³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Thank you for inviting me to provide evidence. The Scottish Government’s vision is that all children and young people should have the opportunity to engage in progressive and creative outdoor learning in all its forms, regularly, as part of the curriculum. The Government values the important work that residential outdoor centres do to support our young people’s mental and physical health, confidence, team-working skills, resilience, communication skills and personal development. As members might be aware, we gave the sector considerable support during the Covid pandemic, providing £4 million in funding to ensure that it could emerge from the pandemic.

In our future vision for the school curriculum, the Government sees a key role for the residential experience as part of a broad range of outdoor learning experiences, and we see a key role for outdoor learning in the three-to-18 journey for our young people. However, as we noted in the memorandum that we submitted to the committee, although we recognise the good intentions behind the bill, we have reservations about key elements of the provisions, which will require careful scrutiny. Some of those reservations have been touched on during the committee’s earlier evidence sessions and in other respondents’ feedback to the call for views.

First, the bill has a narrow focus on only one type of outdoor learning. Although the Government values the place of the residential experience, that is as part of a range of experiences. A legislative requirement on only one aspect of that range of experiences carries the risk of imposing an assumption on the way that practitioners go about determining the best approach to suit their learners’ needs. By legislating within the curriculum, the bill risks setting a precedent that contradicts our existing approach of flexibility and autonomy for school leaders and teachers, as envisioned in the curriculum for excellence.

A further area of concern relates to affordability and the financial estimates that are associated with the provisions as they are drafted. The Scottish Government’s view is that the bill’s financial memorandum significantly underestimates the potential overall cost of delivery to the public purse. On the basis of our initial analysis, we estimate that the potential cost range for year 1 roll-out in 2025-26 is between £24.3 million and £40.6 million. The difference between our higher estimate and what is presented in the financial memorandum is that we have attempted to model staff costs in secondary schools and inflation.

There are further costs that have not been fully articulated in the financial memorandum, such as the additional costs that are associated with provision for learners with additional support needs and special schools, which I know that the committee has a strong interest in. That suggests that the real delivery costs could be even higher.

As the committee will be aware, the Government is taking a neutral position on the bill, reflecting the fact that, although we note the good intentions behind it, it is essential that the Parliament tests and explores its potential implications in some depth. I am happy to take members’ questions.

Yes.

I do believe that there is a benefit, and I am happy to speak up in that respect. When I visited the Loch Eil outdoor learning centre in Fort William, I spoke to staff and some of the children who were benefiting from the experience there, and I heard about some of the really good impacts on behaviour, the different skills being learned, the experiences that the children and young people have, and relationships with teachers. However, those kinds of positive impacts can be found across a number of outdoor learning experiences; I would not say that they are necessarily exclusive to the outdoor learning centres.

That brings us back to one of the Government’s concerns about the scope of the bill and the fact that it is quite narrow in relation to outdoor learning centres. A lot of these positive impacts can be found in wider outdoor learning experiences.

Disclosure Scotland had always proposed to deliver the act in stages. That was discussed throughout the scrutiny of the bill. It was agreed as the best approach to ensure that we could work with and equally co-deliver the changes with stakeholders. It was also agreed at the time that there was a need for a fully digitised system that would support the statutory framework, ensuring that disclosure information flows safely, securely and in a timely manner.

With that in mind, Disclosure Scotland has implemented the legislative sections iteratively. Sections 63 and 89 of the 2020 act commenced on royal assent. From the point of royal assent until now, Disclosure Scotland has been managing several large and complex projects to successfully implement the rest of the 2020 act. I will bring in officials to talk through them, but they include the replacement of the previous system and platform.

Implementation was always planned to be incremental, due to the digitisation and to ensure that people are familiar with the different changes in the stages.

I do not have the detail of how that figure has been worked out in front of me. It is certainly something that I can look at, but I am probably not able to comment specifically on that matter right now.

At the moment, the figures that I have show that 12,741 individuals are barred from regulated work with children and/or protected adults.

I think that it could. Again, I will refer to some of the visits that I have been on, whether to nursery settings that are utilising outdoor learning, to fully outdoor nurseries or to schools that are utilising outdoor learning, because that is the best evidence to draw on.

On those visits, I heard about impacts that were much the same as those that are associated with five-day residentials. I heard about the children’s increased confidence, improvements in the mental health and wellbeing of children and staff and improvements in the relationships between children and staff. I base my view on the many discussions that I have had on outdoor learning. I absolutely agree that the kind of experiences that you mention can bring similar benefits.

As I said earlier, I am positive about that residential experience. I can see the benefits of it. When I spoke with the people who were involved in those settings, they said that the trips improved their relationships. I am absolutely not talking that down in any way. However, as you suggested in your first question, the proposal has serious financial implications, and, when you see similar benefits being received by children and young people in more cost-effective ways, the committee and the Government have to consider that.

Absolutely. I do not know how the evidence was gathered or what children and young people feel. I am always about hearing from children and young people about what the impact has been and their overall view on outdoor education. I know that there is a wealth of evidence in relation to the benefits that outdoor residential centres can have. As I have tried to highlight during the meeting, I am not downplaying that at all.

Those projections are a result of on-going discussions between officials and local authorities or stakeholders. We have tried to gather as much data as possible to inform the Government’s view of the bill, because that is a very important consideration. I believe that it came up during an evidence session that the committee has written to local authorities on data requirements, and I will be very interested to see what comes back to the committee on that. Saskia Kearns has also alluded to the further work that can be done to gather data.