���˿���

The approach has to be sustainable, as I said when I gave evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee.

There are examples across Scotland of other private sector involvement in Government policy. I think that I am right in saying that HMP Addiewell, which is a private sector facility, provides a service to the Scottish Prison Service. In days gone by, we have had lots of private finance initiative commitments in which private sector money was marshalled in by the Government in partnership.

This is an interesting aspect of public finances at the moment, and it is certainly very much on the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s agenda. Scotland needs there to be a good relationship between the public and private sectors, as there is in many other countries. There is scope for ensuring that we address the question that you just asked about the importance of ensuring that the private and public sectors can work together.

Those are good questions, which have been raised by several witnesses. On provision, although a number of local authority centres, particularly outdoor education centres, have closed, the beds capacity is quite impressive. You heard from the outdoor education sector about some of the expansion that has happened—for example, we have a new centre in Aberdeenshire. From that angle, there is an expanded provision of bedspace.

SEEMiS is a system that has been used to ensure good-quality tracking of young people. There is no doubt that some outdoor education centres need an update—some of the people from the sector squarely admitted that. Those centres are looking for a regular commitment to young people’s participation, so that they know that there is a regular income.

One of the interesting things—this goes back to the question that Jackie Dunbar asked me—is that the number of pupils who are going away outwith the normal period, which tends to be spring or summer, is increasing. That is a positive reflection on what the sector has done to make itself more attractive to a wider range of pupils and by offering more diverse activities.

You made an interesting suggestion along those lines when I was giving evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee. There is merit in having a look at that opportunity. That is part of providing diversity through the additional funding that would be required. I would be happy to engage with the Scottish Government if that was where it felt that we should go.

That is a very important question. Yes, there has to be flexibility. Let us be honest—the curriculum in Scotland is flexible. I think that, in principle, the Scottish system benefits a lot from that flexibility, when compared with other systems, such as the one in a country not too far away from here, which has a much more rigorous curriculum and has run into difficulty as a result. Flexibility is important.

Local authorities and local schools will take different perspectives on what kind of education they want to facilitate. The purpose of residential outdoor education need not be to provide outdoor activities; it might be to provide outdoor learning as part of a language trip or a history trip. Such educational experiences are just as valuable as any others. That flexibility is absolutely vital.

I come back to the fact that the evidence proves that residential outdoor education benefits youngsters from the point of view of attainment, behaviour, confidence and the ability to have good relationships with not only their peers but their staff. That evidence is compelling. However, that does not take away from the flexibility angle—in fact, it enhances the flexibility angle. We talk about doing our best for every child; the ability for each child to have a different residential experience is very important.

Pam Duncan-Glancy has given some good evidence to the Parliament on additional support for learning. Last week, we saw what we still have to do to enhance the provision of additional support for learning. The evidence that has been provided by residential outdoor centres such as the one at Ardroy—some centres are now concentrating on such provision—is very compelling.

You were right to ask that question, because flexibility is an important principle.

Generally speaking—I know this from the facilities that I have visited and the evidence that has been given to the cross-party group on outdoor education and to this committee—a huge leap forward has been made in enabling young people with additional support needs to take advantage of such opportunities. I think that the committee has seen video evidence of that. The provision of residential outdoor education to such youngsters is life changing—they come back with a completely new outlook.

At the moment, we are not catering for every child with additional support needs—that can be said of education generally across Scotland—and we must do more, but what has been so important in the development and evolution of the provision is the fact that providers are very conscious of the fact that, if they are to win a gold award or to get a good inspection report, they must up their game to ensure that young people with additional needs have exactly the same opportunities as everyone else. I think that awareness has definitely improved markedly, as has provision across most—although not yet all—of the centres. It is pretty impressive that that is the case, given that it is teachers and volunteers—and, in some cases, parents of children with such needs—who have been involved in that provision.

Absolutely. That is an important question, because the worst thing that could happen would be if, because of the financial system, somewhere such as Blairvadach, which is excellent, wanted to take far more people who pay a commercial rate, rather than providing for schools and young people who are involved in the scouts or whatever it might be. It would be a worry if that happened.

The reason for the bill is to try to ensure that the centres are well used, as well as to offer an educational experience to the young people who participate. We heard from those who have given evidence that the demand level and bookings are sufficient just now and, as I mentioned, are increasing year round. That was not the case when I led outdoor education. In my day, you were stuck with April to October. That is changing, which is a good sign, because it opens up more facilities and, often, the people who come from the commercial angle do not want the same times. There is greater scope for provision, but I would worry greatly if the commercial side took over from the school side.

Yes. I actually started off with that, because I am very passionate about support for additional needs. As a teacher, rather than a politician, I have always had a passion to try to ensure that we are providing for all young people, whatever their needs, so I started with that. I spent quite a lot of time on the additional support needs aspect, because I see it as so important.

Over time, I went to visit a lot of centres. You are probably aware of Sam Rowlands, who is a member of the Welsh Senedd who was putting through a bill there, and of Tim Farron in the Westminster Parliament. We took a lot of time to talk about additional support needs in different centres across those three jurisdictions, and that flagged up for me what we have to do to ensure that there is that extra provision.

There is a question about equipment. I was very interested in what the centres were saying. At one stage, people were saying that we would have to have a huge amount of extra money just to kit out people with clothing and boots. Most of the centres have all that, but not enough for some people who have additional support needs if extra equipment is vital for them to engage in whatever activity it might be. I started with that issue, because I was determined that the bill, if it would do anything, would ensure the inclusion of a lot of young people who do not at present get the experience that I would like them to have.

That comes back to the flexibility issue that Evelyn Tweed asked about. There are now centres that hire in professional expertise for various activities, and there are schools that choose to send quite a number of school staff, sometimes alongside parents, carers and former pupils of the school who have had a good experience and who want to go back to help. There is great flexibility in that, which is how it should be. The more flexibility you have, the more people are inspired to take part; the more you set conditions and expectations of what teachers must do, the less you will find that they are willing. The reason why teachers are so keen is that they know the value not just to the youngsters but to themselves as professionals in the classroom. That is the key thing about the bill.

I thank the committee for its rigorous and important investigation into the bill. I very much appreciate the commitment that the committee has shown to taking a lot of evidence, which has been very important. I also thank the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise, who have been very constructive in their engagement. Not least, I thank the outstanding non-Government bills unit and my staff, whose commitment has been second to none, for helping me through the process.

Members know that I received 535 initial responses to my proposed bill, 95 per cent of which were very positive about its principles. Members also know that 38 members of Parliament supported the final proposal and that I gave evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee on 19 November on the cost of the bill.

In my three minutes, I want to explain to the committee why I believe that the bill is a priority. I start with building resilience in our young people or—to use the term that I think that the General Teaching Council for Scotland would use—learning for sustainability, which is part of every teacher’s professional development, these days. Particularly since Covid, it has become apparent that a lot of our children are needing extra support. They are needing to build their self-esteem, confidence and ability to relate not only to their peers but to adults in the school setting. The residential experience has been commended throughout the evidence to the committee, and in lots of other ways, and we have had tremendous feedback about it.

I want the bill, if it should pass, to be able to complement and not undermine any other aspect of outdoor learning. The reason why I am fixed on the residential aspect is the compelling evidence from teachers and pupils that residentials really are life-changing experiences, which is what it is all about. As I have said, since Covid, we must accept that an awful lot of young people in our schools are feeling pretty anxious. Given the statistics that came out last week about additional support for learning and on what is happening in our schools, we must accept that a lot of people need extra support. That really is the most important reason.

On top of that, teachers are telling us that their relationship with young people who have been on residentials changes for the better. We get the same evidence from parents and children. The evidence that I have heard throughout not only my professional career as a teacher but my parliamentarian role has absolutely convinced me of the value of residential outdoor education.

The second reason relates to what has been happening in relatively recent times, which the committee has taken evidence on. Lots of really good things are happening in the current system, but it is not working sufficiently well to incorporate all young people, and we need to build on the Scottish Government’s vision from 2010.

The bill is underpinned by inclusion. One thing that I want to do, which is very much in line with Government policy, is to include all young people. As we worked on the bill, we found that there is a tremendous lack of data, which the Government has acknowledged. There is a bit of a postcode lottery as regards who is able to go on residential experiences, and we have to try to change that, particularly as the John Muir award, which was so successful, has been paused. The last thing that we want to get into is the situation that we had in the 1970s and 1980s, when local authorities lost their dedicated teachers of outdoor education. I would not like to think that we will end up with that circumstance.

The committee is well aware of the evidence that has been provided by the Outward Bound Trust. It said:

“The global study across eight countries, including the UK, revealed that for every £1 invested in Outward Bound programmes, there is a return of between £5 and £15 in societal value.”

That is a compelling statistic. Money that is spent in that way represents a healthy long-term investment in our young people and in society in general. That is also in line with Government policy and with what I would like to see young people achieve through the bill.

Well, it is not for profit making; it is different from a charitable model of trust. It is a not-for-profit-making model, which is quite different from the charitable model, where profits can be made on that basis.