Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am open to suggestions about how trust models can work. The evidence from elsewhere shows that that can vary. That is an important discussion.

When it comes to ensuring that the bill can progress, there are no two ways about it—the bottom line is funding. That has always been the case, ever since I put the bill into the parliamentary process. I want to have creative and imaginative ideas about how to do that, because it is not satisfactory for me, as an educationalist, to sit back and see some children being left behind.

Thank you, convener. It is a different experience for me to be at this end of the table.

I think that the Parliament is well aware of my considerable passion, over a long period, for the subject of residential outdoor education. I believe that, in the light of the Covid experience, we need to do even more to support our young people when it comes to providing encouragement and building confidence, leadership and resilience.

I will give some background. I introduced my bill on 20 June 2024. Prior to that, I had undertaken a consultation on the draft proposal for the bill, which received 535 responses. Ninety-five per cent of those who provided a response supported the proposal, and I am extremely grateful to all those who participated in that process.

I then lodged a final proposal for a bill, which received cross-party support from 38 MSPs—again, I am very grateful to those who supported it. I am also grateful to the Scottish Government ministers who have subsequently engaged with me on the issue. In particular, I thank the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise for their very constructive engagement. I am also extremely grateful to my staff and the staff of the outstanding NGBU, who have gone to great lengths to support me with the bill.

I believe that there is a very strong appetite for measures to be taken to ensure that all young people can be offered at least one week’s residential outdoor education.

The financial memorandum estimates that the cost of the bill’s provisions would be about £20.4 million to £33.9 million in year 1. I recognise that the upper estimate in that range is probably the most realistic one. Those calculations are in line with the figures that the Scottish Government provided to the Education, Children and Young People Committee on 3 September. The Government said that the estimated cost would range from £24.3 million to £40.6 million, and it offered a central estimate of £32.2 million. I was encouraged that we were in the same ball park.

The financial memorandum projects that the estimated cost would increase to a range of £21 million to £35.2 million in year 2, before settling back to a range of £20.4 million to £33.9 million in year 3 and beyond. The bill includes a requirement that guidance be set out, and I have proposed that that be done every five years.

In addition, I have included some suggestions about different models that could be used to help to fund residential outdoor education, based on evidence that has been collected not only from Scotland but from other jurisdictions, including Ireland. I have encouraged the Scottish Government to consider the use of a public trust model, whereby the Government would work with other partners to provide support to send young people on residential outdoor education.

Some of the evidence that was given to the Education, Children and Young People Committee on 13 November highlighted the existence of pupil equity funding for use in residential outdoor education. For example, Andrew Bradshaw of the City of Edinburgh Council indicated that 23 per cent of subsidy for pupils in that council area to attend residential outdoor education comes from PEF. Therefore, I think that there is a case for that to be looked at.

It is challenging to produce estimates for how much the bill would cost, because the raw data on the number of school pupils who currently undertake residential outdoor education is hard to find, as it is not held centrally or by local authorities. However, as was evident from last week’s evidence to the Education, Children and Young People Committee, that is not the case with the City of Edinburgh Council, which has a very good set of data on how many youngsters attend residential outdoor education in that local authority area, and, in Wales, there is extremely good knowledge of how many pupils there attend outdoor education.

I turn to the submissions that the committee has received on the financial memorandum. There are probably four categories of comments: those on funding for pupils with additional support needs, which I think is extremely important; those on funding for staffing costs; those on funding to meet other costs such as transport and ancillary costs; and those on funding to deal with the impact of inflation. If the committee will indulge me a little, I would like to say something about each of those categories.

On funding for pupils with additional support needs, I make it clear that many such pupils will already attend residential outdoor education without significant additional provision requiring to be made. However, it is important to acknowledge that a small number of pupils with extremely complex needs will require extra support. I encourage the committee to consider the evidence that was presented to the Education, Children and Young People Committee on examples of existing good practice whereby outdoor education centres place a high value on supporting young people with additional needs, including those with significant disabilities.

As is highlighted in the policy memorandum, the research that was carried out for the Calvert Trust and the Bendrigg Trust, as well as the evidence from the Outward Bound Trust and people who work at the Ardroy Outdoor Education Centre, shows how good some centres are at providing young people with additional needs with life-changing experiences. The evidence that Dr Roger Scrutton and Professor Chris Loynes gave to the Education, Children and Young People Committee two weeks ago was very powerful, because it highlighted what is being done to support youngsters with neurodiverse conditions.

In relation to funding for staffing costs, the financial memorandum acknowledges that, if the bill were passed, there would be an increase in the number of pupils who would receive outdoor education, which would result in additional staffing costs, although we should bear in mind the fact that a significant number of support staff are parent helpers and family members who currently do that work on a voluntary basis. However, it is important to recognise that the style and manner of the residential outdoor education that is undertaken will depend entirely on the school’s context. I am keen to ensure that there is as much flexibility as possible.

For example, some schools’ residential outdoor education might involve camping in or near the school grounds, while that of others will involve travelling to a more remote outdoor education centre. The former would not incur terribly much in the way of cost, but the latter probably would. It is possible that part of the increase in staffing costs that would arise from the bill would be offset by virtue of the fact that some of the other residential experiences would be provided not that far away from the school setting. Nonetheless, the projections in the financial memorandum assume travel to an outdoor centre in each case.

Ultimately, teachers’ contracts and pay and conditions, and what is required of them in respect of the provision of residential outdoor education, are matters for the tripartite negotiation between the Scottish Government, local authorities and the teaching unions. I respect that, but I also note that, among many teachers, there is strong recognition of the positive outcomes from outdoor education. Indeed, last week, the NASUWT indicated in its evidence to the Education, Children and Young People Committee that, despite having some concerns, 90 per cent of its members saw the advantage of school trips. I thought that that was very encouraging.

In relation to other costs, such as transport and ancillary costs, Shetland Islands Council provided an interesting response, which raised pertinent points about ensuring provision for pupils on islands. I agree that, in cases in which groups from islands attend residential outdoor education, costs will definitely be higher. I think that those costs are offset by lower costs for school groups on the mainland that have a shorter distance to travel. However, as I said, I think that we can probably cope with that.

In some cases, a week spent camping locally might be more appropriate and beneficial than a trip to an outdoor centre in a more remote location, but, as we know, many island communities are already running very successful residential programmes for primary and secondary pupils.

I read the concerns that were expressed about transport costs. As submissions to the committee have made clear, that will depend greatly on the geography, the mode of transport and the availability of that transport. A local residential experience that involves pupils being transported a short distance using existing school minibuses will be much cheaper than one that involves hiring a coach.

Concern was also raised about ancillary costs such as the provision of clothing for outdoor pursuits. However, evidence last week to the Education, Children and Young People Committee by the Ardroy Outdoor Education Centre and others demonstrated that that is unlikely to be a major factor, because many centres already routinely provide the necessary clothing for pupils.

Should the committee find it helpful to further consider concerns about the impact of inflation, I will be happy to provide in writing an updated table to account for inflation in years 2 and 3. I do not think that the impact is huge, and it has already been accounted for in some costs—for example, in the guidance to accompany the bill, which I based on guidance that has come forth from other parliamentary bills.

In summary, I recognise that implementing the provisions of the bill will come at a cost, and that the bill will require a financial resolution in order to proceed from stage 1. However, I strongly believe that the benefits of such an investment will be significant to young people—in particular, those with support needs, those who lack confidence, those for whom academic work in a classroom environment is a challenge, and those who struggle with mental health issues. There should also be significant societal benefits, such as better resilience, better leadership skills and an increased awareness of and care for the natural environment. There should also be long-term savings for the health and criminal justice systems.

In short, not only are the provisions of the bill positive from an education perspective; they represent preventative spend.

That is also a very good and important question. If we are to build a trust model, as some other countries have done, we will have to ensure that there is sustainability, because you are quite right: there has to be a year-on-year funding commitment. We cannot just have it for one year, because it could then all fall to bits. It is important that we have sustainable funding, but I have been pretty encouraged by what the Scottish Government has said about the bill and ways to ensure that we make the provision sustainable.

That is true, convener. Demand is not even across the year. Nonetheless, you would be surprised at how booking is increasing in months that we would not normally have expected, in years gone by. The outdoor centres are very pleased about the fact that some of that booking is being spread across the year.

There is a question for some—not all—outdoor centres about having to update their provision. I do not think that that will prevent the numbers of youngsters who will likely go, but it is nonetheless important to have not just quantity but quality. It has to be a good experience for young people qualitatively as well as quantitatively. If dormitory areas, kitchen areas or lounge areas are not up to scratch, that is an issue.

I will mention one thing that I have proposed in the bill, although I note that this is perhaps not relevant to the financial memorandum. School inspection is taking a much greater interest in what goes on through the extracurricular side of education. The education authorities are very interested in inspecting a school experience not just through what happens in that particular school but through where schools take their young people to get that extra dimension. I would like to see that include looking at the quality of provision. That is an important aspect for the education inspectorate—I have spoken with it several times—to consider.

I am absolutely 100 per cent convinced that this is about providing our young people with the skills, confidence and resilience that we need in Scotland—particularly since the Covid crisis, given that anxiety is so powerfully strong among many young people.

Anything that we can do from an educational perspective to improve the opportunities for our young people—particularly when it comes to working in the outside world or going on to college or university—is absolutely fundamental.

One of the most important effects of the bill would be if we get a more skilled, confident and able workforce than we have now and inspire more people to come into the workforce, instead of having a high level of economic inactivity. I base that on my experience of teaching and of almost 20 years in politics, and on my understanding of what we can do with young people when they have these experiences. The evidence is so strong that that nails it for me.

You asked me how that fits with my own party’s policies on public finance. We want to build in resilience and ensure that any spending commitments or tax reductions that we make are in line with greater fiscal transparency, which, rightly, is a big thing for this committee. That is where it fits in.

Primarily, the bill is about giving our youngsters a better offer as part of their education. I am really passionate about that.

I am sure that that will come out in the budget. I think that you know my own views and I have said in response to recent budgets that there are things that we would not do quite so much of, because of other priorities.

Teachers really matter. They can inspire our young people and they work alongside parents. Preventative spending to give young people better opportunities is a no-brainer.

You are quite right, Mr Greer; I have heard comments to that effect, but I also heard Nick March’s response to that suggestion. I think that the word “profiteering” was used, but he said that that is not happening and that providers are very keen to ensure that it never will, because their work is not about making vast profits out of young people’s lives.

One thing that struck me in last week’s evidence to the Education, Children and Young People Committee was that providers have taken great trouble to ensure that outdoor experience is articulated with the curriculum for excellence. Pupils are not just out in canoes or climbing Munros—there is far more flexibility. I am particularly struck by something that I hope will strike members of that committee when they go on their visit, which is that centres are far more diverse than they used to be. None of them is into making big sums of money—nor could they be, in the current fiscal climate—so I do not think that there will be profiteering or vast increases in the amounts charged. I do not see that happening.

No, but I would have thought—this is certainly my experience of young teachers—that if they see existing staff participating and having a really beneficial time, and youngsters under their care having a beneficial time, too, they will want to participate as well.

The issue of teacher contracts is important, and we have to accept that what the unions are saying to us in that respect is very important. However, I do not want to feel that this kind of educational experience will put off teachers and that they will just walk away. I would have to explore further with the unions their comments about why that might be happen.

Yes, I think that there is a discussion to be had about that. Indeed, it will not just be the centres themselves that will have to plan ahead; schools, too, will need time. The guidance will need to ensure that there is time to plan ahead, and it might well be that we will have to move to the next academic session to do that. That is a discussion that I have been having with the Scottish Government.

We have already been told that the transport costs are prohibitive for some schools—that is very clear—and, indeed, some local authorities are having great difficulty in providing the necessary transport. However, that is the case for all pupils, not just those from more income-disadvantaged backgrounds. We have to be clear that transportation is a cost issue and ensure that it is covered by the various means that I have set out in the financial memorandum.