���˿���

That is true, but it is difficult to be precise, because the nature of residential outdoor education is that it is such a diverse opportunity. There is a range in the outdoor education visits that staff go on at the moment in terms of the length of time that they are for, where they are to and how many pupils go each time, and there is a cost in all of that. In some cases, we might be talking about groups of up to 40 pupils; in others, there might be only 14 to 20 pupils.

It is difficult to drill down into the exact number, but it could be around 20 per cent. I think that the figure is difficult to calculate, and the Scottish Government thinks that, too—I know that from the discussions that I have had with it. It is hard to bring together all the diversities, but your point is an important one. We set the range that we set because we thought that that was the most realistic one, and I think that the Scottish Government agreed with us on that.

You are correct in your interpretation of the evidence that the Education, Children and Young People Committee has heard. Some centres are on the brink because of the capital problem. We must ensure that there is greater demand, which would increase support for the centres and the income that they can take in. You are also correct that some centres that have been under pressure have managed to become sustainable because of various charitable trust funds, but some have not. We have to be mindful that some centres are on the brink. It will be interesting to get more of a breakdown on that position, which will come back in the response to the letter that the Education, Children and Young People Committee has sent to the outdoor education centres.

Identifying savings through preventative spend is inevitably extremely difficult. We have heard many witnesses tell the Finance and Public Administration Committee that it is difficult to put a financial sum on that. However, there is some qualitative evidence on how it has transformed lives that helps, including the experiences that we have heard about from young people—including many who have considerable disabilities and additional support needs. Such evidence is pretty compelling.

It is also pretty compelling to hear from their parents and from the teachers in their schools, who feel that the young people are much better able to work from an academic angle when they get back. There is also compelling international evidence that the preventative benefits of spend on outdoor education are considerable.

It is difficult to put precise figures on that for Scotland, but I am convinced that, if youngsters have greater inspiration and are more able to engage in their education because of something like this, they will grow into exactly what the curriculum for excellence wants them to be in its four principles, such as responsible citizens and all the other stuff that is in the curriculum for excellence.

The unaffordability aspect is important. If we can find additional models that provide extra funding, that will reduce concerns about the bill, although I do not think that anybody is opposed to the bill. That is important, and I have taken it upon myself to be proactive in recognising that there are, of course, issues that put pressure on local government finances.

I was struck last week when Willie Rennie rightly asked the Education, Children and Young People Committee whether residential outdoor education is a priority. That is a good question, because we have issues with teacher numbers, additional support for learning and reading and writing. There are all sorts of pressures in education just now, so is it a priority? My argument is that it is, because the benefits that we get from such education are so demonstrably powerful that we should be doing it.

That begs the question of how we can allay the concerns that the Scottish Government has put to me, and I am working with the Government on that just now. A big part of that work is about the ability to provide additional sources of income.

The bill includes a proposal for a five-yearly review. That was based on a lot of evidence of similar parliamentary reviews. Should that be done on an annual basis? Perhaps. That is more a matter for how Government and the local authorities would see that. If that were to be a specific request of the teaching unions, I would be open to it. Equally, should the general principles of the bill be agreed to at stage 1, I would be open to various suggestions about how we could amend and improve it.

That is not my experience at all; in fact, it is quite the reverse. A lot of people would like to get involved in this kind of thing, because—I cannot say this often enough—outdoor education is about providing skills for our young people and building their resilience. A lot of trusts support young people, many of whom are from disadvantaged communities. That is absolutely right and proper, and it is what we have to do through the bill.

I am determined that the bill be inclusive and that we ensure that a lot of youngsters who do not currently get the opportunity to participate in outdoor education get that opportunity. Trust funds and philanthropists are keen to do that, because they know that, whether in relation to the economy or to society, it is in everybody’s interests to provide young people with the skills and the attitude that we need in modern Scotland.

No, I do not think so. The evidence that was provided by outdoor education centres last week and to the cross-party group shows that more centres in Scotland are doing a phenomenal job with additional support for learning pupils, some of whom have very considerable disabilities. There are some very moving stories. Those do not relate to the financial memorandum, but I think that the Education, Children and Young People Committee will be interested in them.

Scotland is much more aware of its responsibilities to cater for additional support for learning pupils, and that is articulated through the principles behind curriculum for excellence. The Ardroy Outdoor Education Centre and the Outward Bound Trust have done a huge amount to ensure that those youngsters get a really good and positive experience. In Scotland, the level of care for, as well as the number of, young people with serious disabilities or very specialist needs is increasing, and so is the provision for them. Everybody recognises that, to be properly inclusive, we have to ensure that those youngsters get such opportunities.

There is a discussion to be had about that very sensible question, which you also raised at the Education, Children and Young People Committee. It is true that some parents make a considerable commitment. Successful fundraising programmes in schools also provide quite a lot of extra money. There is considerable enthusiasm about that, because undertaking such fundraising is a real-life learning experience. You are on to something important.

I think that there is some scope for variability in how outdoor education is funded. Quite a lot of parents can well afford to cover the cost with no trouble at all, but a lot of parents cannot, and I am concerned about the parents who cannot afford it, because their children lose out.

We could not rely on it completely, of course, because there is not enough to do what we want to do. However, it is interesting that, in many cases, the choices that are being made in schools are such that the existing PEF money is being directed into outdoor education. It would be helpful to supplement that with the creative and imaginative ideas that have worked in other jurisdictions. You asked whether money should be ring fenced, and my answer is, “Possibly.” However, we can persuade the Scottish Government that there are imaginative ways to pursue a range of funding options.

Teacher numbers are vitally important, particularly in the area of additional support for learning, where we do not have enough teachers. I would make a plea for priority spending in that area. There are other areas that I, in common with other Conservatives, would see as less of a spending priority.