Seòmar agus comataidhean

There are concerns, because—let us be honest—being a teacher these days is all-consuming in terms of the commitment that teachers have to make on a whole lot of different things, not least the things that they are compelled to do by much of the legislation. Being a teacher is not an easy job, but it is a very important one, and I think that the numbers of teachers who have shown a willingness to participate in residential outdoor education demonstrate that teachers believe that it is a priority. In other words, some teachers might argue that they would prefer to be out in the outdoors rather than doing some of the other stuff that they are asked to do, because of the benefits that they can see from outdoor education. I do not think that there is a problem in convincing teachers that it is the right thing to do.

You are quite right to flag up that the curriculum is packed with a lot of other things. The commitment that is required from teachers to non-teaching activity outwith the classroom has grown enormously since I left teaching 20 years ago. There has been a huge change in that respect, and we have to be mindful of that. Nonetheless, I do not see any signs that a lot of teachers are withdrawing from that type of activity.

The counter to that is that, if we really believe that this is worth doing, we will ensure that we do it on the basis of the expertise and professionalism of staff and their willingness to engage with it. There is a large number of teachers from different schools across Scotland who know that this is the right thing to do because of the educational benefit. That is important.

To take a historical line on that, you give an accurate summary of what was happening. In the 1960s and 70s, Scottish local authorities all had dedicated outdoor education teachers. Those people were important in ensuring that local authorities had good provision right across the board, which worked really well until the 1970s and 80s when, for a variety of reasons, those teachers were slowly lost. You can track a lot of evidence to show that, after that period, we saw quite a downturn in the number of authorities that were able to facilitate outdoor education. Provision was very patchy throughout the later part of the 20th century, although local authorities were still determined to do it.

That determination is still there, but we should not forget what Covid did. It meant that outdoor education centres could not function, so I was enormously grateful to the Scottish Government for providing an initial £2 million and then a further £1 million to support the sector throughout that period. Had the Scottish Government not done so, even more centres would have floundered, so we owe the Scottish Government our thanks for doing that, and I know that the outdoor education sector would say that, too.

I think that we can build up that capacity again, but there must be a strong level of regular demand for those centres, which the bill would provide. There are positive signs: I mentioned the completely new facility in Aberdeenshire, and there are signs that other outdoor facilities are working pretty hard to expand and to have a more diverse offer.

That is another important historical point. Outdoor education centres in the past offered what I would call “traditional” outdoor education. You might spend a lot of time camping and would be climbing hills, kayaking, canoeing and all sorts of things like that. Those things are still included, but outdoor education is changing, and that diversity plays to the different needs of today’s young people. It is important that centres have recognised that and have done a lot to improve.

That was an important question.

I think that there is teacher feed-in. The evidence that the committee has heard and received from all the submissions shows that there is really big teacher buy-in.

As I said earlier, some members of the teaching profession are not keen on the bill. However, an awful lot are, and I want to capture their enthusiasm, commitment, expertise and professionalism. They are doing a wonderful job. I think that the bill would enhance the opportunities to expand on that professional development and, at the same time, give a lot of benefits to young people.

Yes. There are some circumstances in which parents who have more means than others contribute more in the way of fundraising activities of the type that happen in a school, through taking responsibility and putting in a bit more money behind those activities. There are some parents who are making provision for transport costs, whereas other kids are not getting that provision, and some schools are having to subsidise on that basis.

Mr Mason is right to question that, because some parents obviously have greater means than others. Would they be able to go ahead and pay a bit while parents of other children do not? I think that it is worth exploring that, but I would not want the level playing field to be removed because of that. Could we part fund it? Could we use PEF money for some of the youngsters? I think that that is a possibility, and I have discussed it with the Scottish Government. We know that there are some schools, certainly in my region, that use PEF to subsidise youngsters who are not able to go, yet other parents in that school are paying for the activity. I think that there is some scope to discuss that.

I might consider lodging amendments on that if I felt that the committee might like us to pursue it.

Again, it comes back to the point that what is happening just now is a patchwork, and there is a bit of a mix with regard to how such activity is funded in some schools. I certainly think that there is scope for flexibility in how it is funded overall, should the bill pass.

I think that most of the costs are captured in the financial memorandum, but let me go back to your first point, which is very important, about teachers clocking in at 9 o’clock and clocking out at 5 o’clock. Many teachers would tell you that those are not the hours that they are working now. They are probably in the classroom—

Being at a centre is a full-time experience. Nowadays, they are in charge 24/7, as it should be.

The bill team and my staff have been working very hard on that point, as has the Government in recent months, to be fair. What has become evident during the early stages of the bill is that we do not have enough data to capture exactly what is happening. Some local authorities—such as the City of Edinburgh Council, which you heard from—are first class and can tell you exactly how many pupils are going on residentials. We know that several local authorities have been using the EVOLVEvisits system, which captures quite a few residentials, and that all the local authorities in Wales know exactly how many people are going on residentials. However, there is not a universal outlook. You are quite right to say that the data is patchy. We have to be sure that, if the bill is to progress, we are capturing more and more of that data as we go forward.

One thing that the bill has done is raise awareness of the fact that we do not have enough data on the issue. We have spent an awful long time questioning each of the outdoor education centres and asking all the local authorities how many of their young people have been to those centres. We have looked at lots of studies that have been done by universities and so on.

I would not pretend for a minute that we have 100 per cent accuracy in the data, but I think that we are getting there, and I am convinced that we have enough background evidence to ensure that the bill is positive.