Official Report 950KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20138, in the name of Liz Smith, on the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. I call Liz Smith, the member in charge of the bill, to speak to and move the motion. You have around six minutes, Ms Smith.
16:52
Throughout all my 16 years as a secondary schoolteacher and my subsequent two decades as a parliamentarian, I have been firmly of the view that outdoor education is one of the most valuable and rewarding learning experiences that any young person can have. Residential outdoor education, which can enable young people to experience an environment that is very far removed from their usual everyday situations, is often life changing. That is why the bill is so important.
Adventurous new experiences in the outdoors allow young people to develop lifelong connections to the natural environment. They build self-esteem, reliance, confidence and, most importantly, resilience. They also help them to learn leadership skills, the importance of valuing friendship and what it means to be part of a team. Those skills not only enrich our lives as individuals; they also benefit society and are the ones that employers want to see in new recruits to the workforce. This is, therefore, a very good day for those who passionately believe that residential outdoor education, and learning in the outdoors more generally, is a positive, formative experience.
We know, too, that the current set-up has not been delivering well enough when it comes to residential opportunities. The scrutiny of my bill over the past three years has shone a light on that.
Despite moves to improve matters when the Scottish Government’s vision for outdoor learning was produced in 2010, the pledge made in the 2021 Scottish National Party manifesto, and some schools and local authorities doing a first-class job, significant gaps remain. There is considerable inequality of provision, particularly for pupils with additional support needs and those from disadvantaged backgrounds. There is a wide variation in resource provision across our different local authorities. There is also inequality of provision between the state school sector and the independent school sector, in which residential outdoor education is embedded in the extra curriculum. Those inequalities are unfair.
During consideration of the financial memorandum, I referred to the bill as “an investment” and an example of “preventative spend” in action. Evidence collected by the Outward Bound Trust across eight countries, including the United Kingdom, found that, for every £1 that is invested in outward bound programmes, there is a return of between £5 and £15 in societal value. For me, that is a very powerful finding and one that shows that the bill represents a healthy long-term investment in our young people and society in general.
However, the investment is not just purely financial. The bill’s provisions will help to address some of the stubborn and deep-seated problems that our schools face, from attainment to attendance, and from behaviour to wellbeing. It is a vital part of the jigsaw, particularly in the post-Covid era, when we have to work even harder to build resilience in our young people.
The bill that I hope we will pass this evening no longer places a duty on the Scottish Government to fund the full provision of such education. I hope that that change will provide the flexibility that is needed to ensure that there is a mixed funding model, which draws on financial support from a range of sources across the public, private and voluntary sectors, and including parental support. What is important is that those who cannot afford to pay are not required to do so, and that the parents of pupils with additional support needs are not charged extra because of those needs.
The Government will not have to pay the full amount, but I have read the supplementary financial memorandum and it does not give a figure for what the Government will have to pay. Can the member give any estimate of what the new legislation will cost the Government?
The costs have not changed since the original discussion of that issue. However, as John Mason knows, at stage 2 we added to the bill a period for its staged introduction and we also changed the commencement date.
The Minister for Children, Young People and the Promise has also put it on record that there will be additional funding for pupils who have additional support needs, so that nobody will have to pay extra for that reason, and for families who cannot afford to pay for the provision. I am grateful to the minister for doing that.
The bill now includes an explicit requirement for the Scottish Government to consult trade unions when it is preparing guidance. I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for her work in strengthening the bill in that way at stage 2. Earlier this afternoon, amendments were passed at stage 3 to provide that the Scottish Government must consult teachers who are not in trade unions, as well as representatives of young people themselves, before preparing its guidance. Those are all very positive steps. Similarly, earlier today, changes were accepted that establish what the statutory guidance must include, and those have also strengthened the bill.
As I mentioned, the commencement date has also changed. Instead of the bill automatically coming into force on 7 July next year, the Scottish Government will now make commencement regulations. That change will allow the Government, education authorities, managers of grant-aided schools, the outdoor education sector and other key partners, such as trade unions and school leaders, more space to get ready.
I thank the outdoor education sector for its tireless support for the bill; it is good to see that many representatives of the sector are in the public gallery this afternoon. I also thank my colleagues across the chamber, my staff, the non-Government bills unit—which is one of the Parliament’s biggest assets—and the many young people who have clearly believed that the bill could provide them with life-changing opportunities.
I am pleased that the minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills see the benefits of the bill. I thank them for their constructive engagement in getting us to where we are today, and I am grateful to them for respecting the will of the Parliament.
Finally, I thank the Education, Children and Young People Committee and its convener, Douglas Ross, for their excellent scrutiny of my bill at stages 1 and 2, as well as Kenny Gibson and colleagues on the Finance and Public Administration Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their scrutiny.
It is an honour for me to move the motion to pass the bill.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill be passed.
16:59
Many people will have been privileged, in their youth, to have enjoyed time away from home at a residential outdoor education facility, often in spectacular parts of the Scottish countryside. For the children and young people who continue to benefit from such experiences, most have very positive memories. The point of the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill is to ensure that more children and young people in Scotland get to benefit from residential outdoor education well into the future.
The fact that we are debating the merits of the bill as amended is down to Liz Smith, who introduced the bill and has stewarded it through the Parliament. That requires significant work, and I thank Liz Smith and her team for the productive and constructive engagement that we have had.
Deciding on whether to support the bill was not easy for the Government. In addition to the small matter of putting part of the curriculum on a statutory footing, there were and remain significant challenges to overcome in delivery, particularly in relation to cost and workforce considerations.
I want to ask the minister the same question that I asked Liz Smith. The minister talked about cost. Does she have any idea what the Government might have to pay for this?
Throughout the bill process, I have been clear about the need to gather data to enable us to have a true understanding of the full costs associated with it. Amendments that have been made at stages 2 and 3 will allow us to do that. The removal of the duty to fund will allow us to look at alternative sources of funding, which I have discussed with the committee and the member in charge. Although finalised costs are not available at the moment, I believe that the steps taken at stages 2 and 3 will allow us a better period of time to gather data prior to the bill’s commencement.
We must ensure that wider forms of outdoor learning are not crowded out due to prioritising a focus on residential outdoor education. However, ultimately, we concluded that all such issues could be overcome or addressed in the legislative process and the implementation phase, as I have just outlined to Mr Mason.
The Education, Children and Young People Committee heard a range of evidence on the positive impact that residential outdoor education can have, from helping to strengthen pupil-teacher relationships to building a young person’s confidence and improving wellbeing. Many schools already provide that experience as part of supporting pupils’ transition from primary to secondary school. It is for those reasons that the Scottish Government provided additional financial support to the sector during the Covid pandemic, so that it might survive the impact of that.
Research also suggests that the residential experience can provide added benefits for young people in more socioeconomically deprived circumstances. In that context, it is not surprising that the issue of equity has been a key one that has been explored during the bill process. Ahead of stage 2, I discussed the question of equity with Liz Smith at some length. In particular, we reflected on the capacity of the outdoor education sector to deliver for children and young people with complex and multiple support needs. I thank the outdoor education sector for the input and insight that it provided on the matter and on other matters during the bill process. In particular, I welcomed the engagement of the Association of Heads of Outdoor Education Centres, the Outward Bound Trust and PGL Beyond.
Those discussions and others have demonstrated that realising the intent and ambition of the bill will take time. However, that implementation process will be easier to achieve as a result of Parliament agreeing to allow for a longer lead-in time to commencement. That approach will enable key partners, including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland and teacher trade unions, to engage more fully with the requirements of the bill and will help us to work collaboratively and collectively to deliver on the statutory duties. I again thank all those organisations for their engagement during the bill process and for helping to inform our thinking on how best to respond to the bill’s requirements.
I recognise what the minister says about the strength of engagement, but does she recognise that everyone across the chamber will have had communication, even as late as this week, from school leaders about their concerns, particularly on staffing and the resource that will be available? Does she accept that those concerns will need to be clearly addressed in guidance? What can she say to those school leaders to give them further reassurance?
I can give you the time back for taking that intervention, minister.
I very much recognise those concerns, which I have laid out very clearly to members in the chamber and to committee several times. In fact, I engaged directly with the teacher trade unions to discuss their concerns at various stages of the bill, so I absolutely hear them.
To go back to what I said about the staging of the implementation, there is a need to gather data and understand the next steps that need to be taken before commencement.
I made it clear in my parliamentary statement to the chamber on 24 September that, if the Government was to be in a position to support the bill, we needed to see the affordability of its provisions addressed, specifically in regard to equity of provision, workforce implications and the duty on Scottish ministers to fund. I welcome that Liz Smith and others were receptive to such changes. Collectively, we have worked to improve the bill on those points, specifically by amending the duty to fund provision at stage 2 and by enabling financial contributions to be sought. Notwithstanding those improvements, implementing the bill will still incur substantial costs for education authorities, and I fully expect the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to raise those in future budget discussions.
Overall, I am pleased that we have been able to work together across the Parliament to find common ground and arrive at a bill that I hope that we can all support. I look forward to hearing other members’ contributions to the debate.
17:06
I have the easiest job in the Parliament tonight, which is to open this debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, because my Scottish Conservative colleague Liz Smith, along with her office and the non-Government bills unit, has done all the work—an incredible amount of work—to bring us to this stage. They have achieved something that, at some stages in the process, looked unachievable. However, at any point when there were challenges, Liz Smith got stuck in and overcame them, which has ensured that we, as a Parliament, can vote tonight for the bill to become law. I will be proud to do so.
I am not speaking tonight as convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, but as convener I was privileged to sit through the evidence sessions on the bill and to hear from people who are passionate about it, as Liz Smith is, and who wanted to share their experience about what it will achieve for so many others. I am delighted that so many of them are in our public gallery tonight to watch the final element of the bill’s passage.
I will always remember that, when we were constructing our stage 1 report—and this was included in it—a letter by Nick March was read out to the committee, and I want to use those words again tonight. The meeting was on 13 November 2024, so it was more than a year ago, but the words that Nick March read to us about a young pupil called Nevis stuck with me at the time and still stick with me now.
He said:
“Nevis has cerebral palsy. He is a full-time wheelchair user and he needs support with feeding and an adult with him all the time.”
Nick March wanted the committee to hear—and I want the Parliament to hear—the difference that outdoor residential learning made to Nevis. These are Nevis’s words being read out in Nevis’s Parliament as we are able to pass a bill that Nevis supports:
“Rock climbing was awesome! I got to defy gravity and abseil down a mountain at the speed of light! Kayaking was so cool literally. I sailed round an island with my school friends in a storm! I scored a gold at archery! And we all did drumming together at night, and it was really exciting and fun. I’d never done any of those things before ... I can’t do so many things like that at home because they don’t have spaces for kids with wheelchairs to join in ... I think every kid should get the chance to go to camp, have adventures and hang out together.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 13 November 2024; c 49-50.]
Nevis articulated very clearly why the bill was so important to Liz Smith, who has committed so much of her parliamentary career to getting it on to the statute book, and why it is so important that the Parliament agrees to the bill tonight. As a result of the bill, there will be so many opportunities for kids such as Nevis, now and in the future, to have experiences that will not only stick with them in their school career but remain with them throughout their entire life.
We heard at committee about the difference that outdoor education makes to classroom environments. People who have one view of a teacher before they go on a week-long residential course might have a totally different view when they come back, and that aids education and the atmosphere and environment in our classrooms.
The bill has so many positives. I was delighted when the committee could agree its general principles and the Parliament overwhelmingly supported it at stage 1, which is why the Parliament should—and will—support it to become law tonight.
Sometimes, there are divisions in the chamber and we strongly disagree with one another. At other times, an individual member is able to work across the political parties to bring a nugget of an idea to fruition. Liz Smith should be very proud of having done that, and the Parliament should be proud that an Opposition member has been able to work with the Government to enact a law that will make a real difference. I am delighted to speak in favour of the bill, and I will be very proud to vote for it.
17:10
As we conclude this debate, I do not want to dwell on the journey that the bill has gone through and mention things such as financial memorandums; I want to return to the heart of the bill, which is the belief that every child in Scotland should have the chance to experience residential outdoor education.
Such education is not just a trip away from home; it open doors to opportunities that will shape lives. We know from decades of evidence and from the testimony at stage 1 that such experiences build confidence, resilience, independence and team working, problem solving and leadership skills in our young people in ways that simply are not possible in classrooms.
For many young people, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, residential outdoor experiences are transformative. They spark ambitions, strengthen relationships and improve wellbeing, as we heard from the stage 1 evidence. Teachers have said that pupils return from such experiences more engaged, more motivated and more successful in their learning. Pupils often see their teachers as human beings, perhaps for the first time, and some teachers perhaps see the young people as human beings for the first time.
Outdoor residential education plays a vital role in meeting Scotland’s wider educational goals. It complements the learning for sustainability approach under the curriculum for excellence. At a time when mental health challenges among young people are rising, the benefits of time outdoors, away from screens and immersed in Scotland’s landscapes, cannot be overstated.
The bill is not about imposing burdens; it is about investing in Scotland’s future and giving our young people experiences that will help them to thrive in school, in work and in life. It sets out that outdoor learning is not an optional extra but an essential part of a well-rounded education.
It is right that we have picked up on the correspondence that we have received, including from the teaching profession, during the passage of the bill—and I welcome the Government’s agreement to collect data on the bill’s effect—because only by working hand in hand with our teachers and other adults who support our young people can we ensure that outdoor learning experiences are the best that they can be.
I am conscious of time, but I would like to pay a short and, I hope, deeply embarrassing tribute to Liz Smith. The bill will stand as a legacy of her work in the Scottish Parliament and as a testament to her passion for Scotland’s children and young people. She has championed the cause tirelessly, because she understands the life-changing impact that such experiences have. If the bill passes, it will not just be a policy achievement; it will be a reflection on her dedication to fairness and opportunity. The children who will laugh, who will hug a teddy tight on what they think is a cold night and who will get covered in mud will probably never know Liz Smith’s name, but those children will find a resilience inside themselves because of what, I hope, she will achieve today with the bill. On behalf of those nameless children of today and tomorrow, who might become MSPs in the future, I say a massive thank you to Liz Smith.
I urge members to support the bill at stage 3. Let us make residential outdoor education an entitlement, not a privilege. In doing so, we will give Scotland’s children confidence, resilience and—do you know what?—a bit of joy and happiness, which they deserve.
17:14
I follow Martin Whitfield in paying tribute to Liz Smith. At the risk of potentially giving members of my party a bit of buyer’s remorse in relation to their recent leadership vote, I can say without hesitation that I will miss her contributions in the Parliament when she takes her well-earned retirement.
Liz Smith and I have served on the same committees for almost all of the decade that I have been a member of the Parliament. We served on the Education and Skills Committee and the Finance and Public Administration Committee. We agreed on far more than people outside of this building and maybe even some of our own colleagues might have expected. That is probably more true in the education portfolio than finance, but it was a bit of both.
More than that, though, what I really respect about Liz Smith is where we disagree. In this place, it is not always the case that, when we hear a member making a contribution, we believe without a shadow of a doubt that they believe what they are saying. Sometimes members are saying what they have been told to say. Every time that I have profoundly disagreed with Liz Smith, I know that she is coming at the issue from a place of absolute conviction and I can understand why she believes what she does. We need far more of that quality of debate and far more of that kind of principled position in all parties in this place. I believe that the Conservative Party and the Parliament as a whole will be poorer next session as a result of Liz Smith no longer being here.
In starting my contribution at stage 1, I mentioned my experience of the classic primary 7 residential trip, and I bring it up now because some of the amendments that we have made to the bill are relevant to that experience. My class went to Castle Toward in Dunoon, which, for those of my generation, was famous for being the setting for the CBBC show “Raven”. We were all incredibly excited to be using the set of that show when we were there for that trip. However, we almost did not get to go because, the day before we were due to go, back in 2006, we had one of the heaviest snowstorms that Scotland had experienced for years and possibly decades, and the trip was almost cancelled.
I therefore reflect on the fact that some practical and sensible amendments were made to the bill at stage 2 to recognise potentially exceptional circumstances, whereby it might well be that the obligation to provide the opportunity is not possible to fulfil in some circumstances. Schools and local authorities should not be held liable for circumstances that are outwith their control.
The Greens will, of course, support the bill at stage 3. We have supported it throughout the process because it fulfils our manifesto commitments to guarantee every pupil at least a week of residential outdoor experience, to remove the financial barriers to that and to expand outdoor play and learning provision across the board.
The benefits of outdoor education are undisputed, certainly across the Parliament and even among those who might be sceptical about the specific proposals in the bill. We all recognise that the physical and mental health benefits are undisputed, as is the ability to develop skills such as team working and the transformational impact that outdoor learning can have on the social development of individual young people, and in particular on their confidence.
I said at stage 1 that we cannot see outdoor education as just being that one-off week of residential education, often in primary 7. I know that that is certainly not the bill’s intention, but we should also probably recognise that that week has a particular place in the popular imagination of people across the country. We need to make it clear that outdoor education is about so much more than that. We now have a fantastic resource in learning for sustainability in Scotland, where we can push the on-going experience of outdoor education not only in our natural environment but in the built environment, although there is a particular benefit in learning about our natural environment in the natural environment.
Such is the nature of these curtailed debates that I will finish here, not because I am closing but because, in a few minutes, I will get up again to deliver my closing speech. I will deliver concluding remarks at that point and so will end abruptly now.
17:18
I thank Ross Greer for reminding me how old I am. He was in primary 7 in 2006, which was just yesterday for me.
I also thank all the staff in the Parliament, from those in the non-Government bills unit to the legislation team, the clerks and other officials. I thank Liz Smith for her tenacious and never-say-die approach to the legislation process and the way in which she is meticulous with every single point. She is fierce.
That brings me to the minister. I pay tribute to her for facing Liz Smith and still being alive at the end of the process. She deserves credit for reaching agreement with Liz Smith, despite the complications of the bill.
I, too, will miss Liz Smith in the Parliament. She brings a degree of seriousness, a considered approach and an intellectual rigour that the Parliament will miss.
My view of the bill has fluctuated. In the initial stages, I signed the bill to allow it to proceed. I supported the principle of it. However, during our scrutiny of the bill at committee, I was concerned about costs. As Paul O’Kane has highlighted, school leaders across the country are concerned about the costs, too, and they brought that to our attention. I will return to that issue later.
There is also the matter of additional support needs, which Pam Duncan-Glancy correctly highlighted, as well as the question whether teachers are to be compelled to attend such sessions, whereas previously the arrangements have been voluntary.
My support for the bill has been challenged, but I was persuaded of its merits for a number of reasons. First, the outdoor learning strategy, with a 27-page vision, was published in 2010, yet almost nothing was done for 14 years until Liz Smith introduced her bill. Then, just by chance, we created a working group. That is the solution for everything—create a working group. I am sure that the minister will dispute the notion that nothing happened in that time.
Will the member take an intervention?
On cue, minister.
We spoke at length at committee about the number of fantastic outdoor educational opportunities—fair enough; they are not all residential—that many of our school pupils get to experience on a daily basis. Would the member recognise that?
I can give you the time back for that intervention, Mr 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.
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.
We now move to the open debate.
17:23
I, too, congratulate Liz Smith. I know the work that is needed for a member’s bill. It involves testing the member’s commitment and dealing with obstacles that are put in their way—they just have to navigate their way round them. I did, just as Liz Smith has done, and I can assure everyone that that does not apply just to Opposition members’ bills. Such bills are very personal and close to the member’s heart—as this one is.
I heard the member in charge of the bill on the radio, referring to more and more children finding traditional education a challenge and saying that outdoor activities can be fun in themselves but also therapeutic. I quite agree. Even before Covid disrupted young people’s educational and social experiences, that generation already had challenges that I did not have in my long-lost youth. Their emotional and mental wellbeing is taking a hammering.
In my youth—yes, Mr Rennie, I did have one—there was little telly and no internet; there were just a few parked cars on the street, which became our ad hoc playground. We were exercising outdoors without knowing it. When we were exhausting my late mother’s patience, her mantra—“Go outside: the fresh air will do you good”—turned out to be true.
Introducing the requirement in schools is right and timely, particularly—but not only—because of the explosion in the number of children with additional support needs.
The member in charge will recall that, in the stage 1 debate, I supported the principle of the bill but caveated my support on the issue of funding, so I am heartened to hear the exchanges today on that.
In the stage 1 debate, I referenced the Broomlee outdoor education centre near West Linton, which I have visited on several occasions. It provides residential outdoor experiences for young people—life-changing experiences in the outdoors for children facing the pressures and anxiety of a post-lockdown world, coupled with the difficulties of a cost of living crisis, given that most of them are from less well-off areas.
At the time of that debate, the centre manager, Richard Gerrish, wrote to me. He said:
“This issue is clearly very close to our hearts ... because we have witnessed first-hand the ever-increasing numbers of children from economically disadvantaged areas who are missing out on these valuable experiences”.
I have abbreviated what he said. Much of what the centre provides is reflected in the bill, and I could see Broomlee providing just such experiences.
Many moons ago, as a working-class child, my first time away from my parents was with the girl guides, camping at North Berwick. Later, as a teenager, I went on a fortnight’s retreat to Iona. They were invaluable experiences, so blame the girl guides and Iona for the way I am today.
Finally—other members have said this, but I am not just saying it because they have said it—Liz Smith’s retiral next year will, of course, be a loss to the Parliament, as I also said about Maurice Golden. They are both MSPs whom I value in this Parliament. However, I really must not make a habit of saying such things.
17:26
I am delighted to stand in support of my colleague and friend Liz Smith’s Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill.
Sometimes, we lose sight of what we mean by “education” and what we are trying to achieve through it. It is too easy for us in Parliament to get wrapped up in exam results. Increasingly, we seem to be less involved in teaching and learning and, increasingly, we push testing. Standardised testing is important, of course, but it should not be the dominant culture in education. Testing should be a diagnostic and a help. Tests are there to support learning, not to obstruct it.
The role of a teacher is to facilitate learning, and our teachers are experts in that—it is the fire that compelled them down the educator pathway. However, I fear that we have been forcing our teachers to follow a set path that squeezes the alternative routes to learning and is increasingly devoid of creativity, ensuring an approach of compliance and standardisation. What is a standard child? Everybody learns in a different way. The art of teaching—and it is an art—is in developing different learning approaches that include all pupils.
Teachers are brilliant, if given the tools and the opportunity, due to their ability to excite the power of imagination and curiosity—the power of what could be—and to engender creativity. We all know that feeling, at least until society gets the opportunity to stick its oar in and stifle blue-sky thinking and imagination, talking about what we cannot do instead of what is possible.
To me, the epitome of what my friend and colleague Liz Smith’s outdoor education bill is about is that it gives every pupil the opportunity of an alternative learning experience, because what initially sparks the fire in them will be different for every pupil. Teachers know how to teach. Build a raft or paddle a canoe—what a fantastic way to introduce physics and the Archimedes’ principle. How about flying down a zipline to introduce and discuss gravity? While pushing the creative element and taking a leap of faith, pupils approach new challenges that they might never have even considered but now have to solve. Give pupils an obstacle to overcome, let them work together to find the solution as a team and give them that lifelong, shared experience that I have often spoken about. I would call that, in sporting parlance, deductive coaching.
It is ever more apparent that the elements of our education system that support expression—the alternative routes to achievement and the things that help to build resilience, confidence and a drive to aspire—are being squeezed out of our education system. Sport, art, music, drama and outdoor education create an alternative learning environment that will allow some pupils to thrive and flourish in a way that they might struggle to achieve in a traditional classroom. Those lessons outside the classroom are so important to delivering and achieving in the classroom.
It is time to stop forcing our young people down an ever narrowing education tunnel that fits a decreasing number of pupils. It is time to give back to our educators the full suite of tools for teaching, to allow them to deliver all that they can and are more than willing to deliver. In our education system, we are trying to tackle poor physical and mental health, poor attainment and poor behaviour. A narrow, compliant learning experience, devoid of a space for creative thinking and of a place to try, fail and try again, is a learning environment in which many pupils will struggle to be the best that they can be. Moreover, the chances of full pupil engagement are unlikely.
Outdoor education is an adventure and, goodness me, our young people need some adventure. It is a learning environment in which they do not even realise that they are learning. It is a world of possibilities. It is an opportunity that all our pupils deserve. I urge members to support Liz Smith’s bill.
17:30
I hate to be the wet blanket at the party; however, I will start by thanking Liz Smith very much for introducing the bill. I agree with virtually everything that has been said this afternoon and at committee about the value of residential outdoor education.
I was keen to speak in this afternoon’s debate as I have been involved in the bill throughout, as a member of both the Education, Children and Young People Committee and the Finance and Public Administration Committee, and I have met virtually no one who disagrees with the principle of the bill, that all young people should have the opportunity of a week’s residential outdoor education during their school career. I, too, am in full agreement with that. Many committee witnesses testified to that principle, and I also meet people outside—friends, teachers, parents and former pupils—who are very supportive of the idea.
However, for me, problems arose around the finances as those were originally planned for when the bill was introduced. There was a question as to whether the financial memorandum accurately estimated the likely costs, which Liz Smith put at up to £36 million and the Government put at up to £40 million.
The question then was whether that would include upgrading outdoor centres, whether teachers would need to be paid for carrying out a new statutory responsibility and whether better-off families, who currently can—and do—pay for their children’s courses should suddenly make a big saving because the state would fund everyone. I was therefore glad that, at stage 2, Liz Smith and the Government agreed on amendments to allow parents to be charged if they could afford to pay all or part of the costs. That has been further refined at stage 3 by the requirement that the Government give guidance on that point. So far, so good.
I am considerably less happy about the supplementary financial memorandum, which, I think, we received on Friday 4 April. It does not include any estimate of additional capital expenditure or other costs, which were considered to be too low in the original financial memorandum. No additional cost estimate is included for capital improvements to outdoor centres; nor is there any provision for the changing of teachers’ terms and conditions, extra staff cover in schools and similar costs, which the Educational Institute of Scotland and others have raised with us. All that is really dealt with in the supplementary financial memorandum is the effect of amendments at stage 2—which, effectively, is a question of how costs will be shared out, not what they will actually be.
Does John Mason agree that, in addition, that financial memorandum does not include spend to save over a long period of time and that, if we had started 10 years ago, we would be in a much better position?
I agree that there is money to save, but it raises the whole question about preventative spend. We need to spend £1 today, but where is that £1 going to come from? However, Brian Whittle’s general point is absolutely correct.
Paragraph 24 of the supplementary financial memorandum, which deals with costs for parents and carers, says:
“the precise cost of the Bill’s provisions on parents and carers is impossible to estimate”.
That means that neither is the cost to the Government estimated.
No one is asking that the FM or supplementary FM give precise costs, but they should give best estimates. It causes me considerable concern that the bill is not associated with even estimated costs for the Government. We are faced with passing a bill today with no idea of what the costs are likely to be. As members will have seen, I asked both the member in charge of the bill and the minister for an estimate of costs, but neither was able to give one.
I am somewhat surprised that the Government has agreed to that. It very much goes against the whole principle of financial memorandums, which require the best estimates of all costs.
The Finance and Public Administration Committee has not discussed the issue recently, but I feel that this sets a difficult precedent. Although I fully support the intentions of Liz Smith and her bill, I have reservations about voting for such an open-ended blank cheque when it comes to the finances. We are asking for trouble after the election, when a new Government will be faced with demands that it might or might not be able to meet. Therefore, it is my intention to abstain at the final vote. I regret that I feel that that is my only option, for the reasons that I have given, and I hope that I am proved wrong.
We move to closing speeches. I call Ross Greer.
17:35
In my opening speech, I mentioned the value of learning about our natural environment in our natural environment and the knowledge and skills that are accumulated through that. I want to build on that and return to a point that I made to the minister, when she made a statement on the bill in September, I believe. My point was about the need for our qualifications system to catch up. Today, the Parliament will make a clear statement about the value that we place on outdoor education—not just on residential outdoor education but on all outdoor education—and I do not think that our qualifications system has yet caught up with that. There is much more that it can and should do. For example, on specific qualifications, England has recently established GCSE and A-level qualifications in natural history, but we do not yet have an equivalent in Scotland.
We have discussed the meta skills that are developed through outdoor education, such as team working and communications skills, but our qualifications system does not yet fully recognise those. I encourage the Government to say that the bill must be the start of that process and that one of the next steps is about reforming the qualifications system to ensure that the full range of subjects is available—I encourage the creation of a natural history qualification—and that we find a way, whether through Professor Hayward’s recommendations or some other means, to formally recognise the kind of meta skills that the residential outdoor education experience can develop; it can have a transformational impact on a young person’s skills in areas such as teamwork and communication.
The Parliament has an extensive history—for the entirety of its existence, really—of legislating for rights and entitlements that we then struggle to fulfil. The Finance and Public Administration Committee has raised the issue more widely repeatedly in this parliamentary session. Much of the debate around the specifics of the bill has come back to ensuring that the residential outdoor education experience would be available for young people with additional support needs. They are one particular group of people in our society who are not having their rights consistently fulfilled and respected by our education system, so there is a challenge for us in that regard, which relates very much to the points that John Mason made about cost.
Helpful amendments were made at stage 2 and earlier today, to ensure that the cost of the bill is shared equally. We have achieved a balance between making reasonable requests of parents who can afford to make a contribution and the importance of avoiding a situation where families whose children have particularly complex additional support needs or families on lower incomes are forced to pay more than would be fair or than they would be capable of.
I cannot claim credit in any way, shape or form for having come to the solutions, so I congratulate colleagues, particularly Liz Smith, the minister and John Mason, for having made the relevant amendments to the bill. There is still a need for us to have a wider conversation about local government funding. If we want our young people to have the best start in life, we need to fund it like we mean it. It would be too much to hope that the last budget before the election will be the one that achieves a consensus, but, particularly in relation to this bill, there is still a huge amount of work to do in bringing the existing outdoor residential education estate up to the standards that we and those who work in it expect. The capital implications of that will still be really significant, and that is something that members in the next session of the Parliament will have to bear in mind.
Today, we are making a commitment that will have on-going costs associated with it, and it will be incumbent on all parties who vote for the bill to engage constructively when it comes to the budget, to ensure that on-going capital allocations are made where required.
It is worth reflecting briefly on the process of the bill and the frustration felt cross party at stage 1 about how the Government interacted with it, but we have moved on significantly from that, and I thank the Government for its engagement at stages 2 and 3. If we had much more of that in the final weeks of the Parliament, there would be far less pressure on our extremely strained legislative timetable. That kind of collegiate working should make it possible for us to get through the remaining bills of the session.
However, this will be a huge moment for Scotland’s young people, and I again congratulate Liz Smith, because, when we pass it today, their bill will unlock life-changing opportunities for so many children. It will be a proud moment for our Parliament, and we in the Green group will be proud to vote for it at decision time.
Thank you. I call Paul O’Kane.
17:39
I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. I recognise that I have come somewhat late to the process at stage 3, but I have been following the bill because of my interest in it. We have heard a lot in the debate about the genesis of the bill, and how it has developed since the initial concerns that were raised at stage 1 through the work by a number of colleagues across the chamber to refine the bill and get it into the place that it is in today, as we consider it at this final stage.
I join colleagues in paying tribute to Liz Smith for her work and her dedication, for trying to improve the bill at each stage, and in recognising the significant challenges that remain and will have to be dealt with in the guidance that the Government will produce.
The first thing to say in summing up is that we all recognise the significant impact and contribution that outdoor education and residential outdoor education make to children and young people in Scotland. We join in paying tribute to all those who have joined us today in the public gallery, who are specialists and experts in that field and who have given evidence at every stage of the bill as to the impact of their work.
We have heard a lot today about the importance of protecting those organisations and specialisms, and about the challenges that have been posed, not least by the pandemic. We need to ensure that we have a strong sector of outdoor residential education in Scotland. That is very important.
It was nice to hear some snippets of personal experience from people who have undertaken outdoor education. I say to Ross Greer that another interesting fact about Castle Toward is that it served as HMS Brontosaurus in the second world war, and that Winston Churchill was a frequent visitor—something that Ross Greer can perhaps share in his next engagement with Piers Morgan.
However, what is important is that everybody recognises the value of the bill. That said, it is clear that significant challenges remain, not least those that have been outlined in relation to the financial considerations and the pressure that is on local authorities.
In my exchange with the minister, I referenced some of the remaining concerns of school leaders. Those are focused on a number of challenges to do with staffing, including ensuring sufficient staffing and cover; ensuring that a significant contribution is made by those parents who can do so; and ensuring that people do not feel that they cannot make that contribution.
The minister and I were councillors in Renfrewshire and East Renfrewshire. I do not know whether the minister served on the Renfrewshire Educational Trust when she was a councillor, but very often it was such bodies that were required to provide the additional funding that was often required for residential outdoor trips. What is clear is that we need to get the balance right between those who can make a contribution and those who need that additional support, which will come from the Government. I recognise much of what has been said about the challenges in the financial memorandums leading up to this position.
Some of the concerns that have been raised by school leaders and teachers are perhaps reflective of wider issues that exist in Scottish education. After 18 years of the current Government, there are a number of significant challenges, which we will debate on other days. However, those are the issues that are at the forefront of the minds of many headteachers and teachers, and I think that that is being reflected. I think that they would say that they absolutely recognise the importance of outdoor education and the importance of doing something about it, but that does not negate the other challenges that they have to deal with on a daily basis. The member has absolutely recognised that in terms of her leadership on the bill.
I am conscious of time. We will of course support the bill. The principle is absolutely right. What we must do now, as with any legislation, is ensure that the guidance is robust, the data is well gathered and the finance is appropriate in order to support local authorities and individual schools to be able to deliver a meaningful outdoor residential experience for every child in Scotland, and to ensure that that can be done for many generations to come.
17:44
In the time that I have served on the Parliament’s Education, Children and Young People Committee, there has been a recurring theme that teachers, parents and carers, trade unions, educationalists and, indeed, most MSPs who serve on the committee will recognise, which is that, after the pandemic, our young people continue to face major challenges.
In many cases, the decisions that were taken during the lockdown had and continue to have negative impacts on our young people and the wider school environment, and the bill presents a positive opportunity to try to reset how we value young people across Scotland and to deliver a better offering for them, and for Parliament to send a message that we want to see real investment in the development of our young people now and in the future.
As has been said, no one doubts that outdoor education is one of the most rewarding experiences that a young person can have during their school career. I pay tribute to those who have joined us in the public gallery today for the dedication that they bring—they have dedicated their careers, in fact—to outdoor education and to our young people.
In many cases, as I have seen for myself, outdoor education is truly game changing. It delivers benefits in school and learning long after pupils and teachers have returned to the classroom, and through the joy that young people experience from it. Residential trips help to build confidence, self-reliance, resilience and leadership skills, and they teach the values of friendship, teamwork and a lifelong connection to our great outdoors, which is fantastic.
In an age when there is growing concern about young people’s physical and mental wellbeing, the benefits of residential outdoor education cannot be overstated or underestimated. It is worth reflecting that Scotland was one of the first countries in the world to formalise outdoor education. The last significant piece of legislation around outdoor education was the Education Act 1944, known as the Butler act. In the 1960s and 1970s, outdoor education, often formalised as physical outdoor activities and based on residential experiences, was extensively developed in many parts of Scotland.
In more recent times, however, the value of outdoor education has, sadly, not been given the weight that it deserves. We have not focused on the outcomes that we need it to achieve for our young people, and many of our authorities are disinvesting in their outdoor education offerings and facilities. We know that, today, many children are disconnected from their learning environment and from our wonderful natural environment. I believe that Liz Smith’s Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill will allow for a reset to enable us, once again, to recognise nationally the importance of residential outdoor education.
As I stated in the stage 1 debate, as an Edinburgh MSP, I know how incredibly lucky young people, and their parents and carers, are to be able to still access the residential outdoor education offering that they really enjoy and value. When I speak to young people in the capital, many of them see it as a rite of passage, as City of Edinburgh Council has always valued outdoor education.
Finally, I put on record a tribute to my friend and colleague, Liz Smith, for the power of work that she and her parliamentary office and team, along with the Parliament’s non-Government bills unit, have put into the bill, and for her lifelong advocacy—as a teacher and as a member of this Parliament—of the benefits of outdoor education for our young people. As we have heard today, Liz Smith is widely respected by members across the chamber and beyond.
However, the bill itself is about what is best for our young people in the post-Covid era, when so many indicators tell us that young people are facing more challenges than ever before. I sincerely hope that, in future years, all young people in Scotland will be able to take part in the life-changing experiences that residential outdoor education delivers. As Martin Whitfield said, that will be a remarkable legacy for Liz Smith, and she should rightly be incredibly proud of the work that she has done on the bill. However, it will also be for us as a country, and for Parliament, to send out the message to our young people, to parents and carers and to teachers across Scotland that we value them and want to invest in them. I support the motion in Liz Smith’s name.
17:48
In making my final remarks today, I acknowledge the journey that the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill has been on. As I said at the start of the debate, the work that it takes to introduce and see through a member’s bill is substantial.
I want to share some of my personal experience. I did not go on an outdoor residential trip when I was in school—I went on a history trip to York, which, as I am a bit of a history buff, suited me very well. I count myself lucky that, as someone who grew up in poverty—I have been very clear about that—I got to attend one of those trips because, back in 2000, my school ensured that I and others were able to do so, which I think is something that we can celebrate.
However, having heard at first hand from young people about the benefits that an outdoor residential trip can have, I think that it could have really helped me, as a young, quiet, anxious and shy girl, to develop certain skills and confidence and build relationships. I can certainly say that building a canoe or going white-water rafting was very alien to me when I was a little girl, and it still is.
It is wholly positive that more young people will get to experience the kind of outdoor educational residential trip that is right for them. The bill allows for that choice and ensures that the needs of pupils will be considered with regard to what learning experience will be best for them.
As we have heard today, some of the considerations that have been undertaken over the past year or more by Liz Smith, MSPs and the Scottish Government have not been straightforward to navigate. Those considerations include funding, equity of provision for pupils with additional support needs, workforce implications, sector capacity, monitoring and commencement. Those issues and others have required very careful handling and input from a range of stakeholders to inform shared understandings. Members have called further attention to some of those and to other important considerations, which I will take two minutes to address.
I appreciate that some members have raised concerns about the funding. As I said earlier, I have discussed the matter in detail with Liz Smith as part of jointly agreeing to the stage 2 amendment to remove the duty to fund provision. As part of seeking joint agreement, it will be necessary to develop a shared understanding with COSLA of what costs are considered reasonable to incur in providing the residential outdoor education entitlement to each pupil. That will be for COSLA and the Scottish Government to determine, potentially through budget discussions, as I have set out.
Equally, the commencement regulations will allow us the time to gather the data and further understand the extent of the funding that is required. Mr Greer talked about the necessary capital funding to bring the sector to capacity. That is relevant to the debate around equity of provision. As I have already said, amendments that were lodged at stages 2 and 3 allowed us to explore alternate sources of funding.
Mr Rennie commented on a lack of progress since 2010, and he knows that I will dispute that. Outdoor learning is and has been a priority, and there have been a number of developments, such as the outdoor learning strategic working group, the £2 billion learning estate investment programme that will incorporate covered outdoor spaces, and our development of training materials for outdoor education. I could go on, but, after all this time, I am sure that I will not convince Mr Rennie. I would be happy to extend an invite to him to witness, at first hand, outdoor education in our schools alongside me.
Are we going ziplining or are we building a canoe? That is what I want to know.
I am open to both, Mr Rennie.
A number of members mentioned support for pupils with additional support needs. Again, the Government is committed to working closely with the sector to ensure readiness for commencement, including considering capacity to meet the needs of pupils with additional support needs.
I know that I am short of time, so I will conclude. Being frank, the issues that I have discussed will not be matters for me or Liz Smith, as we both prepare, for quite different reasons, to stand down, and they should not be allowed to stand in the way of the achievement that the bill represents.
I cannot conclude without paying tribute to Liz Smith. Liz has been a long-time advocate of outdoor education, so it is very fitting that, as she approaches her retirement, this bill will be one of the last substantive contributions she makes as a long-serving MSP with a significant interest in education—both as an MSP and in her previous career as a teacher.
I believe that, as amended and through collaboration, we now have a statutory framework for residential outdoor education that supports equity in provision and access, and will enable more children and young people to benefit from these unique and impactful experiences. For that vital reason, I am pleased to put the full support of Scottish ministers behind the bill.
I call Liz Smith to wind up the debate. Please take us to 6 pm, Ms Smith.
17:53
If I had known that the bill was going to get Willie Rennie and the minister in a canoe, I would have introduced it much sooner than I did, but I look forward to seeing that.
I say to Mr Mason, whom I sit beside on the Finance and Public Administration Committee, that, in the past year, I have moved him from voting against the bill to abstaining. I look forward to the period after Christmas, when I am still sitting beside him—at Kenny Gibson’s behest—when perhaps we might just get him to support the bill.
Here we are—it has been a long journey, and I can now see the summit appearing. We have been in the foothills of this bill for quite some time—perhaps rather longer than I had wished. For all the wonderful tributes that members have paid to me this afternoon, I would not have got here without the Parliament and the engagement that each member has had with me—it is a two-way process. I thank members for their warm regards and kindness, but I would not have been able to steer the bill through the Parliament without them.
I hope that the bill can personify what the Parliament should be all about. We should be able to work together. In my 20 years in the Parliament, I have always thought that it works well when we can engage with each other, despite our strong political differences—we have those, let us be honest. However, throughout the time that I have spent in the Parliament, I have seen our debates sometimes get too toxic and tribal, with too much unwillingness to take on board important facts.
We should never forget that this bill is not about us; it is about the young people who, as Martin Whitfield rightly said, will have new, life-changing opportunities. I do not mind if they do not know who I am, but I mind if they do not get those opportunities.
If the bill is agreed to, we will be the first part of the United Kingdom that will make it a statutory requirement that children must receive four nights and five days of residential outdoor education as part of their school careers. Colleagues in the Senedd and the House of Commons—Sam Rowlands and Tim Farron, in particular—are cheering us on. I hope that they, too—after the bill is, I hope, agreed to in a few minutes’ time—will be able to deliver that statutory requirement in the other parts of the United Kingdom.
I began this process when I lodged my draft proposal for the bill all the way back on 22 April 2022. It has been a lengthy route, but I believe that it has been worth while. The bill has been well scrutinised—that is one of the reasons why the process has been important—and I think that it is in tune with what Government policy is intended to deliver.
The effort that the non-Government bills unit has put in on the bill over such a long period of time is a huge credit to it. I could not have done this work without it. I thank it, my staff and all my colleagues. I thank the outdoor education sector and, particularly, I thank young people, who have proven to be the success story of this process, because they have given us something extra.
I put on the record my acknowledgment of all that Liz Smith has done with this bill. As interventions are usually questions, I also ask whether Liz Smith agrees that all the best outdoor residential centres are in my constituency.
I must partially agree with that—it certainly has the best mountains, and I look forward to climbing them when I stand down from the Parliament.
I am proud to ask the Parliament to vote for the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill. [Applause.]
That concludes the debate on the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill at stage 3.
Air adhart
Decision Time