Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes. However, in his evidence to the Education, Children and Young People Committee in the first evidence-taking session, Mr Mannion made it clear that some close-to-home experiences that were provided near schools did not cost terribly much and gave as much educational benefit as a residential experience would.

Therefore, we have to see this in the broadest sense. The bill is not about trying to replace other educational experiences; the experiences for which it provides will be complementary to those experiences. Lots of really good things are happening on school campuses and in the world of outdoor learning—as the Scottish Government has promoted it—and the bill should not displace that sort of thing.

As for whether the ability of parents to pay for outdoor education experiences will have an effect on the choices that a school might make, it might do in some circumstances. The bigger issue is transport, because that is where the cost lies. The point was put to me originally that parents cannot afford the kit, the boots and all the things that are needed for outdoor education, but I was really pleased to hear last week that the centres are largely providing those things now. That is a big change from my day when we had outdoor education, when that really was something that stopped people going. These days, a pair of boots, a decent cagoule and so on are very expensive—it costs a good few hundred pounds to get a child kitted out to do such activities—and the fact that centres are now providing that equipment is a big step forward.

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.

The Welsh bill did not pass, but that was by one vote, which was because somebody was not there to vote—it was a very close-run thing. Sam Rowlands, the Welsh member who promoted the bill, came up here quite a lot and we had a lot of conversations. I followed the bill in the Senedd carefully. Although it was defeated by one vote, the Welsh Government went back to Sam Rowlands and said, “We don’t want this whole thing to completely collapse. We’re very keen to have outdoor education as one of the basic offerings in Welsh schools.” As I mentioned, the information that is available in Wales is much better than what is available in Scotland, so I think that that bill will come back.

As you know, Tim Farron had a similar bill, before the general election closed it down, and he has been doing the same thing in England. He comes from the Lake District area, so that is where he gets a lot of his information. When it comes to supporting our young people these days, this kind of thing is even more important than it was in the past. So, yes, I think that the proposal will come back in Wales.

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 that helps, including the experiences that we have heard about from young people about how it has transformed lives. That includes many who have considerable disabilities and additional support needs, and it 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.

No, but I would have thought—this is certainly my experience of young teachers—that if they see existing staff participating and having a really beneficial time, and youngsters under their care having a beneficial time, too, they will want to participate as well.

The issue of teacher contracts is important, and we have to accept that what the unions are saying to us in that respect is very important. However, I do not want to feel that this kind of educational experience will put off teachers and that they will just walk away. I would have to explore further with the unions their comments about why that might be happen.

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.

I am sure that that will come out in the budget. I think that you know my own views and I have said in response to recent budgets that there are things that we would not do quite so much of, because of other priorities.

Teachers really matter. They can inspire our young people and they work alongside parents. Preventative spending to give young people better opportunities is a no-brainer.

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