Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes.

I do believe that there is a benefit, and I am happy to speak up in that respect. When I visited the Loch Eil outdoor learning centre in Fort William, I spoke to staff and some of the children who were benefiting from the experience there, and I heard about some of the really good impacts on behaviour, the different skills being learned, the experiences that the children and young people have, and relationships with teachers. However, those kinds of positive impacts can be found across a number of outdoor learning experiences; I would not say that they are necessarily exclusive to the outdoor learning centres.

That brings us back to one of the Government’s concerns about the scope of the bill and the fact that it is quite narrow in relation to outdoor learning centres. A lot of these positive impacts can be found in wider outdoor learning experiences.

Disclosure Scotland had always proposed to deliver the act in stages. That was discussed throughout the scrutiny of the bill. It was agreed as the best approach to ensure that we could work with and equally co-deliver the changes with stakeholders. It was also agreed at the time that there was a need for a fully digitised system that would support the statutory framework, ensuring that disclosure information flows safely, securely and in a timely manner.

With that in mind, Disclosure Scotland has implemented the legislative sections iteratively. Sections 63 and 89 of the 2020 act commenced on royal assent. From the point of royal assent until now, Disclosure Scotland has been managing several large and complex projects to successfully implement the rest of the 2020 act. I will bring in officials to talk through them, but they include the replacement of the previous system and platform.

Implementation was always planned to be incremental, due to the digitisation and to ensure that people are familiar with the different changes in the stages.

I do not have the detail of how that figure has been worked out in front of me. It is certainly something that I can look at, but I am probably not able to comment specifically on that matter right now.

At the moment, the figures that I have show that 12,741 individuals are barred from regulated work with children and/or protected adults.

I think that it could. Again, I will refer to some of the visits that I have been on, whether to nursery settings that are utilising outdoor learning, to fully outdoor nurseries or to schools that are utilising outdoor learning, because that is the best evidence to draw on.

On those visits, I heard about impacts that were much the same as those that are associated with five-day residentials. I heard about the children’s increased confidence, improvements in the mental health and wellbeing of children and staff and improvements in the relationships between children and staff. I base my view on the many discussions that I have had on outdoor learning. I absolutely agree that the kind of experiences that you mention can bring similar benefits.

As I said earlier, I am positive about that residential experience. I can see the benefits of it. When I spoke with the people who were involved in those settings, they said that the trips improved their relationships. I am absolutely not talking that down in any way. However, as you suggested in your first question, the proposal has serious financial implications, and, when you see similar benefits being received by children and young people in more cost-effective ways, the committee and the Government have to consider that.

Absolutely. I do not know how the evidence was gathered or what children and young people feel. I am always about hearing from children and young people about what the impact has been and their overall view on outdoor education. I know that there is a wealth of evidence in relation to the benefits that outdoor residential centres can have. As I have tried to highlight during the meeting, I am not downplaying that at all.

Those projections are a result of on-going discussions between officials and local authorities or stakeholders. We have tried to gather as much data as possible to inform the Government’s view of the bill, because that is a very important consideration. I believe that it came up during an evidence session that the committee has written to local authorities on data requirements, and I will be very interested to see what comes back to the committee on that. Saskia Kearns has also alluded to the further work that can be done to gather data.

As I have said, the pupil equity fund and the Scottish attainment fund are important. There is also something to be said about the investment that the Government has put into our school estate and the different environments that are being created specifically for outdoor learning in a number of schools across Scotland. I would again touch on some of the visits that I have been on and some of the fantastic things that I have seen that are widening access to outdoor learning for all pupils.

However, I hear the member’s point about whether the bill might not be the way forward. I have already touched on the work of the outdoor learning strategic working group. It will be reporting to me by summer 2025. As I said, it is working on a range of different areas in relation to outdoor learning and how we can improve that and drive it forward.

Inspection is also an important driver for change. HM Inspectorate of Education is undertaking a review of the inspection frameworks, and work is being done to consider the learning for sustainability programme, of which outdoor learning is a key part. We are also working closely with educators in schools and other partners to improve the resources and guidance that are available to schools. That includes the development of new online training materials for outdoor education instructors.

The newly launched curriculum improvement cycle also provides an opportunity to ensure that the three-to-18 curriculum is designed and delivered to offer greater consistency in outdoor learning experiences across Scotland—