Seòmar agus comataidhean

I very much support the intention behind Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments, which broadly chime with the bill’s intent. However, I agree with the minister that there are some timing issues.

There is a technical timing issue as to how amendment 8 sits alongside my amendment 18 to change the arrangements for commencement. Amendment 8 provides for a report to be published within 12 months of royal assent, as the minister set out. If my bill were to pass at stage 3 in December or January, royal assent would probably happen in February or March of next year. That would mean that the report provided for in amendment 8 would need to be published before February or March 2027, which would be technically difficult. However, the minister said that that could be a debating point for stage 3, and I am happy to go along with that.

It is very difficult to place a requirement to report on children with protected characteristics, because you can get into too much detail. You have to be careful about the provisions of the Equality Act 2010, which are complex. In fact, it is distinctly possible that the school or the education authority might not hold such information anyway, so I am slightly concerned about the level of data that amendment 8 asks for.

When the Parliament debated the recent schools legislation, I suggested that His Majesty's Inspectorate of Education should inspect residential and outdoor education as part of that process. It would be an important extra check on what happens in residential and outdoor education, which is another reason that we should probably tighten up in this area. I ask Pam Duncan-Glancy not to move her amendments until we iron out some of the timing details.

I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for her amendment 10, with which I agree in principle. Introducing a review provision to consider the operation of the act five years after it is delivered would be sensible and prudent, but there is perhaps a question whether such a review could be directly aligned with two sets of reporting requirements, particularly given the different timeframes that are set out. However, I understand where the member is coming from, and I think that the minister will have further discussions about the issue before stage 3.

Amendments 13 and 14 qualify the duties on education authorities and managers of grant-aided schools to provide or secure the provision of one course of residential outdoor education. To be technical for a minute, I will explain that they do so by inserting the words

“so far as reasonably practicable”

into proposed new section 6A(1) and (2) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, as inserted by section 1 of the bill.

Following extensive discussions with the Scottish Government, I have lodged the amendments to ensure that, in situations where it is simply not possible for the duty to be met, education authorities or managers of grant-aided schools would not automatically find themselves in breach of the bill’s provisions. For example, if a trip had to be cancelled because of a fire—which, tragically, we had at a centre not long ago—a flood, a storm or whatever affecting a centre, and that resulted in an individual not receiving their entitlement, it would be quite wrong for that authority or the manager to be liable for that.

Because that would not be right, I have lodged these amendments. When I first discussed the issue with the minister, I had a slight concern that the amendments could be used to dilute the duty of the bill. However, as I indicated in my letter to the committee last week, I have been reassured that the inclusion of the wording

“so far as reasonably practicable”

will not result in the bill being watered down.

Mr Balfour is, quite rightly, raising concerns. However, there is strong support for joint approaches between the public and private sectors in that respect. The Scottish Government has already made such a commitment in areas such as infrastructure development. To my mind, private sector facilities can unquestionably offer some of the things that you are rightly asking for. I think that there is scope to develop collaboration between the two sectors. Do you accept that?

Although section 4 is an important section, I will be relatively brief. Amendment 18 concerns the commencement of the bill. As members are well aware, originally, I would have liked the bill, had it been passed, to have come into effect next summer, but I recognise, given the issues that have arisen during the bill’s consideration so far, that that was impractical. Following discussions with the minister and other delivery partners, I have accepted that that was too soon. It is vitally important that, if the bill is passed, it is implemented effectively and thoroughly and that all participants—the Government, education authorities, managers of grant-aided schools and managers of all the outdoor facilities—are ready and prepared to deliver on the duty effectively.

Therefore, amendment 18 seeks to remove the date of 7 July from the bill and to replace it with a commencement date that will be set by the Scottish ministers in regulations. However, to ensure that there is no slippage, that the bill could not simply disappear and that there will be no delay in implementation, amendment 19 will require regulations to be made no later than 30 September 2027. As I stated in my letter to the minister last week, I would welcome her committing to the bill being commenced as soon as is reasonably practicable after royal assent. I know that the minister and officials are working on the checkpoints for delivery in the lead-up to commencement, and I very much welcome that.

It is my view that the bill ought to be able to be fully in force no later than July 2028, in time for the start of the 2028-29 school year. That represents two full years after the date that is currently included in the bill. I recognise that the minister does not want to specify a date now, but I welcome her assurance that the Scottish Government is working at pace towards the earliest possible implementation.

I welcome the engagement that I have had on amendment 18, and on all the amendments that we have debated today, with the minister and her officials, the outdoor sector, representatives of local authorities and trade unions, representatives of local authority and granted-aid schools, and members. I greatly appreciate their scrutiny and engagement in the process, and the huge amount of help that we have had from officials.

I move amendment 18.

I crave your indulgence, convener, because this is the area where we have had the most constructive, but also, perhaps, the lengthiest, engagement, so I have quite a lot to say, given the importance of the subject.

Amendments 15 and 17 relate to the funding of residential outdoor education. I lodged them following constructive recent engagement with the minister, and I did so in good faith, given the commitment that she made in those meetings.

Amendment 15 would insert new subsection (2A) into new section 6A that the bill seeks to insert into the 1980 act and would enable education authorities and managers of grant-aided schools to require parents to make a financial contribution to the cost of their child’s residential outdoor education. I have always taken the view that there should be no barrier to parents contributing to their child’s residential outdoor education, because that is what happens at present and we must not do anything to undermine that.

New subsection (2A), as provided for by amendment 15, enables that to remain the case for the residential outdoor education provided under this bill. I believe that that also addresses some important concerns raised at stage 1, and since, by Mr Mason, who made what I thought were strong points about ensuring that we do not undermine the payments that are currently made towards outdoor education. It is important that we do not do that.

Amendment 17 would remove the duty on Scottish ministers to fund education authorities and managers of grant-aided schools by such amounts as are sufficient to enable them to carry out their duties under the bill. This amendment has involved probably the most discussion and negotiation, but I accept the minister’s argument that a blanket duty to fund might constrain how the Government accesses different sources of funding to pay for residential outdoor education. That is an important consideration, and I am grateful for the time that the minister has spent on that subject.

I had some residual concerns that removing such a duty from the bill would simply shift the focus on to local authorities and managers of grant-aided schools. However, in her letter of assurance, the minister gave me a commitment about the funding package that will be negotiated by the Scottish Government and local authorities under the Verity house agreement. Before I formally press this amendment, I would like the minister to put that further assurance on the record. It is important that committee members feel that such an assurance is there because it is, in turn, important to everyone in the sector—to all schools and everyone who participates in residential outdoor education.

Parents who cannot afford to pay—namely those who are in receipt of universal credit or income support—and parents of pupils with an additional support need should not have to pay an extra amount for residential outdoor education. I think that that should cover concerns that have been expressed by several members around this table. I have had that commitment from the Scottish Government and am sure that the minister will speak to it in her remarks. On the assumption that we will have that assurance from the minister, I will be pressing amendment 17 at the appropriate time.

Turning to other amendments in the group, I want to address, first of all, amendments 3 to 5 in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy. If amendment 17 is agreed to, amendment 5 cannot be moved. I have spoken to Pam Duncan-Glancy about amendments 3 and 4, because I do understand the principles behind what she is trying to do and look forward to hearing what the minister has to say about those amendments. In any case, providing that the minister can give me the assurance that I seek on amendment 17, I will be pressing it.

On John Mason’s amendments 11 and 12, it is a matter of public record that he and I have different views on the bill, but I thank him for his constructive engagement during its passage and for his approach to stage 2. The issue of pupil equity funding, how it is used and how much of it is used for residential outdoor education, came up a lot during stage 1, has come up since and remains very much a live issue. I am wary of the bill’s being too explicit about funding, particularly in respect of something as specific as PEF, which is a discrete fund that the Scottish Government—rightly, in my opinion—set up. In time, there might be other funds that could be used for pupils’ participation. I therefore encourage Mr Mason not to move amendment 11, because I think that we can cover the issue with other amendments in the group.

I also thank John Mason for lodging amendment 12. If amendment 17 in my name is agreed to, amendment 12, together with amendment 5 from Pam Duncan-Glancy and amendments 22 to 24 from Jeremy Balfour, will fall, due to pre-emption. Nevertheless, as with other amendments, there is significant merit in the underpinning policy of ensuring that pupils in socioeconomic disadvantage are not required to pay.

We now come, I think, to amendments 22 to 25, in the name of Jeremy Balfour. I thank the member for his engagement and want to compliment him on how he goes about having very constructive discussions in respect of those with additional support needs. Jeremy, you do the Parliament proud in the way that you represent those people, and I am very grateful to you for that.

On amendment 22, the principle behind it accords with my position that parents of children with additional support needs should not face the additional costs.

Mr Balfour has highlighted the issues covered by amendment 23, and I agree with the principle that young carers should not face those additional costs. I say to the minister that I would be very happy to meet Mr Balfour to discuss these matters a bit more before we get to stage 3.

I have a few concerns about amendment 24. I understand the principle behind it, but I am concerned that it would constrain managers of grant-aided schools in seeking alternative sources of funding to support their provision of residential outdoor education. I would like them to have the flexibility to seek such alternative sources where appropriate—we know of some providers that are willing to make that provision. Indeed, I have lodged amendments 15 and 17 to ensure that education authorities and managers of grant-aided schools have that flexibility.

On amendment 25, I recognise Mr Balfour’s role in scrutinising and shaping the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018. Again, I am supportive of the principle behind the amendment, because it chimes with my position that the families of pupils with additional support needs who might be in receipt of the child disability payment should not have to pay extra. That said, I am not persuaded that some of that needs to be in the bill. I will listen to the arguments made by Mr Balfour, and particularly the comments of the minister, on the matter, but, as far as Mr Balfour is concerned, there is scope for further discussion before we get to stage 3. I thank him for lodging those amendments.

I move amendment 15.

I have a question on the theme of data. You rightly say that data is extremely important when it comes to the work that you do.

We have had many discussions with the Scottish Fiscal Commission and think tanks about the relevant data from the labour force survey, which has been flagged up to us as not being particularly accurate. Labour market trends are crucial in relation to tax revenue. Does that problem affect you in any particular way? Are you aware of concerns about the lack of accurate data on labour market trends?

Is there good co-operation with other public bodies that are trying to access that data?

I have just one question, minister. Notwithstanding the fact that nobody likes paying extra tax, whether it be a new tax or an old one, are you in any way concerned about the level of criticism about this tax by stakeholders?

I know that you cannot comment on tax policy decisions but, in light of the information that we have received from a number of stakeholders, are you concerned about the level of criticism of the potential unintended consequences of the tax? Has that formed any part of your discussions with the Scottish Government?

Finally, are the issues that the Scottish Government is talking to you about regarding this tax more concerning than the issues that it is talking to you about regarding other taxes? Do you feel that the Scottish Government thinks that there are more concerns about the potential problems with this tax than other tax policies?