Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

Tara, you have talked about the challenges facing your members and the fact that teachers are having to engage almost in a plate-spinning exercise to ensure that they are getting everything done. How do they ensure that young people can achieve all of this? Surely they will say, “We know that certain young people engage in certain ways, and this might not necessarily be the way to do it.” You have already mentioned that your members believe that day trips, for example, have a lot more value.

You mentioned that there might be some capacity issues, should this sort of thing become mandatory and part of the curriculum, and you also said you had a fear of money that had been going into education being taken out of it. When you said that, I got a wee bit frightened, too. Can you elaborate on that a wee bit more? I can see where you are coming from, and I think that it is an important point.

I see that Phil Thompson’s buildings have been there since 1939.

I have a final question for Tara Lillis. In your written evidence, you say that you have advised members to participate only in visits with “clear educational outcomes” and proper approval. You have gone further than that today, saying that on the whole you advise them not to go, because of all kinds of other things. That is quite concerning in itself; I am also quite concerned by your comment that this could open up teachers’ pay and conditions. Can you give me some further detail on why that is such a major issue? It probably affects the financial memorandum, as Matthew Sweeney mentioned earlier.