government-supported bill. There is no formal requirement on the Government to provide support. However, I have continued to engage with Ms Smith and to provide requested information, and I have continued to engage with key bodies. This will go through the normal Cabinet process. I am not able to give any further information on dates, but I assure the committee that the decision will be made and announced prior to 26 September.
There must be only two or, potentially, three Cabinet meetings. Have you not been invited to present a paper to Cabinet yet?
I cannot discuss those processes. As I said, if you would like some further information, I am happy to bring in Kirstie McKerron.
As the minister responsible, you gave commitments to this committee to further progress this, and you will have to make a statement of some kind on whether a financial resolution should be agreed or not. Have you not yet been asked to present your findings and position to Cabinet?
I cannot comment further on the ministerial decision-making process. I am sorry—I cannot give you any further information on that.
I am not sure whether Kirstie McKerron is able to provide further clarity.
We will come to Ms McKerron in a minute.
Are you saying that you cannot because you are not allowed to, or that you will not? I am not asking what your decision will be, although I would like you to tell us, if you will. I simply want to know when the Cabinet is going to discuss this.
As I said, I cannot comment. It is not that I am not willing to comment. It is part of the ministerial code that I cannot comment further on the decision-making processes.
I am not sure that that is part of the ministerial code, actually.
If I could seek further clarity from—
Okay. Ms McKerron?
Could I consult my notes for one moment, please? In the interests of time, I would be happy to write to the committee.
No. I am sorry, but this is quite an important question. We have maybe two Cabinet meetings left before 26 September. You could even take a 50:50 punt and guess which one it might be, but you are suggesting that, at the moment, there is no knowledge within your department of when the Cabinet is going to be asked to discuss the matter. My point is going to be to ask what discussions on that there have been at the Cabinet so far.
That is not what I am suggesting, Mr Ross. I am suggesting that I cannot give that information to the committee just now. As I said, there is a date by which the decision must be made, and I am committing to ensuring that I inform the member in charge, the committee and Parliament about the decision that is taken. However, I cannot provide any more information about when that decision will be made at this moment in time.
Do you know when, but you cannot tell the committee, or do you not know when?
That is not what I am saying—
I am just asking which it is.
I am saying that I cannot comment further on the ministerial decision-making process.
I think that you can. I think that being called before a committee gives you the opportunity to do that, and that is why members are asking these questions.
If we are not going to get an answer, other members will want to come in. Before they do so, I will ask briefly about the concerns that were raised last night about the undemocratic nature of the potential decision not to lodge a financial resolution. Do you understand the gravity of the decision that you would be taking not to lodge a financial resolution? It would be the first time in the history of devolution that the Government has sought to strike down a bill using that procedure, rather than listening to the will of Parliament, which overwhelmingly supported the bill at stage 1.
I understand the significance of the situation, and I do not want to pre-empt any decision on the financial resolution. What I can say is that the financial resolution is a legitimate and important process that ensures that ministers can exercise our unique responsibility and accountability for the Scottish budget. As I said in the debate last night, that power is not unique to Scotland. The Welsh and United Kingdom Governments have similar powers. As I said, it is a legitimate and important process.
Good morning, minister and officials. I have to say that I am disappointed, although I do not think that that will come as a surprise to anyone, including the minister. The minister said last night that the process exists elsewhere. However, if I may say so, there is a mischaracterisation of the process. The process is there, in my understanding, not for the Government to block the will of Parliament, which has already decided that the bill should progress to stage 2. Rather, it is there for the Government to set out its understanding of what the cost of the legislation would be, so that Parliament can make decisions on amendments to manage the cost in one way or another and, ultimately, make a decision at stage 3. Not providing that information right now is a dereliction of responsibility and a complete disregard of the will of Parliament.
As I made clear during the stage 1 debate and in my engagement following it, the Government and the committee have raised legitimate concerns about the affordability of the bill. Those concerns remain unresolved, which is why we need to consider the issue. As I have said, the process is in place to allow the Scottish ministers final control over the Scottish budget, so—
08:45
Minister, I am sorry, but you have had nearly six months to make a decision about what you think the costs are. A financial resolution should not be withheld because the Government of the day considers that Parliament wants something but cannot afford it. The point of a financial resolution is for the Government to say that Parliament has said that the bill should progress, and if it progresses to stages 2 and 3, Parliament needs to be aware of the costs that the Government has attached to the bill. Again, there is a mischaracterisation of the process.
There are costs attached to the bill that remain unknown. The process helps Parliament not to walk into unknown costs. Ms Smith has worked to bring the costs of the bill down, but there remain outstanding concerns about the unknown affordability of certain measures, such as the workforce implications, support for children with additional support needs and capital costs to improve the infrastructure. A number of matters have not been taken into account, all of which I have asked Ms Smith to address. Concerns remain outstanding. Parliament needs to be clear that we can gather data around the costs that have been put forward, but more time is needed for that and—
I am sorry, minister, but the timescales that have been assessed as being appropriate have been in place since the Parliament was set up. As you have rightly pointed out, other Parliaments use the same process. Why has the Government not figured out the costs within six months, in negotiations with the member?
I am sorry, Ms Duncan-Glancy, but it is not the Government’s responsibility to figure out the costs of the bill. This is a member’s bill, and the responsibility lies with the member to bring the final costs of the bill, and the implications of that, to Parliament or the Government, to help to inform our decision on a financial resolution. Liz Smith has worked to address some of those costs, but here has been no engagement by Ms Smith with the trade unions, for example, to hear their concerns about the workforce implications and the costs that could be attached to them. There are still a number of unknowns.
As I say, a legitimate process is in place to help to ensure that Parliament does not walk into a scenario of unknown costs. We have the costs that are attached to the bill at the moment, but our estimation is that those will grow rapidly, based on a number of the issues that remain outstanding.
I have one final question and a comment. If I am honest, it is not necessarily the case that the Parliament has not already been asked, in this parliamentary session, to support a bill with unknown costs.
A commitment was made to the committee that consideration would be given to any costs associated with ensuring that pupils with ASN could enjoy the rights that the Parliament has intended them to enjoy as a result of the bill. Since then, what analysis has the Government done on that issue?
I will bring in Saskia Kearns to speak to some of the further work that has been done.
We have engaged with stakeholders, and we know that supporting children with additional support needs in relation to residential outdoor education is a highly complex issue. There are a number of children and young people out there with varying degrees of support needs. Some outdoor residential education centres are already well equipped to support those children, but that is not the case across the board. Initial analysis, and my engagement with the process, has shown us that some centres are not fully equipped to support children with a range of additional support needs. Again, this is variable, but we know that the costs attached to supporting children with additional support needs to attend residential trips can be up to £1,000 per child. More work needs done on that.
I know that Ms Smith introduced proposals and attached a £1.5 million figure to the cost of supporting children with additional support needs; however, I believe that that estimate was based solely on children in special schools and did not include those in mainstream schools. We know that there are a number of children in mainstream schools with additional support needs, so I believe that the cost would be higher than that.
There is also an issue about staff ratios to support children with additional support needs, because we know that, depending on a child’s or a young person’s needs, there might need to be more than one member of staff. Work has been done on that issue, but I do not think that the timeframe quite fits if we are to fully understand the implications around it.
On the timeframe, will you complete that work within the next fortnight?
No. Again, it would not fall on the Government to complete that work.
It is a Government resolution—
This is a member’s bill. I have been clear about what the Government has done, and we have made efforts.
I will bring in Saskia in case I have missed anything.
I think that you have covered most of the main points, minister. One of the pieces of work from which the minister drew evidence was our earlier engagement in March this year with the national complex needs network about the implications of the bill, through which we had the anecdotal evidence that the additional costs for adjustments to be made could be in excess of £1,000 per pupil.
Other insights came through from those discussions to do with travel and the availability and capacity of the centres in Scotland to accommodate for pupils with complex and multiple support needs, who must sometimes travel down to centres in England to be able to participate in visits.
I think that, overall, the minister has covered the main points.
The status quo really is not acceptable for pupils with ASN, which is why the legislation is crucial. I hope that, in the next 14 days or however many days we have for the Government to find a resolution, the advice that the minister puts to the Cabinet will include the fact that it is necessary to level the playing field for pupils with additional support needs.
I bring in Liz Smith.
Before I come to my question, minister, I would like some clarity. Throughout the stage 1 process, the Government assured me that its position on the bill was neutral. However, in an answer to the convener this morning, you said that this is not a Government-supported bill. When did you change your position?
I am sorry, Ms Smith; by “not a Government-supported bill”, I mean that we abstained on the bill. This is not a Government-led bill—it is a member’s bill. Thereby, responsibility to work out the costings and affordability rests with you, as the member in charge.
So, you meant “Government-led” instead of “Government-supported”.
Yes. I will bring in Lewis Hedge for clarity, because I do not want to say the wrong thing.
The Government was neutral when it came to the vote at stage 1. If the vote had been in favour, there might have been a discussion about making the bill a Government-supported bill, in which case we would have mobilised resource to support the member in charge. However, that was not the case. Therefore, as the minister has said, it has not been extensively resourced from the Government side in the way that we might have done for a Government-led piece of legislation.
Minister, you have told me—I do not know how many times—that the bill is not affordable. What is the total that the Scottish Government believes is affordable?
Given the current financial context, I do not believe that I can sit here and tell you a figure that is affordable. Introducing any new duties to fund in the current financial context would force difficult choices about what to defund to accommodate new expenditure. That difficulty is compounded by the fact that, as I have already said, the total potential costs of the provisions are not clear, due to outstanding gaps in the available data. Even if I were to quote a figure, that figure would rise, because unknown costs would be attached to it. It is therefore very difficult to produce any figure that is affordable.
Is it correct that the Scottish Government is considering non-statutory proposals that cost £8 million and perhaps a little bit more?
Sorry, but are you referring to the pilot approach?
That has been suggested, although it has never been formally discussed with me as the member in charge of the bill, but I understand that it is on the public record that the Scottish Government is considering that. Is that the correct total?
I believe that the total is £5 million to £6 million, but I could be wrong on that. However, it is clear that a non-legislative pilot would represent a significantly lower initial cost. The Government would have control over how and when any such financial implications would be incurred against the budget, so that would provide a greater level of certainty.
Also, a non-legislative pilot approach does not necessarily represent a recurring annual budget implication. Equally, it would give the Government time to learn. I have spoken this morning about the gaps in the data, which we are already working to overcome and want to overcome, and that approach would give us the necessary time to do so. Creating a new statutory obligation for what is, as I have said, an unknown total potential recurring annual cost is a significant risk that I and ministers have a responsibility to consider.
The Scottish Government’s policy of inclusion, as I understand it, is that we should be doing everything possible for every young person. How would that fit with a pilot, which would obviously address only one particular area, one particular school or whatever the Government came up with?
If the pilot approach was the approach that was decided on, it would ensure that control. I agree that it would cover only a certain number of children and young people, but it would allow the Government to gather the necessary data so that, if a national roll-out followed, no children and young people were missing out.
I would put that point back to Liz Smith. I believe that the bill as drafted does not fit in with that policy, because there absolutely would be children and young people who would miss out on those opportunities under the bill as drafted.
You heard what I said in the debate last night, minister. It seems to me that, compared with other bills, this one is all about money—money is central, whereas we sometimes have members’ bills in which money is more at the periphery.
I am interested in the pilot, but we do not have time to go into that today. My question is whether there is room for compromise. If the Government has £5 million or £6 million available, could that money not be used to top up what is presently happening? Lots of parents can afford to pay and are paying for their kids to go. It seems to me that the real problem is whether we can get money to the families and the kids who cannot afford to go. That £5 million or £6 million would make a huge difference. I accept that it would have to be every year and not just for one year.
Could the Government make some kind of offer to put in £5 million to £6 million every year for 10 years or whatever, on the condition that Liz Smith pulls her bill?
Obviously, I cannot speak for Liz Smith. I do not know whether that would be something that—
I was just asking whether you could make that offer.
To be clear, the Government does not just have £5 million or £6 million spare to put forward for this. Any funding or money is subject to the budget process. As I said, the Government has been working, alongside the work on the bill, on a potential non-legislative pilot approach. If that was taken forward, the budget for it would have to be negotiated and considered through the budgetary process.
Mr Mason makes relevant points, but they would need to perhaps pre-empt the financial resolution and could be discussed in relation to a pilot approach.
I am sorry, but I am not aware whether a bill could be pulled at this stage. I might need to seek further clarity around that.
The bill will fall if you do nothing before—
Sorry. Mr Mason asked—
I know, but it will effectively be done.
If a financial resolution is not produced, yes, that is the case.
09:00
Good morning. I have to say that I have found this morning’s session very disappointing. Anyone watching this or who watched the debate last night would get the impression that the Government is just running down the clock. I really hope that the minister will go away from this meeting and think again about the powers that she has and about the Government’s position.
I am concerned because, in relation to conversations about a non-legislative solution, the Government has not worked with Liz Smith on what alternative funding mechanisms might look like. Why has the Government dedicated time to that and not worked with Liz Smith?
I am sorry. You are asking why the Government has dedicated time to—
You have outlined the fact that £5 million to £6 million could be provided for a non-legislative approach to the bill’s aims through a pilot, but you have not worked with Liz Smith on costings for the bill that is in front of the Parliament and that the Parliament has supported. I find it very strange that that work is being done behind the scenes and that the costing work has not been done with Liz Smith.
I have continued to engage with Ms Smith. I have had, I think, three meetings with her since stage 1, there have been more than 10 letters of correspondence between us, and I have provided statistical information to her when she has asked for it. We have tried to work with Ms Smith as much as possible.
However, given the significance of the Government’s decision and the affordability issues that have been raised, I thought that it was appropriate to come up with another approach that could be taken, depending on the decision on the financial resolution.
A lot of the work on the pilot approach goes hand in hand with the work that is informing our approach to the member’s bill. We have looked at a number of issues in relation to the pilot approach, and I will perhaps bring in Saskia Kearns or Lewis Hedge to talk about that further. A number of issues are helping to inform our decision on the financial resolution. I do not see the two things in isolation. The work on the pilot approach is helpful in informing the Government’s final decision on the financial resolution.
I will build on what has been said, but I might bring in Saskia Kearns to provide some of the detail.
On the question about why the Government is doing work on alternative proposals, that is part of our process of thinking through how we can make the bill that is in front of us work. A lot of the themes that have been shared in the context of a potential pilot relate to potential amendments that the minister has discussed with the member in charge of the bill. Such issues include phased implementation, commencement dates and a more targeted approach that would address young people with greater need. We also want to address the data gaps, which we will not solve through a six-month data-gathering exercise, because a bit more monitoring and evaluation are needed to provide the robustness that would support a strong business case. Therefore, there are similar themes in relation to how we can make the bill work, but there could be various ways of recognising the will of Parliament through non-statutory approaches if we were to end up in that position.
If I am hearing you correctly, detailed work has been undertaken on projected costs. Liz Smith has suggested amending the bill to target provision at those in primary 6 and 7. Are you telling the committee that the Government has costed that and that you have potential projections? Have you spoken to councils such as my own, in Edinburgh, which already has the policy in place? I do not think that we need a pilot; we can just find out what the City of Edinburgh Council, as one of Scotland’s largest councils, is spending on delivering outdoor education for our young people. How detailed has the work been? Why have the costings not been shared with Liz Smith and the committee?
I will say a couple of things, if that is okay with the minister.
The modelling that we have been able to do has been based on the information that has been provided by the member in charge of the bill. However, as the minister has highlighted, there are a number of known and potentially quite significant gaps in that information. There is no new data or analysis that we are not sharing.
On the point about the City of Edinburgh Council, which highlights the great practice that the minister talked about earlier, each local area will be different in relation to its composition, the needs of its young people and the accessibility of opportunities. That comes back to the fact that local government runs schools and the Government does not. We have heard about COSLA’s position in that space.
I am not sure that I am clear about the detailed costings of all the potential alternatives. You have done that work, so they could be provided to the committee and to Liz Smith to get to that financial point—
We have made some broad assumptions, caveated with the known unknowns about the total costs, if we were to target provision based on some of the factors that the minister discussed with the member in charge, such as linking provision to receipt of benefits, and what that might look like hypothetically. Again, that is based on data for which we do not have full assurance.
My final question is for the minister. What message would it send out if the bill were to fall, not only about the democratic will of Parliament but to the outdoor education community, which has put a lot of hard work into the bill? There is a huge amount of support and excitement out there for the bill. What message does it send if the Government allows the bill to fall in this manner?
Again, I do not want to pre-empt a decision; however, I have been very clear about and emphasised my support for the outdoor residential groups. In my opening statement, I alluded to a number of actions that the Government is taking and a number of areas in which the Government is already working to support the residential outdoor sector.
I do not want to pre-empt the decision, but I emphasise my support for the sector and my understanding of the difference that residential trips can make for children and young people, which we discussed at length at the previous committee meeting. I will leave it there for now.
Minister, you said in your opening statement that you had liaised with COSLA, local authorities and unions. Will you tell us how those meetings went and what the outcomes were?
I met COSLA representatives, who had some grave concerns around the bill, specifically around the lack of data on affordability, and around supporting children with additional support needs. Probably the biggest concern of all was the workforce implications, which have not been addressed or costed.
In my meeting with the trade unions, I heard a lot of concerns around the workforce. It has been assumed that teachers will continue to do that work on a voluntary basis, but we know that, once something is put into statute, that might not continue to be the case. I have heard that directly from some of those organisations.
I believe that the committee heard that, at times, teachers are advised not to do things on a voluntary basis. That is an issue, especially if the bill becomes a statute. The teacher unions were very keen to engage with Ms Smith on that—not to discuss negotiations or anything like that, but to allay their concerns about the assumptions in the bill and the implications for the workforce.
Did they engage with Ms Smith?
I am sorry, but I am not aware of whether they have. The last I knew was that they had not.
It sounds as though teachers are saying what they said to us during stage 1, which is that things are voluntary but not voluntary. I do not think that matters, including whether teachers have caring responsibilities, were addressed then. How would such issues be addressed? I am going off topic a little bit.
That is a very important point. There might be teachers who are simply unable to attend week-long residentials—if they have young children and caring responsibilities, for example. The member raises a relevant point.
You said that COSLA has grave concerns about the cost of implementing the bill, and that it does not know what the total cost is. Coming from a local government background, I know that if the Scottish Government asks local government to do something, local government expects the Government to fund it wholly and not just partly. Would that be the case this time?
That has not been decided on directly and, in a sense, that pre-empts the decision on the financial resolution. However, that is absolutely the case. Again, it brings us back to some of the unknowns about the costings in the bill. I appreciate that there are a number of avenues for funding this. For example, we know that pupil equity funding covers some of the costs for the children and young people.
We know that local authorities currently pay for children to go on residential trips, but that might not be the case if the bill becomes a statute. A prime example is that when the 1,140 hours was rolled out, there were hefty negotiations about the costings for that. It has to be a key consideration.
If we have to change teachers’ terms and conditions to meet the provisions in the bill, which is what teachers told us would have to be done, do you have a rough idea of the cost attached to that? What would the process be for that?
I cannot give a figure for the cost. I do not know whether my officials will be able to expand on that.
The process would be the regular process for negotiations between COSLA and local government with the Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers at a later date. However, I cannot attach a cost to the standard process for teacher contract negotiations.
I am sorry, but I did not quite catch what the process would be. Could you say that again?
It is the standard process for contract negotiations between COSLA, local government and the SNCT. Lewis Hedge might be able to expand on that a little further.
The SNCT is a tripartite body that is made up of the Government, COSLA and the trade unions to thrash out terms and conditions, pay negotiations and so on, on an annual basis. To explore the potential costings properly, that discussion would need to be started. The member in charge of the bill has made it clear that she does not have a formal role in that space.
Because the negotiations are tripartite, and because COSLA is the employer, there is only so much that the Government can do unilaterally without COSLA being on board.
So that will be another cost unknown.
The issues with COSLA and the teacher unions are all clear in our stage 1 report, which is very balanced. They were highlighted in evidence and in the report, and the committee approved the general principles of the bill at stage 1, as did the Parliament.
All the considerations that you have just articulated to Jackie Dunbar are not considerations for your determination on the financial resolution. I presume that they were for whether you as an individual and the Government supported the bill at stage 1. They were not significant enough to make you vote against the bill at stage 1—you simply abstained. Surely, therefore, those issues have already been debated and discussed, and the will of the Parliament is that we should scrutinise the bill further at stages 2 and 3. Those issues are not a significant part of the financial resolution. We have done the bit about COSLA and the unions, it is in the stage 1 report and there have been two votes on it.
I appreciate where the convener is coming from but I am clear that the principal focus of the decisions and deliberations about the financial resolution for the bill should be on the costs of provision. I am trying to show the committee that the costs of provision that have been detailed already are not the total costs of the bill and there is a number of outstanding concerns about increasing costs that would mean that the bill has a higher price tag. Although the concerns might not, on the face of it, seem to be about affordability, when we start to dig into the data that we have in the figures that have been provided and those that have not been provided for some of those aspects, we see that they relate directly to affordability and, therefore, to the financial resolution.
However, in response to Jackie Dunbar, you said that you do not know the figures for teacher time, renegotiating contracts and so on.
Does that not concern you, convener?
It concerns me that, in a fortnight, you are going to make a decision without those figures. We have to go back to Ms Duncan-Glancy’s point that you have had five and a half months to get to the stage and you are still telling us and members of your own party that you do not know what the costs are. Are you going to take a decision without having all the information?
09:15
The Government could not possibly understand the costs that would attach to teacher negotiations in the process that I have just laid out. That will happen in due course. We could not negotiate for issues in teacher contracts that will arise from a bill that has not even been passed—that is still at stage 1, stage 2 or stage 3. That would have to happen afterwards. On that level, it is impossible to understand the cost. However, I reiterate that the committee should share my concern about the unknowns.
But you will not have the information in two weeks’ time.
We will not have the information about the cost for the workforce in two weeks’ time.
So it cannot inform your decision. You will not have those numbers.
You can look at it in that way if you want, Mr Ross. Alternatively, we can look at it as there being an unknown figure, so it is difficult to understand the full financial implications in order to produce a financial resolution. As I said, I do not want to pre-empt any decision. However, if you took that stance, I would oppose it and provide an alternative view for you.
Miles Briggs has a supplementary question.
I do not understand why the minister has not asked the City of Edinburgh Council or Aberdeenshire Council about how such a negotiation is done, or what the costings are.
Honestly, it is the same all the time.
Sorry, Mr Briggs, I did not hear your question.
I am asking whether the team or the minister have asked the City of Edinburgh Council or Aberdeenshire Council for the costings that they put in place and about the negotiations with the unions, given that, basically, the policy is operational in those council areas.
As far as I am aware, those teachers are working on a voluntary basis. I will bring in Lewis Hedge in a second to provide further clarity but, given the fact that the work is voluntary, I do not believe that those negotiations would have to take place. I therefore do not believe that local authorities would have any further information to share in that light.
In relation to engaging with local authorities, I have, as I said, engaged with COSLA on affordability concerns.
Those great examples of Edinburgh, Aberdeenshire and other places will have worked up their resourcing plan for residential outdoor trips through the annual working-time agreements process that happens at school level. To come back to the earlier point, that is very much down to school leadership in particular local government areas. The extent to which anything that we would be able to learn from looking at those in detail is scalable across all of Scotland—recognising geographical differences, distances, the composition of communities and so on—is pretty limited. Again, that work would best be done systematically at a national level, rather than through basing too many assumptions on the council that, clearly, already succeed very well at making that provision.
I think that you will put a financial resolution forward. To do anything else would be an outrage and, given that your party that has stated repeatedly that it is a defender of the Scottish Parliament, I do not think that you would do that.
Throughout the process, you have come across not as neutral on the bill but as a critic of it. I will put it plainly. Unless you engage constructively with Liz Smith and come up with an alternative, non-legislative route that is more substantial than what is being aired, members such as I and, probably, Ross Greer will vote for the bill and you will be landed with a much bigger cost. I therefore suggest that you act much more constructively and openly, come up with the details and help the member to cost the bill so that we can have a financial resolution to allow us to scrutinise the bill and get the issue resolved one way or the other.
That was not a question.
To provide some clarity, I have already made clear my enthusiasm for the outdoor residential sector—
But honestly, minister, you do not act in that way.
There are valid points on affordability that would be of extreme concern to committee members and others if, for example, the bill was a Government bill.
I am trying to emphasise some of the areas that Parliament needs to consider.
If the Government does not provide a financial resolution, the bill will fall—that has been made clear.
I do not think that the Government will not provide a financial resolution.
In that case, there would be no vote on it. I will communicate that decision to Parliament by the date that has been given.
I remind you that your Government is a minority Government. You do not command a majority. It would be an outrage if you did not put forward a financial resolution, so I think that you will. The question is how constructive you will be with the member. The alternative would be to have more sessions like this one.
I should add that I am more than willing to engage with Ms Smith. I have proven that—I engaged with her throughout stage 1 and have continued to engage with her since then. I am more than happy to engage with her on potential approaches. When I raised the possibility of non-legislative approaches, she was not in favour of those—she preferred a legislative approach. However, I am more than happy to continue to work with her.
Good morning, minister. You brought up an important point. You said that, if the financial memorandum was subject to the same level of scrutiny as the financial memorandums of Government bills are subject to, we would be hearing a completely different story from Opposition members. We are always told to follow the evidence, and when we do that, we see that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has severe concerns about the bill because of the costs that it would involve, which could lead to the reopening of negotiations with teachers.
Another issue is the fact that we heard evidence that many of the buildings that are used for residential outdoor education were built in the 1940s, some of them were built in the 1960s, and a number of them are in severe need of investment. I said that some of the buildings were falling down around people; other members said that I should correct that and say that they were in need of investment.
Is it not the case that the financial memorandum that is in front of us is, at best, a guesstimate and, at worst, complete fiscal fantasy? You are being asked to write a blank cheque. Surely that is not what you are here to do.
Mr Adam puts the point perfectly. I have been very clear in what I have said. I appreciate the work that Ms Smith has done to bring down the costs of the bill if it proceeds to stage 2. The targeted provision and the commencement dates are very welcome, but the issue is with the unknowns. As Mr Adam has said, in some areas, a blank cheque would, in effect, have to be written. That is a difficulty for, and a matter of real concern to, the Government, which is why our deliberations on a financial resolution continue.
I agree that many of the groups that are involved in the provision of residential outdoor education do fantastic work. Although the residential outdoor education that I received as a youngster did not make any difference to my life, I know that it has been a good thing for some people.
However, there are other ways in which outdoor activities can be provided. The bill is very limited in its scope. I am thinking of activities such as ziplines and canoeing. There are many more ways in which children can learn about leadership. Surely a compromise could be reached whereby the aims of what the member is trying to achieve could be met by taking a different—and, in some respects, a more modern—approach.
That is what the potential pilot approach offers—a greater level of flexibility. As I discussed with the committee the last time I was here, there are children in rural areas who might benefit more from urban trips to cities that allowed them to take in museums and so on, rather than traditional residential trips.
There are also children with additional support needs who would not necessarily benefit from a residential stay. I know that there are already organisations, some of which I referred to in yesterday’s debate, that are actively involved in taking children with additional support needs on frequent day trips, because that is more suited to them.
It is important that there is flexibility, because we must ensure that what is delivered is what is needed by the children and young people. A week-long stay in residential accommodation is not necessarily right for all children and young people, although I understand the benefits that it brings for many.
I think you are talking about the limitations of the bill as it stands, because when I think about my 10-year-old granddaughter Daisy, who is autistic, and her additional support needs, the idea of going away to this kind of centre would absolutely terrify her. She would be up all night worrying about going to such a place. Therefore, you are quite right: there are other ways in which we can deal with these kinds of situations.
Mr Adam has raised an important point, because I believe that, according to some of the latest analysis and correspondence that Ms Smith has sent me, a new trend has been emerging in her discussions with stakeholders. Officials can correct me if I get the figure wrong, but I think that around 15 to 20 per cent of children and young people are not going on trips due to a level of anxiety about them. More work really needs to be done on that. A legislative proposal will not necessarily solve that problem, and I think that we really need to understand whether it is down to additional support needs or something else. Again, the non-legislative approach that I have been speaking to allows flexibility in that respect.
Thank you.
I should clarify that, according to the evidence that Liz Smith provided, 15 to 20 per cent of those who sign up to attend do not actually come on the day.
From personal experience, I know that Daisy would think about going and then closer to the time would pull out, because the anxiety would be far too much for her.
But nothing in the bill stops that. The bill provides a universal opportunity for people to be given the chance to go on these trips, but there is no mandatory obligation for them to go. I have to say, Mr Adam, that the bill is about a lot more than zip wires and canoeing. [Interruption.] Well, you might find that funny. I find that—
I find your attitude to be the problem, convener. Your attitude is the problem.
Okay, we will move to Pam Duncan-Glancy.
Constantly.
Well, I do not want it to be an issue—
Well, it is an issue.
We will move on to Pam Duncan-Glancy.
I have to say, minister, that I am quite uncomfortable with the line of questioning that we have just pursued on the difficulties with meeting the requirements of pupils with ASN—and affordability with regard to pupils with ASN—and with coming to an agreement in the timescales. The fact is that Parliament agreed this legislation at stage 1 and agreed that all of these issues should be discussed, and I myself made it clear in committee, both to yourself, minister, and to the member in charge, that the issues for pupils with ASN would have to be considered very carefully.
For me, an important aspect of the bill is that pupils with ASN are able to access this sort of education, including the sorts of experiences that have just been discussed. However, that was a discussion for stage 1. If the Government was so worried about that, the Government should not have voted for the bill. Did the Government abstain because it was not prepared to take the backlash for voting against a bill that not just the public but the Parliament quite clearly wanted?
The Government abstained because we are neutral on the bill. As I have already said, the committee and the Government raised a number of unanswered concerns about it, and I wanted to work with the member over that period of time to understand some of those concerns and, hopefully, get some of them addressed.
I appreciate what the member has said about Parliament voting for the bill. I have been very clear about the process for the financial resolution. Of course, it is a matter for the Parliament’s standing orders, and if this is something that the member or Parliament is not content with, it is absolutely something that the Parliament can consider.
It is pretty clear that people are not content with the Government’s position on this matter just now.
A number of the issues that we have raised are exactly the sorts of issues that members would like to pursue in amendments at stage 2, and then ultimately ask whether they have been addressed when we look at the bill again at stage 3. However, given the Government’s position in abstaining at stage 1 and failing so far, with just two weeks—days—left, to produce a financial memorandum to resolve these issues, it is likely that if one is produced, it is going to be without some information that the Government should have collected and, if it is not produced, the parliamentary process will have been frustrated.
Moreover, with some of the stuff that we have just discussed about pupils with ASN, those inequalities are happening right now in the current status quo. That suggests to me that the Government should get its skates on, get the financial resolution published and allow Parliament to resolve some of these matters through stages 2 and 3, so that pupils with ASN can fully access their rights to outdoor education.
09:30
There are a couple of points there. I appreciate what Pam Duncan-Glancy says about the current issues with children with additional support needs. I have alluded to the on-going work to support and bolster the Government’s commitment to outdoor learning.
There are issues that could be resolved at stage 2, but I do not see how the member gets through the workforce implications issue at stage 2, and I would be interested in hearing her views on that.
I am sure that the committee—because it picked up the issue—and members across Parliament recognise that, but we will never know if the Government withholds the financial resolution because it is not prepared to put its colours to the mast, to be honest.
I have nothing further to add. I am sorry—I did not realise that there was a question there, Ms Duncan-Glancy.
Finally, then, on pupils with ASN, what advice have you, as the minister in charge of the bill, given to Cabinet?
I cannot give any further information on the ministerial decision-making process. I cannot provide you with the information that I have given to Cabinet.
Can you say whether you have given it advice?
I can say that I am following the normal process for bills.
Okay. Thank you.
I want to go back to the point about unanswered questions and queries. You are right that you stipulated those questions when you appeared before us in our stage 1 proceedings and in the stage 1 debate, but they were not of significant enough concern to you at that time to vote against the bill.
What Pam Duncan-Glancy just said is surely the crux of the issue. You could lodge a financial resolution for the bill in the knowledge that we may never spend a single penny of that financial resolution because the bill does not get satisfactorily amended at stage 2 or stage 3. Is not the best approach to give Parliament the opportunity to try to hone the bill into something that we can get majority support for? Therefore, lodge the financial resolution with the caveat that the Government, if it has enough support from other parties, can vote it down at stage 3 if the amendments at stage 2 do not suffice.
I understand the convener’s and the committee’s views on that. I have heard them—
Do you agree with them?
I cannot comment on that, because to do so would be to pre-empt the financial resolution decision.
It is not about the financial resolution or spending in future. It is simply about taking a vote at stage 1 in the chamber of this Parliament, where an overwhelming majority of MSPs voted in favour of a bill progressing. We agreed the general principles, and we voted for the bill to progress to stage 2, which this committee can do. We could get you and the member in charge back in to discuss Government amendments and backbench amendments, and then we could have another debate at stage 3 and decide that it has not changed enough, that we have not met the threshold for the improvements that are needed and that therefore the bill will fall at stage 3. Parliament and parliamentarians would then have been given that opportunity. If you fail to lodge the financial resolution, there is no such opportunity.
I understand that. I do not want to say whether I agree or disagree with the process. As I have said, the financial resolution process is an important process to ensure that Government and ministers have control over our budget, but I hear what the convener is saying to me.
The member’s approximate cost for the bill is £30 million, and with some changes it could cost £50 million. We have also heard a £5 million figure today. If £30 million is too much for a financial resolution, what figure could the Government live with?
I was very clear to Ms Smith when she asked me the same question earlier—I cannot give a figure that is comfortable for me to deal with. Any figure that I give to you has to be defunded from somewhere else in my portfolio. The member and the committee are aware that there is very important work under way in my portfolio around the promise, transitions and a number of different things, and it would be for me to consider where to take money from to fund the bill, so I cannot give you a figure that is acceptable to Government.
Because any figure is too much?
Because, due to the financial climate that we are in, the Government does not have a pot of money lying around that we can just take from. Significant decisions have to be made when thinking about new spending allocations.
It goes back to Mr Rennie’s point that, although you state that you are neutral on the bill, it sounds like you are against the bill at any cost.
I am merely highlighting the Government’s concerns. That is the line of questioning that you are giving me, convener.
As I have already said, the process is not unique to Scotland. The Welsh Government has it, and the UK Government has used it. We are not in a unique position here. I hope that the committee would be graceful given the fact that we are considering the matter fully. We appreciate that the 26 September deadline is near, and I have committed to ensuring that a decision is communicated by that date.
Do you know what day 26 September is?
Apologies, convener, but I do not.
That is okay. It is a Friday, which is a non-sitting day. Will you at least give us a commitment that the response from the Government will be made on a sitting day—at the very latest, the response would be made on 26 September—and that you would make a statement to Parliament on the outcome of your decision?
I can give that commitment.
Thank you very much.
Sorry for butting in, convener, but would the matter of a statement not be up to the Parliamentary Bureau rather than—
Of course it would be, but I think that a request for a minister to give a statement will often be agreed to by the bureau.
Well, you just never know, and I just do not want that to be—
I think that we would be in a very strange situation if a minister had given a commitment to a committee of this Parliament that she is happy to give a statement for that not to be accepted. That commitment is very welcome.
We have gone over time. I appreciate your time, minister, and that of your officials. I will briefly suspend to allow for a changeover of witnesses.
09:36 Meeting suspended.Previous
Attendance