Seòmar agus comataidhean

Modern museums—I believe that that is what Paisley is trying to create—have such conversations with young people and children to make sure that they understand.

If you look across the road from the museum to the University of the West of Scotland, there is a statue of the Rev Witherspoon. Paisley is very proud of the fact that he signed the declaration of independence for the United States, but he was also a slave owner. In my opinion, it is not so much that we need to take the statue down; it is more about the context. That is what you have been saying, Zandra. The context is that he signed the declaration and said those weighty words but, at the same time, he was a slave owner—along with just about everyone else who signed the document.

That was one of the things that I was going to say. We heard from people who work in the sector and think that it is providing life-changing choices, but even they say that their buildings are falling to bits.

Nick March mentioned that the cost per person per centre was £420, but some centres have had an increase due to the capital expenses related to the building. That brings me to the question of who pays for that if the kids are coming automatically to the centres as a statutory duty. I do not think that the financial memorandum takes the capital spend into account at all.

We have been told by the groups, “Don’t worry about it. We’ll sort it.” I think that that was the trust idea that you were talking about—nudge, nudge, wink, wink, it will be all right on the night. However, I have serious concerns. Who ends up footing the bill? Who ends up being asked to pay for it when we have a statutory duty for kids to turn up at the centres?

Some facilities may become unsustainable and unaffordable to upgrade.

That is a matter of opinion.

Yes.

I am trying to be really positive about the bill and to see the life-changing benefits that everyone claims that the bill would provide and that outdoor education centres provide.

One of the biggest issues relates to a matter that you have mentioned and on which we have received evidence: the capital costs involved with the buildings themselves. Jamie Miller of Scottish Outdoor Education Centres reported that many of its buildings date back to 1939, are not designed for long-term use and are not energy efficient. Phil Thompson mentioned that the Ardroy Outdoor Education Centre’s buildings date from 1969 and need major capital investment, with some of the dormitories becoming run down. He said that, without significant investment, some facilities may become unsuitable or unaffordable for schools. Is that a concern, should the bill go through? We would have all these young people and children rocking up to outdoor education centres, but they are falling to bits.

The buildings have not been touched since 1939 or 1969, so that could be interesting.

Some dormitories are becoming run down.

We know from evidence to the committee that local authorities carry out a lot of good work in this area, which they do in different ways and not necessarily along the lines of what is proposed in the bill. You have already said that the approach that is taken is very limiting, given that the bill is only about outdoor education centres. I would go further. In the committee’s first evidence session on the bill, Professor Mannion noted that many residential centres focus too narrowly on traditional outdoor education activities such as kayaking, zip-lining and other outdoor pursuits, rather than on offering a broader curriculum with

“maths, music, drama and history”.

He also suggested that we should look at

“conservation activity, pro-environmental behaviour or learning about sustainability”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 6 November 2024; c 19.]

and he believes that we should not necessarily be doing outdoor education for a whole week but probably daily.

You have said that the bill is quite limiting. A great deal of work is being done elsewhere and by different local authorities, so is it not the case that the bill might hinder what is being done locally and that we might end up focusing on the one issue? As Professor Mannion said, the bill is too narrowly focused.

Okay. I am always sharp and to the point—that is my preamble.

Cabinet secretary, you mentioned the veterinary agreement. You—quite rightly—said that you see that as an agriculture, food and drink agreement. On our trip to Brussels, those were key issues for us. To put it succinctly, my question is, are we doing enough to align with the EU? As Patrick Harvie said, it was mentioned that we would have to duplicate every dot and comma, particularly in those sectors, for all the reasons that you mentioned earlier. Are we aligning sufficiently to ensure that we can get ourselves into a position where we can negotiate and get those key sectors to trade in Europe? Do we need to do any more? If we do, what is it?