Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will leave it at that. I will have a big think about the matter again, because I am not sure.

So, there is a possibility of having a public register.

My goodness—what a long day the committee has had.

First, I will speak to my amendments 156 and 159, as they pretty well deal with the same thing. I will then move on to amendment 161. The amendments are probing amendments, and I am interested to hear what the minister has to say about them.

Amendments 156 and 159 seek to delete

“or to a category of persons”

and “or category of persons”. I do not quite understand those phrases—I am sure that the minister will clarify them for me. Rachael Hamilton and Jim Fairlie have referred to the licence holder, but a category of persons is not a licence holder—it is a category. I do not know what that means. Does it mean the farmers, the gamekeepers or the landowners? I do not know.

If I follow the line that it refers to gamekeepers, landowners or whatever, who will be liable for any breach at the end of the day? Who would be brought before the court for breaching the terms of the licence? There would be no name.

I understand that there might be several farms on a large piece of hillside in respect of which exceptions to exceptions require a licence over an area in which different persons own the land, but I do not see why a licence could not be granted to a particular person or persons. That might be the gamekeepers on three different estates, for example. At least there would then be a name in the frame.

I am not looking to persecute anybody; I just want to make things easier for enforcement and responsibility.

I think that I am getting multiple interventions, as is my wont. That is up to the convener.

I will get a badge.

I have not thought about that point, but my answer off the cuff in thinking about it now is that, no, they could not possibly be present when the activity took place. They would delegate holding the licence to a responsible person, as MSPs do to our staff. However, the buck would eventually stop with the landowner.

The issue is who has their name in the frame at the end of the day. That could be one person or two people. I do not know where “category” comes in.

I will move on to my next amendment before the minister responds. I am beginning to chair the meeting, and I did not mean to do that.

Amendment 161 follows on from that. I heard what was said about victimisation, but there is an element of how people know. This is about exceptions to exceptions. If members of the public or whoever are just swarming about and they see something that should be allowed, how do they know that it should be allowed? They may not know that the area has been licensed for certain pursuits that do not come under the general legislation. On the other hand, they might see something that should not be taking place. There has to be some responsibility there.

Are licences for publicans, for instance, published? I am trying to remember. Is there a list of licensed publicans or a list of licensed taxi drivers somewhere? Are they in the public domain? I appreciate that there might be data protection issues, but there might be ways of dealing with the addresses. Again, I am probing.

I will put that in my diary. That is good, thank you.

This is a wonderful moment for us.

I will have to, will I not?

I will speak to the Scottish Government’s amendment but, as a preamble, I advise members that, many moons ago, I was a secondary teacher of English. I am notorious for my pedantry. I correct those who say “less” instead of “fewer” or “disinterested” instead of “uninterested”—I will give lessons later.

Incidentally, I went on strike in the 1980s, when inflation was running at above 23 per cent. I was married to an assistant head, and I had two sisters who were primary teachers—one on Orkney and the other in Ayr. Our generations of teachers continue, as my niece is a deputy head of a primary school. I therefore have high regard for the profession, and not only as a parent and grandparent. I have became accustomed to having my ear bent on all matters from those at the chalk face.

Although we obviously disagree on many aspects, as is evidenced by the motion and amendments, I think that we all agree that all children, young people and adult learners have the right to a first-class education, and we commend the hard work of staff and teaching professionals in Scotland’s schools, colleges, universities and early learning and childcare centres. That hard work was particularly tested during Covid, which proved the dedication of the profession. Teaching was adapted and moved online, individual teachers went to households to provide lesson materials, and staff kept schools open, exposing themselves to Covid in doing so.

I will now speak about how important education is in helping children to make the most of their talents in a comfortable environment and, in particular, helping the least well off. The mantra is “closing the attainment gap”, but in my book it is about closing the poverty gap. In 2022-23, Midlothian has received £174,000 or so in pupil equity funding and Scottish Borders has received £225,440, with more to come in successive years. That money supports qualifying children from primary 1 to secondary 3.

However, there is support even before that, starting with pre-school. The first intervention is the baby box, which is delivered to all who request it and is filled to the brim with high-quality items. Its percentage take-up is in the upper 90s, and it demonstrates the value of a child in tangible terms from the very start, because education starts at birth.

There is then the provision of 1,140 free hours of nursery, and we move on to free school meals for all P1 to P5 pupils and free bus travel for all under-22s. I say “free”, but those are choices that the Scottish Government has made about expenditure in order to provide as level a playing field as possible for young people. A hungry child will have difficulty with learning. With free bus travel, children have chances to access out-of-school activities, which are all part of education in its wider sense. Tuition fees were abolished in Scotland, whereas in England a student, if they are not well-heeled, will leave with almost £30,000 in debt at the end of a three-year degree course.

Why should we focus on poverty in an education debate? It is because, although schools and teachers will do their utmost for every child, if a child is living under stress in their household because of poverty and shortages of food and warmth, it will be hard for them to learn. That is why the Scottish child payment, which is now £25 a week for every child under 16 in a qualifying family, is so significant, and it is even more so when it is combined with the other Scottish benefits that I have listed. Some £84 million has been paid out since the payment was introduced.

If the Tory UK Government was to reinstate the £20 per week uplift to universal credit, that would give Scottish families a further £780 million, thereby lifting 30,000 children out of poverty. I ask members to think about the difference that that payment would make, bearing in mind that most people who claim universal credit are working, and the fact that it would ease the financial concerns of households and children.

We also need to have decent school buildings, which is not easy in a time of raging inflation that impacts on, for example, materials. In the Borders and Midlothian, three new secondary schools are on the cards at Galashiels academy, Peebles high school and Beeslack, just outside my patch. However, none of those schools will be built under the disgraceful public-private partnership or private finance initiative routes, which were introduced by the Tories and unhappily continued in Scotland under Labour and the Liberal Democrats. They have left councils carrying millions of pounds of debt, with the most costly borrowing possible.

In 2021 alone, the cost of those extravagant contracts to Midlothian Council was £11 million, or 12 per cent of its education budget. In Scottish Borders, the most recent figure is £9 million, which represents 8 per cent of the education budget. That is money wasted.

I will finish where I started, with teachers. In the current harsh economic climate, which has been exacerbated by Tory mismanagement, Boris, Truss and Brexit for starters, I understand the demands for pay rises. As members in the chamber are aware, teachers know that the Scottish Government has a fixed budget—it was fixed when inflation was around 3 per cent, not 11 per cent—and that increased salaries mean cuts elsewhere. I therefore hope that a middle ground will soon be found.

I note that Stephen Kerr would not answer the simple question of how much should go to the teachers and from which budget. His contribution—I think that it is appropriate to say this in a debate on education—was

“full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

That is a quote from “Macbeth”, act 5, scene 5. I thank Ms McGuffie, circa 1960, who is still fondly remembered for compelling us to learn all of Shakespeare’s soliloquies.