Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have seen progress.

Yes, I would. However, as Saskia Kearns has outlined, the issue is more about the risk that the bill carries. Again, we want consistency across our local authority areas and our schools with regard to experiences of outdoor learning and their frequency on a day-to-day basis, and I would just highlight that the bill poses a risk in that respect.

Sorry—has the Government made any plans?

The Government is doing as Government does, and is taking the legislation bit by bit. I have met Liz Smith on several occasions, and officials have been liaising with her and other organisations and stakeholders who are involved in this work. The Government will plan accordingly, as it needs to.

I have already spoken about a number of the areas in which we are taking action to improve consistency in outdoor learning. However, as I have already said, I do not necessarily feel that the bill is the be-all and end-all for all children and young people, given its narrow scope with regard to the specific experience that it provides for, and whether it is right for all children. I believe that that was brought up in the evidence sessions and the committee will have to consider it in its scrutiny of the bill.

I think so, and it goes back to what I said earlier about the risk of narrowing people’s scope and vision of outdoor learning to that one specific experience. I saw some of the evidence on that in the committee when Dr Scrutton indicated that the nature of the residential outdoor experience is evolving and that it could include activities to promote more academic work in an outdoor setting.

The member is spot on. As I have said, I want to see outdoor learning on a day-to-day basis across a number of different environments. There is evidence that people from lower income backgrounds could benefit more from that kind of experience, but the same could be said of a number of different outdoor experiences. Some children and young people might prefer a historical learning experience, for example. I am concerned about the narrow scope of the bill.

Of course, while understanding the benefits that such an experience can give, it must be remembered that that risks taking away from the wider number of outdoor experiences that children and young people could have and from the on-going work to improve that and to improve consistency across Scotland.

I have not had any yet, because we are looking at the evidence sessions for the committee’s scrutiny of the bill. I have been interested to hear the evidence. As I said, I have been discussing the bill with the member in charge for more than a year. I have had the concerns that I have raised at this meeting and it has been important to me to hear what the evidence sessions brought out—what the stakeholders said and what their concerns were. I will be interested to see what the committee feels about the concerns and issues that we have discussed. Ultimately, that will help to direct the Government’s position, as is the case with any other piece of legislation that committees scrutinise.

Yes, I absolutely recognise that. I looked into various other forms of public trust models, such as the one that is used for NatureScot. There are models but they do not relate to specific statutory duties.

I will bring in Nico MacKenzie-Juetten, who might be able to expand on the finances of hospices a little further.

That comes back to a lot of what we have spoken about already this morning. There is a clear concern from the Government that legislating on the curriculum sets a precedent that contradicts the approach around flexibility and autonomy for school leaders and teachers that Mr Kidd alluded to. I have been very clear that I would be willing to work with Liz Smith. There could be flexibility around the length of the trip and, as I have already suggested, the content, because we do not necessarily know that that outdoor residential experience is what every child or young person requires, and other experiences could be equally beneficial. Moving forward and ensuring flexibility and choice for the children and young people is key.

Absolutely. I have probably touched on some of this already this morning, so you will forgive me if I repeat myself.

Perhaps the first point to make relates to the requirement in the bill for the Scottish Government to

“pay education authorities and ... grant-aided schools”

sufficient amounts to fund the new duties imposed on them. What those sufficient amounts actually equate to is unknown—in that regard, I would also just point to some of the discussion that we have already had this morning.

The bill’s financial memorandum significantly underestimates the overall potential cost. As I have said, the Scottish Government has estimated that it could cost anywhere from £24.3 million to £40.6 million, but there is still a certain degree of unknown around that in terms of the number of—

I do not expect this to be cost neutral, and there could be investment in different areas. I do not have the figure in front of me. Indeed, what I have said is that I would be willing to work with Ms Smith on other options for the bill or, if the bill proceeds, any amendments to it. I do not have a figure to hand at the moment for our approach to outdoor learning—I am just highlighting that it can come at a very low cost.