Seòmar agus comataidhean

We have already been told that the transport costs are prohibitive for some schools—that is very clear—and, indeed, some local authorities are having great difficulty in providing the necessary transport. However, that is the case for all pupils, not just those from more income-disadvantaged backgrounds. We have to be clear that transportation is a cost issue and ensure that it is covered by the various means that I have set out in the financial memorandum.

That is good to hear, because, obviously, the better the data, the better it is for policy makers.

I understand that. However, I come back to the point that the ballpark figures in the financial memorandum and the Scottish Government costings are not that far apart. That is an important point.

As the centres will tell you, when it comes to bed-space availability and demand, some of them are booked up quite some time in advance. That is important. That demand will provide them with greater income. It is true that some centres have issues, but they are adamant that the bill could help them. As I said, the arithmetic that we have done is, I think, quite accurate.

Cancellation happens fairly regularly, not least because of the Scottish weather. Usually, if there is a cancellation, the trip is held over to a more appropriate time at which the school can go.

Often, though, a trip is held over, because the booking can be remade. On the whole, outdoor education centres are pretty generous in allowing that to happen, provided that the extra booking is made. If it is not made, the money has to be repaid. However, my understanding and experience of that are relatively limited.

We did a lot of work—my staff did a phenomenal amount of work, not least because they have considerable experience in the sector, having worked in it. We spoke to a lot of schools and to authorities that make that provision now, which sometimes have to hire buses and so on. We have gone into quite a lot of detail in the potential costings for that. I therefore think that our sums are fairly accurate in that respect. I have not had any feedback from the Scottish Government to suggest otherwise.

However, it is possible that, for some, transportation costs are prohibitive, because of the pressures on local authorities of other financial obligations. We know for a fact that some schools have not been able to take part in outdoor education because transport has been too expensive. However, we have put into our sums the basis for our costings.

That is true, but it is difficult to be precise, because the nature of residential outdoor education is that it is such a diverse opportunity. There is a range in the outdoor education visits that staff go on at the moment in terms of the length of time that they are for, where they are to and how many pupils go each time, and there is a cost in all of that. In some cases, we might be talking about groups of up to 40 pupils; in others, there might be only 14 to 20 pupils.

It is difficult to drill down into the exact number, but it could be around 20 per cent. I think that the figure is difficult to calculate, and the Scottish Government thinks that, too—I know that from the discussions that I have had with it. It is hard to bring together all the diversities, but your point is an important one. We set the range that we set because we thought that that was the most realistic one, and I think that the Scottish Government agreed with us on that.

You are correct in your interpretation of the evidence that the Education, Children and Young People Committee has heard. Some centres are on the brink because of the capital problem. We must ensure that there is greater demand, which would increase support for the centres and the income that they can take in. You are also correct that some centres that have been under pressure have managed to become sustainable because of various charitable trust funds, but some have not. We have to be mindful that some centres are on the brink. It will be interesting to get more of a breakdown on that position, which will come back in the response to the letter that the Education, Children and Young People Committee has sent to the outdoor education centres.

Identifying savings through preventative spend is inevitably extremely difficult. We have heard many witnesses tell the Finance and Public Administration Committee that it is difficult to put a financial sum on that. However, there is some qualitative evidence on how it has transformed lives that helps, including the experiences that we have heard about from young people—including many who have considerable disabilities and additional support needs. Such evidence is pretty compelling.

It is also pretty compelling to hear from their parents and from the teachers in their schools, who feel that the young people are much better able to work from an academic angle when they get back. There is also compelling international evidence that the preventative benefits of spend on outdoor education are considerable.

It is difficult to put precise figures on that for Scotland, but I am convinced that, if youngsters have greater inspiration and are more able to engage in their education because of something like this, they will grow into exactly what the curriculum for excellence wants them to be in its four principles, such as responsible citizens and all the other stuff that is in the curriculum for excellence.

The unaffordability aspect is important. If we can find additional models that provide extra funding, that will reduce concerns about the bill, although I do not think that anybody is opposed to the bill. That is important, and I have taken it upon myself to be proactive in recognising that there are, of course, issues that put pressure on local government finances.

I was struck last week when Willie Rennie rightly asked the Education, Children and Young People Committee whether residential outdoor education is a priority. That is a good question, because we have issues with teacher numbers, additional support for learning and reading and writing. There are all sorts of pressures in education just now, so is it a priority? My argument is that it is, because the benefits that we get from such education are so demonstrably powerful that we should be doing it.

That begs the question of how we can allay the concerns that the Scottish Government has put to me, and I am working with the Government on that just now. A big part of that work is about the ability to provide additional sources of income.