Meeting of the Parliament 16 December 2025 [Draft]
I recognise that the minister tried to convince me that progress was made, but whether progress was actually made is another matter. In any case, the working group was created at just that point.
My second point is that, if we rejected the bill, it would send a clear message to those in the public gallery today and to people across the country that their sector did not matter any more. There is no neutral position with the bill—we either support it or we do not. If we do not support it, that will send a clear message that we do not regard residential outdoor education as a priority, which would have ramifications across the public sector. Councils, local authorities and teachers would not regard it as important any more. We cannot go back: either we support the bill or we do not.
The third element is that many schools were delivering such provision already. I suppose that that is credit to the minister, but if some were able to do it, all should be able to do it. That is why, in the end, the bill is necessary.
There is still outstanding business. John Mason has quite rightly alerted us to the fact that we have not resolved the issue of finances. We cannot magic up money out of nowhere. That will need to be addressed in the budget process. The bill has shifted the priorities and has given a clear indication to all the parties that are represented in the Parliament, and to local authorities, that residential outdoor education should be given greater priority, although we still need to resolve the issue of finances and find the money.
We have all spoken with one voice today—apart from John Mason, perhaps—and said that the bill should go through, which will send a clear message to all our finance spokespersons and to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government that the provision made by the bill should be given the appropriate and necessary finance to make it a reality.