³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Mr Mason raises an important point about providing children and young people with choice and flexibility with regard to the experience that they want to have, and I acknowledge Mr Mason’s point that children from rural areas might have had more outdoor experiences than those from more urban areas.

The issue of how that would be addressed by the bill is something that has come up in my discussions with Ms Smith. I know that she recognised in her evidence that residentials are not necessarily for everyone. If there were ways to work with Ms Smith on that or, depending on the outcome of the current stage, amend the bill in those ways, it would be important to do so.

I accept the evidence around the positive impacts of the residential experience. I do not know whether that evidence can be directly compared with, for example, outdoor nurseries. From my experience, I think that a child’s experience of being outside, planting plants and flowers, digging holes and all the rest of it, can have real benefits over a sustained period, even if it is one hour a day for two months. That is what I have heard from those with first-hand evidence, and that is what I am speaking to today. I am not comparing the two approaches; I am saying that there are clear benefits from both.

Our position is neutral on the bill. We are looking to the committee’s scrutiny to direct where we go following that.

That is an important point. The Scottish Government’s vision is to ensure that all children and young people can have equal access to positive and creative outdoor learning experiences.

Again, one problem with the financial memorandum is that costs for children with additional support needs are not factored in. At the moment, we do not necessarily know how well outdoor centres are equipped to support children with additional support needs, and we do not know the full extent of what would be required. That is a key consideration in relation to Ms Dunbar’s point about ensuring that all children have access to residential outdoor education. I would invite the new strategic working group to take those considerations into account. That will be important in its work.

On the member’s point, I would emphasise that there is a risk in that regard. It is important that all children and young people could benefit from this provision, if the measures were implemented.

As we spoke about earlier, outdoor learning centres might not be what is best for all children and young people with additional support needs. It is about having choice and it is about equity.

Again, I highlight the concerns that I have about the financial memorandum not factoring in children with additional support needs. As I said, in previous evidence sessions, issues around capacity have been raised, as has the need for adaptations. Those are very important issues going forward.

I am sorry, Mr Rennie; I am not directly linked to the evaluation framework for the learning for sustainability plan, but I am, of course, happy to provide the committee with that information at a later date.

It would provide consistency in the outdoor learning centre experience; it would not provide consistency in the wider, day-to-day outdoor education experiences that we would like to see.

That is really important. I want all children and young people to benefit from outdoor learning. There is evidence that children from a lower socioeconomic background can benefit from outdoor learning experiences, so we should continue to drive that forward where possible.

As the member is aware, statutory responsibility for the delivery of school education, including school trips, rests with local authorities and individual schools. They can utilise a range of funding sources for that delivery and they are best placed to determine what their children and young people require.

I can see the member making a face.

The Scottish Government has invested up to £1 billion in the Scottish attainment challenge this parliamentary term to tackle the poverty-related attainment gap. We have also invested £520 million in the pupil equity fund, which, as the committee will be aware, goes directly to schools to support children and young people from lower-income families. I know that schools have utilised that funding to provide children and young people with outdoor experiences, if they felt that that was the best place for that funding. I trust our local authorities and school leaders to decide what is best for their learners.

I also touch on the work of the new strategic working group that was set up this year. The group is taking forward a number of different workstreams in relation to outdoor learning. One of the issues that it will be looking at is inclusivity and providing equity for all pupils to access outdoor experiences. There has been work to date, but we can go further. I know that because I go out on many visits and see how nurseries and schools are embedding outdoor learning—I have witnessed some fantastic examples of it. However, we need to drive that consistency further.

No, I do not think that it is the be-all and end-all. I have been clear in my discussions with Liz Smith that I am open—in fact, I am very keen—to explore non-legislative routes, for example around the professional learning that is available to education practitioners.

I have spoken about the public trust model that Ms Smith has proposed, and members might have a question on that. Although I do not necessarily believe that such a model would be the best idea for putting something in statute, there are options, for example, to gain capital funding to improve the estate.

There are a number of non-legislative options that we could take, so I do not believe that the bill is necessarily the be-all and end-all. I have laid out a number of things that we are doing or that we could do, depending on the outcome of the bill process.

Outdoor learning is a priority because it has massive benefits. However, as I have outlined, the scope of the bill covers that one week of outdoor residential experience and that is not necessarily the priority. The benefits of that are clear to see, but that is for members to decide and it will form part of your scrutiny.

I have been clear about the financial implications of the bill and the difficult position that the Government is in. That money could be directed to other areas while still driving improvement to widen access to outdoor learning across Scotland. As I said, a number of on-going workstreams will continue and I am open to trying to push that even further or seeing what we can do to open up that learning further. I have been quite clear about the Government’s position on the financial implications of the bill and the cost of implementing it.