Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

Amendment 8 seeks to require ministers to report on the bill’s operation in relation to pupils with additional support needs. It says that ministers should consider the numbers of pupils participating, the type of provision, access, the level of support needed, the associated costs and how those costs were met.

Having that information would enable us to monitor the delivery of outdoor residential education provision. It is clearly the Parliament’s intention that all young people will be able to access it, so gathering data on those aspects would help us to achieve that aim. Reporting on such provision, including the sorts of funds that are used and the costs involved, would be really helpful for schools and for the successful implementation of the legislation should the bill pass at stage 3, which I hope it will. It will be important for us to monitor how delivery happens. Such reporting mechanisms would be helpful because they would allow schools to see how others were supporting young people with additional support needs. Therefore, in addition to monitoring purposes, the reports could provide useful information for schools to learn from and implement themselves.

Amendment 9 seeks to require a report on protected characteristics—that is a slightly broader area than ASN—including socioeconomic status. That would also be vital, given the comments that we have heard today on the importance of socioeconomic status not being a barrier to young people’s ability to access residential outdoor education.

On the principle of voluntarism, it is clear from the conversation that we have had that the evidence suggests that there will be teachers and staff in schools who are prepared to continue to support young people to access residential outdoor education. What is also clear, though—and I welcome some of the commitments that I have heard from the minister and from the member in charge of the bill around this issue—is that, if that were no longer to be the case, the right place for negotiations to take place would be the SNCT. With that assurance, I would be prepared not to move amendment 28.

It would be helpful if there were ways, between now and stage 3, that we could discuss even just a shorter but clear statement that, if that situation were no longer the case, the SNCT would be the place where negotiations should take place. However, there is now a commitment on the record on that, and there has been recognition from the Government and other members that the SNCT is absolutely the place to address such concerns.

I welcome the support for amendments 29 and 30, which seek to place in the bill recognition of trade unions and their importance in relation to consultation. I take the minister’s point that there are others who should be consulted, but it is important that we recognise the long-established structures that trade unions bring. That is why I lodged those amendments, and I am pleased to move them today.

On the points about data reporting and sharing, and understanding the impact on staff, again, they speak to the point about voluntarism and concerns about what we would do if pupils had a right to outdoor education in statute but, suddenly, nobody wanted to volunteer to help out. We are addressing that around the table just now—again, the place to look at that is in the SNCT. Nonetheless, it will be important to collect data collection in the same way that we have to gather other data in education to look at the experience of staff in schools. I welcome the minister’s offer to work on that between now and stage 3, and I would welcome tripartite engagement—if I can call it that—between me, the minister, and the member in charge to look at how we could create a workable amendment at stage 3, because it is important that we monitor that.

On that basis—let me consult the numbers so that I get them right—I will not move amendments 1, 2, 6, 7 or 28. I will move amendments 29 and 30.

Amendment 1, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 2 not moved.

I understand that my amendments could do that. In one sense, you could say that you would see that data on deaths from both approaches caused change. However, the problem that we have is that by not including the assisted death element of the death on the certificate, we could be suggesting that cancer—to use your example—was the cause. However, we would not know whether it would have been the cause, because the person has instead died as a result of ingesting the substance.

We could run the risk of underreporting the numbers of assisted deaths, but we could also run the risk of not reporting accurately the reason why the person died. A person might not have ultimately died from their terminal illness; something else could have ended their life. In the case that we are discussing, that something else would be the ingestion of the substance that they chose to take in order to end their life.

Including the terminal illness on the death certificate is important, and that is why my amendments do not say that that information would not be there; the amendments simply reflect that we could not accurately say that the terminal illness caused that death, because, at that moment in time, it would not necessarily have been the cause.

I do not think that recording something that is not necessarily accurate in such important documentation is right or proper.

I appreciate that this is a difficult issue, but accuracy and transparency are really important. If deaths were recorded in a way that did not highlight that they were a result of an assisted death, we would create difficulties in the future. Not only would the information not be accurate, but it would, to an extent, be difficult to evaluate the social, medical and ethical impacts of the legislation.

No, that is not my intention. My intention is to catch things that would be directive and which would encourage someone to actively make that particular choice. Social media is a space in which advertisements are used; in fact, a lot of adverts come through social media, so I think that it is particularly important that, if we are to regulate advertising, we include social media. If we did not do so, we would be precluding a large platform that is consumed by many people and which we know includes advertising. That is why it is important to include that in the bill.

I move amendment 252.

I thank the member for offering that information in response to my question, which I appreciate. On balance, having heard that response, it is worth testing the issue with the committee at this point. This is a matter of principle as well as a matter of detail.

The point that has just been made about the need for information is different to the point about advertisements, and the amendment tries to deal with that. I believe that we, as a Parliament, need to make a clear statement that advertising assisted dying is not something that we support, given that any kind of encouragement or suggestion could leave vulnerable people without key protections.

Advertisements are often subtle, but they can be really powerful, so it is important for us to make the point at this stage that we do not believe that advertising assisted dying should take place. Of course, there may be other opportunities at stage 3 to look at the technical details. However, this has become a question of principle again, and it is important that we address that here, so I will press amendment 252.

Claire Baker has asked me to say, “Not moved”, if that is helpful.

Again, I have been asked to move the amendment.

Amendment 160 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].