Seòmar agus comataidhean

Does the member recognise, however, that if social care services are not in place, there is a risk that some people who rely on them—even before they have a terminal illness diagnosis—might find life very difficult, which could be a factor in their decision making? Does the member not think that it would be useful to ensure that those services were in place and up to capacity before the act came into place?

Will the member take an intervention?

Does the member accept that significant variables exist in relation to the cost outlined in the financial memorandum, which would depend largely on whether this was in or out of the NHS? In both situations, a significant cost would be attached, which is why it would be useful to assess it ahead of time.

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Amendment 8, by agreement, withdrawn.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?