³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Absolutely. You have done so much to debate funding for music tuition, which has been a major issue—you understand that it is not a party-political issue. The more that we can get cross-party agreement on that kind of thing, the better. My bill, too, is not about party-political issues. I did not lodge the bill because I am a Conservative; I did it because, as an educationalist, I genuinely believe that it is the right thing to do.

Thirty-eight ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ across the political spectrum have signed and shown their support for the bill, and I have been very encouraged by the way that the Scottish Government has reacted to it. I know that it is neutral on the bill, which I expected—in fact, I might have expected the Government not to have gone for the bill, for the reasons that you set out in your first question. Cross-party working in the Parliament is vital at a time when there are many challenges in trying to address some of the big issues.

Yes, I accept that. It is vital that there is agreement between the Scottish Government, the teaching unions and the local authorities. As we have seen from recent events, we must ensure that people are taken with us.

We have been working on the bill for two and a half years, and we have spent a great deal of time researching how people feel about it. The 535 responses that we got to our consultation on the bill suggest that we can overcome those issues, but we must ensure that people trust in our ability to overcome them. If we do not, it will not work.

I am open to suggestions about how trust models can work. The evidence from elsewhere shows that that can vary. That is an important discussion.

When it comes to ensuring that the bill can progress, there are no two ways about it—the bottom line is funding. That has always been the case, ever since I put the bill into the parliamentary process. I want to have creative and imaginative ideas about how to do that, because it is not satisfactory for me, as an educationalist, to sit back and see some children being left behind.

Thank you, convener. It is a different experience for me to be at this end of the table.

I think that the Parliament is well aware of my considerable passion, over a long period, for the subject of residential outdoor education. I believe that, in the light of the Covid experience, we need to do even more to support our young people when it comes to providing encouragement and building confidence, leadership and resilience.

I will give some background. I introduced my bill on 20 June 2024. Prior to that, I had undertaken a consultation on the draft proposal for the bill, which received 535 responses. Ninety-five per cent of those who provided a response supported the proposal, and I am extremely grateful to all those who participated in that process.

I then lodged a final proposal for a bill, which received cross-party support from 38 ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ—again, I am very grateful to those who supported it. I am also grateful to the Scottish Government ministers who have subsequently engaged with me on the issue. In particular, I thank the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise for their very constructive engagement. I am also extremely grateful to my staff and the staff of the outstanding NGBU, who have gone to great lengths to support me with the bill.

I believe that there is a very strong appetite for measures to be taken to ensure that all young people can be offered at least one week’s residential outdoor education.

The financial memorandum estimates that the cost of the bill’s provisions would be about £20.4 million to £33.9 million in year 1. I recognise that the upper estimate in that range is probably the most realistic one. Those calculations are in line with the figures that the Scottish Government provided to the Education, Children and Young People Committee on 3 September. The Government said that the estimated cost would range from £24.3 million to £40.6 million, and it offered a central estimate of £32.2 million. I was encouraged that we were in the same ball park.

The financial memorandum projects that the estimated cost would increase to a range of £21 million to £35.2 million in year 2, before settling back to a range of £20.4 million to £33.9 million in year 3 and beyond. The bill includes a requirement that guidance be set out, and I have proposed that that be done every five years.

In addition, I have included some suggestions about different models that could be used to help to fund residential outdoor education, based on evidence that has been collected not only from Scotland but from other jurisdictions, including Ireland. I have encouraged the Scottish Government to consider the use of a public trust model, whereby the Government would work with other partners to provide support to send young people on residential outdoor education.

Some of the evidence that was given to the Education, Children and Young People Committee on 13 November highlighted the existence of pupil equity funding for use in residential outdoor education. For example, Andrew Bradshaw of the City of Edinburgh Council indicated that 23 per cent of subsidy for pupils in that council area to attend residential outdoor education comes from PEF. Therefore, I think that there is a case for that to be looked at.

It is challenging to produce estimates for how much the bill would cost, because the raw data on the number of school pupils who currently undertake residential outdoor education is hard to find, as it is not held centrally or by local authorities. However, as was evident from last week’s evidence to the Education, Children and Young People Committee, that is not the case with the City of Edinburgh Council, which has a very good set of data on how many youngsters attend residential outdoor education in that local authority area, and, in Wales, there is extremely good knowledge of how many pupils there attend outdoor education.

I turn to the submissions that the committee has received on the financial memorandum. There are probably four categories of comments: those on funding for pupils with additional support needs, which I think is extremely important; those on funding for staffing costs; those on funding to meet other costs such as transport and ancillary costs; and those on funding to deal with the impact of inflation. If the committee will indulge me a little, I would like to say something about each of those categories.

On funding for pupils with additional support needs, I make it clear that many such pupils will already attend residential outdoor education without significant additional provision requiring to be made. However, it is important to acknowledge that a small number of pupils with extremely complex needs will require extra support. I encourage the committee to consider the evidence that was presented to the Education, Children and Young People Committee on examples of existing good practice whereby outdoor education centres place a high value on supporting young people with additional needs, including those with significant disabilities.

As is highlighted in the policy memorandum, the research that was carried out for the Calvert Trust and the Bendrigg Trust, as well as the evidence from the Outward Bound Trust and people who work at the Ardroy Outdoor Education Centre, shows how good some centres are at providing young people with additional needs with life-changing experiences. The evidence that Dr Roger Scrutton and Professor Chris Loynes gave to the Education, Children and Young People Committee two weeks ago was very powerful, because it highlighted what is being done to support youngsters with neurodiverse conditions.

In relation to funding for staffing costs, the financial memorandum acknowledges that, if the bill were passed, there would be an increase in the number of pupils who would receive outdoor education, which would result in additional staffing costs, although we should bear in mind the fact that a significant number of support staff are parent helpers and family members who currently do that work on a voluntary basis. However, it is important to recognise that the style and manner of the residential outdoor education that is undertaken will depend entirely on the school’s context. I am keen to ensure that there is as much flexibility as possible.

For example, some schools’ residential outdoor education might involve camping in or near the school grounds, while that of others will involve travelling to a more remote outdoor education centre. The former would not incur terribly much in the way of cost, but the latter probably would. It is possible that part of the increase in staffing costs that would arise from the bill would be offset by virtue of the fact that some of the other residential experiences would be provided not that far away from the school setting. Nonetheless, the projections in the financial memorandum assume travel to an outdoor centre in each case.

Ultimately, teachers’ contracts and pay and conditions, and what is required of them in respect of the provision of residential outdoor education, are matters for the tripartite negotiation between the Scottish Government, local authorities and the teaching unions. I respect that, but I also note that, among many teachers, there is strong recognition of the positive outcomes from outdoor education. Indeed, last week, the NASUWT indicated in its evidence to the Education, Children and Young People Committee that, despite having some concerns, 90 per cent of its members saw the advantage of school trips. I thought that that was very encouraging.

In relation to other costs, such as transport and ancillary costs, Shetland Islands Council provided an interesting response, which raised pertinent points about ensuring provision for pupils on islands. I agree that, in cases in which groups from islands attend residential outdoor education, costs will definitely be higher. I think that those costs are offset by lower costs for school groups on the mainland that have a shorter distance to travel. However, as I said, I think that we can probably cope with that.

In some cases, a week spent camping locally might be more appropriate and beneficial than a trip to an outdoor centre in a more remote location, but, as we know, many island communities are already running very successful residential programmes for primary and secondary pupils.

I read the concerns that were expressed about transport costs. As submissions to the committee have made clear, that will depend greatly on the geography, the mode of transport and the availability of that transport. A local residential experience that involves pupils being transported a short distance using existing school minibuses will be much cheaper than one that involves hiring a coach.

Concern was also raised about ancillary costs such as the provision of clothing for outdoor pursuits. However, evidence last week to the Education, Children and Young People Committee by the Ardroy Outdoor Education Centre and others demonstrated that that is unlikely to be a major factor, because many centres already routinely provide the necessary clothing for pupils.

Should the committee find it helpful to further consider concerns about the impact of inflation, I will be happy to provide in writing an updated table to account for inflation in years 2 and 3. I do not think that the impact is huge, and it has already been accounted for in some costs—for example, in the guidance to accompany the bill, which I based on guidance that has come forth from other parliamentary bills.

In summary, I recognise that implementing the provisions of the bill will come at a cost, and that the bill will require a financial resolution in order to proceed from stage 1. However, I strongly believe that the benefits of such an investment will be significant to young people—in particular, those with support needs, those who lack confidence, those for whom academic work in a classroom environment is a challenge, and those who struggle with mental health issues. There should also be significant societal benefits, such as better resilience, better leadership skills and an increased awareness of and care for the natural environment. There should also be long-term savings for the health and criminal justice systems.

In short, not only are the provisions of the bill positive from an education perspective; they represent preventative spend.

Yes, I do.

Nonetheless, you will be aware that, from time to time, the committee has made the point that, in order to measure the effectiveness of the delivery of a specific policy, it is helpful to understand the rationale behind the decision to move money around. Do you think that the Scottish Government is getting better at increasing transparency in that regard? Some of the answers to Mr Marra’s questions suggested that there is a bit of a cloud over why decisions have been made and on what basis it has been decided that such a repurposing of spend will help the priorities of the Scottish Government, which is what Michelle Thomson was referring to.

The demand-led scenario in something such as social security is a big, moving feast, however.

To go back to Michelle Thomson’s point about the priorities that the Scottish Government has set out, how easy is it to reflect what the spending priorities are in relation to those policy commitments? I think that the committee would like to be able to understand that a bit better and to see the evidence about why specific choices have been made and how effective they have been in delivering those commitments.

I go back to, for example, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s September report, which, as you know, was very supportive of actions to reduce child poverty but made a specific point that the evidence to show how successful that policy had been was pretty thin. In order to ensure the committee’s overseeing the best possible spending of public money—and the probity that goes with it—the more transparency we can get, the more helpful it is.

Does the £12 million all relate to staffing costs, or does it include a set-up cost as well? It seems quite a high figure.

I really want to ask about the transparency angle. Ms Hughes helpfully told us that a lot of work has been done to improve transparency through things such as better comparators.

Mr Maidment will remember a discussion that we had in the equivalent meeting at this time last year, when there was a bit of back and forth about whether the £31 million that was taken out of the rural affairs budget was ring fenced or not. If my memory serves me correctly, I think that Mr Maidment said that £14 million of that £31 million was ring fenced, but we had a bit of a debate about what ring fencing was taking place and what was being repurposed in other areas of the budget.

Are we any clearer about the decision making that goes on in relation to what is ring fenced and what is not? In relation to Michelle Thomson’s questions, it would help our understanding of transparency if we could get a bit more detail on the reasons—the rationale—behind the Scottish Government’s decisions to repurpose spending or to ensure that it is ring fenced, especially if it has been taken out of a particular budget and is supposed to be put back.

When it comes to the public’s understanding of why Government makes a choice about what the money that they pay in tax will be used for and, more important, on what basis such decisions are made, it is an important principle that we should ensure that there is greater transparency for the public so that they can understand on what basis a specific decision has been made.

I cannot speak for the committee, but I think that we sometimes feel that it is not very easy for the committee to understand why a specific policy was put in place, given the other possible choices that could have been made. I would like to hear your thoughts on what we can do to improve that situation.