Chamber and committees

Yes, it is for the public inquiry to do that. I do not think that it is right for us to discuss the details. However, it has been put to us by a number of our witnesses that there is a public perception that is tied to the question that the convener asked about public trust. One of the reasons that public trust has been eroded is that too many people think that the delivery of public services is not meeting their needs and, more importantly, not meeting their desired expectations. Does the Scottish Government have a view on whether that is something that concerns it?

First, I want to put on the record my involvement with the Eljamel inquiry—particularly this week, when there are two public inquiry sessions. I have submitted my formal statement to the inquiry.

Does the Scottish Government have a view on the complaint that the committee has received in evidence that one of the reasons for the increase in the demand for public inquiries is the perception that the Scottish Government or its agencies have failed, or allegedly failed, in their duty to sort out a problem before it became the subject of a public inquiry?

On the same theme, how would you respond to the complaints of the victims of the Eljamel situation who—without going into the details of the case—are firm in their view, which I share, that the need for a public inquiry would not have come about had we resolved the issues to do with Professor Eljamel’s malpractice? That malpractice was allowed to continue by a health board that clearly knew about it at the time. Do you accept that that is a fair comment?

That is helpful. I am sure that further revelations will come forth in the public inquiry.

I want to ask about a technical issue. The UK Inquiries Act 2005 governs what happens in a Scottish public inquiry. However, we have had a bit of an issue with the terms of reference for the Eljamel inquiry, because two of the contributing pieces of evidence must come from the Health and Safety Executive and the General Medical Council, both of which are reserved bodies. That is an issue, because the Inquiries (Scotland) Rules 2007 and the UK Inquiries Act 2005 do not necessarily collaborate, as it were, on that kind of thing.

In any review that takes place of public inquiries legislation, do you think that it is important for the UK and Scottish Governments to collaborate to ensure that reserved and devolved legislation enables specific questions to be answered and allows evidence to be taken from another jurisdiction?

I am sure that he will.

Finally, does the Government have any intention to review the 2005 legislation? In the 20-year period since it was passed, we have seen a considerable increase in the number of public inquiries, and it has given rise to some of the important issues that we are discussing as a committee.

Yes, I do, and I think that the evidence shows that. Mr Briggs referred earlier to his local authority, where it is quite clear that substantial numbers of teachers want to participate. I am also aware that teachers in our schools are facing increasing pressures for lots of different reasons, which we will probably debate in the chamber this afternoon.

We have to be mindful that there may be a time when we have to look at the situation again. However, as things stand, I am convinced, through the evidence, that not only are lots of teachers participating now, but they are seeing the great value of residential outdoor education in addressing some of the problems that are affecting schools at this moment. Therefore, yes, I am comfortable about that.

On amendments 29 and 30, I think that Pam Duncan-Glancy is absolutely right that it is essential—as the minister has also said—to continue to consult the trade unions. The minister asked whether I would make a commitment on that. Yes, I will, because I think that it is essential. I am very happy with those two amendments.

I do not think so, given the context of how other legislation is written. The same phrase comes up in other legislation, which is one of the reasons for lodging the amendment.

My answer, therefore, is no—I do not think that it is the same concern. These amendments address issues that are beyond anybody’s control. I am quite satisfied that the insertion of those words will address what needs to be addressed in this particular part of the bill.

I move amendment 13.

I have nothing further to say, other than that I very much welcome those assurances and will press amendment 13.

Amendment 13 agreed to.

Amendment 14 moved—[Liz Smith]—and agreed to.

This has been an interesting debate. I absolutely support the intention behind the amendments. It is important that we make the provision available wherever it is necessary. The issue is not just about centres; it is about youth hostels, sailing boats and a variety of other areas.

Mr Briggs makes the valid point that a lot of our centres were built quite a long time ago. One of the really good things that has been happening in the outdoor sector is that an audit is taking place of what the centres have, what they do not have and what they should have. Some fantastic centres have been completely refurbished, with full access for young people with ASN and disabilities and their carers. I visited a couple of those refurbished centres in the summer, and I saw a huge improvement in the equipment that is available to help people, such as hoists. That is good to see. A lot of work is being undertaken in the outdoor sector through the national improvement framework to try to ensure that people understand that there has to be much better provision, due to the fact that some of the facilities are old. We know of sources of additional money that have already been put in to help with the provision of some of that facility and kit. I know that the minister has a forthcoming meeting with a group that is interested in providing a little extra money, and that comes back to the earlier debate that we had about not just having one source of funding. I absolutely understand where Mr Balfour is coming from on that.

I give credit to the Scottish Government, because, as a result of the Covid pandemic, we would have had even fewer centres if the Government had not stepped up with £3 million in additional funds to ensure that we were able to keep some of our centres going. However, Miles Briggs is right to say that we have lost a lot of centres, and there are concerns about the fact that some of the remaining ones are of an older generation.

One of the benefits of the bill will be that demand will increase, which means that there is scope for further development. There has been a considerable increase in demand for some of the new outdoor centres because of the nature of the excellent facilities that they provide. There is a lot of interesting data to be collected on exactly what is available in various centres and on the kinds of schools and the age groups that are using them. We need to take that forward, whether the bill passes or not, because it is important data that we need to gather to ensure that the outdoor sector has that appeal in terms of quality.