Seòmar agus comataidhean

That comes back to a lot of what we have spoken about already this morning. There is a clear concern from the Government that legislating on the curriculum sets a precedent that contradicts the approach around flexibility and autonomy for school leaders and teachers that Mr Kidd alluded to. I have been very clear that I would be willing to work with Liz Smith. There could be flexibility around the length of the trip and, as I have already suggested, the content, because we do not necessarily know that that outdoor residential experience is what every child or young person requires, and other experiences could be equally beneficial. Moving forward and ensuring flexibility and choice for the children and young people is key.

Absolutely. I have probably touched on some of this already this morning, so you will forgive me if I repeat myself.

Perhaps the first point to make relates to the requirement in the bill for the Scottish Government to

“pay education authorities and ... grant-aided schools”

sufficient amounts to fund the new duties imposed on them. What those sufficient amounts actually equate to is unknown—in that regard, I would also just point to some of the discussion that we have already had this morning.

The bill’s financial memorandum significantly underestimates the overall potential cost. As I have said, the Scottish Government has estimated that it could cost anywhere from £24.3 million to £40.6 million, but there is still a certain degree of unknown around that in terms of the number of—

I do not expect this to be cost neutral, and there could be investment in different areas. I do not have the figure in front of me. Indeed, what I have said is that I would be willing to work with Ms Smith on other options for the bill or, if the bill proceeds, any amendments to it. I do not have a figure to hand at the moment for our approach to outdoor learning—I am just highlighting that it can come at a very low cost.

I have already alluded to capital costs. I do not think that the Government would be totally excused from bringing in private investment or professional learning. There will be costs attached, but I do not know whether they reach the numbers that we are talking about in relation to the bill.

As I said, I am interested in the scrutiny of the bill. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government and I look forward to seeing the outcome of that scrutiny and the associated financial memorandum, which will inform our considerations in that regard.

For statutory duties, I do not believe so, but I will bring in Nico McKenzie-Juetten to speak to that.

I think that it is legitimate to say that we have made a huge investment into play parks and they have been massively transformed. Speaking from personal experience, I see how busy our play parks are on a daily basis. They create new and better environments for our children and young people to experience outdoor learning, from the age of babies and toddlers, right through to teens.

I do not believe so. The regulations received strong support during the scrutiny of and discussions on the 2020 act, so it was felt that consultation was not required and would perhaps cause further delays.

I am sorry, but I do not understand the question.

Thank you for inviting me to provide evidence. The Scottish Government’s vision is that all children and young people should have the opportunity to engage in progressive and creative outdoor learning in all its forms, regularly, as part of the curriculum. The Government values the important work that residential outdoor centres do to support our young people’s mental and physical health, confidence, team-working skills, resilience, communication skills and personal development. As members might be aware, we gave the sector considerable support during the Covid pandemic, providing £4 million in funding to ensure that it could emerge from the pandemic.

In our future vision for the school curriculum, the Government sees a key role for the residential experience as part of a broad range of outdoor learning experiences, and we see a key role for outdoor learning in the three-to-18 journey for our young people. However, as we noted in the memorandum that we submitted to the committee, although we recognise the good intentions behind the bill, we have reservations about key elements of the provisions, which will require careful scrutiny. Some of those reservations have been touched on during the committee’s earlier evidence sessions and in other respondents’ feedback to the call for views.

First, the bill has a narrow focus on only one type of outdoor learning. Although the Government values the place of the residential experience, that is as part of a range of experiences. A legislative requirement on only one aspect of that range of experiences carries the risk of imposing an assumption on the way that practitioners go about determining the best approach to suit their learners’ needs. By legislating within the curriculum, the bill risks setting a precedent that contradicts our existing approach of flexibility and autonomy for school leaders and teachers, as envisioned in the curriculum for excellence.

A further area of concern relates to affordability and the financial estimates that are associated with the provisions as they are drafted. The Scottish Government’s view is that the bill’s financial memorandum significantly underestimates the potential overall cost of delivery to the public purse. On the basis of our initial analysis, we estimate that the potential cost range for year 1 roll-out in 2025-26 is between £24.3 million and £40.6 million. The difference between our higher estimate and what is presented in the financial memorandum is that we have attempted to model staff costs in secondary schools and inflation.

There are further costs that have not been fully articulated in the financial memorandum, such as the additional costs that are associated with provision for learners with additional support needs and special schools, which I know that the committee has a strong interest in. That suggests that the real delivery costs could be even higher.

As the committee will be aware, the Government is taking a neutral position on the bill, reflecting the fact that, although we note the good intentions behind it, it is essential that the Parliament tests and explores its potential implications in some depth. I am happy to take members’ questions.