Chamber and committees

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.

I thank all members for their contributions. This is an important group, not least because of the content of amendments 15 and 17, which I think have addressed some of the most significant concerns that members have had throughout the passage of the bill.

I am grateful for the commitments that the minister has made on the record, because we have had quite a lot of back-and-forth about what those commitments should be and the importance of not having any dilution of the bill.

I think that members are very aware that over the course of the summer, I spent a lot of my time visiting several of our outdoor education centres. The one thing that has stuck in my mind very forcibly is the importance of what we provide for those with additional support needs. I am very grateful to Pam Duncan-Glancy and Jeremy Balfour for the work that they have done on that.

I believe very strongly that there is a determination in the sector and among teachers to be as inclusive as possible when it comes to the provision of residential outdoor education. I was very struck by the huge amount of work that several centres have done regarding their capital development, the facilities that they provide and the equipment that is necessary to provide for pupils with additional support needs. That aspect has been very much at the heart of the bill for me.

It must be an inclusive bill and it must provide opportunities for all young people, no matter who they are. I entirely accept some of Jeremy Balfour’s points in that respect.

I look forward to further engagement in the lead-up to stage 3, and I am very grateful to the minister for her commitment.

I press amendment 15.

Amendment 15 agreed to.

Amendment 28 not moved.

Amendment 3 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy]—and agreed to.

Amendment 11 not moved.

The member makes a good point. My understanding of other business in Holyrood is that there are policies in place to look at the whole issue of ensuring parity of esteem between different languages, so I think we can discuss that further before stage 3.

Convener, I begin by thanking you, the committee and all those who lodged amendments to the bill, and the minister and her officials and my officials for the extraordinary amount of work that has gone into it. It is a relatively small bill in the grand scheme of things at Holyrood, but I appreciate the work that has gone into it, particularly the scrutiny. It has been immensely helpful to me as I engage with members.

I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for lodging the amendments, for the same reasons that the minister gave. They cover important issues, and it is good to hear that the minister has made a commitment regarding stage 3. I also thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for her opening remarks. She has been diligent in her assistance with some of the troubling issues that we have had to negotiate.

Amendments 1, 2, 6 and 7 are all linked, but I will focus on amendment 6, which is the main amendment, as Pam Duncan-Glancy set out. There is no question that the impact of the bill on staffing has been a major issue that has come up throughout the passage of the bill. Having met the unions and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, alongside the minister, I am very aware of their on-going concerns about some aspects of that. That said, I am also aware of the evidence that points to the fact that the majority of teachers want to be involved, if at all possible, in residential outdoor education. Some of the surveys show upwards of 90 per cent in support, which is a pretty convincing figure, but as the minister has rightly said, there are issues about contracts.

One thing that has been brought home to us throughout the three years that we have been discussing the bill is that there has been a lack of data. Some local authorities have very good data, but others do not. There has been a big question mark—and Pam Duncan-Glancy is right to raise it—about the quality of the data that we have, but also about the quantity of data that we need to address some of the questions that are still out there.

If, in addition to the requirement to provide residential outdoor education, further obligations are placed on staff as they participate in it, we have to be careful that they do not become too many or too onerous. I agree with Pam Duncan-Glancy about the need to oversee the data from time to time, but we have to be careful that what staff have to do in terms of collecting and submitting that data does not become too onerous. That is a bit of a concern that I have.

In summary, I fully accept the principles behind amendments 1, 2, 6 and 7 and I encourage the minister and Pam Duncan-Glancy to discuss matters further. It would be helpful if that discussion could take place ahead of stage 3, so that we can come to a common agreement.

Turning to amendments 28, 29 and 30, I agree with Pam Duncan-Glancy about the need to ensure that we do not force people into residential outdoor education. That is not the intention of the bill and it never has been. It would be totally wrong for anybody to suggest that all teachers should participate. I listened carefully to what trade unions were saying about the fact that, because of the pressures on the teaching workforce, perhaps more teachers are not participating. Some of the evidence contradicts that slightly, but it is a concern. We need to be mindful of that.

First, I thank Jeremy Balfour for those amendments because I entirely agree with the principles behind them. I have also spoken to the Donaldson Trust and was very impressed by what I heard. He is absolutely right to identify specific issues that do not necessarily apply to other schools and it is also right to point out that there are youngsters who, for one reason or another, are simply unable to take up the opportunity to go on residential activities.

It is important that managers of special schools are able to deliver the discrete education that is required, so we must ensure that, however the bill ends up, it is appropriate to all schools, whatever their designation.

The new section 6B(7) that would be inserted into the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which Jeremy Balfour referred to, would require Scottish ministers to consult the managers of each grant-aided school before preparing the revised guidance, so there is already an opportunity for them to feed into that guidance. I am therefore not entirely persuaded that we need to have that in the bill, although, as I already indicated, I have no objection to the intention behind the amendments and I look forward to hearing the minister’s remarks in that regard.

My amendment 16 came about because of some of the evidence that we heard at stage 1 regarding education in the Gaelic community. New section 6B(4)(h), which the bill would insert into the 1980 act, would provide that the guidance that Scottish ministers must issue to education authorities and to the managers of grant-aided schools must include provision for the extent to which those authorities and managers

“should consider providing or securing the provision of residential outdoor education in Gaelic”.

I lodged amendment 16 following representations to me and to the minister by the Gaelic community; it would tailor the provision to cover pupils who receive education in the Gaelic medium, rather than pupils in all schools.

I have nothing further to add. I press amendment 18.

Amendment 18 agreed to.

Amendment 19 moved—[Liz Smith]—and agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

Section 5 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.