Chamber and committees

I am grateful for the minister’s support, and I am glad that he is supporting the other amendments in the group, which I think are worth while, too.

I press amendment 70.

Amendment 70 agreed to.

Amendment 71 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Section 29, as amended, agreed to.

After section 29

Amendment 44 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.

Amendment 54 moved—[Jeremy Balfour]—and agreed to.

Sections 30 to 37 agreed to.

Section 38—Individual culpability where organisation commits an offence

Amendment 45 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.

Section 38, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 39 and 40 agreed to.

Section 41—Guidance

Good morning, colleagues. You will be glad to know that I will speak only to my two amendments in the group and that I will do so quite briefly.

Amendment 70 is an example of giving examples in legislation. It is often useful to, sparingly, provide examples in legislation to demonstrate clear intentions, particularly for those who will come after us. Amendment 70 includes the classic legislative language of “Without prejudice to” the above, and it states that

“automatic voter registration in educational establishments”,

including schools, universities and colleges, could be one of the activities that could be funded under section 29.

There is a huge amount of evidence on the positive impact of automatic voter registration, which is often far more cost effective than campaigns to encourage people to register individually in their own time. Bluntly, education establishments have a captive audience, so there is plenty of potential in that regard. For example, there is a lot of potential for the automatic voter registration of young people at the point at which they are issued with their Scottish Qualifications Authority candidate number. There is very good work in some American states, with people being automatically registered to vote when they receive their driving licence from the department of motor vehicles.

Amendment 70 is not prescriptive. It does not mandate that that is one of the activities that should be undertaken, but it points to it as an example. It is what I would describe as a nudging amendment—nudging in what I believe to be the intended direction for section 29.

Amendment 71 simply points out that due regard should be given to the Equality Act 2010, in recognition of the fact that some of the groups with the lowest participation rates—or with rates that are lower than the average participation rate—are groups that are defined by protected characteristics under the 2010 act. One of the most obvious ones is age, as there is a lower participation rate among young people, and another covers disabled people, which is relevant to other sections of the bill.

Those are the intentions behind both my amendments.

I move amendment 70.

I should say at the outset that, although I will be moving amendment 72, I will not be pressing it to a vote or moving amendments 73 and 74. I have had some useful engagement with the minister on this matter, and I think that there is potential for at least a partial agreement, although I recognise that there are still points to work through.

I will summarise the purpose of these amendments. I believe that it is desirable for the public to have a clear understanding of the electoral boundaries that they sit within. Obviously, where there is a change in those boundaries, it takes time to communicate that. At a very practical level, the successful functioning of our democracy in our elections depends on political parties being able to function well, and they need a reasonable degree of notice of any boundary changes, for the purposes of selecting candidates and doing any internal reorganisation that might be required.

The intention of the amendments, therefore, is quite simply to set an 18-month deadline before an election for the completion of the relevant boundary review, so that the public and the parties participating in an election have the notice that they require in order to be fully informed and prepared.

I move amendment 72.

I will strike my previous remarks from the record and thank the minister for his support by pressing amendment 72. I am grateful for his support, and I will come back at stage 3 with redrafted equivalents to amendments 73 and 74.

Amendment 72 agreed to.

Amendments 73 and 74 not moved.

Section 45, as amended, agreed to.

Before section 46

Amendments 75 and 76 moved—[Bob Doris]—and agreed to.

Section 46—Five-year plan: devolved Scottish elections and referendums

Amendment 77 moved—[Bob Doris]—and agreed to.

Amendment 48 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.

Section 46, as amended, agreed to.

After section 46

Amendments 55 and 56 moved—[Bob Doris]—and agreed to.

Section 47—Constitution of the Electoral Management Board for Scotland

That is great—thanks. I move on to my core question, which is about inspections and how you are assessed. I am interested in hearing about the basics of safeguarding, inspections and things like that, but also about how the educational outcomes of the services that you provide are assessed. The wider context of the bill is that it is being considered at the same time as quite a lot of reform in the system. The Government’s education reform bill will re-establish the independent inspectorate, and a discussion is taking place about how wide its remit should be.

Will you tell us a little about how you are inspected and assessed on both safeguarding and educational outcomes? What changes might have to be made if we pass the bill and move it on to a statutory footing?

Good morning. My questions are primarily related to the impact on teachers’ terms and conditions. Tara Lillis, you have covered that quite comprehensively already, but could you clarify whether it is the position of the NASUWT that, were the bill to be passed and the obligation to provide outdoor residential education were to be delivered in the typical way, through teachers volunteering their time, that would end up going to the SNCT for a formal discussion about changes to terms and conditions?

I want to ask about how your centres are inspected and assessed, but before that I will follow up on a point that was made about financial viability. Nick March gave the example of Blairvadach, which is in my area. As he pointed out, it is pretty much fully booked for 48 or 49 weeks of the year, but in most years Glasgow City Council still considers closing it because it is quite a significant net financial liability. There is a tension in that, if the council reduced its school trips that it brings in and increased the number of commercial bookings, the centre might move towards viability, but that would defeat its core purpose and the reason why the council has the centre in the first place.

If we are to pass the bill and significantly increase the demand from local authorities and schools for class trips, how can we address the tension whereby centres such as Blairvadach could move towards financial viability but only if they decrease the number of school trips that come in and move to being more of a commercial setting?

Absolutely. Thank you.

You mentioned that the support does not have to be provided by teachers in the typical manner that I think that we are all familiar with. Andrew Bradshaw, I am interested in anything that you can add to the discussion in terms of what alternative models look like. Are there areas of best practice that exist already? Are there any local authorities that use a model that is not typically reliant on teachers volunteering to go away with their class for the week?

I have no doubt that that is true. When I am not here in the Parliament, I am a youth worker, and plenty of the young people I have worked with have had excellent experiences of outdoor education.

A cynical or pessimistic approach to what will happen if we pass the bill might suggest that we could create a capacity issue by significantly increasing demand. At the moment, schools can be somewhat selective and go to a centre that they know they will be happy with. If schools are obligated to go somewhere and there are capacity issues in the system, their options may be limited and they may, therefore, end up not being completely satisfied that the place they go to will have positive outcomes. What systems do we need to have in place to prevent that? If we increase demand, capacity will have to be created to meet that demand, and we will need to ensure that the capacity of the new, expanded system matches the standards that I have no doubt you are all meeting at the moment, if that makes sense.