Seòmar agus comataidhean

In our evidence session with the activity centres, we could see that they have an infectious enthusiasm for what they do, and the testimonials that they have provided to us show that it has a huge impact not just on the students themselves, but on the teachers who accompany them. Do you agree that it has not just a benefit for the period in which the young people are in the outdoor education setting, but a positive impact on their school career, too?

In its submission, the Outward Bound Trust talked about the “social return on investment”, saying that

“for every £1 invested in Outward Bound programmes, there is a return of between £5 and £15”.

Would you agree with and support that figure?

Right now, sitting here in front of the committee, do you not know whether there will be an extra 10 people, 100 people, 1,000 people or tens of thousands of people?

I call Evelyn Tweed.

But you are not so far apart from each other that you are saying that “These figures are definitely wrong and ours are right”, or vice versa. You are in the same ballpark.

I have some questions about finance, but, following your answer to Evelyn Tweed, I note that, in the conclusion of your memorandum on the bill, you say in paragraph 13 that

“The Scottish Government is committed to improving outdoor learning provision in Scotland”.

What price tag have you put on your improvements to outdoor education or learning in Scotland?

But in your response to the bill, you make it very clear at the top of your conclusion that you as a Government are

“committed to improving outdoor learning provision in Scotland”.

Are you saying that that will be cost neutral, or are you saying that there will be a cost, but you do not have it in front of you? What is the range of costs? Is it similar to what the member in charge has talked about? Are the costs a lot less, or are they potentially more?

However, it might be higher. You have not provided anything to the committee to suggest that the cost will be very low. To make such improvements, you as a Government might have to take on board some—or, indeed, the whole—of Ms Smith’s bill. That might be part of it, but there will be a cost. If you, as a Government, want to improve things, money will have to be attached to that in what we all accept are tight financial circumstances—just to follow on again from your response to Evelyn Tweed. Money will be spent in this area by the Government; whether it be on Liz Smith’s bill, your proposals or otherwise, you are committed to spending more on this matter.

When the member in charge was before the Finance and Public Administration Committee last week for its consideration of the bill’s financial memorandum, there was a discussion about third sector funding and potential private investment. In response to earlier questions, you alluded to a discussion that you had had with the member on that. What is your response to her proposals? Moreover, how much of this has been discussed wider within Government? Obviously, you will be the minister in charge if the bill goes any further, but that form of additional funding, which does not rely solely on the Government, will be of interest to the finance secretary, the economy secretary and a number of other Cabinet secretaries. How much discussion has there been in Government of that?

If the concern is about the significant cost of the bill—although I do not believe that it is significant, given what it would do—and that the top-line figure is too high, the capital funding, which Mr Mason has raised with witnesses, could be a big chunk that is taken away. The Government could fund the statutory obligations in the bill and allow the capital to be funded by other means, through the private sector, the third sector and so on. The two approaches could work in tandem.