Official Report 790KB pdf
Good morning and welcome to the 32nd meeting in 2024 of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. We have received apologies from Michael Marra.
Agenda item 1 is evidence taking on the financial memorandum for the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill from Liz Smith, who is the member in charge of the bill. Liz is joined by Nick Hawthorne, senior clerk at the Scottish Parliament’s non-Government bills unit. I welcome you both to the meeting, and I invite Liz to make a short opening statement.
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.
Thank you for that comprehensive opening statement. I can more or less wind up at that, I suppose, given that you have answered most of the questions.
Everyone on the committee appreciates your passionate commitment to the bill and the topic that it covers, so we will focus specifically on financial matters—which, according to the submissions that we have received, as you will be well aware, are significant.
Paragraph 6 of the financial memorandum says:
“The Member acknowledges that what mechanism the Scottish Ministers use to allocate funding required for this Bill is a matter for them.”
In addition, paragraph 11 says:
“Under this Bill, the responsibility for funding for the provision of residential outdoor education rests with the Scottish Government, thus ensuring blanket provision”.
You mentioned PEF in your opening statement, but what do you believe would be the most appropriate vehicle for the Scottish Government to fund the provisions of the bill, and do you believe that that funding should be ring fenced?
Both the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise have been extremely helpful to me. Based on evidence that I have taken from other jurisdictions and from Scotland, I flagged up to the Scottish Government the possibility of a public trust model, which is run for the benefit of the public—that is, not for profit. The trustees in a public trust model are appointed by the Scottish Government but can take on board members who might come from various bodies that can provide greater funding.
I have spoken a lot with Celia Tennant of Inspiring Scotland, who was also extremely helpful with regard to the bill, about what that organisation does to balance the public, private and voluntary sectors in such a fund. I have flagged up Rethink Ireland, which uses an interesting model and has been successful in raising a considerable amount of money. In that, there is a suggestion to the Scottish Government that, although the bill would make provision through the Government, the Government could find creative and imaginative ways of finding additional funding at a time when local authorities are under considerable pressure.
You mentioned such a trust in your opening statement. How would that work? For example, would the Government have to put in some seed money to draw in additional funding from elsewhere, in order to make the trust work?
That is a possibility, convener. An interesting thing that came out in two or three of the Education, Children and Young People Committee’s evidence sessions is that much of the PEF—which has been a very successful way of funding support, particularly for schools and youngsters who have greater need, in some of the more disadvantaged communities—is currently being used for outdoor education. That speaks volumes about the choices that have been made in local authorities and schools to ensure that that money goes to something that clearly gives positive outcomes. I have engaged with the Scottish Government about the level of PEF that we have and how much of it is going to outdoor education, because it is important to find out what the total is. That funding is obviously provided by the Scottish Government.
09:45
Pupil equity funding is important, but the point about it is that teachers can decide whether to spend it on outdoor education, books, computers, additional staff or whatever. Is it not therefore a rather unreliable source? You want outdoor education to be baked into legislation so that it is mandatory that every pupil gets to go at some point. Is the approach of relying on PEF to deliver that not a bit fragile? It would surely only ever be additional funding rather than core funding.
We could not rely on it completely, of course, because there is not enough to do what we want to do. However, it is interesting that, in many cases, the choices that are being made in schools are such that the existing PEF money is being directed into outdoor education. It would be helpful to supplement that with the creative and imaginative ideas that have worked in other jurisdictions. You asked whether money should be ring fenced, and my answer is, “Possibly.” However, we can persuade the Scottish Government that there are imaginative ways to pursue a range of funding options.
We could be talking about £100 million over three years, which is a very significant amount of money, and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is obviously nervous about where those funds will be sourced from. It is looking for a guarantee that local government will not be left carrying the can, which is why I asked you whether you think that the funding should be ring fenced. You might be able to set up a trust, and money might come from PEF, but it does not seem to me that that represents a guaranteed source of funding year in, year out, so to speak.
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.
One issue that has come up in the evidence is the lack of capital funding. You talked about some facilities for the delivery of outdoor education that were closed but have been repurposed and are coming back into use. If there is going to be a surge in demand, with additional numbers, surely that will mean that additional capital will be required. For example, if we think about how the Scottish Government increased the number of funded early learning and childcare hours from 612.5 to 1,140, or about the addition of free school meals for primary 5s to 7s, which is still being deliberated on, a lot of that is about schools’ capacity to provide those things. For nursery school children, they have to build places, in effect. Why is there no capital budget for your proposal in the financial memorandum?
There are issues about some of the existing outdoor centres needing to update their facilities. However, when it comes to bed space, which is important because that is the issue that determines how many youngsters can go to the centres, there is good capacity. We need to make a distinction between that and the structures that those who represented the outdoor education sector at the Education, Children and Young People Committee mentioned last week when they acknowledged that some of their facilities need to be updated. They are the ones who have to do that, and they are waiting to see what the demand level will be before they make investment decisions on that basis.
If 60,000 pupils a year are involved, it will not be 1,200 a week. We have a 38-week school year, but nobody will go in the week or two before Christmas, for example, or the week before the summer holidays. Demand will not be even throughout the year. You will find that it will be pretty skewed. Some centres will fill up very quickly and people will probably have to book them years in advance. I would have thought that the capacity will have to be significantly higher than it might be on paper. On paper, a capacity of 2,000 might be needed, but in reality it might need to be nearer 3,000 or 4,000 simply because people will want to go at certain times because of how the school year operates.
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 agree with that, but does that not mean that we need there to be a capital allocation in the financial memorandum? COSLA and the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland will say that, because of the current financial challenge, that will be difficult to deliver. ADES has said:
“the financial assumptions within the Bill are well below the finances required and are not detailed enough to give confidence in the ability to deliver on the aspirations of the Bill.”
I certainly agree with your aspirations—I am sure that most people would agree with them—but it is about how they are delivered. Some of the problems that COSLA, ADES and others have raised are about those issues. COSLA has asked where the funds will be sourced from; the subject of capital makes it very nervous, because a lot of local authorities do not have significant capital budgets and, with what they have, they are thinking about using those to build new schools or to fix potholes. They would be very reluctant, I think, to spend half a million or a million pounds, or whatever it would cost, on upgrading an outdoor centre, unless they were given the money.
I understand that. However, I come back to the point that the ballpark figures in the financial memorandum and the Scottish Government costings are not that far apart. That is an important point.
As the centres will tell you, when it comes to bed-space availability and demand, some of them are booked up quite some time in advance. That is important. That demand will provide them with greater income. It is true that some centres have issues, but they are adamant that the bill could help them. As I said, the arithmetic that we have done is, I think, quite accurate.
Paragraph 40 of the financial memorandum says:
“In relation to cover for teachers in their absence from school, for primary schools it is reasonable to assume that teachers and support staff attending the trip may not need to be covered for at the school.”
However, ADES has said:
“Paragraph 40 is incorrect. Any young person requires education, not supervision, this must be with a General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS) registered post holder, this is a genuine cost to the excursion.”
It is true that any classroom provision has to be under GTCS control. That is absolutely right and proper, because that concerns the professional qualification.
Existing schools that undertake a considerable amount of outdoor education—a growing number—are able to cope with that scenario without any additional extra costs. They make their timetable work to suit the provision of what is happening both in school and in the outdoor education field. It is the same as for history trips or language trips. It is never easy to organise a school timetable—in fact, it is increasingly difficult, these days—but the issue is pretty well covered. I do not think that there is a significant cost that will impinge on the ability of schools to provide staffing for outdoor education, because the schools that currently take part do not seem to have that problem.
What about the cost of cancellations due to adverse weather or pupil illness, for example? The assumptions do not appear to consider what the intent would be on how costs would be met if trips were cancelled or if a pupil was ill.
Cancellation happens fairly regularly, not least because of the Scottish weather. Usually, if there is a cancellation, the trip is held over to a more appropriate time at which the school can go.
I would have thought that the schools would still be charged, because, if you are a provider and two pupils do not turn up, you have lost a few hundred pounds, unless the school meets that cost—and the school would surely have to pay a second time, when the child was better.
Often, though, a trip is held over, because the booking can be remade. On the whole, outdoor education centres are pretty generous in allowing that to happen, provided that the extra booking is made. If it is not made, the money has to be repaid. However, my understanding and experience of that are relatively limited.
Comhairle nan Eilean Siar has said that the timescales are not possible to meet without a detailed and well-informed financial memorandum that takes account of the costs that are required to deliver on all the aspirations. It has said that many costs are dependent on third parties such as transportation providers and, of course, the outdoor education providers.
We did a lot of work—my staff did a phenomenal amount of work, not least because they have considerable experience in the sector, having worked in it. We spoke to a lot of schools and to authorities that make that provision now, which sometimes have to hire buses and so on. We have gone into quite a lot of detail in the potential costings for that. I therefore think that our sums are fairly accurate in that respect. I have not had any feedback from the Scottish Government to suggest otherwise.
However, it is possible that, for some, transportation costs are prohibitive, because of the pressures on local authorities of other financial obligations. We know for a fact that some schools have not been able to take part in outdoor education because transport has been too expensive. However, we have put into our sums the basis for our costings.
Other colleagues will want to explore some issues further, including one or two that I have not touched on. However, there is one further thing from me. Today, your Holyrood leader called for tax cuts of £1 billion a year. Your party has also called on the Scottish Government to mitigate a number of things such as the situation on winter fuel payments. If we have £1 billion in tax cuts and we mitigate here, there and everywhere—national insurance, blah, blah, blah—where would the bill fit into the list of priorities in a budget in which there would be less money to spend?
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.
10:00One 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.
We fully appreciate that and, all else being equal, I do not think there would be any argument at all against it. However, we must look at the budget, at teacher numbers and at the cost of outdoor provision. Where do you sit on that?
Having been a teacher myself, I am slightly biased.
Of course.
Teacher numbers are vitally important, particularly in the area of additional support for learning, where we do not have enough teachers. I would make a plea for priority spending in that area. There are other areas that I, in common with other Conservatives, would see as less of a spending priority.
Tell us.
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.
It is time to open out the questioning.
If passed, the bill will induce quite a lot of demand in the sector. As you point out, there is bed capacity at the moment but there is not a huge surplus, so existing providers would have to expect quite a lot of additional demand. Some of the submissions that came to us raised the possibility that some providers might seize the opportunity to increase their rates, which might take us beyond the cost range set out in the financial memorandum. What is your response to that? There is an opportunity for providers to significantly increase their rates if they know that there is an obligation on the state to provide outdoor learning and that there are not many other places to go.
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.
I agree that the vast majority of centres are run by extremely motivated people and that a lot of them are social enterprises and are not for profit in the first place.
However, there is an issue. You were at the Education, Children and Young People Committee last week when I raised the issue of Blairvadach, which is a Glasgow City Council-run centre near Helensburgh. Part of the challenge there is that every time they have a school trip in, they cannot use the space commercially, and they obviously make far less out of the school trips than they do out of commercial bookings. People want providers to keep the rate as low as possible to make it accessible to schools, but inducing demand from schools potentially increases the challenges to those centres around their commercial viability, because there is simply less space for them to take private bookings.
On the same side of that coin, Mr Greer, is the fact that if those centres were to take bookings from non-school attendees and the price shot up, the temptation would then be to have fewer places for young people, because, obviously, there would be displacement and it would be more tempting for a provider to simply offer the space, not to young people, but to those who are able to pay more. I do not think that that will happen—I see no sign of that whatsoever. In fact, it is quite the reverse in the sector. However, that displacement effect could happen if the centres felt that they had to get an awful lot of extra money from somewhere else, because schools would simply not be able to pay those fees. That would reduce the number of spaces that were available for young people.
On a different note, you heard the evidence from the NASUWT last week. It said that if provision were moved on to a statutory footing and taken away from the system of good will that underpins a lot of it—that is, that teachers and support staff are willing to go on these trips—it would want to open up discussions with the Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers on renegotiating teachers’ terms and conditions. That is obviously not factored into the financial memorandum, and there is a potential there for that to be a not insignificant—and perfectly justifiable—additional cost. How do you respond to that? The system of good will does not factor in the point that, in any other job, people are generally paid additionally if they are required to go away for work or work for longer periods of time. That does not happen here at the moment, but moving the matter on to a statutory footing and potentially formalising it, with it being raised at the SNCT, could raise those costs.
The NASUWT was very concerned about the SNCT aspect. It was able to produce evidence that almost 90 per cent of its members—I think that that was the figure—were very much in favour of school trips, which I thought was encouraging. However, you are right to say that it was concerned about the possibility of the matter becoming statutory and opening up all the tripartite negotiation, which would be difficult.
I must say that the evidence that we have taken from individual teachers, people who work in the sector and some local authorities—the City of Edinburgh Council, which gave evidence to the committee, is a case in point—shows that a lot of teachers are very keen to try to participate in this kind of thing without it having major implications. I got the slight impression from some of the evidence that a lot of teachers would walk away if they were asked to do extra things, but I do not see any evidence of that in the teaching profession just now. Some teachers might feel like that, but I do not see that as a major issue.
The Educational Institute of Scotland and the Scottish Secondary Teachers’ Association said in their evidence that, actually, they really quite like the principles of the bill; we just have to make it work. I have been clear all along that we just have to make it work. I must come up with the right suggestions about how we can make it work and make people feel confident in the bill’s financial aspects and its workability. From the feedback that we have had so far, we are halfway there on workability. On the finance aspect, we have to find a workable model that allows the Scottish Government to have confidence that it can pursue the bill.
I tend to agree with you that this is not likely to be what pushes teachers out of the profession. However, is there not a fairness argument here? A teacher who was to go away on a trip could potentially face increased childcare costs of their own but not be recompensed for them because the matter is not currently formally acknowledged as part of the pay and conditions agreement for teaching staff.
That happens already. There are pressures on families, of course, and not just from childcare. If a member of staff is asked to go away at a time when his or her youngster is doing Scottish Qualifications Authority exams, that is a pressure as well, because they do not want to be away from home, and that puts pressure on another colleague to be able to take up that work. Those pressures have existed for all the time that I have been involved with the issue.
I agree that such pressures have always existed, but the point of putting the provision of residential outdoor education on a statutory footing is to induce demand to ensure that more young people get that experience. However, that will result in more pressure, to the extent that a tipping point might be reached at which the teaching unions want teachers’ involvement in such provision to be formally recognised.
Yes, I accept that. It is vital that there is agreement between the Scottish Government, the teaching unions and the local authorities. As we have seen from recent events, we must ensure that people are taken with us.
We have been working on the bill for two and a half years, and we have spent a great deal of time researching how people feel about it. The 535 responses that we got to our consultation on the bill suggest that we can overcome those issues, but we must ensure that people trust in our ability to overcome them. If we do not, it will not work.
COSLA and ADES, and perhaps some other organisations that made submissions, were keen on a mechanism for annual review, in particular so that any potential issues to do with costs increasing in ways that were not foreseen can be dealt with. Are you amenable to working in an annual review mechanism?
The bill includes a proposal for a five-yearly review. That was based on a lot of evidence of similar parliamentary reviews. Should that be done on an annual basis? Perhaps. That is more a matter for how Government and the local authorities would see that. If that were to be a specific request of the teaching unions, I would be open to it. Equally, should the general principles of the bill be agreed to at stage 1, I would be open to various suggestions about how we could amend and improve it.
Good morning, Liz. It is nice to see you.
I have a quick question about the estimates in the financial memorandum. You say that the assumption in the bill is that around 60,000 pupils would receive residential outdoor education, but you also identify a range of between 55,000 and 65,000 pupils, which is a range of about 18 per cent. With regard to the cost estimates in the financial memorandum, there is a 66 per cent spread. You said at the outset that, on the basis of what you have heard in evidence, you think that the top end of that spectrum probably represents the most realistic estimate. Where do you think that that range is likely to be? Are we now talking about a 20 per cent range towards the top end? There is quite a big spread—a 66 per cent spread—when it comes to the potential costs.
That is true, but it is difficult to be precise, because the nature of residential outdoor education is that it is such a diverse opportunity. There is a range in the outdoor education visits that staff go on at the moment in terms of the length of time that they are for, where they are to and how many pupils go each time, and there is a cost in all of that. In some cases, we might be talking about groups of up to 40 pupils; in others, there might be only 14 to 20 pupils.
It is difficult to drill down into the exact number, but it could be around 20 per cent. I think that the figure is difficult to calculate, and the Scottish Government thinks that, too—I know that from the discussions that I have had with it. It is hard to bring together all the diversities, but your point is an important one. We set the range that we set because we thought that that was the most realistic one, and I think that the Scottish Government agreed with us on that.
The table that you present for the year 1, 2 and 3 costs is quite neat, in that the high estimate in year 1 and the high estimate in year 3 are identical. If the operation of the scheme comes in at the high end of the estimates and the uptake is significant over the three years—this is a good risk—is it the case that the high estimate in year 3 would, logically, be higher than the high estimate in year 1?
Yes, that is correct. If the bill is passed, the big question is how many schools from the primary sector and how many schools from the secondary sector will choose to participate. This is probably more anecdotal evidence than anything that we can pin down to finite figures. We think, certainly from what schools, local authorities and the sector have told us, that we will probably get more young people from the secondary sector in the second year. That was why we thought that the numbers might drop a bit but go back up. They could be slightly towards the higher end in year 3 and beyond.
10:15
I have a couple of relatively granular questions about state schools’ use of minibuses. What is your impression of the number of schools in Scotland that own and operate their own minibus fleet? Is not one of the issues the capital pressures that schools are under? With the introduction of ultra-low-emission zones and so on, could we be leaning in on a bus network that will not exist, which could lead to higher costs if third sector providers are brought in?
That is a good question. I have to say that, even after considerable research, it is difficult to tell how many schools have their own minibuses, how many minibuses there are within local authorities or, even within local authorities, how much of that service is deployed to schools. A lot of schools use coach services. Again, it comes back to the numbers. The average school minibus now seats 17. That includes the driver and will almost inevitably include two other members of staff. Realistically, each minibus of the type that we normally see on the roads has only about 14 or 15 pupils in it. A coach can take up to 44 pupils. I have a lot of experience of organising minibuses and so on, and there is considerable variability. It also depends on how far you are going and the capacity of the outdoor centre when you get there.
We do not have all the data on that. One of the fundamental issues is that we need more data. I was very pleased that the Education, Children and Young People Committee has written to the outdoor centres to get a bit more intelligence back from them about how many people are pitching up.
Just to follow up on Mr Greer’s question on pricing by centres, one of the responses flags up the point that there could be an increase in dynamic pricing, because the use of centres is quite seasonal. It is probably safe to assume that, if there has been modest or significant capital investment in any centres, they may charge more as a consequence. What is the risk that the pricing landscape may change as a result of higher usage, particularly at peak times, and capital investment?
It will in some cases. Let us not forget that, because of Covid, there were two years of virtually nothing happening. The Scottish Government very kindly provided £2 million in the first year and an additional £1 million to ensure that the centres were able to stay open. I was very grateful for that at the time because, had it not happened, more of the centres would have shut down.
If somebody goes for a state-of-the-art outdoor education centre, where there is not only an improvement in the buildings and facilities for young people but an update to outdoor activities—if specialists are brought in to do rock climbing or canoeing or whatever—the costs will increase. That might have a knock-on effect, so we would have to be mindful of that.
You referred to Wales. In its submission, COSLA says that the equivalent legislation in Wales did not progress due to a lack of funds being available. What is the status of that similar legislation in Wales? Is it likely to come back again? Can any lessons be learned for this bill from the Welsh experience?
The Welsh bill did not pass, but that was by one vote, which was because somebody was not there to vote—it was a very close-run thing. Sam Rowlands, the Welsh member who promoted the bill, came up here quite a lot and we had a lot of conversations. I followed the bill in the Senedd carefully. Although it was defeated by one vote, the Welsh Government went back to Sam Rowlands and said, “We don’t want this whole thing to completely collapse. We’re very keen to have outdoor education as one of the basic offerings in Welsh schools.” As I mentioned, the information that is available in Wales is much better than what is available in Scotland, so I think that that bill will come back.
As you know, Tim Farron had a similar bill, before the general election closed it down, and he has been doing the same thing in England. He comes from the Lake District area, so that is where he gets a lot of his information. When it comes to supporting our young people these days, this kind of thing is even more important than it was in the past. So, yes, I think that the proposal will come back in Wales.
You have brought me to my final question, which is on children’s mental health. We are aware that there is a real issue with that at the moment. Is it at all possible to quantify what savings you think might be made elsewhere if this kind of programme is embedded at the heart of our school system?
Identifying savings through preventative spend is inevitably extremely difficult. We have heard many witnesses tell the Finance and Public Administration Committee that it is difficult to put a financial sum on that. However, there is some qualitative evidence that helps, including the experiences that we have heard about from young people about how it has transformed lives. That includes many who have considerable disabilities and additional support needs, and it is pretty compelling.
It is also pretty compelling to hear from their parents and from the teachers in their schools, who feel that the young people are much better able to work from an academic angle when they get back. There is also compelling international evidence that the preventative benefits of spend on outdoor education are considerable.
It is difficult to put precise figures on that for Scotland, but I am convinced that, if youngsters have greater inspiration and are more able to engage in their education because of something like this, they will grow into exactly what the curriculum for excellence wants them to be in its four principles, such as responsible citizens and all the other stuff that is in the curriculum for excellence.
A lot of the questions that I was going to ask have already been covered. You have clearly put a great deal of work into the bill, and you acknowledged some of the main questions in your opening remarks.
On the appetite to get the bill through, one thing that struck me was the Scottish Government’s memorandum, which states:
“The financial implications of the Bill on public finances are significant and unaffordable, as currently drafted, and put into question whether the intentions of the Bill are realistically deliverable.”
Those are quite strong words. Although you have indicated that the Government has been supportive and has taken a neutral position, how on earth are you going to get over that hurdle and that statement about the financial implications?
The unaffordability aspect is important. If we can find additional models that provide extra funding, that will reduce concerns about the bill, although I do not think that anybody is opposed to the bill. That is important, and I have taken it upon myself to be proactive in recognising that there are, of course, issues that put pressure on local government finances.
I was struck last week when Willie Rennie rightly asked the Education, Children and Young People Committee whether residential outdoor education is a priority. That is a good question, because we have issues with teacher numbers, additional support for learning and reading and writing. There are all sorts of pressures in education just now, so is it a priority? My argument is that it is, because the benefits that we get from such education are so demonstrably powerful that we should be doing it.
That begs the question of how we can allay the concerns that the Scottish Government has put to me, and I am working with the Government on that just now. A big part of that work is about the ability to provide additional sources of income.
The convener mentioned the public trust model. Might it be beneficial to work cross-party on that? It strikes me that, if a sound model can be found and adopted, it would have potential benefits for a variety of areas, given current constraints. A few members might be interested in looking at the implications of that generally, but it would also be advantageous for your bill.
Absolutely. You have done so much to debate funding for music tuition, which has been a major issue—you understand that it is not a party-political issue. The more that we can get cross-party agreement on that kind of thing, the better. My bill, too, is not about party-political issues. I did not lodge the bill because I am a Conservative; I did it because, as an educationalist, I genuinely believe that it is the right thing to do.
Thirty-eight MSPs across the political spectrum have signed and shown their support for the bill, and I have been very encouraged by the way that the Scottish Government has reacted to it. I know that it is neutral on the bill, which I expected—in fact, I might have expected the Government not to have gone for the bill, for the reasons that you set out in your first question. Cross-party working in the Parliament is vital at a time when there are many challenges in trying to address some of the big issues.
I do not disagree. You have made claims about the value of outdoor education. I think that, if the right funding model could be found, the value could be even greater. Although the benefits are good, they are being derived from only one event during a school pupil’s attendance from primary 6 to secondary 4.
I do not have any further questions, convener, because they have all largely been covered.
We will see if there are any more questions from John Mason.
That is very kind, convener.
Along with Ross Greer, I have the privilege of being on the Education, Children and Young People Committee, so we have had a lot more background on the bill. I will press you a little more on capital spending, which the convener asked about. The education committee got the impression that some outdoor centres are really struggling and people’s expectations of them are rising. Some of the buildings were built in 1939—as it happens, I have stayed in some of those.
The current model seems to be that schools pay for only the running costs and that the capital funding for outdoor centres has to come from other sources. The centres are going around to trusts to beg for money and are fundraising and doing different things. I get the impression that some of the centres seem to be a little more successful than others, but that is to be expected. The suggestion was made that if an outdoor centre hits a major financial challenge, it may well close. The current funding model is working to an extent, but not hugely, and the councils have largely closed their centres. Surely, going forward, the model cannot continue, and some new money must come in on the capital side?
You are correct in your interpretation of the evidence that the Education, Children and Young People Committee has heard. Some centres are on the brink because of the capital problem. We must ensure that there is greater demand, which would increase support for the centres and the income that they can take in. You are also correct that some centres that have been under pressure have managed to become sustainable because of various charitable trust funds, but some have not. We have to be mindful that some centres are on the brink. It will be interesting to get more of a breakdown on that position, which will come back in the response to the letter that the Education, Children and Young People Committee has sent to the outdoor education centres.
Do you have any suggestions as to where the capital should come from?
A lot of employers are keen to develop our young people’s skills and some would like a model of trust funding for this kind of outdoor activity—it does not have to be outdoor education; it could be other things. Help could be given to our outdoor centres to provide quality provision through additional funding that employers could make available. Some centres have benefited from being able to upgrade some of their facilities.
There is a new outdoor education centre up in Aberdeenshire, and a lady from there gave evidence not to the Education, Children and Young People Committee but to the cross-party group on outdoor education. She told an inspiring story about the funding for that centre. When outdoor education centres do creative and imaginative things, funding can be found, but you are quite right that we must ensure that that can happen not just in a few cases but across the system.
10:30
Is there not a risk that, if the provision becomes a statutory requirement, that might discourage trusts from giving money? At the moment, trusts might think, “This is a voluntary exercise in the charitable sector.” Would they have a valid argument in saying, if the Parliament is requiring such provision, the Parliament should pay the money?
That is not my experience at all; in fact, it is quite the reverse. A lot of people would like to get involved in this kind of thing, because—I cannot say this often enough—outdoor education is about providing skills for our young people and building their resilience. A lot of trusts support young people, many of whom are from disadvantaged communities. That is absolutely right and proper, and it is what we have to do through the bill.
I am determined that the bill be inclusive and that we ensure that a lot of youngsters who do not currently get the opportunity to participate in outdoor education get that opportunity. Trust funds and philanthropists are keen to do that, because they know that, whether in relation to the economy or to society, it is in everybody’s interests to provide young people with the skills and the attitude that we need in modern Scotland.
You said that you want to be inclusive, and we all agree with that. On your previous point, we all probably agree with the concept. The question is whether we support the bill, largely because of the cost.
Centres in Scotland can cope with those with additional support needs to a certain extent, but there is no one centre that can cope with some of the neediest children. Would the plan be that, in the short term, those children would go to England?
No, I do not think so. The evidence that was provided by outdoor education centres last week and to the cross-party group shows that more centres in Scotland are doing a phenomenal job with additional support for learning pupils, some of whom have very considerable disabilities. There are some very moving stories. Those do not relate to the financial memorandum, but I think that the Education, Children and Young People Committee will be interested in them.
Scotland is much more aware of its responsibilities to cater for additional support for learning pupils, and that is articulated through the principles behind curriculum for excellence. The Ardroy Outdoor Education Centre and the Outward Bound Trust have done a huge amount to ensure that those youngsters get a really good and positive experience. In Scotland, the level of care for, as well as the number of, young people with serious disabilities or very specialist needs is increasing, and so is the provision for them. Everybody recognises that, to be properly inclusive, we have to ensure that those youngsters get such opportunities.
However, none of the centres in Scotland could cope with a whole class from a special needs school.
No. Under the bill, it is not compulsory for everyone to take part in outdoor education—I have never said that it is. I want the opportunity to be made available for all young people, but it is not compulsory. Some families will choose not to participate, just as some do now, for very good reasons. The bill is not about making outdoor education compulsory, which would be the wrong thing to do. It is about ensuring that there are opportunities for more young people than is the case currently. The University of Edinburgh’s analysis from 2019 shows that about a third of pupils from the secondary sector and roughly a quarter of pupils from the primary sector get such provision, which means that two thirds of secondary school pupils and three quarters of primary school pupils do not.
According to the savings section of the financial memorandum, it does not appear that the bill will result in a lot of savings. At the moment, it seems to me that parents—better-off parents, I presume—are paying most of the money for kids to have residential experiences. I think that 60 per cent or thereabouts of primary school kids go on residential trips at present. That means that there will be a big saving for better-off parents. Is that the best use of the money? I do not know what proportion of the £30 million, in effect, represents a saving to parents—maybe we are talking about half or a third of it. Is there not a better way of using public money? Some parents are willing and able to contribute, and some schools say that they benefit from fundraising and from kids working together to raise money for such events. Will we not lose out on all of that?
There is a discussion to be had about that very sensible question, which you also raised at the Education, Children and Young People Committee. It is true that some parents make a considerable commitment. Successful fundraising programmes in schools also provide quite a lot of extra money. There is considerable enthusiasm about that, because undertaking such fundraising is a real-life learning experience. You are on to something important.
I think that there is some scope for variability in how outdoor education is funded. Quite a lot of parents can well afford to cover the cost with no trouble at all, but a lot of parents cannot, and I am concerned about the parents who cannot afford it, because their children lose out.
Would the alternative be to set up a fund of perhaps £10 million that was specifically for schools, children or outdoor centres to apply for to cover their costs?
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.
I am sure that we all agree with that.
How flexible would the funding be? Would it be available for things other than going to outdoor centres? For example, some children in the Highlands and Islands are very used to being outside because that is their normal life, so they would like to come to Glasgow and visit museums and so on. It has also been suggested elsewhere that the money could subsidise overseas trips. How flexible is the whole thing?
I am flexible. Let us be honest—a modern languages trip, or a history trip to the battlefields, is just as educationally valuable as a trip to an outdoor education centre. I am flexible about that, but if we were to say that the bill had to provide for all those things, we would be looking at a different financial memorandum. I am sure that I will be back here answering questions about that in due course.
Education, in its broadest sense, should include flexible experiences. My point is that there is compelling evidence on the benefits to young people of residential outdoor education. That is why my bill is as it is, because we can get a lot of uptake of good-quality education.
Finally, I will press you again on the point raised by Ross Greer and others about teachers’ attitudes. At the moment, teachers’ involvement in residential outdoor education is voluntary. Although I have not done any studies on this, I imagine that younger or single teachers will be more enthusiastic about it and more able to take part.
The NASUWT told the Education, Children and Young People Committee that it already advises its members not to take part in such trips because that is not part of their contract, but if every kid has to go, or must be given the opportunity to go, do you not think that there will be more pressure on teachers to go on such trips and that they will therefore want to be recompensed for that?
Yes. I would quite like to discuss that a wee bit further with the unions. I have to say that I have not come across terribly many teachers who want to withdraw from this kind of thing. I was a bit—
But we will need more teachers to get involved in residential outdoor education. It will not be possible to rely only on the teachers who are already involved in it.
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.
Okay—thank you.
Ross Greer wants to come back in.
I want to come back on the issue of equality and inclusion. You mentioned that, in the overall costings, there was an acknowledgement that not every model of outdoor education is at the high-cost end, which involves going to a centre some distance away from the school. Children could camp close to the school, which would still be of immense value but would come at a lower cost.
My only concern, though, is whether there is the potential for these things to be disproportionate. In those schools where parents have the means to fund additional transport costs, they will be able to go further out and potentially get a higher-quality residential experience, whereas children at a school in, say, a more deprived urban community, for whom going to a centre will obviously involve a significant amount of travel, might be steered towards the lower-cost model of camping nearby. I do not mean to diminish the value of that, but is there not a risk of people having an unequal experience?
Yes. However, in his evidence to the Education, Children and Young People Committee in the first evidence-taking session, Mr Mannion made it clear that some close-to-home experiences that were provided near schools did not cost terribly much and gave as much educational benefit as a residential experience would.
Therefore, we have to see this in the broadest sense. The bill is not about trying to replace other educational experiences; the experiences for which it provides will be complementary to those experiences. Lots of really good things are happening on school campuses and in the world of outdoor learning—as the Scottish Government has promoted it—and the bill should not displace that sort of thing.
As for whether the ability of parents to pay for outdoor education experiences will have an effect on the choices that a school might make, it might do in some circumstances. The bigger issue is transport, because that is where the cost lies. The point was put to me originally that parents cannot afford the kit, the boots and all the things that are needed for outdoor education, but I was really pleased to hear last week that the centres are largely providing those things now. That is a big change from my day when we had outdoor education, when that really was something that stopped people going. These days, a pair of boots, a decent cagoule and so on are very expensive—it costs a good few hundred pounds to get a child kitted out to do such activities—and the fact that centres are now providing that equipment is a big step forward.
So you do not think that transport costs, specifically, will result in kids from more deprived urban communities being offered the shorter-distance, lower-cost model and kids from wealthier communities, whose parents can afford to make contributions to transport, getting that additional experience. Again, I am not devaluing the close-to-home, camping-in-a-tent model, but is there a risk of inequality in that respect?
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.
Thank you.
10:45
One issue is that, if the Scottish Government is expected to blanket pay for everything, there will be no incentive to reduce costs at local authority or school level, because someone else will be paying for it. That is just human nature.
Going back to the trust issue, you talked about people being willing to come in. Without naming anyone, do you have any examples of people who are willing to do so? As you know, my local authority has outdoor centres, one of which is at Clauchlands on Arran. It is less than 20 years old and cost £5.5 million. Every single year, when the budget comes up, people talk about all the potential savings that can be made, and every single year, one of those savings, which is always rejected by the council, is the closure of the Clauchlands outdoor centre. It is a resource issue rather than a capital issue; the centre has already been built and is already there, but the real issue is staffing. It is always in the paper that Clauchlands is under threat and there is always a stooshie about it locally, but I have not noticed anyone coming in and saying, “You know what, I’m a multimillionaire and I’m quite happy to fund the retention of that facility.”
Therefore, if you think that people from the private or charitable sector will be coming in on a huge, all-Scotland scale, I have to wonder how realistic that is. I know that you have talked about Ireland—I am not sure how much funding has come in there—but, at this point in time, I am not seeing anyone who is willing to chip in money to save something that is threatened with closure, let alone something that is, in effect, backstopped by the Scottish Government.
The Scottish Government—all credit to it for doing so—set up Inspiring Scotland, which is a collaboration involving the Government, the private sector, the charitable sector and the third sector. I have suggested to the Scottish Government that it has a long conversation with Inspiring Scotland, which has been relatively successful and has been a really good thing for Scotland.
Rethink Ireland has raised quite a lot of money from a social perspective, and we can write to the committee about how it operates. There is also the Ernest Cook Trust down south, which has been very good at providing centres with additional support. I think that we can make that work.
I think that the issue is the indefinite nature of that sort of funding. Trusts might or might not come in, but the question is how to sustain that funding year in, year out.
I have one other question about the issue of timescales, which was touched on earlier. You are keen for this to start in 2026, but I have to say that there seems to be no build-up to it. The costings suggest almost full delivery in year 1, and I cannot see how that can possibly happen, given that some facilities will have to be refurbished and additional facilities will surely have to come online. Would it not be better for the provision to be scaled up over, say, three years?
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.
Lastly, when I was at school, my twin sister went to Faskally and had a fantastic time. The teachers just said, “You, you and you are going,” and I was not one of the ones who were chosen, so I never got to go. However, when my son went to Castle Toward, he found it deeply distressing; he had never been away from home before and was very upset. Although the pupils were not supposed to phone home, he was allowed to, and as I have said, he was really upset. So, it is not always the boon that some people think it is.
I have to say, though, that when I was 16, I went with my Latin class to Athens and Pompeii and had a fantastic time. John Mason’s comments about overseas trips should be considered, too, because you can be wandering around Epidaurus, Mycenae and Marathon when you are 15. I have always been interested in classical Greece, and that kind of thing can be quite inspirational, too.
I am the first to admit that not all youngsters will benefit from residential outdoor education. A small number do not like it at all; they feel quite pressurised by it, and anxious as a result, and we have to be mindful of those young people.
As for the way in which the centres operate now, they are much more understanding of and care more about that type of young person than was perhaps the case in my day, when you just had to get on with it and did not get much opportunity to do anything else. That kind of education is changing for the better with regard to looking after the child’s best interests. I suppose that, if we want to put it into Government speak, it is about getting it right for every child. I think that that is improving a lot.
We absolutely should include other opportunities from different perspectives, because education is a wonderful thing, which people can benefit from in so many different ways.
I have to say that it was £142 for the week in Greece, and, because my parents had nae money, I had to pay for it by stocking shelves in the Co-op at 41p an hour.
Quite right.
Thank you very much for that. Your evidence has been really helpful, Liz. As you know, the committee will deliberate on the matter in due course.
We will have a five-minute suspension so that we can change over the witnesses and give colleagues a natural break.
10:50 Meeting suspended.Air ais
AttendanceAir adhart
Revenue Scotland