Official Report 950KB pdf
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, Scottish Parliament bill 50A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for about five minutes for the first division of stage 3. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in a debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button as soon as possible after the group has been called.
Members should now refer to the marshalled list.
Section 1—Provision of residential outdoor education
Group 1 is on guidance: process. Amendment 1, in the name of Liz Smith, is grouped with amendments 6 and 7.
Before I begin my remarks, I thank all those who have engaged so thoroughly on the bill. I also thank John Mason, Jackie Dunbar, Jeremy Balfour and the minister for their amendments in this group and for the general scrutiny that has taken place. I thank the minister for all the work that she and her officials have done. I also thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for all the work that she has undertaken on amendments in this group, particularly when it comes to additional support for learning.
Group 1 is about the process by which statutory guidance under the bill is developed. Amendment 1 is a technical amendment that will correct a minor drafting error by referring to section 1 of the bill rather than the inserted section 6B of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.
Amendment 6 requires the Scottish ministers to consult people who are employed in public schools or grant-aided schools who are not in trade unions before providing the guidance on residential outdoor education as required by the bill. At stage 2, an amendment in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy that required trade unions that represent school employees to be consulted was agreed to. That is a welcome measure. It did, however, leave a potential gap whereby there was no provision in the bill for employees who are not in trade unions to be consulted. Amendment 6 plugs that gap, and I hope that the Parliament will support it.
Amendment 7, in the name of the minister, requires pupils or their representatives to be consulted in advance of preparing the statutory guidance. The amendment follows many discussions that I have had with the minister. It is a welcome measure that will improve the bill and I have no hesitation in encouraging all members to support it.
I move amendment 1.
I believe that the final set of amendments that I have lodged at stage 3 respond effectively to the concerns that some members raised at stage 2 and they have been discussed and agreed with the member in charge.
Amendment 7 addresses the fact that, given that we have now agreed to provide in the bill an extensive list of key stakeholders who should be consulted, not including children and young people is a glaring omission. Should the bill pass today, Scotland’s children and young people will benefit from its provisions. It is therefore absolutely right that they should have the opportunity to give meaningful input on how the bill is implemented, so that its provisions meet their needs.
That is especially true where barriers exist that prevent some children and young people from accessing residential outdoor education through disability, support needs or poverty. If we are to change that, their views need to be accommodated, heard and listened to. The best way to know what pupils want and need from those experiences and the approach to provision that works best for them is to ask them.
Amendment 7 remedies that omission, and the approach that it takes also strengthens the Scottish Government’s commitment to upholding the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I therefore hope that everyone in the chamber will support amendment 7.
Liz Smith’s amendment 6 also helps to give effect to another of this Government’s core policies, this time on fair work, by ensuring that all workers have an effective voice and a say on matters that affect them. I emphasise again my appreciation for the commitment of the education workforce, including teachers, pupil support assistants and other professionals who give freely of their time to provide Scotland’s children and young people with valuable residential outdoor education experiences. It is important that they can give their views on the implementation of the bill. Amendment 6 therefore seeks to build on what was agreed at stage 2, as Liz Smith alluded to. I therefore encourage the chamber to support amendment 6.
The final amendment in the group, amendment 1, seeks to correct a technical error in the original drafting of the bill. It makes no change to the intention of the provision. I therefore recommend that members also support amendment 1.
I support all the amendments in the group, but I take the opportunity to comment on amendment 7. Before I do so, I thank Liz Smith for all her work on the bill and, in particular, for the compliment that she gave to my colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy.
Amendment 7 relates to the statutory guidance, and I very much welcome the on-going commitment of the minister and the Scottish Government to the UNCRC and the need for meaningful discussion with our young people and their representatives, particularly in this challenging area where there might be a disability or a challenge in accessing and understanding what they are being asked about.
In short, I thank the Government and the member for ensuring that amendment 7 was lodged. I look forward to the same level of commitment from the Government in forthcoming bills.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Group 2 is on guidance: detail. Amendment 2, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 10 and 3 to 5.
Amendments 2, 3 and 5 in my name are largely technical amendments. Amendment 2 relates to the terminology that was used in drafting the original bill provisions on guidance, including the paragraph on standards. Although standards will clearly be important to ensure consistency in the quality of provision, that cannot be compelled through guidance. Even statutory guidance cannot impose duties, so my amendment 2 seeks to adjust the wording, to remove “must” and replace it with “should”.
Could the minister confirm that the change made by amendment 2 in no way weakens the expectation that the guidance will be robust and enforceable?
I do not believe that it weakens it at all—and the other amendments in the group speak to that. I think that we are covered there.
Amendment 3 seeks to remove the superfluous word “carers”, because carers, who are an accepted part of the family structure in law, are already provided for in the definition in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which the bill seeks to amend. The 1980 act provides a definition of the term “parent” that includes any person who
“has parental responsibilities ... in relation to, or has care of a child or young person”.
The amendment is a technical change that seeks solely to ensure consistency with the definition of “parent” in the 1980 act.
Amendment 5 is a minor technical amendment to replace a reference to legislation that is to be repealed. Should the bill pass today, by the time it comes into force, the section that is referenced in the 1980 act will effectively have been superseded by the Education (Scotland) Act 2025. I therefore encourage the Parliament to support amendments 2, 3 and 5.
Amendments 10 and 4 are the more substantive amendments in this group. Throughout the bill process, I have been focused on ensuring that its provisions help to give effect to the Scottish ministers’ programme for government commitment to
“make sure that pupils from lower-income families can take part in school trips, providing support for children to go on curriculum-related trips and activities, and Primary 6/7 residentials”.
That also applies to children with additional support needs, who, as we have heard throughout the bill process, are often excluded from residential experiences that their peers enjoy, because provision is simply not accessible. If we are putting residential outdoor education on a statutory footing, we must do so in a way that seeks to remedy those exclusions and make provision equitable. I therefore welcome Mr Balfour’s amendment 10.
The bill already requires that the residential outdoor education that is provided be
“suitable to a pupil’s age, ability, aptitude and any additional support needs”.
The guidance will be required to set out how that suitability should be assessed.
Amendment 10 seeks to build on existing bill provisions to support education authorities and managers of grant-aided schools in considering what steps they may need to take to ensure that all children and young people, and especially those with an additional support need, are able to access residential outdoor education.
Legislation already provides for any support need, whether short or long term, to be considered and, where appropriate, supported. There are specific groups who can expect their needs to be assessed, including looked-after children, young carers and children with multiple and/or complex needs. The guidance will have to show how all those different types of need among children and young people might be supported or addressed in how residential education is provided. That is something that I think we will all welcome. For those reasons, I encourage the Parliament to support amendment 10.
Amendment 4 seeks to make clear that affordability should not be a barrier to children and young people accessing residential outdoor education in the future. Liz Smith has been very clear that her bill seeks to build on, rather than put a stop to, that good practice, and she has been clear that mixed funding models must, therefore, continue to be supported. Indeed, the stage 2 amendment from the member in charge to enable parental contributions to be sought, which was agreed to, was a welcome addition in that regard. However, as was made clear in the committee during stage 2, there should be discretion and flexibility as to when and from whom financial contributions might be sought. There will always be circumstances in which affordability becomes a consideration for some children and young people and it would not be appropriate to ask for a financial contribution. I therefore welcome Mr Mason’s amendment.
I support amendments 4 and 10. I move amendment 2.
16:15
I congratulate Liz Smith on getting this far with the bill, and I am pleased that it has cross-party support. I thank the minister for the constructive dialogue that we have had over the past weeks and months.
As Liz Smith and the minister have acknowledged, my priority in engaging with the bill process has been to ensure that the provision of residential outdoor education is made available to all pupils in Scotland. I take this opportunity to emphasise my view that no child or young person should miss out on residential outdoor education because they have an additional support need or a disability, are a young carer or need support from a carer or carers to be able to participate equitably in the scheme.
I raised these issues in amendments at stage 2, and I welcome the fact that my concerns were shared and that these important matters have been given due consideration by the member in charge and the minister, as they promised.
I welcome the comments that were made by the minister a few moments ago, particularly on young carers. I remain concerned that, not next year or the year after but in years to come, young carers will still not feel that they are able to go away due to the support that they give a family member or somebody else. We must ensure that they are protected from that.
My amendment 10 represents the outcome of our considerations. Amendment 10 will require the statutory guidance to make provision about
“the steps that education authorities and the managers of grant-aided schools should take to support participation in residential outdoor education by pupils”
and, in particular
“pupils with additional support needs”.
That will be a welcome addition in providing schools with practical advice on how to make those often complex considerations.
My hesitation regarding guidance is well documented. However, I am reassured that the amendment will support existing provisions in the bill that will require courses of residential outdoor education to be suitable for pupils’ age, ability, aptitude and any additional support needs.
If agreed to, amendment 10 will give a strong further signal across the Government and the Parliament to ensure that inclusion and equality sit at the heart of Liz Smith’s bill. I encourage members to vote for it.
As members probably know, my reservations about the bill have been to do with its financial aspects and, in particular, whether the public purse should be paying for the children of better-off families who could well afford to pay for such courses and are currently doing so. If there was plenty of money available, perhaps no family would pay, but money is tight and we need to target public expenditure. I continue to have concerns that the updated financial information provides no real idea of what the bill, if passed, will cost.
I was happy to support Liz Smith’s amendment at stage 2 to enable education authorities and managers of grant-aided schools to require a parental contribution towards their child’s course of residential outdoor education. That is already the case in many schools and local authorities, and we do not wish to undercut effective existing good practice. However, a key aim of the bill is that residential outdoor education should be available to all young people, no matter how well off their families are and no matter whether a child has a disability, and I completely agree that there will be circumstances in which a parental contribution is not appropriate. For example, I would expect that members would agree that no pupil should be unable to participate in residential outdoor education due to their family’s financial circumstances or because of any additional costs that arise from having an additional support need.
Therefore, through amendment 4, I aim to ensure that statutory guidance includes matters to be considered by education authorities and grant-aided schools when requiring financial contributions, to further support equality of access to residential outdoor education. I trust that members will support amendment 4.
I will comment briefly on the amendments in the group, all of which relate to the statutory guidance under the bill and follow on from very constructive discussions that I had prior to stage 3 with the minister, Jeremy Balfour and John Mason. I support all the amendments in the group.
Amendment 2, in the name of the minister, changes “must” to “should” in new section 6B(4)(b) of the 1980 act—which, if the amendment is agreed to, will mean that the statutory guidance that is issued under the bill must include provision about the standard to which residential education should be provided. That reflects the fact that statutory obligations cannot be made through guidance, and is consistent with the wording of a provision elsewhere in section 6B(4). I am therefore very content to support amendment 2.
Amendment 10, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, and amendment 4, in the name of John Mason, will require the statutory guidance to include provision about the steps that should be taken to support participation by pupils including, in particular, those with additional support needs, and provision about the requiring of a financial contribution from parents, including, in particular, the matters that are to be taken into account to ensure equality of access. Both those amendments follow on from discussions at stage 2 and immediately thereafter. At stage 2, the bill was amended both to remove its duty on ministers to fund the full provision of residential outdoor education and to enable education authorities and managers of grant-aided schools to ask parents for a contribution.
In lodging my stage 2 amendments, I sought commitments from the minister that parents of pupils with additional support needs would not be charged more to cover the cost of providing for those needs to be met, and that pupils whose parents could not afford to contribute would still be able to benefit from residential outdoor education courses. Helpfully, the minister gave those commitments at stage 2. I am very grateful to her for that. Amendments 10 and 4 further solidify those commitments by requiring the statutory guidance to include provision about pupils with additional support needs and about equality of access. I therefore very much welcome both amendments 10 and 4.
As the minister said, amendment 3, in her name, is a minor and technical amendment to ensure consistency with the Education (Scotland) Act 1980—and amendment 5, too, is a technical amendment to reflect the fact that the inspection regime will be governed by the Education (Scotland) Act 2025 when that comes into force. Members may recall that section 45 of that act requires an inspection plan to set out information about the extent to which, and how, inspections will evaluate outdoor education. I therefore welcome amendments 3 and 5.
I encourage everyone to support the amendments in this group.
The amendments in the group concern provisions relating to the statutory guidance that are important in seeking to ensure that legislative standards are of the highest and that those whom the bill will impact most directly will have a meaningful voice in its implementation.
I do not have too much to add, but I want to speak to Jeremy Balfour’s comments. Mr Balfour has again put on record his concerns about young carers. We have discussed that topic at length. We have worked with the aim of ensuring that the bill is equitable, so I want again to put on record, and emphasise, that the provisions in the bill will ensure the full consideration of those matters and the needs of those pupils, to ensure that they will be able to access their residential trip.
I encourage members to support all the amendments in the group, and I press amendment 2.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
Amendment 10 moved—[Jeremy Balfour]—and agreed to.
Amendment 3 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.
Amendment 4 moved—[John Mason]—and agreed to.
Amendment 5 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.
Amendment 6 moved—[Liz Smith]—and agreed to.
Amendment 7 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.
We move to group 3 on reporting duty. Amendment 8, in the name of Jackie Dunbar, is the only amendment in the group.
Members sought to introduce various forms of reporting duties through stage 2 amendments, and amendment 8 seeks to draw the different proposed approaches together, through a single reporting duty, which will address many of the concerns that have been raised.
It is important that ministers undertake a review and report on the provision of residential outdoor education by education authorities and managers of grant-aided schools. That will help to strengthen transparency and accountability of delivery. Throughout the bill process, it has been clear that members feel strongly that, if the bill is to achieve anything, it must be to deliver more equitable and accessible provision in the future, so that every child or young person who wants to participate can do so.
Amendment 8 requires the report to set out
“the extent to which the residential outdoor education provided was suitable for and accessed by pupils ... with additional support needs”
and those
“who experience socio-economic disadvantage”.
It further requires the report to include
“an assessment of the impact on and outcomes for pupils who participated in residential outdoor education”.
There are outstanding concerns around the potential workforce implications associated with the bill, which is a matter that I raised during stages 1 and 2. Those concerns will need to be resolved ahead of implementation, which is why the amendment requires that the report also assesses the impact of provision on the education workforce.
Finally, the amendment requires the report to include any further steps that Scottish ministers propose to take with respect to the provision of residential outdoor education.
Setting out in the bill the key topics to be covered in the report will provide a strong signal to the wider education system about the overall areas of focus of any future data collection that partners would need to be able to respond to.
The report is to be produced
“as soon as reasonably practicable”
after the five-year reporting period, which begins on the day on which the act comes fully into force. That will ensure that the Government can build up a robust bank of qualitative and quantitative data, from which meaningful conclusions can be drawn.
Amendment 8 covers all the key issues that were raised at stage 2 and strikes the right balance in relation to reporting duties, and I encourage members to support it.
I move amendment 8.
I rise to confirm our support for amendment 8, which is, in effect, a provision for post-legislative scrutiny to come about. That is increasingly a characteristic of bills in the Parliament, and we should continue to defend that and ensure that all legislation includes that provision. I very much welcome the five-year reporting period, but, in summing up, will the minister indicate whether any interim reporting might be published during those five years, where appropriate?
I thank Jackie Dunbar, who moved amendment 8, for discussing the potential effect on teachers and the workforce in schools. People outside the chamber have expressed some concern about that aspect, and I hope that amendment 8 goes some way towards allaying those fears or ensures that, if there are challenges, they are captured early on.
At stage 2, members lodged a number of amendments in relation to reporting duties and how and when those might be fulfilled. I welcomed the debate and listened carefully to what members had to say about their individual amendments. I further welcomed the fact that members did not move or press their amendments and accepted my undertaking to consider reporting duties more generally and to bring back an amendment at stage 3 that would deliver on most aspirations and issues that were raised. Therefore, I am pleased to support Jackie Dunbar’s amendment 8, and I note that the general reporting duty in amendment 8 applies to Scottish ministers. I believe that a single reporting duty is the most effective and efficient approach. The amendment avoids placing undue additional administrative burdens on local authorities, the education profession and outdoor residential education facility owners and operators.
On Mr Whitfield’s concerns, I understand why he might want interim reporting before the end of the five years. We can discuss that, but we need to be careful because we will be laying the regulations for commencement in two years, and there will be a number of checkpoints, so we will need to see when we reach those. Therefore, we do not yet have a final date for when the bill will be commenced. However, as part of on-going discussions, we will be more than happy to consider whether that might be helpful, including whether it might be helpful in specific areas.
I am grateful for that confirmation, which adequately answers the question that I raised.
Overall, I believe that the general reporting duty proposed by this amendment reflects a proportionate and deliverable approach to assessing provision under the bill. I am pleased, too, that the member in charge of the bill has agreed to this approach. I therefore encourage members to support amendment 8.
16:30
I very much welcome amendment 8 from Jackie Dunbar. As members will recall, Pam Duncan-Glancy lodged a series of reporting amendments at stage 2 but ultimately Ms Duncan-Glancy did not move or press those amendments on the basis of the minister giving a commitment to consider a general reporting duty. Amendment 8 gives effect to that commitment.
I particularly welcome the fact that amendment 8 requires the report to set out
“an assessment of the equality of access to residential outdoor education ... including the extent to which the residential outdoor education provided was suitable for and accessed by pupils ... with additional support needs”
and pupils
“who experience socio-economic disadvantage”.
Equality and equity of opportunity have always been at the heart of the policy underpinning this bill and I know that that ambition is shared by the minister.
At the same time, it has been clear throughout the bill’s passage that data collection in the sphere of residential outdoor education has been patchy for a number of years, and amendment 8 seeks to address some of those issues, ensuring better data collection and reporting and further ensuring that the issues faced by children who either have additional support needs or experience socioeconomic disadvantage are considered, reported on, and addressed as appropriate.
I call Jackie Dunbar to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 8.
I have nothing further to add, Presiding Officer. I will press amendment 8.
Amendment 8 agreed to.
After section 1
Group 4 is on facilities. Amendment 11, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, is the only amendment in the group.
Amendment 11, in my name, sets out that facilities that provide residential outdoor education have to put in a changing places toilet within five years of section 1 coming into force.
I lodged a similar amendment at stage 2, but the minister pointed out that perhaps it was not absolutely correctly drafted and that we would have problems in regard to amending other pieces of legislation and also in regard to calling it a changing places toilet. Taking those words to heart, I have redrafted the amendment to simply put in what has to happen and, rather than describing it as a changing places toilet, to outline what a changing places toilet is made up of.
The reason for doing that is that we can have all the funding, all the children and all the will in the world, but, if a facility is not suitable for a disabled child to use, they will be excluded. All the evidence that has been gathered over the past number of years, by the Scottish Government and others, is that the changing places toilet is the toilet that makes the difference to those with certain disabilities, and it seems reasonable to me that residential outdoor education centres should have that type of toilet within five years. If there is a financial issue, there is Scottish Government funding to allow such toilets to be put in.
I genuinely believe that, without such toilets, we would exclude a substantial minority of children from being able to benefit from this bill. I believe that the amendment gives us plenty of time for it to happen. It is proportionate and would open up access to outdoor residential education, so I hope that members will support the amendment.
I move amendment 11.
The Scottish Government champions and supports the roll-out of changing places toilets in appropriate public settings, including by providing £10 million in funding across this financial year and the next to create up to 150 additional community toilet facilities across Scotland for people with complex disabilities and health conditions. That builds on progress to date, which has seen the number of changing places toilets across Scotland increase to 270—a 30 per cent rise since 2019.
I very much appreciate Mr Balfour’s intention in lodging amendment 11, and I welcome his reaching out in advance of doing so to seek my views on the proposed approach. He will, therefore, be familiar with the points that I am going to set out and my position on the amendment.
For assurance, I believe that existing provisions in the bill will ensure that pupils who may require a changing places facility, and their associated needs, will be considered with regard to the requirements that are set out in inserted section 6A(3)(c) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 and to the statutory guidance, which must include relevant content as set out in section 6B(4)(c) of the 1980 act.
As has already been discussed, I welcome Mr Balfour’s amendment 10, which would further strengthen the place and priority that is given to ensuring equity of provision and access for pupils with additional support needs.
Mr Balfour is right to draw attention to the need for residential outdoor education facilities to consider making adaptations to ensure that they can meet the needs of all pupils, including disabled pupils. However, amendment 11 would seem to pre-empt a robust analysis of what the overall adaptation requirements may look like to ensure deliverability of the bill, should it become law.
The minister has hinted at some of the challenges that may exist with amendment 11, although we must extend great sympathy for its intent. Is the minister confident that the alternative measures and the guidance will ensure that pupils who require such provision do not feel excluded from accessing outdoor education facilities?
I am confident, and I have something to show why that is the case, which I will come to in a moment. Nevertheless, there are other reasons, over and above what I have already laid out, which I am about to come to.
A key requirement for our delivery plan for the bill will be the mapping of existing sector capacity compared with the demands to be generated by the legislation upon commencement. That will ensure that consideration of adaptations across the residential outdoor education sector is informed by different pupils’ needs and can be designed and planned for in a way that ensures effective delivery at both regional and national levels.
I am really encouraged by feedback that I have received from those in the residential sector. They are very prepared and enthusiastic to make the changes and to build out facilities to support the bill’s implementation, including equity of provision for all our pupils.
Another challenge is that the amendment asks centres to go above and beyond what is required of them under existing planning legislation, which could incur significant additional costs that would risk making the bill unaffordable and undeliverable. For some facilities, such as camp grounds and sailing boats, it would simply not be possible to comply with the requirements stipulated by the amendment. That would unhelpfully restrict the range of providers who are available to respond to the legislation.
I have some sympathy for Mr Balfour’s amendment, because I have been a great advocate—as he has—for changing places toilets. However, I recognise that there are some facilities where it will not be possible to put such changing places provisions in place. Will the Government look at whether it would be possible for mobile changing places toilets to come into play in some facilities where it may be impossible to build a fixed changing places toilet?
That could certainly be considered. I do not know the full detail of mobile changing places facilities, but I understand that we would not want some pupils losing out on a visit to a specific residential outdoor education facility because of a lack of such provision. We can—absolutely—consider that.
I do not have anything further to add. I cannot support amendment 11, and I ask members not to support it either.
First, I put on record, as I did at stage 2, the very high regard that I have for the tireless and constructive way in which Mr Balfour, in the 10 years that he has been in Parliament, has campaigned on issues affecting disabled people. I very much welcome his engagement with the bill and his championing of the issues affecting disabled people and children and young people who have caring responsibilities.
Like other members, I have sympathy for the policy intention behind amendment 11. Having changing places toilets in outdoor centres is a very positive and valuable measure, and I know, from discussions that I have had in the outdoor education sector, that ensuring that there is such provision as part of making facilities accessible more generally is a very live and important issue.
There is, however, a technical issue with amendment 11, because the bill is about more than just outdoor centres. Facilities that could, within the terms of my bill, be used to provide residential outdoor education include not just outdoor centres but youth hostels and camps—and, as the minister just mentioned, sailing boats. The list in the bill is without limitation, so amendment 11 would have the effect of requiring any of those facilities to have changing places toilets although, as Mr Stewart has just intimated, in some instances that might not be possible.
I therefore agree with the minister. Although we welcome the intention behind amendment 11, I do not think that it is workable. For that reason, we will not support it.
I call Jeremy Balfour to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 11.
I am disappointed with the response from the minister and Liz Smith. In this Parliament, when it comes to disabled people, we are good at words but I am afraid that actions do not always follow.
Last Thursday, the Deputy First Minister made a helpful closing speech on British Sign Language provision and how her Government was going to make sure that work on that would happen. It was interesting that, even at stage 2, when I lodged an amendment in relation to BSL, it was rejected while an amendment in relation to Gaelic was accepted. The disability community hears that—it hears that Gaelic is important but that BSL is less so. Again, we have heard lots of warm words.
I hear what Mr Balfour says, and I echo what has been said about his dedication to supporting disabled people. However, before we set up any false divisions, will he acknowledge that many of us have campaigned for both Gaelic and BSL?
I do accept that, but my point is that, at stage 2, the committee did not accept that amendment.
Yet again, we have heard that the minister is concerned about cost and implementation. My big fear is that, down the road, a number of places will say that this provision is too expensive and they will not have to implement it.
In his intervention on the minister, Mr Stewart took some of the words out of my mouth. I was disappointed that the minister did not know about portable changing places toilets, which would rectify many of the issues that she has raised with regard to some of the facilities.
I will press amendment 11, because the disabled community does not want just to hear warm words from this Parliament. We want to see real action that will make a real change to people’s lives.
The question is, that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division. As this is the first division of stage 3, I will suspend the meeting for around five minutes, to allow members to access the digital voting system.
16:43 Meeting suspended.
We move to the vote on amendment 11. Members should cast their votes now.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer—actually, I can see that I voted no.
Thank you, Mr Gray. I can confirm that your vote was counted.
I call Alex Cole-Hamilton on a point of order.
[Inaudible.]
If I could have a little less noise in the chamber, I may have a chance of hearing. [Interruption.] Members, you are now heckling me.
I hope that you can hear me now, Presiding Officer—[Inaudible.]
Could you please repeat that, Mr Cole-Hamilton?
[Inaudible.]
I am afraid that the audio was not sufficient to record that, Mr Cole-Hamilton.
For
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer]
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Fulton MacGregor]
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Abstentions
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 95, Abstentions 18.
Amendment 11 disagreed to.
Section 3—Ancillary Provision
Group 5 is on ancillary provision. Amendment 9, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.
Amendment 9 makes a procedural change to align the scope of the power in section 3 to make ancillary regulations with that of the power to make such provision in commencement regulations. The amendment creates internal consistency throughout the bill. It makes no substantive changes to the intention or the meaning of the bill; rather, it ensures clarity and consistency.
I move amendment 9 and recommend that the chamber support it.
I have very little to add to what the minister has just said, because it is an important if technical amendment.
As we are reaching the end of the amendments stage, I put on record my thanks to everybody who has lodged different amendments and for their considerable engagement throughout the process.
I call the minister to wind up.
I recommend that members support amendment 9.
Amendment 9 agreed to.
That concludes stage 3 consideration of amendments.
Members will be aware that the Presiding Officer is required, under standing orders, to decide whether, in her view, any provision of a bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In the Presiding Officer’s view, no provision of the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3.