Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I absolutely agree with that. What I am trying to say is that, once we have done all the work and the bill is up and running, it would be good to go back and look again to see whether the needs that we have identified are being addressed.

I do not like to be too sceptical, but it feels as if this issue is a bit like my golf, in that it is going into the long grass. What we are looking at will be very difficult to deliver, possibly even in my lifetime.

I apologise for not having spoken to Liz Smith about this, but it came to my attention only last night, so I have not had the opportunity to do so.

A number of people from the deaf community have approached me regarding amendment 16. They are supportive of the Gaelic language but wonder whether provision should also be made at stage 3 for those who use British Sign Language. If we are recognising Gaelic, would the member be open, in principle, to looking also at BSL, which is recognised as a language?

Amendment 26 seeks to ensure that review of all outdoor residential facilities is carried out within one year of the bill receiving royal assent. Over the past few years, I have had the privilege of visiting various outdoor education centres, for different reasons, and they all do an excellent job. However, I have concerns that the current standard of the facilities does not meet the diverse needs of the pupils who would attend residential camps. For example, there might be a lack of equipment and facilities such as hoists to get children in and out of the water, off-road wheelchairs, suitable changing facilities and adapted beds.

The common theme throughout this morning’s meeting is that we all want every child to access residential outdoor education, but if the appropriate equipment is not there it could prevent that from happening.

I have lodged amendment 26 to require assessment of facilities in relation to complex care and disability needs. Such a review would allow the Scottish ministers to get a clear picture of the residential outdoor facility estate across Scotland and to ensure that all children are able to take part safely, equally and without barriers to inclusion. It would then give the Scottish ministers an opportunity to have discussions with outdoor centres, local authorities and others to see what needs to be done to ensure that appropriate equipment is there for the children who go to such places.

Amendment 27 follows on from amendment 26. It is about changing places toilets. If members do not know what a changing places toilet is, they can see one if they go to reception here in the Parliament. They would see how different it is from an accessible toilet. There is still confusion in society generally whereby people believe that every accessible toilet is a changing places toilet, but that is not the case.

For absolute clarity on this issue, will you confirm that a local authority being under financial pressure would not be a reason to stop a school or a group of schools from providing outdoor activity?

Yes, I do. I also acknowledge that there are issues with timing in relation to other amendments, so I do not intend to press amendment 26. However, I think it would be helpful to have further conversations on the matter before stage 3.

With regard to amendment 27, we need to find a way to ensure that changing places toilets are provided. I accept Pam Duncan-Glancy’s point that two years might be a bit tight, so I will not move amendment 27. However, I will seek to lodge an amendment at stage 3 to ensure that such facilities are provided.

Amendments 26 and 27 are my final two amendments. I will be leaving the meeting shortly. I am not going off in a huff—I have another meeting to go to. Please accept my apologies for that.

I seek the committee’s permission to withdraw amendment 26.

Amendment 26, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 27 not moved.

Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.

Section 4—Commencement

I thank the member for her positive comments. As with everything in my amendments, I am open to persuasion on whether the period needs to be longer than two years. I look forward to hearing what Liz Smith and the minister have to say on the matter. If we could get the principle agreed today, I would be happy to come back at stage 3 with a slightly different timescale if the majority of members feel that that should be the way forward.

For those who do not know, a changing places toilet includes a hoist, room for a carer to be in attendance, suitable doorways and a shower. I have long campaigned for such toilets to be more readily available, and I am pleased that in the previous session we got an amendment on planning agreed to so that changing places toilets now have to be part of certain new developments.

I am very grateful that the Scottish Government has made a £10 million fund available to organisations to help fund the installation of changing places toilets, as I recognise that they come at extra cost.

If no changing places toilet is provided at an outdoor centre that would undoubtedly prevent some young people from going there. Whether the specified period were to be two years, five years or somewhere in between—I hope that it would be for no longer than five years—we should be encouraging outdoor centres to go ahead and get such facilities in place as soon as possible, and we should set a deadline for that.

If I could make a bid for Government money, I would ask for it to be ensured that the changing places scheme remains open, and not just for this year: I hope that new money can be allocated in future years.

I move amendment 26.

I appreciate that, but does the minister recognise that guidance does not have any legal authority behind it, and that, if, for whatever reason, a local authority went against that guidance, the parent would have no legal right to challenge that?

It will come as no surprise to the committee that I am not a great fan of guidance. It has its place, but I worry that, too often, we put things into guidance then forget about it, which leaves parents and others without a statutory authority to enforce something. I will not labour the point, but we are future proofing the bill for when we might have Governments or local authorities that are not supportive of it in principle, and there needs to be some kind of backstop for parents and young folk to have it enforced. Having said that, I will not press amendments 20 or 21 today but will take up the offer of both Liz Smith and the minister to engage with them.

As I have said, I welcome amendment 16 in the name of Liz Smith. Maybe we can look at whether we can strengthen it slightly more. I would also be interested to know how the provision would work in practice for a school such as James Gillespie’s high school in Edinburgh, which has a number of pupils who are doing Gaelic-medium education although the main school is doing English. Would delivery be done bilingually? Again, no doubt, that will all be set out in guidance in due course.

With that, I seek the committee’s leave to withdraw amendment 20.

Amendment 20, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 16 moved—[Liz Smith]—and agreed to.

Amendment 4 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy]—and agreed to.

Amendment 21 not moved.

Amendments 29 and 30 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy]—and agreed to.

I am sure that the committee will be glad to hear that my amendments in this group are the last ones that I will be speaking to, so members will not hear my voice again.

Amendment 157 follows on from other amendments in the group that have been debated already. It seeks to strengthen the assessment process for anyone who is requesting assisted dying. Amendment 157 would mean that, before approval of that request, the person must be seen by a psychiatrist and a social worker. The doctor leading the process would then take into account what both of those professionals say before making a final decision.

The amendment is about making sure that the decision to die is made freely and with full understanding of what it means. Such situations are deeply complex and emotional, as we all acknowledge. People might be facing pain, fear, isolation or pressure, and those factors can affect how they think and feel. A psychiatrist can help to identify whether someone’s judgment is being clouded by depression, anxiety or another treatable condition. A social worker can help to uncover whether a person is feeling lonely, unsupported or under pressure, and perhaps feeling that they are a burden to others.

Bringing in those perspectives does not delay or deny a choice; it protects the choice and makes it more safeguarded. The amendment gives the public reassurance that the process will be careful and humane. It ensures that every request is looked at from all sides, so that any decision that is made truly reflects the individual’s own free and informed will.

Amendment 159 addresses another issue that is essential when it comes to life and death. Doctors need to know exactly what the law expects of them. If wording in the legislation is unclear, it can lead to hesitation, mistakes or uneven interpretation, and ultimately that could lead to lots of legal cases happening in Scotland. Amendment 159 removes any doubt about the responsibility of medical practitioners and makes that responsibility clear and unambiguous. We owe it to the professionals and the lawmakers that no doctor should ever have to guess what Parliament meant or have to see whether they can interpret it themselves. A clear law is safe law for everyone involved.

Amendment 160 would remove the phrase “in either case” from section 7. On the face of it, that might sound like a very small change, but I believe that it is an important one. The current wording could be read to suggest that doctors have different responsibilities in different circumstances. I do not think that that is what Mr McArthur has intended. The duties of medical practitioners to check that someone has capacity, is acting voluntarily and meets eligibility criteria should apply equally in every case. By removing those words, we would make the law clear and more consistent, ensuring that there is no room for confusion or uneven treatment between different cases, whether that is due to geography or the type of condition. If amendment 160 were accepted, the bill would be stronger, simpler and faster. It would help doctors to follow the law with confidence and it would give reassurance to the public that the same high standards would apply to every person in every case, whoever they are, wherever they live and whatever their condition.