Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am sorry, Mr Rennie; I am not directly linked to the evaluation framework for the learning for sustainability plan, but I am, of course, happy to provide the committee with that information at a later date.

It would provide consistency in the outdoor learning centre experience; it would not provide consistency in the wider, day-to-day outdoor education experiences that we would like to see.

That is really important. I want all children and young people to benefit from outdoor learning. There is evidence that children from a lower socioeconomic background can benefit from outdoor learning experiences, so we should continue to drive that forward where possible.

As the member is aware, statutory responsibility for the delivery of school education, including school trips, rests with local authorities and individual schools. They can utilise a range of funding sources for that delivery and they are best placed to determine what their children and young people require.

I can see the member making a face.

The Scottish Government has invested up to £1 billion in the Scottish attainment challenge this parliamentary term to tackle the poverty-related attainment gap. We have also invested £520 million in the pupil equity fund, which, as the committee will be aware, goes directly to schools to support children and young people from lower-income families. I know that schools have utilised that funding to provide children and young people with outdoor experiences, if they felt that that was the best place for that funding. I trust our local authorities and school leaders to decide what is best for their learners.

I also touch on the work of the new strategic working group that was set up this year. The group is taking forward a number of different workstreams in relation to outdoor learning. One of the issues that it will be looking at is inclusivity and providing equity for all pupils to access outdoor experiences. There has been work to date, but we can go further. I know that because I go out on many visits and see how nurseries and schools are embedding outdoor learning—I have witnessed some fantastic examples of it. However, we need to drive that consistency further.

No, I do not think that it is the be-all and end-all. I have been clear in my discussions with Liz Smith that I am open—in fact, I am very keen—to explore non-legislative routes, for example around the professional learning that is available to education practitioners.

I have spoken about the public trust model that Ms Smith has proposed, and members might have a question on that. Although I do not necessarily believe that such a model would be the best idea for putting something in statute, there are options, for example, to gain capital funding to improve the estate.

There are a number of non-legislative options that we could take, so I do not believe that the bill is necessarily the be-all and end-all. I have laid out a number of things that we are doing or that we could do, depending on the outcome of the bill process.

Outdoor learning is a priority because it has massive benefits. However, as I have outlined, the scope of the bill covers that one week of outdoor residential experience and that is not necessarily the priority. The benefits of that are clear to see, but that is for members to decide and it will form part of your scrutiny.

I have been clear about the financial implications of the bill and the difficult position that the Government is in. That money could be directed to other areas while still driving improvement to widen access to outdoor learning across Scotland. As I said, a number of on-going workstreams will continue and I am open to trying to push that even further or seeing what we can do to open up that learning further. I have been quite clear about the Government’s position on the financial implications of the bill and the cost of implementing it.

I am neutral on the bill at the moment. I look forward to seeing the committee’s scrutiny and the outcome of the committee’s report. If I am in favour of the bill, a financial memorandum will absolutely accompany that.

Mr Kidd raises an important point about evidence that shows that some centres are not busy enough—and I know that members feel that the bill would help with that—but we also know that some centres are too busy. I believe that one centre is booked up for a considerable amount of time—indeed, a number of years. It brings me back to some of my concerns about the bill’s financial implications and the unknown factor of what centres would be required—and where, which I think is a really important point.

As for working with local authorities, that would absolutely be a given when it came to making progress on the bill. Equally, with regard to our focus on outdoor learning, I alluded in my opening statement to the Government’s support for centres during Covid. I would expect discussions with local authorities to continue; the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities sits on the working group that I have mentioned, and it plays a key role in feeding in local authority views.

I have already talked about a lot of the on-going work. Outdoor learning does not necessarily have to cost anything; you can take the classroom outdoors to a number of settings. As I have said, there are nurseries that have built themselves up as fully outdoor nurseries. I do not have the exact cost details to show whether their costs are any higher than those of a traditional indoor nursery, and I do not have a price tag for what we are spending on outdoor learning at the moment.

However, as I said earlier, there are ways of driving efficiency with regard to expanding access to outdoor learning. There are a number of competing pressures that I know that members will consider when they think of specific numbers in relation to the bill.

I will bring in officials to speak to that.