Seòmar agus comataidhean

I fully take on board the points about the timescales, particularly in terms of royal assent versus the bill’s commencement date, which are issues with amendments 8 and 10. Therefore, I will be happy not to press or move my amendments at this stage and instead to work with the Government and the member in charge of the bill on tighter amendments with the same intention, which is to review the operation of the bill to ensure that it delivers for pupils and young people as we all expect it to.

I will also be happy not to move amendment 9, given the timescales that are involved. I take on board Liz Smith’s point about the Equality Act 2010 and on whether schools hold relevant data. That is worth exploring between now and stage 3. It is important that we understand the impact of any legislation on protected characteristics, and equality impact assessments are intended to do that. Therefore, it is probably worth our having a conversation on the technicalities in that space to see what we can do at stage 3.

On that basis, I am prepared not to press or move any of my amendments in the group.

Amendment 8, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 9 and 10 not moved.

I ask John Mason to forgive me for not looking in his direction, as I want to read the exact wording in the amendment.

I should say, first of all, that the amendment on voluntarism that I have lodged is supported by the Educational Institute of Scotland. Amendment 28 states that the bill:

“must not alter or have any impact on the terms and conditions of employment of Teachers and Associated Professionals”.

It also highlights the Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers as the right and proper place for those issues to be considered. It does not necessarily exclude the sorts of conversations or circumstances that the member highlighted; it simply states that the right and proper place for those to be considered is in the SNCT.

The member is right. I do not intend that the report would contain granular information to the extent that, for example, we could identify anyone—it would be important for that not to be the case. My intention is for the report to get a flavour of how the bill was working, who was accessing the rights that the bill sets out, and how they were doing so.

I appreciate that the amendments as they are currently drafted are quite detailed, because they highlight all the factors on which it would be important for us to gather information. If members think that the intention behind the amendments on the reporting and reviewing aspects is important but that the level of detail could be prohibitive, I am prepared to consider whether they could be revised for stage 3.

Nonetheless, it is important for us to understand: who would be participating; the models that education authorities were using to encourage and support participation; the numbers of pupils in general—we have heard that data is lacking in certain areas, so it would be important to get that; and the costs and the ways in which schools and education authorities were meeting them. There could be particularly imaginative routes to meeting those costs, which I am not against, and it is important that we understand them all. That is why my amendments are drafted in that way.

However, I certainly would not want granular-level detail to be collected that could identify even particular schools, because I do not want there to be league tables on provision. The aim is more about knowing how we were doing, where examples of good practice were, and how we could improve things if necessary.

Amendment 10 seeks to require ministers to consider those reports and review the operation of the legislation to ensure that all children and young people in Scotland have equal access to positive and creative outdoor learning experiences. As we saw throughout stage 1, and as today’s stage 2 proceedings have shown, that is the intention of all members.

I move amendment 8.

It is important to point out the differences in those toilets. It is also important to say that most people assume that toilets are always available to disabled people, but that is not the case so it is worth reiterating that point. I am very sympathetic to Jeremy Balfour’s amendment in this area. However, does he think that the period of two years stated in amendment 27 would be enough time?

I welcome the minister’s support for amendments 3 and 4, and, as I said earlier, I am sympathetic to her approach to amendment 5. Does the minister agree that it is important to reiterate that pupils with additional support needs and their families should not have to bear the costs of additional support when those pupils attend residential outdoor education?

Good morning to the committee and to Liz Smith. I set out at the start my thanks to the member in charge for the way in which she has engaged on the bill and with members across the chamber. It has been really helpful to have that on-going dialogue and the advice support, as that has helped me to understand the bill’s purpose and how we can make sure that it meets the needs of all learners in Scotland. As members will know, that has been one of the focuses in my and my party’s approach to the bill. We are supportive of the right to residential outdoor education and the bill, and we are pleased to see it progressing to this stage. Thank you, Liz, for the engagement to date.

If it is okay with the convener, I will start with amendment 28 and then talk to the other amendments in the group. Amendments 1 and 2 are consequential to amendment 28, which seeks to insert a provision in the bill to make it clear that engagement of teachers and associated professionals in courses of residential outdoor learning will continue to take place on a voluntary basis. The introduction of the statutory obligation on education authorities under the new section 6A of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 would not affect the terms and conditions of employment of Scottish teachers and associated professionals, which are collectively bargained through the arrangements that are set out in the constitution of the Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers. We know that currently teachers and staff in schools play a key role in the organisation and planning of activities outwith school, including residential trips, and play a lead role in such activities in partnership with other school staff and parents. That role is often performed on a voluntary basis and it is pivotal to the experience of outdoor education for a number of young people.

I understand the points that the minister is making. However, in actual fact, the intention of the amendment is to not cut across that arrangement. That is why my amendment 28 states that the right and proper place for those negotiations is the Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers.

Does the minister think that any version of such an amendment could be considered at stage 3, so that we can protect the principle of voluntarism while also understanding that any changes to terms and conditions must be made through the right and proper mechanisms, including through collective bargaining?

Amendment 3, in my name, seeks to ensure that self-directed support can be considered a source of support or funding for pupils with additional support needs. There is not always a widespread understanding of what that funding can be used for. For some pupils with additional support needs, those needs include social care, and I believe—as do members across the Parliament, I think—that the costs involved should not prohibit young people with additional support needs who need access to social care from accessing residential outdoor education.

In amendment 3, I have tried to be imaginative in using all the sources of support that are available to young people with additional support needs and disabled people. That will ensure that schools have a wide range of options to get the best chance of being able to meet the requirement, and that young people who have additional support needs will be able to have residential outdoor education.

Self-directed support has been a mechanism for accessing social care for a number of years now, but I do not know whether it is fully understood or fully utilised when it comes to young people, particularly with regard to access to education. This is an opportunity to create a provision in the bill that will allow self-directed support to be used as a source of support. In some cases, it could be the difference between a young person having, or not having, residential outdoor education. It is therefore really important.

Some of the costs that come from schools can be quite difficult, and amendments have been lodged by other members in recognition of the fact that those costs should not prohibit people from accessing outdoor residential education. It is an important principle that the additional costs associated with disability or additional needs should not be borne by families and should not prevent people from taking part, and there is a suite of amendments that look to address that issue. Self-directed support is one mechanism that could be used imaginatively and accessed by schools, young people and families to support them here.

Amendment 4 defines “self-directed support” as per the Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Act 2013, while amendment 5 provides that additional support needs must be considered and that

“no pupil is required to pay ... additional”

costs related to their additional support needs. I do acknowledge Liz Smith’s point about pre-emption; the principle that pupils with additional support needs should not have to bear the brunt of their additional costs is important, and I look forward to hearing the minister’s comments on that, but I am minded not to move amendment 5, given that it will be pre-empted by an amendment that will probably carry the support of other members, for the reasons that Liz Smith has set out.

Nonetheless, I would like once again to put on the record, for clarity, that all young people should be able to access residential outdoor education equally. That is my aspiration, and it is shared by many other members, including Jeremy Balfour, Liz Smith and, I think, the minister. It is incumbent on us all to be as supportive of that as possible. Amendment 3, which is the substantive amendment in my name in this group, would provide a source of support to assist young people in accessing such an essential part of their education.

I do not think that my amendment 28 would destroy the purpose of the bill; it is certainly not my intention for that to be the case. The principle of voluntarism is inherent in the bill, which is about the ability to access outdoor education. Evidence that the committee took suggests that despite concerns about growing workloads in the classroom and despite how difficult it can be to be a teacher or a member of staff in a school right now, teachers and staff have still been really positive about the experience that outdoor education could create for young people. I was encouraged to hear that they were still prepared to engage in it on that basis.

My amendment 28 is not intended to do what Mr Mason suggests it might; what it does do, and what other amendments in my name in this group seek to do, is monitor the situation. In recent weeks we have seen some concerns about teacher workload, so it is important that we at least consider what the impact of the bill could be. Teachers, staff in schools, parents, pupils and members across the Parliament have been clear that giving young people a right to access outdoor education is crucial, and there is a willingness to make it work. Amendment 28 seeks to recognise the on-going commitment of the teaching and education workforce and—coupled with the other amendments in the group—to address any potential impact that the bill could have on staff, so that it can be considered in the long term whether or not their engagement in outdoor education was having an impact on their terms and conditions. That is the intention behind amendment 28. I do not think that introducing a legislative duty on education authorities to provide for delivery of a course of residential outdoor education interferes with that principle. That is what teachers have told us. They were rightly raising issues of workload, however, and I have therefore lodged my amendments to draw that to the attention of Parliament, so that we are alive to those issues as the bill progresses.

We know that teachers are struggling with workload. My proposals would protect established collective bargaining structures and would ensure that the principle of voluntarism, which has long governed the participation of teachers and associated professionals in such trips, is protected and will continue.

Amendment 6, in my name, seeks to ensure that data on the impact on staff is collected so that it can be monitored. That speaks to my colleague John Mason’s intervention about the scenario of residential outdoor education being a statutory requirement but nobody deciding to volunteer for it any more. What would that mean? We would effectively come to a question of how to continue to keep the activity going. Amendment 6 and the other amendments in the group seek to monitor that while making it clear that there is a long-established process for considering the terms and conditions of teachers and staff in schools, and that the bill would not overwrite or undermine that in any way.

Amendment 6 leaves the matter of data and how often to collect it to regulations, which I think is important, but it is important to collect it nonetheless, so that we can monitor the experience in classrooms. The amendment requires a report every three years, which is also important, so that we can continue to understand the experience of learners and those working in the learning environment.

Amendments 1, 2 and 7 are consequential to amendment 6.

Amendment 29 provides that, before preparing or revising guidance under proposed new section 6B of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which the bill inserts, Scottish ministers must consult trade unions of school staff. The process of drafting and revising guidance must be genuinely and democratically representative of the voices of the teaching profession and of staff in schools. Professional associations have a long-standing approach to that, and amendment 29 seeks to ensure that consultation on the guidance will take place with the relevant trade unions.

Amendment 30 defines “trade union” in the bill and, one could argue, it is consequential to amendment 29.

Taken together, the suite of amendments in this group consider the important impact that any change in schools can have on staff, while recognising the will that is there and the benefit of outdoor education for all. Together, this suite of amendments will create an environment in which staff can be protected and pupils have the right to access outdoor education.

I move amendment 1.

As I have said, I am sympathetic to the approach in Liz Smith’s amendments to the funding of the provisions in the bill overall. I also understand the minister’s point that the issue reaches into the ambit of health and social care as well as that of education. However, it is probably worth putting on the record that the experience of young carers, disabled people or people with additional support needs often falls between the cracks. I welcome the commitment to work on the issue at stage 3, and perhaps that point can be included in that consideration.

At the very least, a significant chunk of guidance is probably needed to address the issue, given that members of staff in schools cannot be expected to understand the realms of health and social care without some guidance, and health and social care teams cannot be expected to understand responsibilities in education under a particular piece of legislation. In an ideal world, I am sure that everybody would understand all those issues, but the reality is that the issues are all quite complex. It is worth noting that they will need to be addressed in the bill through negotiations between now and stage 3, or at the very least in guidance. Will the minister comment on whether she thinks that that will be possible?