The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-16789, in the name of Liz Smith, on the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill at stage 1.
I note that a Scottish Government minister does not appear to be in the chamber. We will nonetheless need to continue, because this is follow-on business.
15:24
Before I move the motion in my name, I intimate that I will spend my opening speech talking about the principles of the bill and that, throughout the debate and in my summing-up speech, I will deal with the concerns that have been raised by the Education, Children and Young People Committee and by other members.
On returning from Lagganlia outdoor centre, Nevis—who has cerebral palsy, is a full-time wheelchair user and needs support with feeding and an adult carer with him at all times—said:
“Rock climbing was awesome and I got to sail round an island with my friends in a storm—things I can’t usually do and what you think you will see only in films. I felt so brave. Everyone should get the chance to do this.”
Throughout my 16 years as a secondary school teacher and my subsequent two decades as a parliamentarian, I have been firmly of the view that outdoor education is one of the most valuable and rewarding learning experiences that any young person can have. Residential outdoor education, through which young people experience an environment that is far removed from their everyday situations, is often life changing, as it was for Nevis.
Adventurous new experiences in the outdoors allow young people to develop lifelong connections to the natural environment. They build self-esteem, self-reliance, confidence and, most important, resilience. They also help young people to learn leadership skills, the importance of valuing friendship and what it means to be part of a team. Those skills not only enrich our lives as individuals but benefit society and the economy.
The evidence that illustrates the benefits of residential outdoor education, both at home and abroad, is well documented, and it is so compelling that I do not believe that anyone should miss out on such an opportunity. Indeed, listening to young people whose lives have been changed as a result of residential education has been one of the most rewarding aspects of my entire parliamentary career.
I will address the very important question that Willie Rennie asked me in the committee, about why the bill is a priority. First, I believe that, in the post-Covid era, we have to work even harder to build resilience and confidence in our young people, especially those from the most disadvantaged communities. I do not need to recount to members the current problems in our schools that relate to mental health and anxiety, attendance, attainment and the increasing need for provision for additional support needs, as identified by recent statistics. The evidence that has been provided to the Education, Children and Young People Committee was overwhelmingly positive in showing that residential experiences can do so much to help in that regard.
Will Liz Smith articulate why the bill proposes opportunities—which are perhaps needed in Scotland even more than they are in other areas of the United Kingdom, given the curriculum for excellence and skills development—that are unavailable within the confines of a classroom?
Absolutely. Martin Whitfield has made a very good point. I will come to the curriculum for excellence a little later.
It is about what not just young people but their teachers are saying, no matter the social background of their primary school pupils. Alex Stark, the headteacher of Tinto primary school, said:
“We strongly believe that at least one residential experience should be the right of every child. That’s because we see our pupils grow in such different ways and especially in confidence, resilience and independence and all of that helps so much when we get back to school.”
Secondly, the current set-up is not delivering well enough when it comes to residential opportunities. Despite the moves that were made to improve matters when the Scottish Government’s vision for outdoor learning was produced in 2010, and the excellent job that has been done by some schools, significant gaps remain. There is considerable inequity across provision—most especially for pupils with special needs—and wide variation in resource provision across different local authorities. There is also inequity of provision between the independent school sector, in which residential outdoor education is embedded in the curriculum, and too many state schools, in which, despite very willing intent among many teachers, there is very little provision. That is simply not fair, especially given that the John Muir award has been paused for some months.
I turn to the Education, Children and Young People Committee’s very helpful report and to the challenges that members want to have addressed. I will develop my ideas further in my closing speech.
First, on funding and the need to find a commitment of £40 million, I am told that there is no money. Of course, that is a matter of priority within the Scottish Government’s spending commitments. I have pointed out to ministers that quite a high percentage of pupil equity funding—which I have supported and believe to have been generous—is used by headteachers to fund a variety of residential experiences. I consider that that reflects the recognition by schools of the importance of residentials.
I also flag up the Scottish Parliament information centre’s statistics on PEF, which show that, in 2020-21, there was an underspend of £43.4 million, with that money being carried over. In 2023-24, £30 million of pupil equity funding was reprofiled into the local government attainment grant and used for public sector pay increases, as was intimated to the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. The minister might want to comment on that later.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will not just now, if Mr Mason does not mind. He has asked some interesting and important questions about the bill, and I will come back to them.
I have suggested to ministers that they should look at alternative models of funding, such as public trust models, partnerships between the public and private sectors—which I know some ministers are keen to look at in other areas of policy development, including infrastructure funding—and models that are used by Rethink Ireland and Inspire Scotland.
The Parliament often debates and measures outcomes, so, on that basis, let me repeat the evidence that was collected by the Outward Bound Trust across eight countries, including the UK. It found that, for every £1 that is invested in outward bound programmes, there is a return of between £5 and £15 in societal value. For me, that is a very powerful finding that shows that such funding represents an important long-term investment.
I turn to the vital importance of ASN provision. I give huge credit to Pam Duncan-Glancy and several of our outdoor centres for the work that they have done to ensure that young people with special needs are properly catered for, because if the bill does not deliver for them, it will not deliver its intentions. The current provision is better than it has been in the past, but there is still an awful lot of work to do. I will address many of those concerns in my closing speech.
A related point is the infrastructure of some centres, which will be an issue whether or not the bill passes. Broadly speaking, there are enough bed spaces, and we have a brand-new centre in Aberdeenshire, but the sector needs greater demand in order to boost its income.
It has been asserted that it is difficult to define residential outdoor education and to align it with the curriculum. I struggle with that view because—to pick up Martin Whitfield’s point—I cannot think of anything that better aligns with the curriculum for excellence than experiences that demonstrably prove that youngsters become successful learners, confident individuals, effective contributors and responsible citizens as a result.
I respect the opinions of representatives of the teaching unions and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and I will come back to deal with many of their concerns, as well as those that Mr Greer raised, quite rightly, at the committee during the stage 1 process.
The bill is not about party politics. It is about what is in the best interests of our young people in the post-Covid age when so many indicators tell us that they face more challenges than ever before. I introduced the bill after many years of personal experience of watching and working with young people and teachers in the outdoor environment and after very lengthy examination of the evidence, for which I owe my staff and the bill team so much. I have spent most of my parliamentary career immersed in the world of education. If it is abundantly clear, over a long period of time and on a universal basis, that there is one aspect of the educational experience that returns the best results and outcomes, why on earth would we not make it happen?
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill.
I call Douglas Ross to speak on behalf of the Education, Children and Young People Committee.
15:33
I am speaking on behalf of the Education, Children and Young People Committee. I begin by speaking about one of our members, Keith Brown, who recently joined the committee. On behalf of the committee, I offer our support and sympathies to him following the terrible news that we heard this morning about Christina McKelvie, as well as to Christina’s sons, Jack and Lewis, and her two grandchildren, Maeve and Leo. Keith has been rightly missing from committee meetings in the past couple of weeks as he spent precious time with Christina. We wish him all the very best to get through these challenging times, and I hope that we will welcome him back in the near future.
I thank Liz Smith, as the member in charge, for introducing the bill, which has given the committee the opportunity to discuss the important issue of how to ensure equal access to residential outdoor education for pupils. I also thank my fellow committee colleagues for their diligent work on the bill and all the individuals and organisations who provided evidence, either in person or by responding to our calls for views, especially the numerous pupils who wrote in to share with the committee their positive experiences of outdoor education.
The committee would also like to thank Scottish Outdoor Education Centres and its team, who all generously gave their time and shared their insights when the committee visited Broomlee outdoor education centre. Lastly, the committee is grateful to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and the Finance and Public Administration Committee for their work in scrutinising the bill and sharing their conclusions in a timeous manner so that we could reflect them when we were considering our report.
I say at the outset that the whole committee recognised the value of offering children and young people residential outdoor education. However, there was some divergence in views on how that should be funded.
Turning to the bill, as Liz Smith spoke passionately about, its main aim is to ensure that all pupils in state and grant-aided schools have the chance to experience at least four nights and five days of residential outdoor education during their school career. I should point out that the bill does not make it compulsory for pupils to attend residential outdoor education, but there must be an opportunity to do so.
During the committee sessions, many of us spoke about our experiences of going to residential outdoor centres as young people. I kept my story for today’s debate, because I did not want to introduce it at committee stage. I went to Abernethy. I attended a small primary school in Moray called Alves primary school, which was so small that we had to join up with Dallas primary school to have enough pupils to go. Unfortunately, my twin sister, who was in the same class as me, fell and broke her collarbone. I used most of my time on that trip trying to get some sympathy, saying that I had referred pain because my twin was in hospital being treated for her broken collarbone. That is one memory that I have from my visit to a residential outdoor centre.
The interest and passion that Liz Smith has shown were replicated by all members of the committee, who have had their own experiences of attending outdoor centres and know of constituents’ experiences of that. That has brought a lot to the debate. We saw that in our committee sessions and in the visits that the committee made as part of our scrutiny.
The stage 1 report makes it clear that the benefits for pupils and staff are considerable. They include building pupils’ confidence and developing the teacher-pupil relationship—that happens while they are attending an outdoor residential centre, but continues back in the classroom, sometimes for the entirety of a pupil’s time at school. We have also noted the improvements in attainment. Given those life-changing benefits, we said that all pupils should have the opportunity to experience residential outdoor education, which should be linked to the existing curriculum at some point in their school career. We welcome the inclusive approach that has been taken in the bill.
As an add-on to my earlier intervention, was the committee satisfied that outdoor education fulfils many of the requirements of the curriculum for excellence, both in its original form and with the additional vision that was added in 2010?
We absolutely were. That came across in the evidence sessions that we held and in the information that we gathered during those sessions. I hope that our report reflects that.
However, we recognised the challenges in relation to the universality of the opportunity to experience residential outdoor education, including how it should be funded, the impact on teachers and the existing capacity of residential outdoor centres to accommodate pupils. We all acknowledged that more work needs to be done in assessing capacity across Scotland and the ability for existing outdoor centres to provide residential opportunities for all pupils—including, as Liz Smith said, to accommodate pupils with complex additional support needs. We all agreed that the additional costs of providing residential outdoor education for pupils with ASN should not fall disproportionately on those pupils’ families.
I will move on to teachers and the concerns that we heard during our evidence sessions and our informal session with teachers. Currently, teachers facilitate residential outdoor education visits on a voluntary basis. Many of the teachers whom we spoke to spoke highly of the value of that experience to pupils and to them personally. However, representatives of education trade unions cautioned that placing such trips on a statutory footing, as proposed in the bill, would change the nature of the arrangements. We heard that that could potentially require teachers to renegotiate their terms and conditions via the tripartite Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers, and we recommended that the Scottish Government provide its view on whether that would be required and an estimate of any resulting costs.
On funding, we all agreed that the national funding of residential outdoor education is a good example of preventative spend—its benefits are well documented. That said, parental contributions and fundraising are key sources of income for many schools that currently provide residential outdoor education. We have, therefore, asked the Scottish Government and the member in charge of the bill to consider whether the aim of universal provision of residential outdoor education can retain a place for parental contributions and local fundraising.
The costs that are associated with the bill mean that it cannot proceed to stage 2 unless a financial resolution is lodged. That cannot be done by the member in charge; it can be done only by the minister and the Scottish Government. I am slightly unsure about the notification that we received last night from the Scottish Government, in its response to the committee, that it
“will not stand in the way of the Bill but will not be lodging”
the financial resolution that is needed unless some progress is made. I ask that, when the minister speaks, she outlines the process that we must go through as a committee and as a Parliament to determine whether the Scottish Government will eventually lodge a financial resolution, which is clearly crucial.
We heard interesting evidence from the member in charge on other funding options that could supplement the central Government funding that will be required to implement the bill. That included a public trust model. Not only the education committee but the Finance and Public Administration Committee said that there was merit in exploring such alternative funding models, and we recommended that the Scottish Government liaise with Liz Smith to explore the options in a meaningful way.
The committee heard of concerns regarding capital funding for outdoor education centres. We were told that, rightly, current market prices for school residentials do not include capital costs for the centres, to keep the costs of residential trips affordable. We also heard that some centres were built in the 1930s and were designed to be used for perhaps up to 25 years but are still in use now, with refurbishments done on a piecemeal basis when funding allows. All those issues were rightly highlighted and brought to the fore during one of our evidence sessions.
The Education, Children and Young People Committee supports the general principles of the bill. There are issues that need to be addressed in relation to costs and staffing, as I have set out, but the further parliamentary stages that will be afforded to Liz Smith, the Scottish Government and the Parliament as a whole provide us with an opportunity to resolve those.
15:42
I apologise for missing the very beginning of the debate.
Before I begin, I will take a moment to pay tribute to Christina McKelvie. She was a wonderful woman. She was kind-hearted, warm, brave and bold, and she had a fantastic sense of humour. Similar to many members who have spoken today, I found Christina to be extremely supportive. I remember how encouraging and helpful she was when I first entered the Parliament in 2021. I know that she will be terribly missed in this Parliament and across Scotland, and my deepest condolences go to Keith, Jack and Lewis and all her family and friends.
I thank the member in charge of the bill for her engagement so far. I also thank the lead committee and all the stakeholders who came forward during stage 1.
The Scottish Government believes that all children and young people should have the opportunity to engage in progressive and creative outdoor learning experiences. I have been consistent in stating that throughout my engagements on the bill.
The Government values the incredibly important work that outdoor education centres do—indeed, I saw at first hand the positive impacts of that when I visited the Outward Bound Trust’s Loch Eil site last year. That is why we provided £4 million in emergency funding to the sector during the pandemic.
The Government will be abstaining in the vote today. Let me be clear why. We are of course supportive of the underpinning aims of the bill, but our initial significant reservations, which we set out to the committee last year, remain unresolved, as yet. I have reiterated that to Liz Smith, and I have been clear that those concerns must be fully considered and addressed if the bill passes at stage 1 today—I refer specifically to the concerns on affordability, equity of provision and workforce implications.
I am grateful to the minister, because I think that the Scottish Government has moved its position. I am more than willing to engage on the challenges, as I always have been—we have had good meetings about that. Can I ask about the timescale for engagement? It is very important that we have a relatively quick timescale to resolve the differences.
Absolutely—I was going to set that out. I am willing to start the discussions right away. We have had good engagement to date, and I am willing to continue that to try to get this delivered.
Is the minister able to explain how the process will work? We have a period of only six months. If no action is taken and no financial resolution is lodged, the bill will automatically fall. Therefore, can she give a commitment to come back, either to the lead committee or to the Parliament, to tell us her determination on whether those issues have been addressed before the six-month period? Otherwise, the Parliament will not have an opportunity to give its view.
I have been very clear that, as the process requires, I am willing to engage with the member in charge of the bill on those matters and will do so immediately and at pace.
I want to talk through some of the significant challenges that I have previously discussed with the member. Turning first to financing, the bill as introduced is unaffordable. We need to remember that the bill does two things: it places a duty on education authorities and the managers of grant-aided schools to secure the provision of outdoor learning opportunities, which many schools across the country already offer, and it places a duty on the Scottish Government to fund that. There are known gaps in the bill’s financial modelling relating to the cost of staffing, the impact of inflation and the lack of modelling of additional costs to accommodate pupils with ASN, as well as other ancillary costs. Until more clarity can be provided, we cannot commit to financing a proposal for which the true costs are as yet unknown.
Will the member take an intervention?
I need to make a little progress.
Members across the chamber would rightly be critical if, in an alternative scenario, the Government were to sign up to a bill with unknown financial implications.
Ring fencing in excess of £40 million annually within the budget to secure provision of one form of outdoor learning would come at the detriment of other competing policy and public priorities. I heard what the member said about pupil equity funding, but that could not be guaranteed year on year. As I have said, a number of costs have not been considered in the proposal.
Will the member take an intervention?
Will the member give way?
I will take the intervention from Miles Briggs.
I thank the minister for taking the intervention. Does she recognise that the second-largest council in Scotland, the City of Edinburgh Council, provides outdoor education to our young people? That brings huge benefits, but it is not a foreign concept. It is about trying to get all schools in Scotland to deliver it.
Absolutely, and I appreciate that lots of them do it. However, as I said, the bill would be unaffordable for the Scottish Government to fund. I ask members who support the bill as it currently stands from where they would seek to cut funding in education. Would it be from our teachers, our schools, our nurseries or our colleges?
For those reasons, the Scottish Government has not lodged a financial resolution at this time. I am aware that that might frustrate members, but I remind members that Scottish ministers have a unique responsibility and accountability for the appropriate management of the budget. The financial resolution exists as an important and legitimate mechanism for that. Scottish ministers will lodge a financial resolution if and when affordability of the provisions and other practical challenges can be assured, up to six months following the conclusion of stage 1.
I reassure members that, should the bill pass at stage 1, I will continue to work constructively with the member in charge of the bill. As recently as 13 March, we met to discuss the bill and touched on potential amendments. I am keen to fully explore how the overall financial burden of the provisions could be reduced.
My second point relates to equity. Through my conversations with stakeholders and further data gathering undertaken with the sector, I am aware that there is very limited capacity across centres in Scotland to host young people with complex additional support needs. In recent weeks, members have rightly raised their concerns about the need to support pupils with ASN, but if the bill is truly to deliver equitable opportunities for all our young people, and in a way that avoids any one learner with additional support needs being isolated, more time and more resources are required to deliver that universal provision.
My third concern is about the implications for the workforce, which have been touched on already. The bill presumes the delivery of residential outdoor education on a voluntary basis. However, as the convener pointed out, evidence to the lead committee makes it clear that, should the bill pass, it is likely that there would need to be a change in teachers’ contracts. It is also not for the Scottish Government to pre-empt any joint decision that would need to be made by the tripartite group, the Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers, but it is certainly possible that the results of those negotiations could further increase the cost of delivery. Workforce capacity to respond to the bill would also need to be explored.
Overall, the Government absolutely recognises the positive aims behind the bill, and I hope that I have been very clear throughout our engagement that that is our view. It is on that basis that I wish to reaffirm my commitment to working with the member in charge to find a constructive and affordable way forward that delivers for all our children and young people.
15:49
I begin by paying tribute to Christina McKelvie. We were all shocked when we heard the news, and I want to send my condolences at this difficult time to fellow member of the Education, Children and Young People Committee Keith Brown, to all Christina’s family and friends, and to members across the chamber.
I pay tribute to my friend and colleague Liz Smith, not only for the power of work that she and her parliamentary office have put into her Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill, but for her lifelong advocacy—as a teacher and as a member of this Parliament—of the benefits of outdoor education for our young people.
As a member of the committee, I had the pleasure of taking part in its evidence taking on the proposal and of meeting and hearing from the fantastic and passionate people who work in the outdoor education sector across our great country. I have probably now heard too many stories from my colleague John Mason about seeing his teachers in their nightwear during his childhood outdoor educational experiences, but I am sure that we will have the pleasure of hearing more of that later.
We all agree that it is unquestionably the case that young people receive positive educational, personal, character and mental health benefits as a result of undertaking residential outdoor education, and the bill will make a positive difference to the outcomes of all our young people.
As I said in my intervention on the minister, as an Edinburgh MSP, I have first-hand knowledge of how incredibly lucky parents and guardians in the capital are in still being able to access residential outdoor education experiences for our young people. I pay tribute to the City of Edinburgh Council for continuing to value and deliver residential outdoor education, given the huge financial pressures that the council faces. If the lowest-funded council in Scotland can deliver residential outdoor education, I am sure that we can get every other council in Scotland to deliver the policy and the benefits that it will bring.
The member makes a very good point. Does he agree that it might be possible for us to help local authorities to engage in shared activities to enable some of our constituents to access such provision?
Absolutely. The visits that the committee undertook showed that it is not the case that there is one facility for each council—we are talking about shared facilities. The economic potential that exists for such facilities to benefit from visits by university students and team-building exercises is such that we can make the proposal work and put in place some fantastic new facilities across our country.
Throughout my time in Parliament, I have always championed the need to invest in mental wellbeing. If we truly want to bring about greater resilience and more positive mental health in the next generation, we need to invest in that at school. I have always been struck by the findings of the 2016 report on scout and guide participation, which is now almost a decade old. It found that people who were scouts and guides in childhood had better mental health in later life. That report, which was put together by researchers at Edinburgh and Glasgow universities, looked at data from a lifelong study of more than 10,000 people who had had outdoor education experiences as scouts and guides, and it found that, as adults, they were 15 per cent less likely to suffer from anxiety or to have mental health complications or mood disorders.
Will Miles Briggs give way on that point?
If there is time in hand.
I am afraid that we have very limited time.
I am sorry in that case—I cannot.
In the light of the lessons from that study, I believe that, as a Parliament, we need to understand that the proposed expenditure on the bill can be regarded as preventative spend that will help to build the resilience in our young people that is missing.
The most recent significant piece of legislation to have been passed on outdoor education is the Education Act 1944, which is known as the Butler act. After the second world war, the nation wanted to give its children and young people—who had come through the traumatic and life-changing experiences of the war and were disconnected from society—hope and a positive outlook in life. Fast forward to today, and we know that many children are disconnected from their learning, having just come through the traumatic and life-changing experience of a global pandemic.
As Liz Smith has stated, the bill is about what is in the best interests of our young people in the post-Covid age, when so many indicators tell us that they are facing more challenges than ever before. As we continue to assess the negative impacts of the educational disruption that was caused by the pandemic and the consequences that that has had for our young people, especially those from lower-income backgrounds, I believe that the bill represents an opportunity to again give our young people hope and a positive outlook in their lives.
If we are to do that, we must do it as a country and Parliament must send our young people, parents, guardians and teachers the message that we will invest in and value them.
I have time to take the intervention from Brian Whittle now.
In listening to Miles Briggs, I was struck by a quote from the president of World Athletics and International Olympic Committee president-elect, Seb Coe, who said:
“Sport is the most potent social worker in all our communities.”
Does Mr Briggs agree that we have the opportunity to fund either prevention or the outcome of not funding prevention?
I absolutely agree.
All of us in this chamber are guilty of wanting to measure absolutely everything. Politicians always want to put benchmarks in place or to know which targets have been met, but some of the learning experiences found in outdoor education cannot be quantified, although many can. It is life changing for so many young people and the relationships that they build with their fellow pupils and with teachers sustain them in education. That is the value of outdoor education that we heard about in committee.
I support the motion and I support the bill in my colleague Liz Smith’s name.
15:56
I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of Scottish Labour and to offer our party’s support for the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. I thank Liz Smith for introducing the bill and for the way in which she has engaged with others, including me. I and Scottish Labour agree with the widely held belief that residential outdoor education holds enormous value for young people, teachers and the communities that they come from. For that reason, we will support the bill today.
The truth is that, for too many young people and especially those who come from low-income backgrounds or have additional support needs, access to high-quality residential outdoor education is out of reach. It is, at best, patchy and can be totally unavailable. The bill tries to change that, and, for that reason, we welcome it.
Residential outdoor education has real and lasting benefits. Pupils who take part gain resilience, confidence and social and leadership skills. It offers learning that cannot be replicated in a classroom and that is, for many young people, genuinely transformative. The benefits of residential outdoor education are well evidenced and understood, and, as children themselves told the Education, Children and Young People Committee, those experiences matter. They told us that residential experiences help them to overcome fears, build friendships and develop independence. Teachers and school staff told us how those trips improve their relationships with pupils and give them an insight into young people’s potential. For some children, that is the moment when they begin to believe in themselves.
Children also told us that residential experiences feel fun and freeing but that it is not fair that some children can go when others cannot. That is the crux of what we are discussing today. Providing every pupil with the opportunity to benefit from the kind of learning and personal growth that outdoor residential education brings will need action on some challenges, including those of funding, staffing, accessibility and capacity. I have heard from the member in charge a willingness to engage seriously on those issues.
There is a question about equity of access and the need to ensure that children with additional support needs and those whose families are struggling financially are not left behind. There is also a question of how we can ensure there is the capacity to do that. We know that we will need the staff in schools, the teachers and the changes to infrastructure that we have heard about this afternoon.
At the moment, many staff volunteer their time to accompany trips, doing that unpaid, often during weekends or evenings, and on top of already difficult workloads. During committee scrutiny of the bill, the Educational Institute of Scotland warned that no teacher should be compelled to attend overnight stays away from home as part of their contracted hours. If that becomes a statutory duty, expectations in that regard could change. So, as the bill goes through its next stages in Parliament, we must remember the context for schools and staff.
I value your point about teachers. Do you think that there is space to work with trade unions as the bill goes through stage 2?
Please remember always to speak through the chair.
Not only is there space, but there must be space for us to work with trade unions as the bill proceeds to stage 2, so that we take teachers, staff and their representative organisations with us.
Scottish Labour will work with members at stage 2 on amendments to ensure that implementation is consistent with staff and teacher workloads and wellbeing and that the changes are delivered with them and not to them.
We are also keen to ensure that existing inequalities are addressed and not embedded, particularly for young people with additional support needs, who stand to benefit most if we get this right. Right now, too many pupils with additional support needs miss out on residential opportunities.
I absolutely concur with Ms Duncan-Glancy. There is currently very limited capacity across outdoor education centres in Scotland to host young people with complex additional support needs. Of course, we want to see that capacity grow, but the bill as it stands does not solve that problem. What would the member say to that?
I welcome the minister’s intervention. I would encourage her to seek solutions to those problems using the levers that are at her and the Government’s disposal, and to work with members across the chamber to amend the bill at stage 2 to make it work.
I agree with the EIS, which said that, for inclusion to be meaningful, adequate staffing and support must be in place. That is true both in and out of the classroom. Anything less locks young people out of sharing in vital experiences. Scottish Labour will therefore continue to work with Liz Smith and others to amend the bill at stage 2 to ensure that provisions are inclusive of all young people, including those with additional support needs. That could include ensuring that there are adequate accessible facilities and transport, that support staff are available to help and that there is time to plan the adaptations that are required to support pupils with additional support needs.
On funding, we agree with the committee that clearer commitments are needed, and we agree with the NASUWT that
“a substantial injection of cash”
will be required to make outdoor education genuinely accessible for pupils with ASN. We recognise COSLA’s concerns about the availability of funding for local government. I am disappointed that we received the Government’s response to the bill only yesterday, which has given us limited time to engage with it, but I encourage the Government to engage with Liz Smith on that matter, because it cannot ride two horses. It cannot, on the one hand, say that it supports outdoor education in principle, as it does in its response, while, on the other hand, saying that it is not prepared to engage meaningfully on what that will cost. I hope that the engagement between Liz Smith and the Government will continue. I agree with the committee and others that the funding will need careful consideration if the bill is to enable every pupil to access residential outdoor education.
I hope that, at stage 2, members across the Parliament will work to address the concerns that have been raised. Today, Scottish Labour will support the bill at stage 1.
16:03
Like colleagues, I start by offering my condolences to our colleague and friend Keith Brown and by remembering and celebrating the outstanding elected representative and brilliant person that Christina McKelvie was. This morning, I reflected on a trip that she and I took, which was led by our then Deputy Presiding Officer, Linda Fabiani, to Sligo for the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. At one stage in the proceedings, Christina almost leapt over a couch to challenge a member of the House of Lords who had said something so outrageously racist that it stunned the rest of us into silence. Silence was a concept that Christina McKelvie was rarely familiar with, and she was always prepared to lead from the front in challenging those who were advocating for hatred. She was always willing to lead from the front in building a better, more caring and compassionate society, and I will miss her terribly.
I thank Liz Smith for introducing the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill, and I say at the outset that the Scottish Greens support its general principles and will vote for it at stage 1. Like colleagues, in the process of scrutinising the bill, I reflected on my experience of outdoor residential education, which was the classic primary 7 week-long trip that many of us experienced. Mine was to the Castle Toward centre in Dunoon, which my class was particularly excited by because, for children of my generation, Castle Toward was famous for being where CBBC filmed the “Raven” reality TV show that some children in Scotland were lucky enough to participate in. The cameras were not rolling when we were there, but we were at least able to use the same equipment, and it was a hugely formative experience for us. For a start, for many of the children in my class, simply getting to that outdoor education centre was the first time they had ever been on a ferry. It was also the longest time that we had ever spent away from our families, and it broadened many of our horizons.
We will support the bill at stage 1 because its general principles align with what was in the Scottish Greens’ manifesto at the last election. We proposed guaranteeing every pupil across primary and secondary at least a week of residential outdoor experiences, removing the financial barriers to those residential trips and expanding outdoor play and learning provision, and the bill aligns perfectly with those proposals.
As the convener said, there was absolute agreement across the committee, regardless of our positions on the specifics of the bill, on the immense benefits not just of outdoor education in general but of residential education. The teamwork skills and adaptability that are developed are incredible skills for life, and, as Liz Smith said, incredibly useful skills for the world of work once children reach adulthood. We, as employers, are all familiar with that. Certainly, when I am recruiting for posts in my team, I am looking for people who can demonstrate the kind of skills that outdoor education, particularly residential education, is key to developing.
Outdoor education massively broadens young people’s horizons. For far too many young people, because of the levels of inequality in our society, the outdoor residential trip that they take towards the end of primary school might be the first time that they have left their own community. It might be the first opportunity that they have had to see the rest of this country. The mental health benefits are absolutely immense, as is the self-confidence that comes as a result. That really came through in the evidence that we took from young people in particular.
It aligns perfectly not just with curriculum for excellence as a whole, as Martin Whitfield correctly pointed out, but specifically with learning for sustainability and the new learning for sustainability action plan that was launched in the summer of 2023. The research that was used to develop that plan made it incredibly clear that young people in Scotland want more opportunities for outdoor learning and that it should be mainstreamed into all subject areas. Offering residential opportunities is not the only way to deliver on the ambitions in the learning for sustainability plan, but it is a key way to do so. The residential experience offers things that people simply cannot get on a day trip, much as those are, of course, also essential. The deeper connections that can be formed—particularly through teamwork skills—mean that there is an opportunity to do so much more. I am familiar with that—as a youth worker, I know the incredible additional opportunities that the residential experience provides, though it is not without its challenges.
Will the member give way?
Yes, if it is brief, if Mr Whittle does not mind.
Ross Greer highlights one of the Government’s issues with this, which is that it is difficult to quantify what we do not spend. It is difficult to link outdoor activity to the actual savings that we make further down the line. The Government needs to take a leap of faith here.
I am grateful for that intervention, and I absolutely agree, but I would say to the Scottish Government that we could quantify, to some extent, and recognise the skills that young people build up through these experiences by delivering on the recommendations of Professor Hayward, particularly those around a Scottish diploma, project learning and the personal pathway. That would give us the opportunity to recognise those skills more formally.
One thing that we need to reflect on, in this Parliament, is that we have spent a quarter of a century legislating for additional rights and entitlements for people in Scotland but, in many cases, we have legislated for rights that we knew fine well we were not in a position to deliver, particularly for our children and young people, and particularly for those with additional support needs. This is an opportunity for us to reflect on that approach. My support for the bill is not unequivocal. Of course, there are challenges, but I support it at this stage, and I hope that I will be able to support it at stage 3.
We need to ask ourselves what the alternative is. We all agree on the benefits of outdoor education and of residential education, but is it acceptable that, at the moment, as Miles Briggs highlighted, some young people in some local authority areas will definitely get those opportunities but others in other parts of the country will not? That comes back to the question of the level at which Scottish education should be governed. To what extent should it be delivered nationally and to what extent should it be delivered by local authorities?
In this case, there should be a consistent approach. There is such a consensus around the benefits of the opportunity that it is only right that we make sure that every young person in Scotland gets it. There are issues for us to work out in the bill process, but, if the Government has an alternative to the bill—it has had three years to bring it forward—it has not said so.
On that basis, the Greens are content to support the general principles of the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill.
16:09
I will always remember Christina McKelvie speaking from the front bench, when she would speak not just with her words but with her body language. She was punchy and full of emotion. You knew exactly where you stood when she had finished with you, and I will miss her. All our thoughts are with Keith Brown and the family today.
Our view about outdoor education was quite dramatically changed during Covid, when we simply could not get out and do the things that we wanted to do. I think that that is partly where the bill has emerged from. We had taken the outdoors for granted for so long, and then we were starkly reminded of it. We have learned, again, to remind ourselves about the confidence, leadership, self-reliance and team building that the outdoors brings. Just being away from our parents for the first time is a liberating experience. To be able to do things by ourselves, together with others, changes us.
We have experienced significant problems with mental health, behaviour and absence, all of which combine to create almost a suppression of activity in schools. It makes the case for outdoor education really compelling. At the start of the bill process, I was sceptical, simply because money is really tight just now. It is really hard to squeeze out any money to do the things that we really want to do. When the witnesses were before the committee, I was giving them a bit of a hard time, because I wanted to know what the real value of the bill was. Sometimes, people explained clearly the real value.
Over time, I was convinced and converted to the cause of the bill. First, many councils offer outdoor education already, so it is not outlandish or extravagant. Some councils are able to afford it, and they can prioritise it. The second thing that convinced me was the 27-page vision for outdoor learning, which was set up in 2010. We are 14 years on and hardly anything has been done since then. When I asked the minister when she was at the committee what the assessment of the impact of that vision was, there was nothing. I thought, “We can’t afford to stay as we are, drifting on.” It was only when Liz Smith’s bill came forward that a working group suddenly emerged. A working group is always the solution to everything.
Natalie Don-Innes rose—
Does the minister want to say something?
It is unfair to say that there has been no progress. There may not have been an evaluation of the outcomes of the vision, but we can see, day in and day out, that outdoor learning has been embedded in the curriculum. We have already touched on the fact that many pupils are able to access outdoor learning. I appreciate that we have more progress to make, but it is unfair to say that there has been no progress.
The point that I made to the minister at committee was that that is all anecdotal. We had had no independent assessment of the real impact of the vision, so we were drifting. The minister may have had experiences that she is able to cite, but the evidence is just not there, which is an indication of the problem. There has been a dramatic reduction in the number of centres and beds. Children First put it well in its briefing when it said that outdoor education must not be the preserve of “the privileged few”—it must be available to everyone.
I have been confused and slightly irritated by the Government’s approach. It clearly does not want to state its position, which is that it does not really like the bill. It is abstaining today and not taking a position, but is blocking the financial resolution for up to six months. There was no response to the committee’s report until late last night. In fact, I am not even sure that the Government had intended to put out a response.
Most important of all, despite the concerns that I have expressed quite openly in the committee, there has been no reaching out. I am not saying that I am special—I am not saying that I should have special negotiations—but I do not think that the minister has reached out to anybody in the chamber. If there were a substantial offer, I might find that quite attractive, as it might mean that we could get around some of the problems that have been identified by the committee in relation to teacher time, affordability, parental contributions, additional support needs, the needs of people in remote and rural areas and so on.
The bill will pass stage 1 today, so, following this debate, I want the minister to reach out and offer something substantial, because the one thing that we cannot afford to do is to just to go back to the way that things were. There is no neutral position. If the bill falls, the message to the education world and the outdoor education centres across the country is that we do not value outdoor education and it is not a priority in our system.
We must not go back to the way we were. That is why there needs to be an offer, or this bill. If the bill is what is needed, I will vote for it, but the Government needs to make much greater effort and offer something that is much more substantial than what has been offered up to this point, because, so far, there seems to have just been silence.
We will now move to the open debate. Speeches from back-bench members may be up to six minutes, for the most part. I advise members that we do not really have any time in hand.
16:15
This is a difficult day for us all. I offer my condolences to Keith Brown, Christina’s sons and their families and friends. The bright shining light that was Christina McKelvie touched us all, and it will never dim, as she will be forever in our hearts.
So, to business. First, I pay tribute to Liz Smith for taking forward her member’s bill and engaging with all committee members in a constructive manner. Many thanks go to all the people and organisations who provided evidence, either in person or by responding to the calls for views. I also thank the clerks and my colleagues for all their hard work.
As has previously been stated, the bill aims to provide every child in Scotland with the chance to have residential outdoor education, no matter where they live or who they are. I totally agree with the sentiment of what is trying to be achieved and with the idea behind the bill. On first glance, the aim seems to be quite an easy thing to achieve, and it is safe to say that, during the evidence sessions, no one disagreed with the idea.
However, the committee has outlined concerns in relation to a number of things in the bill, including the financial aspects and the impact on teachers’ pay and conditions. When we started to dig down into what the proposal would actually mean, questions arose in relation to how it would be delivered, and I think that those questions need to be answered before we move forward.
For example, one of the three aims of the bill is to place a duty on education authorities and managers of grant-aided schools to secure the provision of at least one course of residential outdoor education for each pupil. That seems simple enough, but what happens if a child moves local authority before the authority that they are leaving has fulfilled that obligation, but after the local authority that they are moving to has already fulfilled it for the children that it is responsible for? Which local authority would be held account in providing that child with residential outdoor education?
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I do not have the political fight in me today to take an intervention.
We heard from teachers who posed questions in respect of attending the outdoor experiences with their class. We were told that an additional teacher would be required if there was a child with additional needs, in case the child was unable to cope with a change of routine, for example, and needed to go home immediately. The additional teacher would then have to escort the child back to their parents, as the child could not travel alone, and that additional cost has not been addressed.
Leaving that aside, no consideration has been given to the fact that the teacher might have caring responsibilities in their own private life. That is not an issue in their normal working day, but what if they had to be away for a night or for the full week, which would add stress and potential financial burden to them? What happens if they are unable to procure childcare for their own families, including potential overnight childcare? Who would reimburse them, or would there be an expectation that they would need to meet that cost on their own? We were told during the evidence session that going on the residential trip could be voluntary, but we cannot expect all teachers to undertake that on a voluntary basis.
I agree with the folk who said that teachers’ terms and conditions would need to be renegotiated. With no budget line being provided, where would that funding for that come from? I was one of the committee members who wanted that point added to the stage 1 report, but that proposal was defeated when it came to the casting vote.
Going back to teachers taking part on a voluntary basis, I was told by some teachers that, in some instances, they are voluntold rather than getting to volunteer freely. My fear is that, if that is the case, it could put our future generation of teachers off going into the profession.
I would like to see every child getting the same chance as the next, no matter who they are or where they are from, but we heard that it is more difficult to gain access to outdoor centres during the summer months because of their popularity. They do not just have schools booking but private companies for team-building and away days, so there is a lack of availability and the cost of booking at that time is much higher.
One witness who we heard from suggested that a potential solution could be that schools from less affluent areas could book in the winter months, when demand is less and costs are lower. However, in my view, that would not give an equal experience of the outdoors. Doing outdoor activities in the summer months is totally different from doing those same activities in the dark mornings, on cold and frosty days, or in the rain or snow. I still remember my time from Auldearn primary school when I was on top of the Cairn Gorm in my T-shirt and jeans, trying to ski.
Teachers told us that, even when a booking is secured, the cost of the additional clothes that would be needed could be immense to some families. The answer that we heard from the outdoor centres was that specialist gear could be provided, but, as one teacher said, additional clothing does not necessarily mean specialist clothing. Some families could struggle with providing the essential day-to-day items, such as extra socks, underwear and pyjamas, or even with just having to purchase the bag to put them in. If we truly want children to have equal opportunities, we must ensure that no undue expense and financial drain are put on those who can least afford it.
That is just a small section of the concerns that were raised during the evidence sessions. As I said at the beginning, I agree with the general idea, but the concerns that were raised have to be addressed. We need to know how much budget would be needed, and I look forward to hearing some solutions as we move forward.
16:21
With just a year to go until dissolution and my own eyes fixed on the exit, I rise to speak in the debate with a slightly different mindset. I look back at the years spent in the chamber and question—not in a way that is disrespectful to colleagues—how much of what we have done has actually delivered a meaningful step change in the future lives of Scotland’s young people. What have we actually done to shift the dial? What will people reel off in future as the key successes of this parliamentary session?
When I hear the minister talk about affordability, I find it very frustrating, because I have lost track of how many times I have heard the First Minister say that we cannot just will the ends—we have to will the means. When we say that the provision is unaffordable and unworkable, when we fish around trying to find all the problems and none of the solutions, what are we telling young people?
I clarify that I have at no point said that provision is unworkable. I have emphasised time and again that I am willing to work with Liz Smith to ensure that we can find solutions to many of the challenges that I have laid out clearly today.
I thank the minister for that intervention, but when I hear her talking, what I hear is a dialling back of what Liz Smith is proposing. Liz Smith is probably too polite and too focused on trying to get something done to say this, but what I hear is a talking down of the ambition that is at the heart of the proposals.
I have had the wise counsel of Liz Smith over many years. When we were both on the Education and Skills Committee, Iain Gray used to say that she was more like my headteacher than a colleague. I have not always been very good at finding common ground, but Liz Smith has always been searching for that, looking for solutions and looking to put party politics to one side. To be honest, given that she is someone who operates and works like that in this Parliament, it is pretty disgraceful that the best treatment was to receive an 11th-hour letter at 6 o’clock after decision time yesterday, and that there was no chance for the minister to have better engagement before that—particularly when she says that she has met the member in charge of the bill.
I find that frustrating because the bill speaks to a philosophy and a vision that is about making our country better and shaking up how we do things, rather than doing what is easy. I say that because, based on the debate so far, we are having a clash on how to make it happen. Liz Smith has not shied away from the fact that this is not an easy bill—it is not a secret. It is not a £40 million carriage clock that ticks a few boxes and gets the member some legislation in her name. Easier bills might have been available, but Liz Smith believes passionately in it and has convinced many people that it is worth doing.
In that context, we should look at why someone with an education background who is very passionate on the topic believes that this is the right way to spend such a sum of money and that the results will come.
More than Liz Smith’s passion for it, outdoor learning is a proven pedagogical tool for teaching the experiences in the curriculum for excellence, which is the national curriculum that operates across Scotland. Does Oliver Mundell agree with that?
I agree with that; I was going to come to it later. Personally, I have always been a sceptic when it comes to the curriculum for excellence—that is not a secret. I am a passionate believer in a knowledge-based curriculum, and I would like to see something that is more structured and more prescriptive. However, even I have been convinced that this is the right way to go and that there has to be some balance.
We cannot listen to the testimony of the young people—including the young person mentioned by Liz Smith—and not recognise that there is something transformational about outdoor education that goes beyond what can be done in the classroom and goes right to the heart of social justice. I cannot believe that the Scottish National Party Government does not recognise what is at stake here. It is hard to accept the idea that accessing Scotland’s great outdoors is something for privileged young people, whether through a postcode lottery or a lottery of birth, and to hear pushback that it should not be universal. That is really sad. That speaks to a narrowness, a smallness and a lack of determination, which probably also speaks to the wider failings in our education system.
What makes this initiative exciting is the intensity of the experience and the chance to take everyone out of their comfort zones. That is where the transformational and lasting effects come into their own.
We talk about outdoor learning, but in most education settings, people are just playing at outdoor learning. It is not serious and it is not real. To be honest, as a result, a lot of what is done ends up being a waste of valuable time and resources. We need specialist and quality provision, and we need it to be available for all.
As a member who represents a rural constituency, where the great outdoors is not that far away, I find it incredibly sad that, for many young people who go to school in my constituency, the chance of going on a residential trip or getting that experience feels beyond their reach. Because of change in society—whether that is looking at screens or changes to land-based occupations—their connections to the countryside and the outdoors in general are very limited.
We live in a great country. Why are we not determined to make sure that every young person in Scotland enjoys it and benefits from the experience? It is not good enough. Today, we have a chance to do something daring and different and—for once, unusually—to unite and do something that will make a tangible difference.
16:28
I endorse every tribute to Christina McKelvie from across the chamber. She was a lovely and honest-to-goodness person. I send my condolences to Keith Brown and to her sons.
I congratulate Liz Smith on the bill. I know how much work goes into a member’s bill and how much it depends on the drive and determination of the member. Such bills are very personal and are usually on an issue close to the member’s heart—this one certainly is. Liz Smith’s retiral next year will be a huge loss to the Conservative benches and, indeed, to Parliament.
I have visited Broomlee outdoor education centre on the edge of West Linton in my constituency on several occasions. It sits in some 30 acres of land, with a small river for raft building and some woodland, and it provides a range of activities. It is within easy reach of the Pentland hills, so it is a great base for walking and hiking, as well as for mountain biking up the Tweed valley. There are three accommodation blocks, with a capacity of up to 131.
It has an 85-year-old history of providing residential outdoor experiences for young people, which began when it took in evacuees during the blitz of the second world war. To this day it continues to provide life-changing experiences in the outdoors for children who are facing the pressures and anxiety of a post-lockdown world, coupled with the difficulties of a cost of living crisis. Most of those children are from less-well-off areas.
The Broomlee centre is part of a charity. The centre manager, Richard Gerrish, has written this to me about the bill:
“This issue is clearly very close to our hearts for all sorts of reasons, but mostly because we have witnessed first-hand the ever-increasing numbers of children from economically disadvantaged areas who are missing out on these valuable experiences as the financial burden is passed on to parents and the cost-of-living crisis bites harder and harder.”
I start by speaking about Broomlee because so much of what it provides is reflected in the purposes of the bill—good stuff so far. I could see the Broomlee centre providing just such an experience. I had my own such experiences many moons ago, as a working-class child on my first time away, with the girl guides camping at North Berwick, and later as a teenager on a fortnight retreat at Iona. From my distant youth to Broomlee today, not much has changed, even with the internet and mobile phones. North Berwick and Iona were pretty spartan, but that was part of the fun.
Those experiences live with you always. I recall many details of mine, from being washed out from the bell tent at North Berwick to sunshine and early mornings in the abbey at Iona. Therefore, I am right behind the purpose of the bill, but—and it is a big “but”—although the committee agrees to the general principles at paragraph 248 of the report, at paragraph 249 it outlines, rightly, substantial concerns on the financial aspects of the bill.
I go back to Broomlee. The various cabins, which look like Nissen huts, were built 85 years ago and desperately need upgrading. Any heating that is in them goes through the roof and the walls. I emphasise that the staff are full of heart, enthusiasm and experience. Even now, though, they find that accessing funding is tough. Other funding routes are not readily available. Although I fully support the principles of the bill, it is an understatement to say that there is a lot of work to be done on meeting the realistic costs for places such as Broomlee. That includes finding capital funding as well as facing the fact that many costs are recurring and will undoubtedly rise with the cost of living.
The member has suggested various funding routes, and I hope that they work. However, the member has to nail those down before a statutory duty is placed on the schools, and ultimately on the Government, to offer this provision from a fixed and allocated budget.
We all want to spend to save, but the funds have to be taken from all the firefighting that we have to do. That has been the dilemma across this Parliament for my 26 years here.
I hope that the member and the Scottish Government can find a way to progress this worthy proposal. It might require amendments. I had to substantially amend at least part of my Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Bill in order for it to proceed, by removing financial obligations that could not be met in the current climate by local authorities.
With those caveats, unlike the Government, I will support the bill at stage 1. I congratulate the member and wish her and the Government well on the bill and hope that they can resolve the financial difficulties.
16:33
I take this opportunity to say that my thoughts are with Christina McKelvie’s family. She was incredibly kind to me in the early days of this parliamentary session.
Today, we are discussing a bill that seeks to improve the outdoor learning opportunities that are available to schoolchildren. I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. I am not on the Education, Children and Young People Committee, so I have found the debate to be really helpful.
The bill’s core aim is to ensure that all pupils in state and grant-aided schools can experience at least four nights and five days of residential outdoor education during their school career. As we have heard in the debate, we all recognise the value of residential outdoor education for a child’s learning and development. Liz Smith’s opening speech described that in a very visual way. It is welcome that the bill seeks to address the notable decline in the number of pupils who have the opportunity to attend residential outdoor education.
The committee’s call for evidence highlighted the benefits that children stand to gain from residential stays, which have been well rehearsed in other members’ speeches, when it comes to confidence, social skills, mental wellbeing and resilience. Respondents described the benefits as “life changing”.
Through my role as Scottish Labour’s public health spokesperson, I frequently hear about the value of the outdoors and outdoor learning for both physical and mental health.
Does Carol Mochan agree that, to tackle the attainment gap in schools, many of the tools that are required inside the classroom are better learned outside the classroom?
Absolutely. When somebody asked my primary school-aged son how school was, he said that there was a lot of sitting inside and sitting down. That came from the fact that, in his early years, he spent so much time outside—with his father, in particular.
Residential outdoor education represents a key milestone in a child’s educational development, and schools should aim to include it as a core part of learning—which is what Brian Whittle was trying to say, I think. I do not think that that is disputed across the parties.
I support the general principles of the bill. There are concerns, but I think that the member in charge of the bill recognises those, and we can fine tune it at stage 2 if there is a willingness to do so. We need to think about costs, provision for pupils with additional support needs and the impacts on teachers. However, as we have discussed, there is a way of addressing those issues.
There must be a financial resolution for the bill, and I hope that we can work across the parties on that. I will certainly do so with my colleagues in Scottish Labour. I repeat Willie Rennie’s point about the Government needing to make sure to seek out how we can get the bill through.
The bill seeks to address the fact that many schools do not currently provide residential outdoor education. On that, I pick up a point that I often raise in the chamber, which is about inequalities—particularly health inequalities. Those exist, and we know that they exist. The bill has definitely got to be part of the solution.
Costs and financial pressures represent a key barrier to families, and to children having the opportunity to go along to residential outdoor education. We know that disparities exist between pupils who live in the most and least deprived communities. The bill is an opportunity for the outdoors to be a part of everybody’s life and for those who live in poverty not to be disadvantaged. The bill must address the wider socioeconomic issues that impact on a child’s ability to access and attend residential trips.
I agree that we need to look at the role of teaching staff and make sure that residential outdoor education is done in a way that supports teachers and is a core part of the curriculum, as has been mentioned.
The intention and aims behind the bill are welcome, and its principles are well intended—all of us have said that during the debate. Outdoor learning enhances education, improves mental and physical health and has many benefits for a child’s development. It can break down barriers, particularly when it comes to inequality, and offer opportunities to the most disadvantaged children. We speak about that in the chamber every day. We need to have the will to ensure that it can happen, and I believe that that will is there, across the parties. Every pupil, no matter their background or individual need, should have the opportunity to attend a residential outdoor trip. I will play my part in making sure that we get the bill through.
16:38
As a member of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. The bill represents an important step forward in the way in which we think about delivering education in Scotland, particularly when it comes to ensuring that every child has access to life-changing opportunities through residential outdoor education.
As we have heard throughout the debate, the bill aims to provide consistent access to residential outdoor education for all children in Scotland—in particular, those who might otherwise face barriers to participation. The bill seeks to provide young people with experiences that help them to build resilience, develop leadership skills, foster independence, and enhance their mental and physical wellbeing. Those experiences go far beyond academic learning and are crucial for young people’s personal development.
The committee heard from multiple sources about the significant benefits of residential outdoor education. Time spent in nature has been shown to reduce anxiety, stress and symptoms of depression, while also improving mood and fostering a sense of wellbeing. Beyond the health benefits, those experiences help children to develop important life skills, such as communication, problem solving, teamwork and self-confidence.
Moreover, we heard from teachers that outdoor education helps to improve engagement in the classroom, enhances social connections and provides children with the opportunity to step outside their comfort zones, build their independence and face challenges in a supportive, structured environment. That aligns with the growing recognition of the need for holistic approaches to education that address both academic and wellbeing outcomes for students.
Although the benefits of residential outdoor education are clear, we must also acknowledge the challenges to ensuring that all children, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, are able to access those potentially life-changing opportunities. The committee raised concerns about how to ensure that there is equitable access to outdoor education opportunities, and I am hopeful that, as the bill progresses, we can work together to ensure that the most vulnerable children are not left behind. That may include addressing financial barriers, ensuring that appropriate support is in place for children with additional needs, and making sure that experiences are inclusive of all children, regardless of their background or circumstances.
As we look to the future of the bill, it is essential that we also acknowledge the practical challenges that would be involved in its implementation. Although the benefits of outdoor education are clear, local authorities must be supported to ensure that opportunities are accessible for all children, particularly those in rural areas or those with additional support needs. It is crucial that we address concerns about staffing, capacity, and funding to ensure that the bill can deliver on its promises, and we must work with local authorities to ensure that that can be achieved.
One of the fundamental rights in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is the right to play, to participate in recreational activities, and to enjoy good physical and mental health. Residential outdoor education embodies those rights and it allows children to engage with nature, learn new skills and build confidence, which is crucial for their wellbeing. It is important that the principles of the UNCRC are fully integrated in the bill. As we move forward, it would be valuable to see how the bill can ensure that all children, regardless of their background or the challenges that they face, have access to those transformative experiences. Clear steps need to be in place in order to ensure that children’s rights are fully realised through the bill and its implementation as it progresses.
I strongly support the broad aims of the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill. The potential to provide transformative experiences for all children is significant, and we must ensure that the bill delivers its promise of equity and inclusivity. As the bill progresses, I urge members to continue to refine it by addressing the challenges of accessibility and support for vulnerable children so that we can ensure that no child is left behind.
Outdoor education should not be a luxury—it should, I hope, be a right. It is a right that can help our young children to thrive, and we must work together to ensure that every child, regardless of their circumstances, has the opportunity to benefit from outdoor education experiences. I am pleased that Liz Smith and the minister are working together to try to iron out any difficulties, because there is a lot that all children can benefit from.
I finish by saying that Christina McKelvie was a great friend of mine, and I miss her.
16:44
Presiding Officer, I make a polite request that, at an appropriate time in the future, all back-bench MSPs are given the opportunity to put on record their thoughts about our colleague Christina McKelvie, should they wish to do so. I do not think that simply doing so in the opening remarks of a speech would do that justice. I thank the Presiding Officer in advance for her consideration of that.
I, too, congratulate Liz Smith for getting the bill to this point. Reaching a stage 1 debate might not sound like much, but I know how difficult that is, as does any member who has worked on a member’s bill.
The consultation had more than 500 responses, of which 95 per cent were positive. That is an incredible achievement for any member of this Parliament. Of course, elements of the bill—some of which we have heard about today—need to be ironed out, should it go through to the next stage, but that is normal practice for any bill. No Government bill ever looks the same at the end of the process, and the same is true of a member’s bill, which is entirely appropriate.
I am intrigued by the Government’s key principle of—I will not say opposition—-concern about the bill being the issue of affordability and deliverability. In her opening comments, the minister put front and centre those concerns, which were contained in her letter to the committee that was sent last night.
It is estimated that implementing the bill would cost around £40 million. Every policy has a cost—everything comes at a cost. It is right to scrutinise that in the due and proper way, but part of the cost analysis must also be in identifying savings and benefits. That is a key part of the formula that we are not so good at when we look at legislation in this place.
I pose a number of questions to the Government. How much money would we save if we implemented the bill? It is not just about how much it would cost. What do I mean by that? How much money would the national health service save if young people go on to lead better, healthier and happier lives? How much money would the justice system save if young people were less likely to interact with it, or with the police, courts or even prisons? How much money would social services or the third sector save if their interventions were enhanced or even replaced by residential learning experiences? Turning the issue of cost on its head, I simply ask, what will it cost the Government if we do not implement the right to outdoor learning?
I say to the Government: find the money. It is not impossible. There are different models to fund capital or resource investment. Look at the social bridging finance models that other outdoor learning models use. Look at business or commercial sponsorship. Look at philanthropy. I do not really care where we look. If we started up a crowdfunder, I am sure that we could find enough people in Scotland who feel passionately about the issue to fund it and do it properly. I simply ask the minister to work constructively with all parties to find the money to implement the bill. Cost should not be the barrier to introducing something that is much needed.
I remind the Government that the bill would help it to achieve its core policies on education. Whatever people’s views are on the curriculum for excellence, and there are many, the bill would directly help to meet its objectives, as research by the Learning Away consortium shows. First, the aim to help learners become successful sits at the heart of the curriculum. The research shows that 61 per cent of students who attended residential experiences achieved a higher than predicted grade, compared with 21 per cent who did not attend.
Secondly, another key pillar of the curriculum is developing confident individuals. The research shows that 87 per cent of secondary students felt
“more confident to try new things”
than they would have before their outdoor learning experiences.
Thirdly, I turn to responsible citizenship, which is another key pillar of our education. Eighty-two per cent of secondary school respondents said that their experience
“helped them realise they could get on with people from other classes or schools.”
My goodness, do we not need tolerance more than ever in Scotland?
Fourthly, another key principle is to help learners to become effective contributors. Forty per cent of respondents said that they feel that, after their outdoor learning experience, they could be a better role model to others. Is that not a key point? Positive role models are key, particularly in this modern digital age of influencers and so much negativity.
Will the member take an intervention?
I really have a lot to get through in the two minutes that I have left.
We all have our own experiences of attending outdoor learning centres, and we can share stories about how meaningful and beneficial it was to us. I particularly hated it at the time, but I now look back and see the benefits. I remember the cold, damp dorm rooms; the cold running water; the outside toilets; and, of course, the famous midges of the west of Scotland—our national treasure.
However, I also learned about orienteering and about our native wildlife while sitting around the campfire roasting marshmallows—without an iPhone in sight. That all sounds predictably wholesome, but how many young inner-city people have never been outdoors and really enjoyed the outdoors properly in our beautiful country?
For people from difficult, broken or impoverished backgrounds, I cannot sell the benefits of the experience enough. Today’s teens are simply not afforded that opportunity. Not every school is offering it, and they all should. This bill is asking for equity of access—nothing more and nothing less. If we truly want a model of getting it right for every child, which the Government has put its coins into, it should get it right for every child. The bill is one way to achieve that.
In my region, there are many examples of the year-on-year fight for funding. Arran outdoor education centre is a great example. Every year, it hits the same brick wall with the local council running out of cash. Every year, valiant campaigners have to make the same case in the same fight to keep its doors open. However, it is not just that centre. There is Blairvadach in Helensburgh, and there is Kilbowie in Oban, which tried and failed and had to close in 2020. There used to be 70 local authority-run outdoor learning centres in Scotland. There are now less than a dozen, and that is simply not good enough.
In closing, I will say three things about the bill. First, it supports the curriculum for excellence. Secondly, it will ensure that young people have equity of access to outdoor learning, which we should all agree on. Thirdly, it will protect the much-loved outdoor centres, and the entire sector, which I think is staring down the barrel of extinction. It is a no-brainer for me: this is exactly the devolved decision making for which the Parliament was set up. This is what we should be legislating for, even if through a member’s bill.
16:50
It is fair to say—we have heard this in the debate—that the whole Education, Children and Young People Committee was enthusiastic and totally convinced that residential outdoor education is hugely positive and extremely beneficial for almost all young people.
Several members on the committee referred to good residential experiences that they had had while at school—we have heard that again today—and the committee visited Broomlee in West Linton, which is operated by Scottish Outdoor Education Centres. I had previously stayed at SOEC’s other centres at Dounans, near Aberfoyle, and Belmont, near Meigle. The buildings seem to have changed very little since the 1970s, highlighting one of the needs of those outdoor centres, which are operated by the third sector: several require a lot of capital investment.
As the Education, Children and Young People Committee’s self-appointed accountant, my reservations about the bill are primarily financial. That is not peripheral to the bill; it is absolutely central. The bill is about finding £30 million to £40 million extra from already stretched budgets.
Some bills that come before us in Parliament, such as the Scottish Languages Bill, might seek to make major changes to structures or procedures, but cost is a relatively minor part of achieving that. However, in this case, meeting the general principles of the bill is all about the money. The key principle is that the public purse should pay the cost of sending virtually all young people on a residential experience.
As I understand it, a fair number of families currently fund the cost of their children attending such a residential experience. That is topped up or heavily subsidised by school fundraising, grants, PEF money and so on. However, the bill would do away with such parental contributions and wider school fundraising, which I note we heard in evidence can also be a beneficial experience for young people.
The bill would mean that we pay not only for young people who currently cannot afford to go on a residential trip but for the children of richer families who can afford it and who currently do pay.
Will John Mason take an intervention?
I am afraid that I cannot; I have only four minutes.
We have not been told what that would amount to, but it seems clear that a fair chunk of the £30 million to £40 million would not be spent on helping residential centres or benefiting children; it would, in effect, be spent on reimbursing better-off families. Much as I have a lot of respect for Liz Smith and her ideals, I find it a little bit ironic that the Conservatives, who want to means test university places, are arguing against means testing for school residential places and want them to be a universal benefit.
In addition, the committee heard evidence from the Association of Headteachers and Deputes in Scotland.
Will John Mason give way?
I have only four minutes—I am sorry.
The AHDS said that, if an extra £30 million to £40 million became available, it would want support for pupils with additional support needs to be prioritised. Another issue that witnesses brought to the committee was the question of whether teachers would continue to volunteer as readily for residential trips if such trips became a statutory requirement. We have heard about that already in the debate.
My suggestion would be for money to be targeted at those families or schools that really need it. It seems to me that even a smaller amount such as £5 million or £10 million in a central fund, a bit like the pupil equity fund, could enable quite a lot of school pupils to attend residentials who currently cannot do so. Such a way forward would probably not require legislation and would be considerably cheaper than what is proposed in the bill.
Both the minister and Liz Smith have said that they are open to discussing the funding issue, yet, seven weeks after the committee report was published, I am not clear whether there have been any developments or a suggested compromise.
I will be reluctant to vote against the bill if I am the only MSP who disagrees with its general principles. As I have explained, I disagree because those principles are effectively all about money. As I trust that I have made clear, I have reservations. I stand by the alternative wording for paragraph 248 of the committee’s stage 1 report on the bill, and I do not agree with the general principles of the bill.
We move to winding-up speeches.
16:55
The debate has been an excellent example of effective parliamentary scrutiny of a bill, as has the whole stage 1 process. Excepting the point that John Mason just made about the general principles in relation to cost, in so far as those principles relate to policy outcome, there is complete unanimity across the Parliament. It is a question of implementation and what exactly we are trying to achieve.
I have said already that the Scottish Greens will support the bill at stage 1, but I want to address some of our concerns that I did not get to in my opening speech. The first is about the cost, which is a significant concern. From the outset, my most significant concern about that, as of today, is about what appears to be an element of brinkmanship from the Scottish Government on the financial resolution on the bill.
It is not only in the seven weeks since publication of the committee report that the Government has had time to grapple with the issue and engage with the member in charge; Liz Smith stated her intention to introduce the bill at the start of this parliamentary session. Years have passed during which those issues could have been worked through. I am concerned that setting the six-month timescale for the financial resolution involves an element of brinkmanship, given that, without it, the bill will fall. That is unwelcome in a process in which we are trying to achieve unanimity.
Liz Smith has already laid out options for the costs. It is quite right that they have been scrutinised by both the Education, Children and Young People Committee and the Finance and Public Administration Committee. Although there is a substantial and credible proposal, Liz Smith will appreciate that, if more money is required, I am never short of an additional tax proposal. I am more than happy to share mine if she wishes to take on one or two of them.
I take this opportunity, as I do with many other subjects, to say that much of the difficulty here relates to how we fund our local authorities. They are the ones who deliver education, and they will be primarily responsible for the delivery of this responsibility if we pass the bill into law. At the moment, the primary method of tax that our local authorities have is based on a valuation from before I was even born.
I fully accept the position about local authorities, but capital funding will be needed by some of the existing providers, such as Broomlee, which is a charity, and I am not sure where that will come from. I wish that it could be done, but I want to see that nailed down.
The fact that we require not just the on-going cost of provision but the capital funding is an essential point. There are relevant models. Jamie Greene listed a number of them, repeating Liz Smith’s earlier points about trust models, philanthropy and so on.
As a socialist, I believe that the state should be able to provide much of the funding that is required for that. This goes back to Arran outdoor education centre, which Jamie Greene mentioned, and Blairvadach, which is operated by Glasgow City Council but is in my and Jamie Greene’s region, in Argyll and Bute. I emphasise that, year after year, those council-run centres are slated for closure and, year after year, a few more of them close. We need to come to some kind of resolution to, at the very least, preserve the current estate.
Blairvadach is an interesting example that needs to be grappled with in relation to finances. My understanding of that centre is that Glasgow City Council maximises commercial bookings to cross-subsidise its traditional local authority class trips. The aim of the bill is to increase the number of children accessing residential outdoor education through schools. I would be a bit cautious if we were to displace the commercial activity that currently provides a valuable income stream. The solution to that is to increase capacity across the residential outdoor education estate, in which case we would not have any risk of displacement. However, that is an issue to be grappled with as we move forward.
As other members have also mentioned, throughout stage 1, I was particularly concerned about the impact not only on teachers but on school support staff, who are often expected to accompany children on such trips. Compelling teachers and other school staff is not the intention but, if we are compelling local authorities to provide such opportunities, there is the risk that they will compel teachers to do so. That would amount to a change in teachers’ terms and conditions, so it was entirely legitimate for their union representatives to raise that concern
That said, I should put on record the level of enthusiasm that was displayed by the individual teachers to whom the committee spoke and from whom it took evidence on the proposals. Teachers have seen the transformational impact that involvement in residential outdoor education has had not only on their pupils but on their professional development, and we should not lose sight of that.
On the wider concerns about teacher workload, I say to the Government that there are many other ways in which we could reduce that workload—in particular, tackling bureaucracy in the classroom would go a long way.
The issue of flexibility was raised and is well worth considering. That is particularly the case in relation to young people from more rural communities, who have much readier access to outdoor education as things stand. The point was made that they might benefit more from spending a couple of days in a city centre accessing museums, galleries and so on, which they would not otherwise be able to do in their day-to-day lives. That is worth considering.
The minister was right to say that, in general, the quality of outdoor education has probably improved since 2010, but that does not address the issue of inconsistency, on which I will close my remarks. The committee’s first recommendation in its stage 1 report is that we think that all young people in Scotland should have access to residential outdoor education. The Scottish Government’s response does not address that directly. My reading of the response is that it implies—it does not say this outright—that the Government disagrees with the view that every pupil should have an opportunity to take part in residential outdoor education. The Government agrees on the value of outdoor education, but it does not directly address the residential aspect, which is key here.
If, as a Parliament, we believe that every young person in Scotland should have the opportunity to take part in residential outdoor education, the bill provides an opportunity to make that possible. If the Government also believes that but does not believe that the bill is the right vehicle, it still has a narrow window of time in which it could bring forward an alternative proposal. It has had the opportunity to do that, but it has not done so. On that basis, the Greens will vote for the bill at stage 1.
17:01
As others have done, I extend my condolences and thoughts to Keith Brown and to the family and friends of Christina McKelvie. As the First Minister rightly said, she was “a force of nature”.
It is a genuine pleasure to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. In Liz Smith’s Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill—I compliment her on introducing it—we see an opportunity to move education in Scotland forward. We see an opportunity to bring back to the centre of our education principles those principles on which the curriculum for excellence was founded. If nothing else, this debate has moved Oliver Mundell’s thinking on the curriculum for excellence, and I absolutely and whole-heartedly welcome that.
The curriculum for excellence is a national responsibility, and we have had interesting discussions about whether the costs of meeting a national responsibility, through the bill, can be met. If we were to turn round and say that the Government would not pay for the laptops, the desks or the chairs in schools, there would rightly be an outcry. The benefit of residential outdoor education has always been accepted by members across the Parliament. More importantly, its importance is understood across academia and the teaching profession, and, perhaps most importantly, it is understood by our young people themselves.
Residential outdoor education allows for the fulfilment of an aspect of the curriculum for excellence that we greatly struggle to fulfil within the confines of the classroom. Today, we have an opportunity to empower our schools and young people to take a different approach—an approach that suits them and allows them to show their true selves to their teachers, and which also allows the teachers, as observers, to make assessments of young people without having to be directly part of the learning process. Such observation is invaluable.
I still whole-heartedly agree with the principles of the curriculum for excellence, and I will continue to drag support for it out of Oliver Mundell, but if the curriculum for excellence is to work—if it is to be based on experiences and to create better adults as a result of their journey through childhood—we need to remember that, as Bill Kidd said, residential outdoor education ticks a human rights box as well.
Willie Rennie talked about the lack of evidence that progress has been made on outdoor education. In his closing speech, Ross Greer highlighted—albeit that it was not a deliberate attempt on his part—the need for a mix of outdoor education and the residential outdoor education that we are talking about today. That is important.
I very much welcomed some important and significant contributions to the debate but will selfishly pick on the one by my colleague Carol Mochan, because of something that she said that resonated with me, as someone who should declare an interest as a former teacher.
Residential outdoor education is frequently a key milestone in a child’s journey through school. They do not remember the maths lesson and rarely remember the poetry one, though they might sometimes remember a visitor or a trip to the pantomime. However, all who have had the benefit of experiencing residential outdoor education think back to that moment when the teacher looked like an idiot because they could not do something, or to the moment when they were able to do something that no one else in the class could do.
People remember when they celebrated eating a deeply overbaked and burnt bit of sugar as they sat round a fire, watching the sparkles going up into the evening and doing something that the curriculum for excellence asks our youngest children to do, which is to look up to the sky in amazement and perhaps, for the first time, to see stars without light pollution. Those are the experiences that live with young people for the whole of their lives, and the stories that we have heard today from members show that some of them stick very hard.
I wish that I did not have to do this, but I will spend the final part of my speech taking up Ross Greer’s comment about brinkmanship. Nothing further can happen with this bill without a financial resolution. Under rule 9.12 of standing orders, the only entity that can bring that financial resolution is the Scottish Government, which has, for the past eight months, talked about reaching out, seeking consensus and working with other parties and whose First Minister has stood up on a significant number of occasions—which I have welcomed—and said that this is a Parliament where the Scottish Government no longer has a majority.
Any strategy that would prevent stage 2 from even starting or that would formally prevent members from lodging amendments to try to improve the bill because of the need for the sort of resolution that—with the exception of what happened at decision time last night—normally passes with unanimity across the chamber, is a disappointing strategy for a Scottish Government that represents Scotland.
17:07
I start by echoing comments that have been made by members from across the chamber about the passing of Christina McKelvie. I offer my condolences to everyone who is dealing with grief.
At 15, my youngest daughter went cliff jumping. She was petrified and talked herself out of, and back into, going on the trip countless times. When she returned from that excursion, she was elated and had a new-found confidence in herself and in her abilities, and it transpired that she had jumped off the cliff and into bitterly cold Scottish coastal waters more than once.
At 14 years old, my eldest daughter stood on the pizza box. Before members question the outdoor educational benefits of standing on a thin cardboard box with a residue of tomato sauce and melted cheese, I will explain that the pizza box is the colloquial name for a platform that is about the size of a pizza box—about 45cm square—and is situated on top of a 30-foot high, stand-alone telegraph pole. Individuals climb the pole, wearing a harness and holding a rope for safety, and pull themselves on to the platform. My daughter returned confident, resilient and proud.
Those were not one-off events, because my daughters, living in rural Perthshire, were lucky enough to experience residential outdoor education through the brownies, the John Muir award scheme, the Duke of Edinburgh award scheme and the Combined Cadet Force. I know that those experiences have been a massive part of making them who they are today. They believe that there is nothing that they cannot achieve, but it seems really unfair to me that my daughters have had that experience of fulfilling outdoor education only because they went to a school in rural Perthshire. Those opportunities should be available to every child in Scotland, as has been highlighted by Pam Duncan-Glancy, Bill Kidd, Carol Mochan and many others. The reasons for that have been well discussed in the debate.
I commend my colleague Liz Smith for her tenacity and her determination that all children should experience the benefits that residential outdoor education gives. That should not be an issue. The bill should go easily, step by step, through the three stages of the parliamentary process to become law, and it is absolutely shocking that it is being held up.
The Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise agreed when she said:
“The Scottish Government’s vision is that all children and young people should have the opportunity to engage in progressive and creative outdoor learning in all its forms, regularly, as part of the curriculum.”
The bill provides for exactly that. If that was not enough confirmation of the Scottish Government’s intent, the minister went on to say:
“The Government values the important work that residential outdoor centres do to support our young people’s mental and physical health, confidence, team-working skills, resilience, communication skills and personal development.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 27 November 2024; c 15.]
That seemed to be a glowing recommendation of the principles of the bill, so I assumed that they would be agreed to unanimously at stage 1.
Let me look at the bill in a little detail. Its three main provisions are worth highlighting. They are:
“placing a duty on education authorities and managers of grant-aided schools to secure the provision of at least one period of residential outdoor education for each pupil ... placing a duty on Scottish Ministers to prepare and publish guidance on the duty to secure the provision of residential outdoor education”
and
“providing that the Scottish Government”
must
“provide funding to local authorities and the managers of grant-aided schools to carry out the duty to secure the provision of residential outdoor education.”
As with all things, the stumbling block is the cost, as the minister forcefully highlighted in her opening remarks. However, so much of what we do involves spending money at the crisis point. Mental health issues, physical health issues, violence in our classrooms and disengagement with education are all at crisis points, but the bill will turn that round. It all comes down to priorities and what is considered to be important, and it is very disappointing to hear that the bill is not a priority for and is not considered to be important by the Scottish Government.
NASUWT put it best when it said:
“The proposals contained in the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill shine a welcome light on the inequality which currently exists in accessing this provision for all pupils in Scotland. There is no dispute that a disparity of access to outdoor education residential experiences currently exists and, further, that our most vulnerable children and young people are often unlikely to be able to participate.”
That feeds into the ethos behind the Promise. This should have been the easiest debate in the history of the Scottish Parliament.
I want to impart a final memory. This is one of mine from when I was a snowy owl. We went to Dalguise for a weekend residential outing with our brownies—a rather rambunctious group of young ladies, many of whom had never been away from home before. Along with the complaints that we all had about the standard of the food and the fact that somebody was sharing a bunk in a room with somebody they did not want to share a room with, there was a group of excited but nervous girls who were unsure not only of their surroundings but of themselves. Once they had experienced team-building pursuits such as climbing walls, Jacob’s ladder and the giant swing, we had an entirely different group, and it took only two days. The looks on their faces and their pride in their achievements will stay with me for ever. It is an absolute injustice that that is not afforded to every child in Scotland.
17:13
I reiterate my thanks to a number of stakeholders who made important and constructive contributions throughout stage 1 scrutiny of the bill. In particular, I note the contribution of the Association of Heads of Outdoor Education Centres and its members in working with my officials to inform our understanding of the sector’s current capacity.
As I have said, I recognise and value the positive and unique role of residential outdoor education in a young person’s education and development, and I wish to continue to see provision of such experiences for our learners as part of a mixed offer of regular outdoor learning. I reiterate my thanks to Liz Smith for her work to raise the profile of and the public discussion on outdoor learning provision, which has been driven through the introduction of her member’s bill.
In looking back at the journey that we have been on in Scotland since the publication of the 2010 vision document “Curriculum for Excellence Through Outdoor Learning” by Education Scotland’s predecessor, I believe that there is much to celebrate. As I said to Mr Rennie, I feel that much progress has been made. For example, learning for sustainability, which includes provision of outdoor learning in all its forms, is now a recognised entitlement for children and young people across the three-to-18 curriculum.
Does the minister see that there are fewer residential opportunities now than there were 10, 15 or 20 years ago? Despite what she is saying, residential opportunities in most parts of Scotland are diminishing.
I recognise that. I understand that those decisions have been taken by local authorities, but, as I have said, I am keen on seeing such opportunities grow further, because I recognise the benefits that they can have.
Scotland has been a frontrunner and has been recognised internationally for our work in developing a whole-school approach to learning for sustainability. I was disappointed by the words of Mr Mundell in relation to our current outdoor education offering, and I think that what he said does a disservice to our nurseries, schools and staff, who are providing fantastic outdoor opportunities for children and young people on a daily basis. There are many examples of our children and young people experiencing progressive and impactful day-to-day outdoor learning activities across the country, including through residential outdoor education, and I will come on to some of those in a second.
Nobody at all is saying that there is not really good work being done in outdoor learning, whether that is in nursery or primary or whatever. The bill complements that work—it is not an either/or. I ask the minister to accept that, because the whole point of the value of outdoor learning is that we are building an educational progression right through young people’s careers at school.
I concur with Ms Smith, but I would say that I did not feel that tone in Mr Mundell’s contribution. However, I appreciate what Ms Smith says.
To turn to some of the examples, centres such as the city of Edinburgh’s Lagganlia and Benmore work closely with schools to align activities with learning priorities. Blairvadach centre staff provide city-wide support in Glasgow, including orienteering maps for every school and specialist programmes for care-experienced learners. In East Lothian, young people can access progressive residential outdoor education experiences, starting with a base camp on the school estate for primary 5 pupils and culminating in a full four-to-five-day residential for primary 6 pupils.
Those examples are to be commended, but I know that the evidence confirms that we need to make better progress, particularly in upper primary and in secondary schools. I acknowledged that in my letter to the Education, Children and Young People Committee in December last year.
I reassure members that Education Scotland continues to support the Scottish Advisory Panel for Outdoor Education and the Association of Heads of Outdoor Education Centres to develop a quality improvement framework for the sector.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I have to make progress.
I look forward to the final report from our Scottish outdoor learning strategic working group, which I have asked to provide me with recommendations on the next steps to improve our overall support for inclusive outdoor learning across the curriculum.
As I made clear in committee, residential outdoor centres—the settings that the bill covers—play a crucial role in that wide range of experiences. To borrow a phrase from a previous joint Scottish Government and SAPOE publication, outdoor education centres have been part of the DNA of Scottish education for 75 years.
The Scottish Government values and supports the role of centres in supporting young people to develop their resilience, self-confidence, wellbeing and engagement with learning—many of the benefits that members have spoken about. However, it is clear that we still have some way to go before the Scottish Government could confidently lodge a motion for a financial resolution to enable the bill to proceed, should it pass stage 1 today.
Will the minister give way?
Presiding Officer, is there any time in hand?
There is very little time in hand.
My intervention is about the financial resolution. The only precedent that I can find is from Monica Lennon’s Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Bill. It was agreed to at stage 1, and the financial resolution was published, debated and voted on later.
If the Government chooses within the six-month period not to lodge a financial resolution on this bill, will the minister commit to lodging a motion to allow Parliament to debate and vote on that issue? At the moment, we would vote in the affirmative situation, if a financial resolution were going to be lodged. If the Government is not going to lodge that, can we have a debate and a vote on its position of not lodging a financial resolution?
I can certainly discuss that with Liz Smith as I continue to engage with her on the bill.
The full potential costs of the bill remain unclear but, as introduced, it is unaffordable. It is of course the responsibility of Government and Parliament to scrutinise that, and we must make it clear to Parliament that our concerns have not yet been addressed. It is not clear how equity of provision of any new entitlement could be delivered by the sector, and associated costs have not been considered. Implications for the workforce are significant, and the bill as introduced does not provide solutions to ensure that provision is equitable for all of Scotland’s children.
Mr Rennie stated that the Government did not reach out to him and that it needs to come forward with something better. First, I am sorry that Mr Rennie—and Mr Whitfield, of course—feels left out. That was never my intention. My priority has been to engage with Liz Smith to find solutions to the challenges that I and many others have raised. The evidence is clear about the unique role and benefits that are offered by residential outdoor education for the development of our children and young people; I think that we all agree about that.
Members have touched on an inconsistency, which is that, although young people from more deprived backgrounds can often benefit most from outdoor learning opportunities, that cohort receives fewer such experiences overall. We know that many schools are using PEF money to ensure that young people have such opportunities, but I agree that it will be important to build a better picture of current levels of provision of residential outdoor education nationally in order to understand better the implications of the bill.
I recognise that there is strong support across the chamber for the general principles of the bill and that some members may question the Scottish Government’s decision to abstain on the motion and not to lodge a financial resolution. I do not shy away from that position. If this were a Government bill, it would face equal scrutiny, and ministers would be challenged on the uncosted elements and the significant data gaps in the financial memorandum.
As I have said, I remain open to working constructively with the member in charge to address the concerns. Having listened to the debate today, I would also be interested in working with members from across the chamber.
17:21
I begin on a note of consensus with the minister—I value the discussions that we have had. However, the fact that the substantial letter from the Government arrived just last night—seven weeks after the Education, Children and Young People Committee’s report was issued and, as two members have indicated, a long period after the bill was discussed—did not do much to ensure that scrutiny in the debate was as good as it should have been.
The minister seems to be having a conversation with the cabinet secretary. I ask her whether she will consider the sensible point that Douglas Ross, the convener of the committee, made about the financial resolution. I sit on the Finance and Public Administration Committee. I understand that the Government has issues with the finance relating to the bill, but I believe that those issues can be resolved. I do not accept that the bill is unaffordable, as the minister said. That has to be measured against the choices that the Scottish Government has made on other policies. That is the important thing. The bill is not unaffordable; there are possibilities for funding it.
As I said in my opening speech, pupil equity funding is a valuable concept, which I fully supported when it was introduced. It is a great idea. Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat members have all mentioned it, not just in this Parliament but at Westminster. However, if some of the funding is being put into the next year, that suggests that it is not all being spent in the timescale in which it is issued. It is also suggested that the Government has changed the criteria according to which the funding is being issued; it has gone into a local government attainment grant. That is very different from the original intention of pupil equity funding. If it is true that £30 million of the money was spent on public sector teachers pay, I question whether other choices could have been made. The Government has to look at that angle when it comes to affordability, which the minister mentioned.
I also hope that the minister recognises that, over quite a number of months, I have provided the Scottish Government with alternative models of funding. There are plenty of examples of places where money can be found, such as public trust money. Further, we happen to know, from what ministers, particularly the Deputy First Minister, have been saying on other issues, that the Scottish Government is quite rightly looking for models that combine public sector finance and private sector finance, and surely that is something that can help, too.
Absolutely, and I think that that proves our willingness to work on that point. However, I made efforts to meet Inspire Scotland and others to find out more about how the public trust model could work, and it would be too unreliable for something that would be a statutory entitlement for schools.
With respect, minister, it says in the letter that you sent last night that there are possibilities around decoupling some of this. You cannot just say that it is something that you would—
Always speak through the chair, please.
The minister cannot just dismiss that aspect, because her letter suggests that it might be an option that could be considered.
On the issue of additional support for learning, there are costs associated with that—I have never suggested otherwise. In that regard, I come back to the excellent speech that Pam Duncan-Glancy made. Additional support for learning costs extra money. Some 40 per cent of children in Scotland now have additional support needs, but, of that 40 per cent, 3 per cent have very complex needs. If we listen to the comments from Nevis, who I quoted in my opening speech, we will hear that the effort and expense to get him to the centre were considerable. However, that is the point: it happened, thanks to the school and the people at the centre, some of whom are in the gallery just now.
We should be aware that, over time, the centres have become well aware of the need to ensure that they articulate with modern Scottish education. As Mr Whitfield rightly said, that means the curriculum for excellence. There is also a recognition of the need for greater diversity. Residential outdoor education is not all about climbing Munros, kayaking or jumping off a cliff; it is much more diverse than that now. If we are going to get it right for every child, we have to recognise the diversity of our pupils and ensure that we are delivering for every one of them. I do not think that that is too difficult.
As Jamie Greene and Oliver Mundell have rightly said, let us be ambitious for this Parliament, but, even more importantly, let us be ambitious for our young people. I hear time and again from parents, pupils and the centres that, after Covid, there is an awful lot of anxiety around. We owe it to those young people to give them hope and optimism and to give them the skills that outdoor education provides through building resilience, self-esteem and confidence. We must ensure that we do that, and that is the main reason for the bill.
Presiding Officer, do I have a little more time?
You have until 5.30.
I will return to the issue of teacher contracts. I must take seriously what the unions and COSLA are saying—those are serious concerns, and we have to address them. I am hopeful that we can address them, because there are many teachers who are in unions and the COSLA set-up who are already doing outdoor education. We have to give them the support that they need, because most teachers come back to us to say that outdoor education is the most valuable thing that we can do.
I want to finish with a comment that was given to this Parliament at the time of this building’s opening, 21 years ago, when the late Edwin Morgan’s “light of the mind” poem was read. In it he asked:
“What do the people want of the place? They want it to be filled with thinking persons as open and adventurous as its architecture.
A nest of fearties is what they do not want.
A symposium of procrastinators is what they do not want.
A phalanx of forelock-tuggers is what they do not want”.
My bill is adventurous in more ways than one. Yes, it contains an element of risk, but what aspect of life does not? As with outdoor education itself, the risk is managed and mitigated well. Let us therefore be parliamentarians who are as open and adventurous as the wonderful architecture that we are in just now. I encourage all members of the Parliament to do what is right by our young people and support the bill.
Air adhart
Decision Time