Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, and thank you all for coming this morning. I will move us on slightly, and I will start with you, Colin Borland. What are your views on parties being able to contract out of the provisions of the bill? You mentioned that point in your written submission.

Good morning, Sarah. In your opening remarks you mentioned issues around public bodies, and we have heard quite a lot of evidence on that. Your bill includes references to public bodies promoting wellbeing and sustainable development. Should the bill require “delivery” rather than “promotion”?

We have received evidence that obligations on sustainable development

“must be fulfilled before and at the time when a particular policy is being considered or decision taken.”

How will the legislation ensure that, in practice, obligations will be met at the point of delivery?

I have a brief question. Did you think of using regulations, which obviously have greater legal standing, rather than guidance, or did guidance seem the best way to do it?

Again, my questions are nerdy but important, so I will go further. The bill also includes the phrase “have regard to” in respect of guidance that is to be produced by the future generations commissioner.

Caroline Mair may give the same answer, but could that wording be strengthened, or is the terminology understood by the public bodies and by courts?

That is helpful.

As you said, Sarah, there has been quite a lot of discussion around terminology and words. The bill, as you have drafted it, refers to the need for public bodies to

“have due regard for the need to promote wellbeing and sustainable development.”

We have heard in evidence that that could be strengthened. Do you agree that it needs to be strengthened? If so, how would you envisage that being done through an amendment at stage 2 or stage 3?

I suppose that my concern is this. Let us say that it is a Friday afternoon and somebody is sitting in an office, and they say, “Oh—we’ve got to do this”. It is a tick-box exercise, and they just tick a box to say, “Yes, we’ve looked at it.” Given that, as you say, guidance is not legally enforceable, the bill may not actually bring about any change. How do we avoid that and give the duty more teeth?

I confess that I did not fully understand the first point that the minister made on amendment 26. The centres would not be looking at children’s needs in particular; they would be undertaking a full review in relation to the issue. I also think that we have to recognise that the equipment that I mentioned earlier does not come cheaply, and a major financial investment will be required if it is to be provided. It is unrealistic to expect some of the smaller education facilities to be able to make that investment quickly. That is why I think that it would be helpful to have an overall review and then see where funding will be required.

Amendment 21 seeks to establish specific guidance for special schools regarding the age groups and year groups that they can consider suitable for outdoor education within their own framework. Amendment 20 would simply add a line to confirm that guidance

“must be adapted as appropriate to reflect the specific needs of pupils enrolled in a special school”.

I put on the record my thanks to the Harmeny school in Edinburgh and to Donaldson’s school, which some members of the committee visited last week. Both schools have met me and have helped to draft amendments 20 and 21, as they have concerns about how the bill could work in their specific context.

Special schools are a distinct category of school, as defined in the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004. I will not read the definition out, because I am sure that members are aware of it.

According to Scottish Government data, 8,002 pupils are enrolled in special schools across Scotland at the moment. I make it clear that the amendments are aimed only at those schools—they would not apply to mainstream schools. The amendments recognise that children with additional needs might not be able to fit into the framework of age groups or year groups that children at mainstream schools fit into. For example, the Donaldson Trust outlined that it would be totally inappropriate for some of its children to go away to take part in outdoor learning—certainly at the ages that other children would do so—and that outdoor learning could instead be provided within the school, but differently from how it is provided for others.

I recognise everybody’s commitment to ensuring that every child can access outdoor learning, but we must look at how and at what age that happens, particularly for those with special needs. I hope that the committee will accept that point and see that my amendments would strengthen children’s rights.

I move amendment 20.

I will take a couple of moments to outline some general principles. I thank Liz Smith and the minister for the constructive dialogue that we have had so far, which I hope will continue.

I absolutely support the bill. If you asked my daughters what their two favourite weeks have been at school so far, they would say that they were the weeks when they had their primary 7 and secondary 1 visits—they wish that every week in school could be like those weeks. I absolutely see the benefit of the bill, and I am pleased that that benefit will be rolled out to every child in Scotland. That is the key principle in the bill for me. We need to make sure that every child has the opportunity, if they want it, to access outdoor education. It may look different in different circumstances, but that overriding principle is key.

I often say that we do not pass legislation that is in force only for a few months or a few years, so we have to make sure that we future proof legislation for future Governments, although we do not know what those Governments will look like.

I know from having spoken to the minister and Liz Smith that they are absolutely committed to the bill. Sadly, the Parliament is losing both members in six months’ time. We do not know what will come next, but I want to make sure that the bill is good not just for the next year or two but for the next decade and beyond.

I turn briefly to my amendments. Amendment 22 is about carers attending residential outdoor education. One of my concerns is that although we say that every child can have outdoor education, not every child can have that outdoor education unless they have care support with them. For some individuals, that support may be provided by the outdoor centre itself or by the teachers and others who go with the children. However, some children will require their carers to be with them to provide personal care and reassurance, and to deal with medication and other issues. That will mean that accommodation will need to be found for them and their costs will need to be met.

We all know that local authorities are already under financial pressure, and that that may continue in future years. Amendment 22 seeks to remove any barrier to ensuring that a child can attend with the appropriate care in place. I worry that, if we do not remove such barriers, we will be saying that although every child can go, those who need care will have to go by themselves or with the support of the teacher, which may not be appropriate in every case.

Amendment 23 seeks to safeguard some of the most vulnerable children in our society. Many of us go to the annual carers outing in the summer, where we meet young carers, and we often have debates in which we say very positive things about young carers. There are at least 30,000 young carers under the age of 18 in Scotland who provide care for somebody in their family, whether that is a sibling, a parent or a grandparent. The person’s care needs may be such that, if they are not met, the person cannot survive. I am thinking of assistance with medication, toileting, food provision and so on. In such a case, the young carer will not be able to participate in outdoor education, because who would provide the care? Again, we can sign up to the principle that every child should go, but clearly a young carer cannot go unless the local authority can put in place the appropriate care for the person they care for on the days when they are away. I will be interested to hear what the minister has to say about that in a few moments.

I welcome Liz Smith’s openness to discussing the issue further at stage 3. It would be helpful to discuss whether there should be provision for such situations in regulations or elsewhere.

Like Pam Duncan-Glancy, I think that amendment 17 will be agreed to, but, if it falls, I will not move amendments 22 or 23. I look forward to having discussions with both Pam Duncan-Glancy and Liz Smith.

We can perhaps look at the proposal in amendment 24 again at stage 3. The intention is simply to ensure that the Scottish Government does not treat the funding for schools that the amendment refers to as part of what would be included in the standard grant. The money that is allocated for outdoor residential education should be extra money, and it must be new money. I am open to discussions with the minister and Ms Smith about that.

I turn finally to amendment 25. In 2024, 33,815 children between the ages of five and 15, or approximately 5 per cent of those enrolled in school, received child disability payment. I accept that the number is going up, but it is still fairly small. Inevitably, parents who have a child with a disability will have extra financial responsibilities. Amendment 25 seeks to absolutely ensure that those parents do not have to pay for their child to visit an outdoor education setting. I am sure that other members have received correspondence about that, but I have also spoken to a number of parents who are right on the margins. They may not be on universal credit and both parents may be working, but the extra cost of sending their child away for a week as a result of the child’s disability would prevent them from being able to attend. That would be a disappointment. Again, I welcome Liz Smith’s comments on that and I hope that we can have productive conversations between now and stage 3.