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.

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.

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.

A lot of employers are keen to develop our young people’s skills and some would like a model of trust funding for this kind of outdoor activity—it does not have to be outdoor education; it could be other things. Help could be given to our outdoor centres to provide quality provision through additional funding that employers could make available. Some centres have benefited from being able to upgrade some of their facilities.

There is a new outdoor education centre up in Aberdeenshire, and a lady from there gave evidence not to the Education, Children and Young People Committee but to the cross-party group on outdoor education. She told an inspiring story about the funding for that centre. When outdoor education centres do creative and imaginative things, funding can be found, but you are quite right that we must ensure that that can happen not just in a few cases but across the system.

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.

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—

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.