Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thanks very much.

I would like to see the report before it goes.

On the same theme, everybody whom we have heard from, including you, has said that they are enthusiastic about the idea of outdoor education. However, there were some differences within that. For example, the Association of Headteachers and Deputes in Scotland said in its consultation response that

“if £34m became available to school education, AHDS would argue for every penny to be spent on better supporting pupils with additional support needs.”

Other members will ask you about the details of the costs. On the question of priority, some people argue that outdoor learning is a good thing but that it is not the priority and that you might put the money into additional teachers for schools, expanding childcare, free school meals, free music tuition or a lot of other things. How would you respond to them? Do you see it as the priority? If you have £34 million spare—I do not know whether you have it; maybe you can tell us—would it be the priority?

Convener, you have made quite a deal of the numbers and some of the other issues. Those aspects are worth raising, but I am not convinced that they are major issues. My experience of Disclosure Scotland’s PVG scheme, and of other schemes, is that a bit of paperwork is involved, but it is not a huge thing. If you are planning the report to be very critical, I would have problems with that and I would like to see it before it is approved.

It has been argued that a residential trip adds something more—seeing the teacher in their pyjamas adds something, compared with just everyone being in the forest for a couple of hours.

So, even though that was a few years ago, you do not think that there is any reason to have a consultation.

The parents who can afford it already spend quite a lot of money on children going on residential courses. Plus, schools do fundraising, which is seen as beneficial in some schools. If Liz Smith’s bill went ahead, those people would not have to give that money. Might a compromise be that the Government could create a pot to top up what is already being raised? A lot of money is raised by parents and schools. That would not need the bill, so I realise that it is a little bit off the subject, but is that a possible compromise?

Could the same benefit be achieved at a lower cost, perhaps by doing things more locally, rather than specifically having the five-day residential?

We heard evidence that some children do not want to do a lot of outdoor stuff and would rather visit a first world war battlefield with their history teacher or something like that. We also heard that children from some of the islands, who probably have a huge outdoor experience already, would rather come to Glasgow and visit museums or football grounds. Do you think that that would all fit into the bill as it stands—obviously, it could be amended—or would the bill exclude that?

Some of my questions have been covered, so I have just one left. I note that consultation has not been carried out specifically on the regulations. Is that because there was enough consultation previously around the 2020 act?