Willie Rennie
Scottish Liberal Democrats · Scotland
“Daniel Johnson’s remarks were powerful, and he identified an issue that is sometimes uncomfortable and that we need to address. The country faces difficult issues, and we do ourselves no favours by ignoring those issues. Some of the points that Daniel Johnson made about immigration were right, and we need to discuss them.”
“Again, Daniel Johnson highlighted that when he talked about comments on “fighting- age men”, “strangers” and “two-tier policing”. We know what those terms mean and what they are appealing to. Thomas Kerr: Will the member take an intervention? Willie Rennie: Yes, I will take an intervention from Mr Charmer himself.”
“I understand that a German company will now use the Dalzell plant as a jobbing mill, importing 4,000 tonnes of slab from a foreign supplier outside the UK instead of purchasing that slab from Scunthorpe. All that raises serious questions about an important part of the steel industry in Scotland.”
“It is important for the UK Government that there is learning from the process and that the circumstances of our Parliament—for example, when we re-form following an election—are not an afterthought in relation to the UK Government’s formulation of its approach to legislation and when it decides to introduce it.”
“So far, the Scottish Government has not been formally asked to provide support, but I advise the member and the chamber that the issue was part of my discussions with the UK Government minister yesterday. The legislation extends to Scotland, and the steel undertaking would capture the site.”
“Will that be repaid, and at what point? When will we have a proper functioning mill—the only wide-plate mill in the United Kingdom—at Dalzell? When will it have a constructive relationship with the Scunthorpe plant? All those issues should be at the front of the Government’s mind, but, as usual, it is not paying attention.”
The complete record
Every one of 861 lines we hold for Willie Rennie, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 18.
“Does the minister agree that this is not an either/or situation and that people who seek to divide environmental groups and the farming sector are doing a disservice? We should be working together. We cannot do this without farmers. There is no way that we will deal with our biodiversity and climate change obligations unless we work together. What efforts is he making to get those environmental stakeholders back on board? Jim Fairlie: I absolutely applaud Willie Rennie’s good sense in taking some of the heat and division out of these debates. It is absolutely correct that there should not be a divide between our climate change and biodiversity targets and producing food in Scotland. I applaud Willie Rennie’s intervention, because that is what we, as a Government, are trying to do. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Very briefly,”
“I also thank the SFC and the SDS, particularly the staff who have been through hell in the past few years; the Scottish Chamber of Commerce and the formidable Liz Cameron, who one should never cross too readily; and Universities Scotland, as well as a myriad of other organisations that have been excellent in providing advice. I just hope that the bill works. It had better work, because we need to get the skills landscape right and we need to train people with the right skills for the economy. If we do not do that, the repercussions will be even greater. The Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate. 20:30”
“I have been impressed by the personnel who have been appointed to the Funding Council to take forward the reforms. Some of the individuals are really talented and can make the best of this situation. As I said, going back might create even more uncertainty. For all those reasons, and given the amendments that I have secured today, which will give employers and business a louder voice, we will reluctantly vote for the bill. In the last couple of seconds of my speech, I want to thank the clerks and officials. The officials have been outstanding in giving good, sound advice.”
“Would it mean that another set of reforms would come forward that might threaten it in the future, or would it be secure for ever? What would it mean for the leadership of that organisation? Douglas Ross: It is my understanding that, just last month, SDS wrote to the minister to set out alternative views and opinions on possible reforms that would not be as costly and disruptive as those that the Scottish Government has proposed. Should those views not be considered in this debate and as we go forward? Willie Rennie: Douglas Ross is probably right, but I fear that it is too late to do that in this debate—we are so far down the track now. I hope that there is pragmatic partnership between SDS and others. I sense a change in that organisation, so I hope that it works pragmatically to make the transition as smooth as possible.”
“We need to get leaders to drive change across boundaries and ensure that everybody under their umbrella is working together and with all the other public sector bodies. My other concern—I am giving a long list of reasons why the bill is terrible—relates to the capacity of the Funding Council. We know that the Funding Council has been under the cosh and has had to deal with all the crises in the higher education sector and in colleges. Does it have the headspace to deal with the additional responsibilities that are set out in the bill? From what I have said, members will know that I would not have started from here or gone down this route, but we are where we are. I am afraid to say that, if we go back and say no to the bill, that might cause more chaos in the sector. What would that mean for SDS?”
“Big-bang reorganisations often introduce paralysis, uncertainty and fear of change. They mean that staff are thinking about their jobs and looking over their shoulders rather than driving forward change for the future. That all happens as a result of big-bang reorganisations, which rarely deliver the returns that we want. We are talking about tens of millions of pounds for the reforms in the bill. Will we get the returns that we want from the changes? There are many public sector bodies, so we cannot bring them all under one roof. We need to have separate management. If we think that we can get integration, joint partnership and systems thinking only by bringing all those bodies under one roof, we are kidding ourselves.”
“The minister’s predecessor was passionate about creating a careers service that would drive change throughout the whole system, because, if we can get young people at school to make the right decisions about their future as a result of proper advice at the right time, we can provide parity of esteem and transform the whole skills landscape. However, that has been completely lost in the political debate—the debate might be happening somewhere else, but I am not aware of it. We have been banging on about the need for parity of esteem for years, but we have failed to deliver it. Skills planning, which Stephen Kerr talked about at length today, was a critical recommendation in the Withers report, but we are not really debating those issues. That is one of my regrets.”
“The context for the bill is the Audit Scotland report from some years ago. That report was scathing in its criticism of all those involved in the sector and of the inability of SDS and the Scottish Funding Council to come together to agree a strategy. It set out the failure of ministers to direct that change and ensure an integrated approach from those two bodies and others. That is the foundation of this debate. As well as clearly setting out the need for a single source of funding, the Withers report recommended many other things that have been completely lost in this debate.”
“I refer back to the point that I made a moment ago, in which I sought to emphasise that the strategy will not direct funding towards specific provision in universities, because they are autonomous bodies. In preparing the strategy, the Government will be meticulously careful in setting out what it will mean for universities, in order to make sure that there is no encroachment on their autonomy and that their existing status is protected and preserved.”
“The minister will know that Universities Scotland has expressed concern about the national funding strategy. It feels that the strategy risks encroaching on the Office for National Statistics classification and the independent status of universities. That has been a sensitive issue, particularly with regard to the University of Dundee and the use of powers under section 25 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005. What will the minister say to assure Universities Scotland that that is not what he and the Government intend? Ben Macpherson: I thank Willie Rennie for raising that important point and for the engagement that I have had with him on this matter, and I thank Universities Scotland for its engagement in advance of these stage 3 proceedings.”
“It is not for me to prejudge the outcome of the EIS’s ballot, so I will await the results. The Government has set out a clear aspiration for how we might deliver reduced class contact for teachers. I set that out in November. It is now for us to hear the results from the EIS ballot. I am sure that I will speak to the union in due course.”
“In relation to his points on the ASN event, I have to give him credit. At the round table with the Opposition, it was Mr Rennie’s key ask that we have a national event to share good practice and to use that good practice to elevate the fantastic work that headteachers and teachers are doing to support children with additional support needs, which work I am sure we have all witnessed in our own communities and constituencies. I previously gave examples from my own experience. Much of that work is being funded through the pupil equity fund, but much of it is being funded through the extra funding that the Government put in place in last year’s budget, which will be continued in this year’s budget—subject to its being passed—to support more staff in our schools, because we know that that is what makes a difference.”
“Thanks to modern technology, I am beaming in from Cupar—to everybody’s satisfaction, I hope. I welcome this positive plan, which contains a welcome set of measures. I met the cabinet secretary’s officials this week to discuss the national ASN event, which I think will be a good step in sharing best practice. I hope to meet Janie McManus to discuss the review. Dealing with pressure in the classroom is a major part of addressing the challenges that we face. The Educational Institute of Scotland ballot on strike action closed just this week. Will the cabinet secretary update us on what further steps she has taken to avert the damaging strike action that might come in as soon as a few weeks’ time? Jenny Gilruth: I thank Mr Rennie for his question and for beaming in from Cupar.”
“My appeal to the Government is that, in the next session of the Parliament, we need to ensure that we have a structure that gives full support to delivering the Promise. Under the current arrangement, we simply do not have the heft of the whole of the Government delivering what should be one of its top priorities.”
“CELCIS, for which I have a huge amount of respect—its representatives have given some of the best evidence in our committee sessions—is urging caution, too, because some of the best providers do make a profit. It is about ensuring that we keep under control the degree of the profit that is made, rather than eradicating profit altogether. If a good service is being provided— and the profits are often reinvested back into the service—we should surely be encouraging those kinds of providers. Finally, I want the minister to understand that we are with her on this and will support the bill at stage 1. We are looking for further amendments to ensure that we can make the bill the best that it possibly can be.”
“Duncan Dunlop has helpfully provided me with some powerful amendments, which I will lodge at stage 2, on the right to return. He cites compelling evidence from North Yorkshire that even simply saying, “We’re there for you when you need us,” while it might not result in an awful lot of returns, leaves the door open to providing support. In addition, guaranteed employment placements for care-experienced people in the public sector and ensuring that we have a premature death register for such people could help to bring greater confidence into the sector. The other area in which I would urge a bit of caution concerns eradicating profit in the sector.”
“The benefits of that approach are clear, because we might end up with fewer young people in care, and the voices of those who do go into care will be heard more loudly. However, the reach of family group decision making does not go far enough. I commend the City of Edinburgh Council and Glasgow City Council, as the approach is well embedded in those local authorities, but it should be everywhere. I know that the minister wants to go down the route of organic development—I understand that. However, England is legislating for the approach and progressing down the route of family group decision making. I urge the minister to consider why, if it is such a good thing, we cannot simply state that everyone has to do it and it has to be available everywhere.”
“Nevertheless, there are some very positive measures in the bill, such as the national register for foster carers, along with the measures on independent advocacy, aftercare post-16— although we need to be mindful of those who may have left care before the age of 16 and would, therefore, not necessarily be entitled to that support—and corporate parenting. Like Ross Greer, I want to push the Government further on family group decision making. It is very clear in the Promise that we should be taking preventative action and early intervention. It specifically mentions family group decision making and ensuring that the children’s hearings system is more specialised and restricted in its scope in the future because we are acting at an earlier stage.”
“Rather than acting early to prevent a crisis, all that we are doing is constantly putting out fires. That is in large part because we simply do not have the social work workforce to be able to cope with it all. Those in that workforce are under incredible stress, and we hear evidence at committee time after time that they are simply underresourced. Social work is the first point of contact for an awful lot of young people who are in desperate need of help. I would, therefore, caution that we should tone down the rhetoric. Let us be honest with people about where we are, and ensure that we can fix the system for the future.”
“However, to take one aspect of the bill, it will extend aftercare to previously care- experienced children and young people. They would previously not have been entitled to that. That could transform the life of a child or a young person. Willie Rennie: I think that it will make an improvement, but it is all part of the tone with regard to the Promise that we are making to children and young people. Trust in Government is not great among those people, so we need to be honest. We also need to be honest about the fact that we are not on track to deliver the Promise. As much as we would like to say that we are, simply saying so does not make it happen. We are quite far behind where we should be in delivering the Promise. I come across too many examples in which we still have crisis-driven care.”
“The fact that we did not seek to declutter the landscape at an earlier stage to avoid the current situation arising in the first place was a clear omission. Again, it is not the minister’s fault that that has not happened before now, but it has not, which is why we are in this difficult position. While I compliment the minister on her clear passion in this area, I would caution her against saying that the bill is going to change lives. It will make improvements, but we should not overstate its impact beyond that. Those improvements will be good, but they are not going to change lives dramatically in the way that has been set out. We should also be honest. Natalie Don-Innes: I thank Mr Rennie for many of his words there.”
“I commend the minister. The Promise is not hers alone, and it was not started by her. It was started by her predecessors in her position and higher up in the Government. She has been landed with a very difficult situation, because the Promise reaches right across Government, and it requires the commitment of so many Cabinet offices and ministers to make it work. Its implementation will require the full heft of Government. The Promise was a personal obligation that was set out by a previous First Minister. I am not saying that it is not a commitment of the current First Minister, but we get the feeling that it is not as much of a priority as it used to be. That is why we are in some of the difficulties that we are facing today, particularly in relation to the UNCRC.”
“That has already happened, and I am sure that it will continue to happen. The framework agreement will provide more certainty, which will be helpful. However, the on- going risk aspects are something that I and future Governments, as well as future committees of this Parliament, will consider as we progress over the years ahead, towards the delivery date in 2035.”
“The minister does not like it, but she needs to be reminded that we are talking about a promise that was supposed to be delivered last year. We are years behind where we should be, and people are suffering as a result. The minister highlighted the fact that we need to have candour and transparency. In the interests of that transparency, will she set out what is now high on the risk register for the project to dual the A9 up and down its length? Fiona Hyslop: In terms of the risk factors, some disruptions are outwith the control of contractors. For example, severe weather over lengths of time can cause issues. We are planning the project as tightly as we can. In my opening remarks, I said that we would have to work with contractors to ensure that we can deliver the project.”
“That programme has involved a very successful funding model of shared costs between the Scottish Government and local government, and it has delivered, with the number of schools in a good condition going from 62 per cent to 93 per cent. A lot of progress has been made. It is clear, however, that some schools still require attention. I say to Willie Rennie that we are keen to think about the role of special schools in the new phase of LEIP, and we will continue to work with local authorities, including Fife Council. I am sure that he will be kept apprised of that work, and that education ministers will be happy to visit some of the schools in his patch.”
“Liberal Democrats asked for support for neurodevelopmental assessments for children and young people and we are pleased that that is in the budget. However, I want to ask the cabinet secretary about the construction of special schools, because some of the special schools in my part of the world are the worst schools in that area, and they deserve improvement. I ask the cabinet secretary to come with me and visit the schools in Buckhaven and Cupar to see for herself why it is essential that the review is conducted and that it results in new buildings. Shona Robison: The infrastructure investment pipeline sets out a number of commitments, one of which is the next phase of the learning estate investment programme, or LEIP.”
“I want to be able to give the people who live in the properties confidence that there is a plan and that it will be delivered, but I do not have that confidence just now, which is why we will not support the bill. 15:41”
“It is also clear that, because of the nature of the sector in Scotland, with a higher proportion of social housing, the private sector will bear a greater burden of the tax than it would elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We will not support the bill at this stage. That does not mean that we are against having some kind of levy at some point, but the Government needs to pause and reflect on the confidence in the sector and its management of the cladding remediation process. It does not mean that we will not support the bill later, if efforts are made to fix the issue and if significant amendments are made—particularly in reference to a sensitivity analysis, which we heard about in Kenny Gibson’s contribution and which is particularly important. The bill is weak because of the Government’s policies and management over a number of years.”
“If, instead of hiding how little money has been spent on cladding and remediation, he was up front and honest with us about the mistakes that have been made, that might help us to persuade others that the remediation process will be managed properly at last, after years of failure. The fact that, as has been said repeatedly, the committee could not bring itself to endorse the bill, although it has so many Scottish National Party members on it, is a clear indication of the bill’s weaknesses. Its scope is so open-ended that it could cover more than the cladding issue. The fact that it could last for ever and be a permanent tax with no sunset clause is also of deep concern.”
“The fact that it has been necessary to bring in exemptions from rent controls for build-to-rent properties is a clear indication that the Government knew that concern about rent controls was having an impact on investment in the sector. First and foremost, I want investment, because I want homes to be built for the people I represent. I also worry about the SME sector, which is facing particular costs at the moment. Construction costs are going through the roof, and there are skills shortages. All those issues have had a dramatic impact on the confidence of the sector, and the cumulative impact of a number of different measures is such that it is really difficult for us to decide how to vote. As I said, we face a hellish dilemma. The minister should be more frank about the situation that he has put us in.”
“However, I point out to him that the residential property developer tax is already in place in the rest of the UK. The Government must be able to reflect on the macroeconomic environment of the UK, which has been very poor. Surely that, too, has played into the operating environment for builders. Willie Rennie: I have no doubt about that, but there are particular measures that have been taken in Scotland that have made the situation worse. Michelle Thomson knows that—she knows that some of the measures that the Government brought in and has now rescinded have had a massive impact on the confidence of the sector.”
“All of that gives us no confidence that the Government is capable of remediating the cladding on people’s homes. The second issue—which, again, is of the Government’s own making—is that it has shattered the confidence of the housing sector over a number of years through utterly reckless policies. As a result, the capacity in the system is much reduced, along with the confidence of the sector. Adding another tax on top of all the other measures that the Government is bringing in will have practical consequences. There are so many people in my constituency who are desperate for a home but cannot get one. The danger is that the bill will make the situation worse, with the result that more people who desperately need a home will not get one. Michelle Thomson: I have a lot of sympathy with what the member has said so far.”
“He knows that the Government has bungled the cladding remediation process from the very beginning by trying to do something better than the rest of the UK but ending up doing something much more complex and much slower. As a result of that, people are suffering every day. Given that the Government cannot even spend the money that it already has, why on earth are we asking the sector to pay more when it does not have any confidence in the process that the Government has established? The single building assessment is supposed to be superior, but it is far inferior to what we had before. The Government introduced legislation on the leasehold-freehold arrangement in Scotland extremely late in the day. It knew that it had to address that at the beginning, and it could have done something about it years ago, but it has been sluggish to act.”
“The Government has put us in a hellish position today. Who on earth would want to vote against a building safety levy to deal with the many homes that are affected by the issue that arose from Grenfell and the thousands of people across Scotland who live a daily nightmare, wondering whether their building is safe? Who would want to vote against that? However, the circumstances that have led to the difficult decision that we all face today are of the Government’s own making. The minister was unable to say how much money has been spent of the money that has been allocated to the issue through the Barnett formula. John Mason: Will the member give way? Willie Rennie: Not just now. The minister knows the answer to that. He knows that a pitifully small amount of money has been spent on dealing with the issue.”
“Mr Rennie voted for a budget to increase and maintain teacher numbers, and his Fife Council councillor colleagues have voted for cuts to reduce teacher numbers. That is not credible at all in relation to how our democracy works. More broadly, we have provided additionality for teacher numbers. On industrial action, we will continue to work with our teaching trade union colleagues—I met them only this morning—to ensure that we get a resolution to that dispute. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you very much indeed. That concludes portfolio questions. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business. Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1”
“I thought that the cabinet secretary would be a bit more exercised about the fact that we are on the verge of teachers going on strike and schools being shut at the end of January because of this Government’s failure to deliver 3,500 extra teachers and cut teacher contact time by 90 minutes. What response does she have for members and for teachers out there who are desperate for answers? Jenny Gilruth: Mr Rennie is another Fife MSP. His Liberal Democrat colleagues supported the Labour budget that I spoke about earlier, which took extra money from this Government and led to a reduction in Fife of 49 teachers. I do not think that it is credible to come to the chamber and say that, Mr Rennie.”
“As I said, the budget will outline the transitional and other reliefs that we will implement with regard to what the final bill for businesses will be. Businesses should also be engaged in a process with the assessors in advance of the final valuation roll taking effect in April. Mountain Safety 4.”
“I will make the situation clear. The rateable value for East Neuk Orchards, which is in my constituency, has gone up from £9,000 to £22,000. The company was below the level of the small business bonus scheme and paid nothing previously. Now, it is paying thousands of pounds, which will be wiping out any profit. Does the minister really understand the impact that his decisions are having? Ivan McKee: As I indicated, the process of valuation is carried out by the assessors, who operate independently of the Government. The Government and I are aware of the impact of the valuations that certain businesses have received. That is why we have had extensive engagement with businesses, sectors and the assessors.”
“My plea is for a grant scheme that works and that makes it possible for farmers to make changes, and we should close that gap through a river catchment plan, supported by Government agencies, to make that work. We might then have a chance of getting some of the natural environment measures to work. 17:57”
“Despite numerous discussions, forums and conferences all over the country, there is a chasm between what farmers believe works and what many environmental organisations and the regulators believe should happen. We need to close that gap. We need to have an understanding of best practice and of what can work, so that we can make a difference and stop flooding in communities. If we carry on as we are and ignore that gap—it is a massive gap— we will get no further forward. We will simply be talking about the issue forever more. My plea to the minister is to look at the issue in practical terms, because every part of the country is different. The Eddleston is different from the Eden, the Tweed and the rivers down in Dumfries. A bespoke plan is required for all those communities.”
“The amount of money that they get in return simply will not pay for the conversion and for the sacrifice of that land. In North East Fife, that land is very valuable not only for arable farming but for fruit and vegetables. Therefore, if that is the only scheme that is available, we are asking farmers to sacrifice. Farmers are people who are embedded in their communities. They understand the dramatic impact of flooding on their neighbours, when the water goes into their houses. They want to do everything that they can, but they still need to make a living and to make their farm work. We know that farm incomes are struggling at this time, so we need an environment scheme that cuts it and that provides the necessary support for them to make that change. There is then the issue of what kind of change we are looking to make.”
“We need alternative solutions, some of which have been referenced today. The natural measures that we have talked about might not be the whole answer, but they are part of the answer. I am grateful to the minister for meeting me and Alex Rowley to talk about water scarcity and flooding, because those two issues are equally important in some of our communities. When we had that discussion, I was particularly keen to see two things: first, a river catchment plan and, secondly, to go along with that, a grant scheme for landowners to introduce change. Those two things must go hand in hand. However, in my experience, from discussions with farmers, the agri-environment climate scheme simply does not cut it when it comes to agricultural, arable land.”
“I am grateful to Craig Hoy for bringing the debate to the chamber. If he will forgive me, I will broaden it out to cover North East Fife, where my knowledge of the topic derives from my direct experience and engagement with residents, landowners, farmers, various regulators and the local authority. It also derives directly from flooding experiences in Cupar in the winter of 2023, as well as those in Freuchie, Muchty, Strath, Kingskettle and numerous other communities up and down the River Eden that have been affected. I know that we are in a tight financial situation. I know that big bang flood prevention schemes are incredibly expensive and that construction costs are growing. I know that it will be difficult to implement large-scale, hard engineering projects in every part of the country that is exposed to flooding.”
“Mandatory reporting can be part of building a better evidence base, but the way in which we engage in that work is really important. I take on board Mr Rennie’s points on expertise, and ministers will very much be guided by the advice and guidance that we receive from the national strategic group, which, of course, is chaired by”
“The problem with that answer is that it may result in a lower level of reporting, because young people might just shut down. They might fear the consequences of reporting; the enormity of reporting might result in our getting lower levels of data than we otherwise would. I urge the cabinet secretary to be cautious and to move forward carefully, working with the professionals, to ensure that we get this right, because we must get it right. Jenny Gilruth: I absolutely concur with Mr Rennie’s position. There will be a reticence to report—I think that he spoke to the views of young people and their fear of reporting. However, the reality is that, as I think I said to Maggie Chapman, the recorded levels of such crimes is very low currently and it is important that we build that evidence base.”
“I would be more than happy to engage directly with Mr Rennie on the national or local picture, and I want to leave him in no doubt of the priority that I attach to the matter. Community First Responders 6.”
“In Scotland, 30 per cent of adults live in areas where they are unable to get a neurodevelopmental assessment. It is not that demand is outstripping supply; in many parts of the country, there is no supply. Why will the minister not treat this much more urgently than he currently is doing? It is an urgent situation. Tom Arthur: I assure Mr Rennie that I treat the matter with the utmost urgency. I was grateful to his colleague Alex Cole-Hamilton for participating in the summit on Monday, and I recognise that the summit arose from a commitment from the Government that was made during a debate that the Liberal Democrats secured. It is an area in which I really want to build political consensus. That was evident at the summit on Monday.”
“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. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We now move to the open debate. 17:23”
“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.”
“Willie Rennie: 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.”