Seòmar agus comataidhean

Absolutely. When somebody asked my primary school-aged son how school was, he said that there was a lot of sitting inside and sitting down. That came from the fact that, in his early years, he spent so much time outside—with his father, in particular.

Residential outdoor education represents a key milestone in a child’s educational development, and schools should aim to include it as a core part of learning—which is what Brian Whittle was trying to say, I think. I do not think that that is disputed across the parties.

I support the general principles of the bill. There are concerns, but I think that the member in charge of the bill recognises those, and we can fine tune it at stage 2 if there is a willingness to do so. We need to think about costs, provision for pupils with additional support needs and the impacts on teachers. However, as we have discussed, there is a way of addressing those issues.

There must be a financial resolution for the bill, and I hope that we can work across the parties on that. I will certainly do so with my colleagues in Scottish Labour. I repeat Willie Rennie’s point about the Government needing to make sure to seek out how we can get the bill through.

The bill seeks to address the fact that many schools do not currently provide residential outdoor education. On that, I pick up a point that I often raise in the chamber, which is about inequalities—particularly health inequalities. Those exist, and we know that they exist. The bill has definitely got to be part of the solution.

Costs and financial pressures represent a key barrier to families, and to children having the opportunity to go along to residential outdoor education. We know that disparities exist between pupils who live in the most and least deprived communities. The bill is an opportunity for the outdoors to be a part of everybody’s life and for those who live in poverty not to be disadvantaged. The bill must address the wider socioeconomic issues that impact on a child’s ability to access and attend residential trips.

I agree that we need to look at the role of teaching staff and make sure that residential outdoor education is done in a way that supports teachers and is a core part of the curriculum, as has been mentioned.

The intention and aims behind the bill are welcome, and its principles are well intended—all of us have said that during the debate. Outdoor learning enhances education, improves mental and physical health and has many benefits for a child’s development. It can break down barriers, particularly when it comes to inequality, and offer opportunities to the most disadvantaged children. We speak about that in the chamber every day. We need to have the will to ensure that it can happen, and I believe that that will is there, across the parties. Every pupil, no matter their background or individual need, should have the opportunity to attend a residential outdoor trip. I will play my part in making sure that we get the bill through.

Will John Mason give way?

I value your point about teachers. Do you think that there is space to work with trade unions as the bill goes through stage 2?

I take this opportunity to say that my thoughts are with Christina McKelvie’s family. She was incredibly kind to me in the early days of this parliamentary session.

Today, we are discussing a bill that seeks to improve the outdoor learning opportunities that are available to schoolchildren. I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. I am not on the Education, Children and Young People Committee, so I have found the debate to be really helpful.

The bill’s core aim is to ensure that all pupils in state and grant-aided schools can experience at least four nights and five days of residential outdoor education during their school career. As we have heard in the debate, we all recognise the value of residential outdoor education for a child’s learning and development. Liz Smith’s opening speech described that in a very visual way. It is welcome that the bill seeks to address the notable decline in the number of pupils who have the opportunity to attend residential outdoor education.

The committee’s call for evidence highlighted the benefits that children stand to gain from residential stays, which have been well rehearsed in other members’ speeches, when it comes to confidence, social skills, mental wellbeing and resilience. Respondents described the benefits as “life changing”.

Through my role as Scottish Labour’s public health spokesperson, I frequently hear about the value of the outdoors and outdoor learning for both physical and mental health.

I thank Maggie Chapman for bringing this important debate to the chamber, and for her powerful speech. It is paramount that we treat people arriving in Scotland as we would wish to be treated ourselves, and I hope that the debate will go some way towards achieving that.

People are unable to claim adequate benefits for basic survival because of immigration status, in many cases through a system that we have set up—by “we”, I mean human beings; it is human beings who set up these systems—in such a way that it means, as we have heard this evening, that they are unable to work. We put people in that position, which shows that there is a responsibility on us all to act on the recommendations that are made in the legal briefing by Professor Jen Ang. That applies at all levels of Government.

As other members have said, the briefing paper rightly challenges presumptions that reserved immigration law prevents specific groups from accessing support that would mitigate the harm that they suffer at present. The paper presents workable solutions that national and local government can pursue to achieve immediate positive change. In my view, it is our responsibility as human beings to seek solutions, not to build barriers, when others are suffering. That is why I welcome the briefing paper and the opportunity that Maggie Chapman has given us to speak tonight.

The paper is a stark reminder of why we should review legislation and challenge assumptions about how laws are implemented. Many of the actions that the paper sets out are within the abilities and devolved capacities of the Scottish Government, so let us use the powers that we have to actually help our fellow human beings.

If I think of the most basic of needs, I think of a home: everyone should have a home that meets their needs. That is the Scottish Government’s vision, it is my vision and it is our vision, but it is simply not the reality for so many people. I therefore urge the Scottish Government to use the debate as a catalyst to work on some of the solutions that Professor Jen Ang has laid out.

In order for us to see an end to homelessness, we need more action. The paper details the desperate situation of many people who are sleeping on Scotland’s streets, and I urge those at all levels of Government to act now. We have heard that one in eight people with no recourse to public funds are currently sleeping rough, with more than half having reported sleeping rough last year. It is clear that immediate action is required.

Financial support for people who are living in those extreme levels of destitution can be made possible—it is the systems that we create that cause such suffering, and that is absolutely unacceptable. Evidence shows that a third of the fair way Scotland partnership’s service users can go for months with no income.

In the short time that I have left, I will mention access to healthcare. It is no surprise that, as a result of the barriers that we have discussed, a major area of inequality is people’s health and nutritional health. People who have limited, or no, access to shelter or housing, and who are not able to work or apply for benefits, cannot gain access to basic food in order to maintain any level of health. Around 33 per cent of those who are under the restrictions that we are talking about this evening are more likely to be deprived of basic food—that is in Scotland, today. That has to be a concern not only in the here and now, but with regard to the longer-term health of any of those individuals.

Access to healthcare for people with no recourse to public funds is, at best, muddled. There needs to be an end to the barriers in that regard; people need to know that they can access healthcare at the point of need, without fear, including fear of charges that they desperately cannot afford. The paper references a number of areas that the Scottish Government can look at, and I ask the Minister for Equalities to make plans to discuss those with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care as soon as possible.

I know that I am running out of time, so I thank members for their commitments tonight.

That was helpful.

We are talking not just about financial benefits. Do you, or any of the witnesses, see the bill being helpful to other parts of the system, such as policing, healthcare or accident and emergency? Is there anything in the bill that would be beneficial to those services?

I take your point.

If there is to be additional funding in the context of the bill, where would you target that to get some of the benefits that you talk about?

The witnesses have already touched on some of the stuff that I was going to ask about the financial memorandum, but I would like to go back to it. As we know from written evidence, although there are some areas where we know that there will be increased costs, there could be benefits further along the line by way of costs. Could the witnesses speak a little bit about whether they think there is clarity in the bill about what additional spending there will be and what we might see in the future, in terms of spending? Is there a balance that could work?

Although endometriosis is the second most common gynaecological condition in the United Kingdom, the level of data collection on it by health boards is extremely limited. Does the Government recognise that capturing more data on general practitioner referrals for endometriosis and waiting times for consultation would create greater transparency about how long it is taking to diagnose and treat endometriosis?

I also thank the cabinet secretary for his answers.

Last year, a report on neonatal deaths recommended the review of maternity units to help to assess how care for mothers and babies can be improved. As the cabinet secretary said, following that, it was recommended that Healthcare Improvement Scotland carry out inspections of maternity units from January 2025 in order to provide assurances on the care that women and babies can expect to receive. Will the cabinet secretary provide an update to the Parliament on the progress that has been made on those inspections?