Seòmar agus comataidhean

Both the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise have been extremely helpful to me. Based on evidence that I have taken from other jurisdictions and from Scotland, I flagged up to the Scottish Government the possibility of a public trust model, which is run for the benefit of the public—that is, not for profit. The trustees in a public trust model are appointed by the Scottish Government but can take on board members who might come from various bodies that can provide greater funding.

I have spoken a lot with Celia Tennant of Inspiring Scotland, who was also extremely helpful with regard to the bill, about what that organisation does to balance the public, private and voluntary sectors in such a fund. I have flagged up Rethink Ireland, which uses an interesting model and has been successful in raising a considerable amount of money. In that, there is a suggestion to the Scottish Government that, although the bill would make provision through the Government, the Government could find creative and imaginative ways of finding additional funding at a time when local authorities are under considerable pressure.

That is a possibility, convener. An interesting thing that came out in two or three of the Education, Children and Young People Committee’s evidence sessions is that much of the PEF—which has been a very successful way of funding support, particularly for schools and youngsters who have greater need, in some of the more disadvantaged communities—is currently being used for outdoor education. That speaks volumes about the choices that have been made in local authorities and schools to ensure that that money goes to something that clearly gives positive outcomes. I have engaged with the Scottish Government about the level of PEF that we have and how much of it is going to outdoor education, because it is important to find out what the total is. That funding is obviously provided by the Scottish Government.

It is true that any classroom provision has to be under GTCS control. That is absolutely right and proper, because that concerns the professional qualification.

Existing schools that undertake a considerable amount of outdoor education—a growing number—are able to cope with that scenario without any additional extra costs. They make their timetable work to suit the provision of what is happening both in school and in the outdoor education field. It is the same as for history trips or language trips. It is never easy to organise a school timetable—in fact, it is increasingly difficult, these days—but the issue is pretty well covered. I do not think that there is a significant cost that will impinge on the ability of schools to provide staffing for outdoor education, because the schools that currently take part do not seem to have that problem.

The NASUWT was very concerned about the SNCT aspect. It was able to produce evidence that almost 90 per cent of its members—I think that that was the figure—were very much in favour of school trips, which I thought was encouraging. However, you are right to say that it was concerned about the possibility of the matter becoming statutory and opening up all the tripartite negotiation, which would be difficult.

I must say that the evidence that we have taken from individual teachers, people who work in the sector and some local authorities—the City of Edinburgh Council, which gave evidence to the committee, is a case in point—shows that a lot of teachers are very keen to try to participate in this kind of thing without it having major implications. I got the slight impression from some of the evidence that a lot of teachers would walk away if they were asked to do extra things, but I do not see any evidence of that in the teaching profession just now. Some teachers might feel like that, but I do not see that as a major issue.

The Educational Institute of Scotland and the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association said in their evidence that, actually, they really quite like the principles of the bill; we just have to make it work. I have been clear all along that we just have to make it work. I must come up with the right suggestions about how we can make it work and make people feel confident in the bill’s financial aspects and its workability. From the feedback that we have had so far, we are halfway there on workability. On the finance aspect, we have to find a workable model that allows the Scottish Government to have confidence that it can pursue the bill.

That happens already. There are pressures on families, of course, and not just from childcare. If a member of staff is asked to go away at a time when his or her youngster is doing Scottish Qualifications Authority exams, that is a pressure as well, because they do not want to be away from home, and that puts pressure on another colleague to be able to take up that work. Those pressures have existed for all the time that I have been involved with the issue.

Yes, that is correct. If the bill is passed, the big question is how many schools from the primary sector and how many schools from the secondary sector will choose to participate. This is probably more anecdotal evidence than anything that we can pin down to finite figures. We think, certainly from what schools, local authorities and the sector have told us, that we will probably get more young people from the secondary sector in the second year. That was why we thought that the numbers might drop a bit but go back up. They could be slightly towards the higher end in year 3 and beyond.

Absolutely. You have done so much to debate funding for music tuition, which has been a major issue—you understand that it is not a party-political issue. The more that we can get cross-party agreement on that kind of thing, the better. My bill, too, is not about party-political issues. I did not lodge the bill because I am a Conservative; I did it because, as an educationalist, I genuinely believe that it is the right thing to do.

Thirty-eight MSPs across the political spectrum have signed and shown their support for the bill, and I have been very encouraged by the way that the Scottish Government has reacted to it. I know that it is neutral on the bill, which I expected—in fact, I might have expected the Government not to have gone for the bill, for the reasons that you set out in your first question. Cross-party working in the Parliament is vital at a time when there are many challenges in trying to address some of the big issues.

Yes, I accept that. It is vital that there is agreement between the Scottish Government, the teaching unions and the local authorities. As we have seen from recent events, we must ensure that people are taken with us.

We have been working on the bill for two and a half years, and we have spent a great deal of time researching how people feel about it. The 535 responses that we got to our consultation on the bill suggest that we can overcome those issues, but we must ensure that people trust in our ability to overcome them. If we do not, it will not work.

I am open to suggestions about how trust models can work. The evidence from elsewhere shows that that can vary. That is an important discussion.

When it comes to ensuring that the bill can progress, there are no two ways about it—the bottom line is funding. That has always been the case, ever since I put the bill into the parliamentary process. I want to have creative and imaginative ideas about how to do that, because it is not satisfactory for me, as an educationalist, to sit back and see some children being left behind.

Thank you, convener. It is a different experience for me to be at this end of the table.

I think that the Parliament is well aware of my considerable passion, over a long period, for the subject of residential outdoor education. I believe that, in the light of the Covid experience, we need to do even more to support our young people when it comes to providing encouragement and building confidence, leadership and resilience.

I will give some background. I introduced my bill on 20 June 2024. Prior to that, I had undertaken a consultation on the draft proposal for the bill, which received 535 responses. Ninety-five per cent of those who provided a response supported the proposal, and I am extremely grateful to all those who participated in that process.

I then lodged a final proposal for a bill, which received cross-party support from 38 MSPs—again, I am very grateful to those who supported it. I am also grateful to the Scottish Government ministers who have subsequently engaged with me on the issue. In particular, I thank the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise for their very constructive engagement. I am also extremely grateful to my staff and the staff of the outstanding NGBU, who have gone to great lengths to support me with the bill.

I believe that there is a very strong appetite for measures to be taken to ensure that all young people can be offered at least one week’s residential outdoor education.

The financial memorandum estimates that the cost of the bill’s provisions would be about £20.4 million to £33.9 million in year 1. I recognise that the upper estimate in that range is probably the most realistic one. Those calculations are in line with the figures that the Scottish Government provided to the Education, Children and Young People Committee on 3 September. The Government said that the estimated cost would range from £24.3 million to £40.6 million, and it offered a central estimate of £32.2 million. I was encouraged that we were in the same ball park.

The financial memorandum projects that the estimated cost would increase to a range of £21 million to £35.2 million in year 2, before settling back to a range of £20.4 million to £33.9 million in year 3 and beyond. The bill includes a requirement that guidance be set out, and I have proposed that that be done every five years.

In addition, I have included some suggestions about different models that could be used to help to fund residential outdoor education, based on evidence that has been collected not only from Scotland but from other jurisdictions, including Ireland. I have encouraged the Scottish Government to consider the use of a public trust model, whereby the Government would work with other partners to provide support to send young people on residential outdoor education.

Some of the evidence that was given to the Education, Children and Young People Committee on 13 November highlighted the existence of pupil equity funding for use in residential outdoor education. For example, Andrew Bradshaw of the City of Edinburgh Council indicated that 23 per cent of subsidy for pupils in that council area to attend residential outdoor education comes from PEF. Therefore, I think that there is a case for that to be looked at.

It is challenging to produce estimates for how much the bill would cost, because the raw data on the number of school pupils who currently undertake residential outdoor education is hard to find, as it is not held centrally or by local authorities. However, as was evident from last week’s evidence to the Education, Children and Young People Committee, that is not the case with the City of Edinburgh Council, which has a very good set of data on how many youngsters attend residential outdoor education in that local authority area, and, in Wales, there is extremely good knowledge of how many pupils there attend outdoor education.

I turn to the submissions that the committee has received on the financial memorandum. There are probably four categories of comments: those on funding for pupils with additional support needs, which I think is extremely important; those on funding for staffing costs; those on funding to meet other costs such as transport and ancillary costs; and those on funding to deal with the impact of inflation. If the committee will indulge me a little, I would like to say something about each of those categories.

On funding for pupils with additional support needs, I make it clear that many such pupils will already attend residential outdoor education without significant additional provision requiring to be made. However, it is important to acknowledge that a small number of pupils with extremely complex needs will require extra support. I encourage the committee to consider the evidence that was presented to the Education, Children and Young People Committee on examples of existing good practice whereby outdoor education centres place a high value on supporting young people with additional needs, including those with significant disabilities.

As is highlighted in the policy memorandum, the research that was carried out for the Calvert Trust and the Bendrigg Trust, as well as the evidence from the Outward Bound Trust and people who work at the Ardroy Outdoor Education Centre, shows how good some centres are at providing young people with additional needs with life-changing experiences. The evidence that Dr Roger Scrutton and Professor Chris Loynes gave to the Education, Children and Young People Committee two weeks ago was very powerful, because it highlighted what is being done to support youngsters with neurodiverse conditions.

In relation to funding for staffing costs, the financial memorandum acknowledges that, if the bill were passed, there would be an increase in the number of pupils who would receive outdoor education, which would result in additional staffing costs, although we should bear in mind the fact that a significant number of support staff are parent helpers and family members who currently do that work on a voluntary basis. However, it is important to recognise that the style and manner of the residential outdoor education that is undertaken will depend entirely on the school’s context. I am keen to ensure that there is as much flexibility as possible.

For example, some schools’ residential outdoor education might involve camping in or near the school grounds, while that of others will involve travelling to a more remote outdoor education centre. The former would not incur terribly much in the way of cost, but the latter probably would. It is possible that part of the increase in staffing costs that would arise from the bill would be offset by virtue of the fact that some of the other residential experiences would be provided not that far away from the school setting. Nonetheless, the projections in the financial memorandum assume travel to an outdoor centre in each case.

Ultimately, teachers’ contracts and pay and conditions, and what is required of them in respect of the provision of residential outdoor education, are matters for the tripartite negotiation between the Scottish Government, local authorities and the teaching unions. I respect that, but I also note that, among many teachers, there is strong recognition of the positive outcomes from outdoor education. Indeed, last week, the NASUWT indicated in its evidence to the Education, Children and Young People Committee that, despite having some concerns, 90 per cent of its members saw the advantage of school trips. I thought that that was very encouraging.

In relation to other costs, such as transport and ancillary costs, Shetland Islands Council provided an interesting response, which raised pertinent points about ensuring provision for pupils on islands. I agree that, in cases in which groups from islands attend residential outdoor education, costs will definitely be higher. I think that those costs are offset by lower costs for school groups on the mainland that have a shorter distance to travel. However, as I said, I think that we can probably cope with that.

In some cases, a week spent camping locally might be more appropriate and beneficial than a trip to an outdoor centre in a more remote location, but, as we know, many island communities are already running very successful residential programmes for primary and secondary pupils.

I read the concerns that were expressed about transport costs. As submissions to the committee have made clear, that will depend greatly on the geography, the mode of transport and the availability of that transport. A local residential experience that involves pupils being transported a short distance using existing school minibuses will be much cheaper than one that involves hiring a coach.

Concern was also raised about ancillary costs such as the provision of clothing for outdoor pursuits. However, evidence last week to the Education, Children and Young People Committee by the Ardroy Outdoor Education Centre and others demonstrated that that is unlikely to be a major factor, because many centres already routinely provide the necessary clothing for pupils.

Should the committee find it helpful to further consider concerns about the impact of inflation, I will be happy to provide in writing an updated table to account for inflation in years 2 and 3. I do not think that the impact is huge, and it has already been accounted for in some costs—for example, in the guidance to accompany the bill, which I based on guidance that has come forth from other parliamentary bills.

In summary, I recognise that implementing the provisions of the bill will come at a cost, and that the bill will require a financial resolution in order to proceed from stage 1. However, I strongly believe that the benefits of such an investment will be significant to young people—in particular, those with support needs, those who lack confidence, those for whom academic work in a classroom environment is a challenge, and those who struggle with mental health issues. There should also be significant societal benefits, such as better resilience, better leadership skills and an increased awareness of and care for the natural environment. There should also be long-term savings for the health and criminal justice systems.

In short, not only are the provisions of the bill positive from an education perspective; they represent preventative spend.