Seòmar agus comataidhean

You sound as though you are making a good case for being a leader on using public transport to get to outdoor education.

You make a good point. There is huge variation in transport costs because of geography. By definition, some schools have to pay a lot of money for a coach to get a set of youngsters to Loch Eil, Torridon or wherever it might be, whereas other schools have a fairly short trip, and a school or local authority minibus might be provided. I think that we can be imaginative about the issue.

I have spoken to a lot of employers about the bill, and they value the skills that outdoor education residentials provide so much. There is scope for employers to help with transport costs in some areas.

I thank the committee for its rigorous and important investigation into the bill. I very much appreciated the commitment that the committee has shown to taking a lot of evidence, which has been very important. I also thank the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise, who have been very constructive in their engagement. Not least, I thank the outstanding non-Government bills unit and my staff, whose commitment has been second to none, for helping me through the process.

Members know that I received 535 initial responses to my proposed bill, 95 per cent of which were very positive about its principles. Members also know that 38 members of Parliament supported the final proposal and that I gave evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee on 19 November on the cost of the bill.

In my three minutes, I want to explain to the committee why I believe that the bill is a priority. I start with building resilience in our young people or—to use the term that I think that the General Teaching Council for Scotland would use—learning for sustainability, which is part of every teacher’s professional development, these days. Particularly since Covid, it has become apparent that a lot of our children are needing extra support. They are needing to build their self-esteem, confidence and ability to relate not only to their peers but to adults in the school setting. The residential experience has been commended throughout the evidence to the committee, and in lots of other ways, and we have had tremendous feedback about it.

I want the bill, if it should pass, to be able to complement and not undermine any other aspect of outdoor learning. The reason why I am fixed on the residential aspect is the compelling evidence from teachers and pupils that residentials really are life-changing experiences, which is what it is all about. As I have said, since Covid, we must accept that an awful lot of young people in our schools are feeling pretty anxious. Given the statistics that came out last week about additional support for learning and on what is happening in our schools, we must accept that a lot of people need extra support. That really is the most important reason.

On top of that, teachers are telling us that their relationship with young people who have been on residentials changes for the better. We get the same evidence from parents and children. The evidence that I have heard throughout not only my professional career as a teacher but my parliamentarian role has absolutely convinced me of the value of residential outdoor education.

The second reason relates to what has been happening in relatively recent times, which the committee has taken evidence on. Lots of really good things are happening in the current system, but it is not working sufficiently well to incorporate all young people, and we need to build on the Scottish Government’s vision from 2010.

The bill is underpinned by inclusion. One thing that I want to do, which is very much in line with Government policy, is to include all young people. As we worked on the bill, we found that there is a tremendous lack of data, which the Government has acknowledged. There is a bit of a postcode lottery as regards who is able to go on residential experiences, and we have to try to change that, particularly as the John Muir award, which was so successful, has been paused. The last thing that we want to get into is the situation that we had in the 1970s and 1980s, when local authorities lost their dedicated teachers of outdoor education. I would not like to think that we will end up with that circumstance.

The committee is well aware of the evidence that has been provided by the Outward Bound Trust. It said:

“The global study across eight countries, including the UK, revealed that for every £1 invested in Outward Bound programmes, there is a return of between £5 and £15 in societal value.”

That is a compelling statistic. Money that is spent in that way represents a healthy long-term investment in our young people and in society in general. That is also in line with Government policy and with what I would like to see young people achieve through the bill.

Very much so. Over the years, I have visited most outdoor education centres across Scotland and many of the other facilities that offer outdoor education, and the professionalism is second to none. People must realise that outdoor education is evolving. It is not just about people climbing Munros, canoeing or rock climbing, which has perhaps been its image. Given their professional development, many of the people who deliver outdoor education are trying to embrace the spirit of the getting it right for every child policy—that is, we have to get it right for every child, whatever their needs are, in outdoor settings.

They have done a huge amount not only to modernise the delivery of what they are offering but to try to articulate it with the modern curriculum, which I think is very important. The Government quite rightly asked how the proposals in the bill would articulate with the curriculum for excellence, and I think that they complement it 100 per cent. The principles behind the curriculum for excellence are exactly the principles that are behind the outdoor education sector.

I come back to Professor Greg Mannion’s point when he gave evidence to the committee. He said:

“We should make it an entitlement in the curriculum that everybody gets education in outdoor settings, and within that we should make it a further entitlement that people get a residential experience.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 6 November 2024; c 25.]

I could not agree more.

I am impressed by what I see, but I also do not want us to get into a situation where we force all young people into outdoor residential education. That is not the intention behind the bill. All I want to see is that the opportunities are there for every child, should their school wish to take them up.

I hope that that does not happen. I say again that the Government has been very engaged. I have been very pleased with the constructive discussions that I have had with the cabinet secretary and the minister. There is a genuine agreement that the principles of the bill are the right ones.

I do not see how anybody could argue that the principles would not articulate what we are trying to do with Scottish education. They articulate with the curriculum for excellence and with the Scottish Government’s approach to learning for sustainability. There is a firm commitment. Does the approach have to be statutory? I come back to my earlier answer, which is that we have tried the non-statutory route, some of which worked and some of which is not working. To ensure inclusion and equity, we perhaps need to take the statutory route.

Very much so. Over the years, I have visited most outdoor education centres across Scotland and many of the other facilities that offer outdoor education, and the professionalism is second to none. People must realise that outdoor education is evolving. It is not just about people climbing Munros, canoeing or rock climbing, which has perhaps been its image. Given their professional development, many of the people who deliver outdoor education are trying to embrace the spirit of the getting it right for every child policy—that is, we have to get it right for every child, whatever their needs are, in outdoor settings.

They have done a huge amount not only to modernise the delivery of what they are offering but to try to articulate it with the modern curriculum, which I think is very important. The Government quite rightly asked how the proposals in the bill would articulate with the curriculum for excellence, and I think that they complement it 100 per cent. The principles behind the curriculum for excellence are exactly the principles that are behind the outdoor education sector.

I come back to Professor Greg Mannion’s point when he gave evidence to the committee. He said:

“We should make it an entitlement in the curriculum that everybody gets education in outdoor settings, and within that we should make it a further entitlement that people get a residential experience.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 6 November 2024; c 25.]

I could not agree more.

I am impressed by what I see, but I also do not want us to get into a situation where we force all young people into outdoor residential education. That is not the intention behind the bill. All I want to see is that the opportunities are there for every child, should their school wish to take them up.

I hope that that does not happen. I say again that the Government has been very engaged. I have been very pleased with the constructive discussions that I have had with the cabinet secretary and the minister. There is a genuine agreement that the principles of the bill are the right ones.

I do not see how anybody could argue that the principles would not articulate with what we are trying to do in Scottish education. They articulate with the curriculum for excellence and with the Scottish Government’s approach to learning for sustainability. There is a firm commitment. Does the approach have to be statutory? I come back to my earlier answer, which is that we have tried the non-statutory route, some of which has worked and some of which is not working. To ensure inclusion and equity, we perhaps need to take the statutory route.

The evidence has been comprehensive and it has largely been very positive. I give the committee credit for the number of evidence sessions that you held and for taking the trouble to meet many of the people who are involved in delivering outdoor education. I think that you also went on a visit at the beginning of this week.

Issues have—rightly—been raised, and it is imperative that, should the general principles of the bill be agreed to at stage 1, I address them, whether they are about costs, catering for youngsters who have additional support needs or teachers’ time and the commitment that they might be required to make. Those are all valid issues and I discussed many of them when I appeared before the Finance and Public Administration Committee.

Overall, what has struck me the most—I return to what young people and those in the sector have said—is that residential outdoor education provides life-changing experiences. In many cases, I have seen a young person who would not otherwise have had such opportunities come back from an outdoor residential centre a changed person. That is hugely valuable in today’s society.

I have been very impressed by the evidence. I very much welcome the Government’s engagement on the bill—it has done so for quite some time—and I hope to be able to work with it should the bill pass stage 1.

For me, the case for residentials involves what the Outward Bound Trust said, which is that, if you put £1 into residentials, you get benefits worth somewhere between £5 and £15. That was based on evidence from the United Kingdom and other countries. A very extensive survey was done, and I think that those findings are pretty compelling.

How do you measure all the outcomes of outdoor learning? Some of them—whether they concern nursery provision or what happens in schools—are valuable, but how do you measure all that? It is pretty difficult, but we have to try, and I think that what we have seen when looking into all the evidence suggests that the return from residentials is very high.

The trust model is overseen by the Scottish Government and, under that model, the trustees all have expertise—in this case, that would be in outdoor education and in the business models that are required for sustainability.

As I said, public trusts elsewhere work pretty well. I come back to the fact that we need to ensure that Government, private sector and third sector involvement—as Mr Briggs mentioned—can all come together, because I think that the ambitions of all three of those groups are the same.

There are various trusts around Scotland that have done quite a lot, whether it be the Robertson Trust or the Gannochy Trust in my part of the world. A variety of funding streams are out there. PEF is one of them and philanthropic and charitable provision is another, but there are also the models that I gave evidence on to the Finance and Public Administration Committee, and I sent a letter to this committee about what has happened in Ireland with Rethink Ireland.

I am convinced that, if we are creative and imaginative enough and if there is a will, which I believe there is on the side of the Scottish Government as well as on the side of the committee and myself, we can make this work. You are quite right, Mr Briggs, that there is definitely scope to look at different funding models, and Mr Mason made a good point about some of the possibilities. Should the bill pass stage 1, the issue will be instrumental at stage 2 in ensuring that the bill works.

Some local authorities and some centres have been successful in attracting a lot of money. For example, the Outward Bound Trust is a charitable trust that has a lot of money behind it. It is exceptionally well run and has delivered wonderful outdoor education for a long time. I am impressed by its can-do approach to everything.