Seòmar agus comataidhean

The bill includes a proposal for a five-yearly review. That was based on a lot of evidence of similar parliamentary reviews. Should that be done on an annual basis? Perhaps. That is more a matter for how Government and the local authorities would see that. If that were to be a specific request of the teaching unions, I would be open to it. Equally, should the general principles of the bill be agreed to at stage 1, I would be open to various suggestions about how we could amend and improve it.

That is not my experience at all; in fact, it is quite the reverse. A lot of people would like to get involved in this kind of thing, because—I cannot say this often enough—outdoor education is about providing skills for our young people and building their resilience. A lot of trusts support young people, many of whom are from disadvantaged communities. That is absolutely right and proper, and it is what we have to do through the bill.

I am determined that the bill be inclusive and that we ensure that a lot of youngsters who do not currently get the opportunity to participate in outdoor education get that opportunity. Trust funds and philanthropists are keen to do that, because they know that, whether in relation to the economy or to society, it is in everybody’s interests to provide young people with the skills and the attitude that we need in modern Scotland.

No, I do not think so. The evidence that was provided by outdoor education centres last week and to the cross-party group shows that more centres in Scotland are doing a phenomenal job with additional support for learning pupils, some of whom have very considerable disabilities. There are some very moving stories. Those do not relate to the financial memorandum, but I think that the Education, Children and Young People Committee will be interested in them.

Scotland is much more aware of its responsibilities to cater for additional support for learning pupils, and that is articulated through the principles behind curriculum for excellence. The Ardroy Outdoor Education Centre and the Outward Bound Trust have done a huge amount to ensure that those youngsters get a really good and positive experience. In Scotland, the level of care for, as well as the number of, young people with serious disabilities or very specialist needs is increasing, and so is the provision for them. Everybody recognises that, to be properly inclusive, we have to ensure that those youngsters get such opportunities.

There is a discussion to be had about that very sensible question, which you also raised at the Education, Children and Young People Committee. It is true that some parents make a considerable commitment. Successful fundraising programmes in schools also provide quite a lot of extra money. There is considerable enthusiasm about that, because undertaking such fundraising is a real-life learning experience. You are on to something important.

I think that there is some scope for variability in how outdoor education is funded. Quite a lot of parents can well afford to cover the cost with no trouble at all, but a lot of parents cannot, and I am concerned about the parents who cannot afford it, because their children lose out.

We could not rely on it completely, of course, because there is not enough to do what we want to do. However, it is interesting that, in many cases, the choices that are being made in schools are such that the existing PEF money is being directed into outdoor education. It would be helpful to supplement that with the creative and imaginative ideas that have worked in other jurisdictions. You asked whether money should be ring fenced, and my answer is, “Possibly.” However, we can persuade the Scottish Government that there are imaginative ways to pursue a range of funding options.

Teacher numbers are vitally important, particularly in the area of additional support for learning, where we do not have enough teachers. I would make a plea for priority spending in that area. There are other areas that I, in common with other Conservatives, would see as less of a spending priority.

I am flexible. Let us be honest—a modern languages trip, or a history trip to the battlefields, is just as educationally valuable as a trip to an outdoor education centre. I am flexible about that, but if we were to say that the bill had to provide for all those things, we would be looking at a different financial memorandum. I am sure that I will be back here answering questions about that in due course.

Education, in its broadest sense, should include flexible experiences. My point is that there is compelling evidence on the benefits to young people of residential outdoor education. That is why my bill is as it is, because we can get a lot of uptake of good-quality education.

Yes. I would quite like to discuss that a wee bit further with the unions. I have to say that I have not come across terribly many teachers who want to withdraw from this kind of thing. I was a bit—

When we had the debate about changing from a reserved aggregates levy to a devolved aggregates tax, there was an interesting discussion prior to the implementation of that law about how good we are at understanding how much of a reserved tax is collected from Scotland. I know that you are not responsible for that, but do you have better sight of the information and data on how much tax is being collected from reserved taxes than you had previously? There was a bit of a muddle when we had this discussion the last time that you were here.

The committee had a witness from HMRC who, at the time, found it difficult to tell us how much of a UK tax had been raised in Scotland. I was a bit surprised that they did not have the data on that. I am pleased to hear that you think that there is a greater understanding of how—