Official Report 1044KB pdf
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-18576, in the name of Liz Smith, on celebrating residential outdoor education for young people. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises what it sees as the outstanding contribution of Scotland’s residential outdoor education centres, including PGL Dalguise in the Mid Scotland and Fife region, in developing key life skills for young people, including confidence, independence, teamwork and resilience; considers that the will of the Parliament has been expressed on the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill, with a majority of MSPs, including those representing all political parties, agreeing to the general principles at stage 1 on 27 March 2025; notes that the Scottish Government must lodge a financial resolution by 26 September 2025 or the Bill falls; further notes that the Member in Charge of the Bill has produced a series of policy proposals and associated costings for consideration by the Scottish Government that, it believes, would mean the Bill would cost significantly less; understands that the Scottish Government is yet to provide a view on any of these policy proposals and that it is yet to identify at what level of cost it considers the Bill would become “affordable” to enable a financial resolution to be lodged; further understands that the Scottish Government has not produced financial modelling with associated draft amendments on any proposals on affordability despite what it considers a commitment from the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise when appearing before the Education, Children and Young People Committee to share draft amendments with the Member in Charge by the start of July 2025; notes the calls by members from all political parties, the outdoor education sector, and children and young people from across Scotland for the Bill to proceed to stage 2 for further scrutiny, and further notes the associated calls for a financial resolution to be lodged.
17:25
I begin by thanking all those in the outdoor education sector for their outstanding commitment to our young people and for their unrelenting support throughout the passage of the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill to date. In particular, I thank Nick March, Martin Davidson and Phil Thompson, who have been with me on this journey for three years.
I start with PGL Dalguise in my region. In a particularly busy summer recess during which I visited several of our outdoor centres, I found that the focus was very much on inclusion and on the delivery of quality services for all our young people, including those with disability. While I was there, I saw remarkable outdoor climbing facilities and improvements across the board in accommodation for those with additional support needs. The same was true at the wonderful new facilities at Loch Eil. Indeed, everywhere that I went, I found that there was the strongest possible desire to support young people, who would not otherwise get the opportunity for such an experience should those facilities not be there.
I want to make it abundantly clear why I am so frustrated by the Scottish Government’s persistent intransigence on residential outdoor education and why I felt compelled to lodge the motion for debate.
First, the Scottish National Party’s 2021 manifesto, similarly to those of the other parties, said:
“Learning outside the classroom is an essential part of education. Children should not miss out simply because their parents cannot afford the cost. We will support schools to provide inclusive trips and activities for all and ensure consistent practice across Scotland. And going forward we will ensure that less-well off families do not face costs for curriculum related trips and activities and that all pupils are able to attend ‘rite of passage’ trips, such as P7 residentials.”
That is in the SNP’s manifesto.
Secondly, there is a growing and overwhelming body of evidence from young people themselves about the benefits of residential outdoor education. Those views have been rehearsed many times in the chamber and at the Education, Children and Young People Committee, and they are cited in the many letters from young people to MSPs; they relate especially to improving attainment at school, attendance levels, behaviour and mental welfare. Where on earth, then, is the logic of not pursuing the bill, at a time when many schools are suffering from weak attainment and attendance levels, poor behaviour and a deterioration in pupils’ mental wellbeing?
Will the member take an intervention?
I will, in a minute.
Thirdly, given that the bill had been passed at stage 1, the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise made commitments on the record at the Education, Children and Young People Committee that she would—like me—lodge suggested amendments at stage 2, and that she would bring forward what the Scottish Government saw as an affordable bill. None of that has happened, which is why the minister has been recalled to the committee tomorrow.
Fourthly, if the minister were to allow the bill to fall, it would be the only time in the history of the Scottish Parliament when a bill had passed at stage 1, but the Government of the day sought to undermine the will of Parliament by refusing to lodge a financial resolution. I ask not just the minister but the Parliament to reflect on that, because—to be frank—it is undemocratic.
Will the member give way?
Yes, I will.
In a very articulate opening to her speech, does Liz Smith not capture, in a nutshell, the essential point here: that the Scottish Government is undermining the will of the Parliament?
Yes, absolutely. The bill passed comfortably at stage 1, with members—including several SNP members—wanting it to progress to stage 2 so that the technical details could be further pursued.
Again, I thank colleagues across the chamber, whether they are in the SNP, the Greens, the Labour Party, the Conservatives—like those of us on this side of the chamber tonight—or the Liberal Democrats. I thank individuals such as Pam Duncan-Glancy, Martin Whitfield, Ross Greer, Fergus Ewing, Willie Rennie and Jamie Greene, and several other members, along with the Education, Children and Young People Committee and its convener, Douglas Ross.
Will the member give way?
Yes, I will.
Would the member accept that the key problem here is finance? She wants to make outdoor residential education a universal benefit, which would cost somewhere in the region of £30 million. That is the problem. If the provision in the bill was targeted, there might be more support for it.
Mr Mason, if you have been reading the submissions to the Education, Children and Young People Committee—
Through the chair, please, Ms Smith.
Perhaps the member will be able to see from those submissions that I have reduced the cost of the bill quite substantially and ensured that it is a targeted in a way that I think would benefit those who are most in need.
In case the minister is in any doubt about this at all, I stress that the idea that the stage 1 vote reflected agreement among members across the chamber to implement some kind of non-statutory or pilot measure is incorrect. Members understood that other, non-statutory policy initiatives in the past have not worked—as Willie Rennie quite rightly, and articulately, pointed out in committee evidence, they have not been working for a long time.
I need not remind members of my view that, if the Scottish Government does not act now to enable legislation on something that is proven to have such a positive impact on so many youngsters, that is tantamount to failing them.
The United Kingdom Government, on the other hand, understands the urgency. That was exemplified in August by the Prime Minister’s unveiling of an £88 million investment for high-quality extracurricular activity, including outdoor education, to rebuild confidence and reconnect young people with the world around them. Young Scots must not be left behind because of inaction from the Scottish Government.
During our meetings, the minister asked me to present ways in which the cost of the bill could be reduced before a resolution would be considered. I did so, and—as I have explained—I made targeted adjustments, in particular around age groups and additional support needs. By refining the cost estimates and focusing support on primary school children who are eligible for free school meals or whose families receive the Scottish child payment, the bill would continue to deliver for those who are most in need, with a significantly reduced funding model.
The Scottish Government, however, has not kept its side of the bargain by telling me what it would see as an affordable bill; by bringing forward potential amendments for stage 2, which the minister promised to do at the Education, Children and Young People Committee; or by declaring an official position on any of my alternative funding proposals.
All I hear is that the bill is not affordable, yet when it comes to spending money, the Scottish Government is content to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on the ferry fiasco or on meeting the costs of delayed discharge. In addition, if The Scotsman newspaper’s reports are anything to go by, the Government does not see the need to recoup £36 million in Social Security Scotland overpayments.
As we all know, politics is all about choices and priorities—that is any Government’s prerogative. What I do not understand in this case is why the minister has chosen to isolate herself from the rest of Parliament and from the outdoor education sector, particularly given the commitment that the SNP made in 2021.
In winding up, I will finish with one straightforward question, which I urge the minister to answer in her speech at the end of the debate. Will the Scottish Government finally lodge the financial resolution before the deadline of 27 September—yes or no?
If the minister is just playing for time, hoping that the bill will fall without a fight, she misunderstands not only Parliament, but—just as worryingly—our schools and our education system, which is allegedly built on the principles of inclusion, fairness and opportunities for levelling up, and on building much-needed resilience in our young people.
I advise members that there is a lot of interest in participating in the debate. I want to get every member who has pressed their request-to-speak button in, but I will require members to stick to their speaking time allowance.
We move to the open debate.
17:33
I thank Liz Smith for bringing the debate to the chamber. From my involvement with the cross-party group on outdoor education, I can attest to the fact that she is a very committed and incredibly hard-working advocate for outdoor learning. I think that we in the chamber all know that, but it is important that we say such things across parties and give credit where credit is due.
Outdoor education is a powerful and proven way of enhancing young people’s learning experiences, broadening their horizons and supporting their wellbeing. When the stage 1 debate on the bill was held in the chamber last March, members heard that spending time in nature has been found to ease anxiety, lower stress and alleviate symptoms of depression, while also boosting mood and promoting overall wellbeing, which is important for our children in this digital age. In addition to those health benefits, outdoor experiences give children valuable opportunities to build essential life skills such as communication, problem solving, teamwork and confidence.
Teachers have also contributed to the discussion and shared their understanding that outdoor learning strengthens classroom engagement, supports social connections and allows children to push beyond their comfort zone. It helps children to grow their independence and face challenges in a safe, structured setting. That approach reflects a broader understanding of the importance of holistic education: one that nurtures both academic success and student wellbeing.
The Scottish Government has long recognised the value that outdoor education can bring, and opportunities are already being supported through established initiatives such as the Scottish attainment challenge and pupil equity funding. Those measures provide schools and communities with the flexibility and resources to ensure that young people, in particular those from disadvantaged backgrounds, can access enriching outdoor learning experiences. Importantly, that support does not depend on the passing of new legislation; it is embedded in current practice and can be developed further within the existing framework. I see in my constituency that different schools are trying different approaches to outdoor learning.
It is also important to recognise that work in this area has been conducted over many years and continues to evolve. Improvements to our outdoor education provision can and should continue, but not exclusively through legislation. Schools, local authorities and community partners are already making strides, and there is scope for them to build on that progress without the need to introduce any legislation as such.
While I welcome the passion behind the proposals—as I mentioned, I truly understand the amount of work that Liz Smith has put into the bill—the financial realities must be acknowledged. I am not taking a view on what Liz Smith has outlined just now, but those realities need to be acknowledged. Opposition parties have been persistent in their calls for the Scottish Government to provide additional funding or reallocate existing funds to cover the measures that are set out in the bill, but there has been no clear indication of where those funds should come from. If cuts are to be made to existing budgets, where should they be made? However, I hear what Liz Smith has said today: that she has cut the bill’s proposed financial resources. Again, that is to her credit.
That notwithstanding, I remain a strong believer in outdoor education. I want to put on record something that I have discussed in the chamber previously. Five years ago, I raised my strong objections to the closure of Kilbowie outdoor centre in Oban, which provided week-long residential courses for primary 7 pupils in North Lanarkshire and allowed them to try a range of water sports and adventure activities.
The closure of that facility was a great loss to North Lanarkshire’s young people and truly deprived them of their opportunity to flourish in an outdoor learning environment away from home. It was met with real opposition from local people. The closure of the outdoor centre meant that, for some children in my constituency and across North Lanarkshire, their only chance of experiencing a holiday or outdoor recreation was ultimately removed.
I understand the Scottish Government’s concerns around the finances, but we need to ensure that another Kilbowie situation does not happen in another area, and perhaps bits of the bill could prevent that from happening.
I thank Liz Smith for bringing the debate to the chamber and for introducing the bill to Parliament, but we need to look at the financial aspects, and I know that the Government minister will talk about that in summing up.
17:38
I congratulate Liz Smith on the way that she has introduced the debate and on the motion that we have in front of us, which is very strong—and it is strong for a reason. I also credit her for the way that she has taken the bill through Parliament over the past three years, for what she has achieved to date and for what I hope that she achieves in the future.
I think that Liz Smith will be held up as an example for future parliamentarians in future sessions of Parliament of how a non-Government member can take the nucleus of an idea and bring it forward in a bill that can command significant cross-party support.
That is exactly what a non-Government bill should do. It should be about looking at an area where we can improve things and where we can improve people’s lives and opportunities—in this case, for young people. It should involve taking on board suggestions from others in an area where the Government has decided that it is not going to legislate, and doing all the hard work—the hard graft—that is involved.
I know that Liz Smith has previously thanked the members of the non-Government bills unit—who do not, I think, get enough praise in the Parliament—for what they have done to get the bill to this stage. As someone who also has a non-Government bill currently going through Parliament, I think that Liz Smith is an excellent example of how members should be impassioned, determined and forthright in their views to get legislation on to the statute book. That is why I share her frustration and disappointment that we are here again this evening.
As convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, I sat through all the sessions in which we scrutinised the bill, and I heard almost nothing but praise for it. Some people raised concerns, as John Mason did regarding finance; I will come to that in a moment. However, when people simply looked at what the bill seeks to do, how it seeks to do it and the opportunities that it provides, they saw that it is about literally breaking down barriers. At present, not enough young people have the opportunity to benefit from residential outdoor education. As we have heard, however, for those who have that opportunity, it can make a huge difference to their school life.
Fulton MacGregor spoke about choices having to be made and making cuts to take money from elsewhere. Personally, I think that the bill is an example of a spend-to-save approach. Spending money in this area can create the opportunities that young people need and provide the positive benefits that will, as we heard in committee from teachers and educationists, be delivered by taking a universal approach
There is a dichotomy, in my view: I think that £30 million is a lot of money, but I also think that it is a drop in the ocean for a Government that has hundreds of millions—billions—of pounds to spend. I echo Liz Smith’s point that it is about choices. It is about the Government choosing to support the residential outdoor education sector, to support the campaigners who want the bill to pass and to support young people, now and in the future, to get the opportunities that we all know that they need and deserve.
As well as the financial aspects, there is the question of teachers. If the provision of residential outdoor education becomes a statutory duty, would they be required to go?
We looked at that point in committee and, again, I felt some unease at the minister’s response, which was to say that Liz Smith, as the member in charge of the bill, should go to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and negotiate teacher contracts in that respect.
It is a tripartite issue that can—I hope—be resolved. We heard from teachers who were very positive about their experiences of outdoor education, and I think that that aspect can be developed as the bill develops.
At present, however, we have a chopping block—a knife is going to come down on the bill in just a few days’ time, unless the minister, who I see as the roadblock to the legislation, takes a decision. I hope that she responds positively to Liz Smith’s question, because it is now on the Government. The Government can either take the approach that, as the Parliament has supported the bill at stage 1, it will support a financial resolution, or it can take the unprecedented—and, I think, dangerous—step of refusing to allocate funding to a bill that would make a huge difference.
I hope that we get an answer tonight. If we do not, I assure the minister that she will be questioned on it in committee first thing tomorrow morning.
17:42
I thank Liz Smith for securing the debate and for all the hard work that she has put into bringing the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill to Parliament. Like most of the members who have spoken so far tonight, most of those who gave evidence to the Education, Children and Young People Committee and those who have had the opportunity to enjoy outdoor education, I remember my own school residential fondly. My classmates went canoeing and climbing, and my school designed an accessible drama residential for me and some fellow classmates.
I loved it—we had fun, we learned and, crucially, it helped my peers to see that I was just like them. It also showed that action to make participation equal is possible: it needs thought, planning and support, but it can, and should, happen. Everyone should have the opportunity to get everything that they can out of our education system, and outdoor education is a key part of that. It supports resilience, nourishes friendships and encourages confidence and independence, and it has been shown to improve attainment.
I also, therefore, thank the residential outdoor education centres across Scotland that give pupils structured time away from the classroom to do that work: to grow their confidence, to work with others and to try things that they would not otherwise have the opportunity to do. I thank them for the work that they are doing to improve accessibility across all of their estate.
As I will go on to say, the committee heard great evidence of the work that is being done, and we were inspired by the work that could yet be done if the bill were to progress. I am, therefore, concerned—as other members who have spoken this evening have said—by the fact that the Government has not yet provided a financial resolution for Liz Smith’s bill. A failure to provide one by the 26 September deadline would be an abdication of responsibility to the Parliament and to our young people by the Government, which appears to be using parliamentary processes to stifle the progress of a bill that Parliament wants to be considered, debated and progressed.
The Government’s failure to provide a financial resolution would mean not judging the bill on merit; rather, it would mean expiry by inaction, and our young people deserve better than that. The case for proceeding is practical and evident, and Parliament wants it to happen.
School attendance has dipped in too many places; engagement is fragile; staff are dealing with behaviour pressures; and support for children to deal with everyday life is shrinking by the day. A well-run residential is not a cure-all, and Liz Smith knows that I think that there is still work to do on certain aspects of the bill to maximise its potential—work that I believe can and should be done at stage 2. However, I am clear that the bill is a credible lever to address issues in schools and deliver opportunity for all by building trust, reconnecting pupils with learning and giving them motivation and momentum that carry back into the classroom.
There is clear support for the bill from members across the chamber. The Parliament wants the bill to progress, and it is time that the Government made its position clear, too.
Stage 2 is where Parliament can settle the details that matter on the ground—for example, how any duty is introduced; how safeguarding and ratios are specified; how transport and accommodation are organised; and, crucially, how pupils with additional support needs participate on equal terms, with accessible activities as standard, the right support in place and funding routes that schools can actually use. We are ready and willing to debate, negotiate and resolve all those issues at stage 2, if the Government makes its position clear and does the right thing.
As I have said, my support for the bill is deeply personal to me—it is shaped not just by my personal experience and the fact that I know what can be achieved by the provision of outdoor education that is accessible to all, but by the experiences that I have heard about in committee.
When I was young, I found it difficult to stay over with friends—many of them did not live in accessible houses. That is fine, but a residential gave me that opportunity. I thank the member for her bill, which is a constructive and impressive contribution. The sector has engaged in good faith, and young people have made it clear what residential outdoor education means for them.
Parliament has asked to get on with the scrutiny, and we now call on the Government to deliver on what has been asked of it. A bill that has been backed at stage 1 should not be denied progression simply because the Government is basically not happy to put its money where its mouth is when Parliament has asked it to act. That is weak government, in fact. If the Government has reservations about the detail, it should negotiate on the bill at stage 2, as the rest of us will have to do, rather than frustrate the right of us all to scrutinise it. The Government must now bring forward the financial resolution, put the figures on the table and allow the bill to progress.
17:47
I, too, congratulate Liz Smith on securing a members’ business debate on the subject of residential outdoor education for young people. As has been highlighted by other members who have contributed to the debate thus far, residential outdoor education is a hugely rewarding experience for young people. As we have heard, it contributes to building self-esteem, self-reliance and leadership skills, encourages teamwork and self-confidence and helps to improve attainment.
Residential outdoor education supports the ethos of curriculum for excellence and sits well with the getting it right for every child principles. The wider societal benefits are axiomatic and are fully in line with the Christie principles on preventative spend. I urge the minister to reflect on the importance of those principles as we talk about difficult budgetary issues.
While it is fair to say that some progress has been made since the Scottish Government set out its vision for outdoor learning in 2010, the fact of the matter is that access to residential outdoor education provision remains unequal across Scotland. Ensuring equal opportunity is the key objective of the bill that Liz Smith has proposed, and I was, therefore, very happy to support it at stage 1 in March this year.
At that time, the minister promised Parliament that she would act in good faith and seek “to work with” the member to find a way forward, taking into account the various challenges that the Education, Children and Young People Committee highlighted in its stage 1 report. Those included issues regarding funding, the impact on teachers and the universality of application.
I am aware that, in the intervening period, with regard to the important issue of funding, for example, the member has highlighted potential alternative models of funding for consideration. I note also from what she has said this evening that she has, at the same time, proposed a more targeted approach, thereby reducing the overall level of funding that would be required.
Where matters stand with respect to those discussions is not clear to me, and nor is the extent to which the Government has, in fact, actively worked at pace with the member over the intervening months to explore solutions. As we have heard, there is very little time for the Government to lodge a financial resolution. Surely, if good faith is to prevail here, a financial resolution should be lodged so that the bill can proceed to stage 2. That is, after all, what the Parliament voted for at stage 1. It would allow members to lodge amendments to get the bill over the line while meeting the legitimate concerns that have been raised. I believe that, in that respect, there is cross-party support for trying to find workable solutions. Inaction will not do young people across Scotland any favours, nor will kicking the can down the road.
I have seen at first hand the importance of access to outdoor residential education, in the shape of a stay at Outward Bound’s centre at Loch Eil that is offered to pupils who are participating in the Mark Scott leadership for life award scheme. As the former Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, I met young people who were participating over three years and saw how transformational the experience was for them. Although I am always full of admiration for Mark’s parents and all those who are involved, at the time I felt that it was a great pity that our Government did not consider that it had a key role to play in ensuring that all young people have the same opportunities, irrespective of where in Scotland they live.
I therefore urge the minister to do the right thing, the bold thing and the fair thing, which is to lodge a financial resolution so that the bill can proceed to stage 2 for further detailed scrutiny.
17:51
I pay tribute to Liz Smith not just for securing tonight’s debate, but for her relentless work on this issue. It is a true passion for Ms Smith, and it is a worthy passion. I supported the general principles of her bill when I sat next to her on the Conservative benches, and I still support those general principles today.
I also pay tribute to the amazing residential centres right across Scotland, particularly those that are in my region—the two on Arran, the Field Studies Council centre in Millport and the others in neighbouring Dunoon. They offer extraordinary potential for the young people in my region, particularly those who have hitherto had little opportunity to experience the outdoors and active education.
I spoke in the stage 1 debate on the bill. As many others did, I talked about my experiences and about why the bill matters, and those arguments are just as relevant today. However, today’s debate is different for three reasons. The first of those is the urgency of the matter and the timescales that we are looking at. The second is the process that is involved. Let us not forget that the Parliament has a three-stage process for making legislation, including members’ bills, and it is absolutely right and proper that we give such bills the opportunity to progress. The third reason is the will of Parliament and Government. Where is the will in Government to progress the legislation? I have a horrible feeling that it does not exist any more, because the good faith that was promised after stage 1 has yet to come to fruition.
In March this year, 64 members of the Parliament voted in favour of the bill at stage 1 and only one voted against it. That was a powerful endorsement of the general principles of the bill and the aim that every young person, no matter what their background, should have a guaranteed opportunity of a residential outdoor experience. I would go so far as to say to the minister that, if we held that vote today, the motion on the bill would pass again, which would tell the Government exactly what it needs to hear.
If the bill falls because the Government does not lodge a financial resolution, it will not be because the Parliament rejected it; it will be because the Government is not willing to negotiate in good faith to allow it to go through the process that it should be afforded. In fact, as Liz Smith said, it would be the first time in the Parliament’s history that a bill was vetoed after stage 1 by process. That would be a betrayal of the Parliament, of the young people who would benefit from the legislation and of the outdoor education sector, which absolutely backs the bill. Let us not forget that it was the Government’s own promise to commit to the legislation. The question is not just about whether there is political consensus, which I think there is; the question is whether the Government is walking away from its own pledges and manifesto commitments.
Of course, we can talk about affordability—every policy comes with a price tag—but, as Douglas Ross said, the proposals and the revised costings are a drop in the ocean and a small price to pay when we consider the benefits. The Government can disagree with the figures that have been proposed, but it is incumbent upon the Government to come back with alternative proposals, to do its own modelling and to lodge a financial resolution that will allow the bill to progress to the next stage. The bill might fall at stage 3—who knows what will happen at that point?—but let us at least have that debate and give the bill its due process.
Outdoor education improves confidence, boosts attainment and supports wellbeing. It helps to prevent future challenges in health, justice and social care. As we all know, that is backed by evidence: every £1 that is invested in outdoor education saves £3 to £5 in other areas of the public sector. That is an investment in our children’s future and it is smart public spending.
The Government faces a simple choice: to let the bill fall and disrespect the will of Parliament or to prove to Scotland’s youth and our outdoor education sector that it supports them. I make a plea to the Government today: listen to the will of the Parliament and get on with it.
17:55
I, too, thank my friend and colleague Liz Smith for the debate and for her relentless work in developing her member’s bill on the promotion of universally available outdoor learning. I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak again on one of my favourite topics.
I will share some of my outdoor learning experiences. At Glaisnock house, during a weekend away to study for O-level geology, we studied the Lugar sill, igneous intrusions and sedimentary rock in the Lugar mine. We learned about limestone pavements, clints and grikes. During a discussion about fossils, when the lecturer asked us what we thought the first living thing on earth was, a student put up her hand and confidently declared that it would have been a brontosaurus. Every time I think about that, I picture the primordial earth with all the ingredients of life waiting to be energised, then, all of a sudden—boom!—a brontosaurus. Every time that I think about that, it makes me laugh out loud.
Deputy Presiding Officer, you might think that that is a bit of a strangled route to an educational benefit, but the point is that that is a shared experience that I remember. Every time that I meet a friend from back then, it always comes up. Yes, we learned what we were supposed to learn in a real, live environment, but we also learned about interaction, camaraderie and making lifelong memories.
I do not necessarily advocate that children and young people should follow our lead in some of our behaviour, but they should have the opportunity to access learning in a variety of ways and create their own great memories from school. Changing the venue and experience can change people’s thought process. Not every pupil is at their best when learning in a classroom; when we expand the horizons of learning, bring learning to life and connect with real environments, new opportunities open up for them and their futures. If we offer only a narrow educational path, we will cater only for those for whom that pathway works.
Some elements of education and personal development that are crucial in the classroom are far better learned outside the classroom. We can confidently assert that the challenges of residential courses demonstrate to young people learning skills such as planning, budgeting, leadership, team development, resilience, confidence and managing difficult and real-life situations. That sounds like middle management to me, and we can pay a fortune to attain those skills.
I strongly advocate that, if we are to properly tackle health inequality and the attainment gap, we need to ensure that inequality in access to residential outdoor experiential learning is tackled. My concern is that, like sporting activity, experiential learning is more and more becoming a personal learning and development tool for those who have, to the exclusion of those who have not.
Outdoor residential learning is the absolute epitome of preventative spend and perhaps one of the best ways of investing in our children’s experiential learning. Surely, all our children and young people deserve the opportunity to have their own brontosaurus story.
17:58
It is normal to start by saying what a pleasure it is to speak in a debate, and it is certainly a pleasure to follow Brian Whittle. I reaffirm my strong support for the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill, which received the Parliament’s backing at stage 1. As we have heard, it carries the hopes of countless young adults, educators, children and outdoor education providers across Scotland. I thank the bill’s sponsoring member, Liz Smith, for her tenacity with it and for securing the debate.
The bill is about not just outdoor learning but equity—ensuring that every child, regardless of background, has the opportunity to experience the confidence, resilience and teamwork that residential outdoor education uniquely provides—yet I am deeply concerned that, despite the clear will of the Parliament, the Scottish Government’s lack of engagement is putting the bill at risk. That is why it is not my usual pleasure to speak in the debate.
In a meeting that was held on 12 August, and as has been confirmed in a letter from Liz Smith, it was made clear that the Government has no position on the revised policy proposals, including limiting the bill to primary pupils or targeting provision to those who are experiencing poverty or who have additional support needs.
The Scottish Government has not defined what level of cost it would consider affordable. The Scottish Government has not conducted financial modelling on any of the proposals that have been submitted. The Scottish Government has not produced draft amendments, despite making a commitment—a promise; an undertaking—to do so before the Education, Children and Young People Committee.
The Scottish Government is pursuing a non-legislative pilot, with estimated costs of £6 million to £8 million, rather than progressing a bill that has already been endorsed by the Parliament. Crucially, the Scottish Government has not confirmed a date for Cabinet to decide whether to lodge a financial resolution. Promises were made—promises that should be kept.
The bill will fall on 26 September if a financial resolution is not lodged. That is a reality. If that happens, it will be not only a loss for outdoor education but a failure to uphold the democratic will of this Parliament. Let me be clear that the financial resolution process should focus solely on affordability—that is its purpose. Issues of implementation and commencement can and should be addressed at stage 3. The mechanism exists, and the support is there. What is needed is action by the Scottish Government.
I could be cynical and suggest that, if it wanted to, the Scottish Government could still vote the bill down at stage 3, but perhaps that is not as attractive an option as it appears. I highlight to members section 44 of the Scotland Act 1998, which defines membership of the Scottish Government. The First Minister is one of only three core members who are required to constitute a Government—the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General are the others. That means that those who speak on behalf of the First Minister speak for the First Minister. The undertakings that are given are given for the First Minister, and promises that are made are made for the First Minister, because that is the Scottish Government in the Parliament and in this country.
On 4 September 2024, the First Minister said:
“A quarter of a century after its creation, this Parliament faces some of its toughest tests.”
He also said:
“My Government does not command a majority in this Parliament: we have to work with others to make progress on our agenda ... I extend the invitation to colleagues to work together to find that common ground.”—[Official Report, 4 September 2024; c 23.]
Liz Smith has done more than accept that invitation—she has sought to find common ground, and the Scottish Government has fallen short. The Government has not just set the Parliament a tough test—it is potentially putting itself on a collision course with this place.
I urge the First Minister, through his minister, to honour the commitments that have been made to our young people and to the Parliament on outdoor education, to lodge the financial resolution, to let the bill proceed and to let us do the right thing by the next generation.
A number of members still wish to participate. I want to include them, but that will require me to ask Liz Smith to move a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3 of standing orders, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I therefore ask her to move such a motion.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Liz Smith]
Motion agreed to.
18:03
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, and I thank Liz Smith for giving us that opportunity.
As a member of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, I have been quite involved in the bill and have heard evidence from a variety of witnesses, including the minister and the member in charge. Some of us from the committee visited Broomlee outdoor centre near West Linton, and I think that most of the committee members stayed at similar centres as youngsters and have spoken about how much they benefited from that. Therefore, it is fair to say that all of us in the committee are enthusiastic about the bill’s intentions.
However, there have been key problems with the bill that have prevented me from fully supporting it. One of those issues is money, and another is teachers’ terms and conditions. The amount of money could be £30 million, although Liz Smith now says that it could be less, and the Government has said that it could be more.
On the financial side, we presently have a system in which many families are able and willing to pay the full costs. In addition, some schools are able, through fundraising, to support pupils whose families cannot afford the full cost. That in itself can be beneficial, as it involves young people working together to raise the cash that is needed. However, for some schools and some families, that is not an option, and the lack of money prevents them from benefiting from a hugely valuable experience.
My comment on that point is that we do not need legislation to enable all school pupils to go on residential outdoor education trips. What we need is more money. If the Government was able to find a pot of money—maybe £5 million or £10 million—to top up what is currently happening, virtually all pupils would be able to go on such trips. I do not find it acceptable that we should use limited public funds to subsidise well-off families who are currently paying for such trips. Money is tight, and I fear that we need to target funds where the needs are greatest, rather than offer the universal provision that Liz Smith has called for.
I am grateful to Mr Mason for his engagement on the bill. He has said that he thinks that the Scottish Government should be able to find a pot of money, but I think that that takes away from the argument that he just made. Does he acknowledge that some of the issues to do with costs and staffing could be addressed in the stage 2 process and that, given the commitments that the Scottish Government has made and the fact that the general principles of the bill have been agreed to at stage 1, the first part of the process should be the lodging of a financial resolution?
In a word, no. I would have liked it if a compromise could have been reached between Liz Smith and the Government, and I am disappointed that that has not happened.
I voted against the bill because the issue of money is fundamental. We all agree that we would like kids to take part in outdoor education, but money is the fundamental issue. That is why I could not support the provision of £30 million—the figure that was identified—or whatever it might be.
At this morning’s meeting of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, Liz Smith questioned the idea of universal provision. Although I would like us to provide outdoor education on a universal basis—that would be ideal—we simply do not have the money to do that.
My other point is that the present model relies heavily on teachers volunteering and going beyond the call of duty in order to take young people away on residential weeks. We have heard from teachers that they and the pupils benefit from that, and that relationships and learning often greatly improve after youngsters have seen their teachers “in their pyjamas”. The concern on that point is that a statutory provision whereby all young people were to go on residential visits would lead to an expectation that more teachers would be duty bound to take part in such activities as a requirement of their job. That, in turn, would mean new conditions and new contracts for teachers. We would be best to avoid that can of worms, which I do not believe it is necessary for us to deal with.
My ask is twofold. First, I ask the Government to come up with a reasonable pot of funding, which could be similar to the pupil equity funding money, that could be used to top up the funding that can be raised under the present system. Secondly, I ask Liz Smith, on receiving such a commitment, to drop her plans for the bill, as I fear that legislation in this area, while being very well meaning, would absolutely do more harm than good. My hope is that such a compromise would satisfy the intentions of Liz Smith and Parliament.
18:08
It is very difficult for members to get members’ bills through this Parliament. It takes a long time and a lot of work. I know that because I have a member’s bill that is really up against it time-wise.
However, I am speaking in this evening’s debate because I think that it is appalling that Liz Smith has had to lodge such a motion. We have had the stage 1 debate and we should be proceeding to stage 2. Today’s debate is not really about the bill. There was a stage 1 debate in which members spoke passionately about their experiences of outdoor education when they were youngsters. I remember going to a centre that my state school had in the lake district. That gave me my love of the outdoors and hill walking, which has enhanced my life and which I have passed on to my children. Everyone can have a story like that.
We heard all about that at stage 1, when the motion on the bill passed. The issue is not whether it is a good idea or not, because it is—the Parliament has spoken. The issue is the quite extraordinary situation that we are in whereby the Government has not lodged a financial resolution, which could kill off the bill. I find it incredible that the Parliament can vote for a bill at stage 1 and the Government can stop it through process and by playing silly games. That is a disgrace.
This is the first time that this has happened in the history of the Parliament. Is there a danger that the Scottish Government is tempting this to happen in the future, which, in effect, would mean the end of members’ bills?
Mr Whitfield is quite right. I thought that his contribution to the debate was the most passionate that I have ever heard from him about anything. He gave a fantastic speech because he feels strongly about this. He is absolutely right, as is everyone who has spoken in the debate in support of Liz Smith’s bill. We cannot have a situation in which the Parliament votes for a bill at stage 1 only for the Government then to block it without a vote. We have already had the vote, but the Government has blocked the bill, because it will not lodge a financial resolution. That is appalling. If the Government can do that on this occasion, it could do it again and again. I was astonished to find out that it could—perhaps I should have known, because I have a member’s bill and I am very concerned that someone might play silly games with it.
The Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise must come clean: she must see that she has a responsibility to the Parliament to lay the financial resolution and accept what the Parliament has already said. If there are problems, they can be ironed out at stages 2 and 3. That is what the process is for; it is not to allow the Government to block things through silly games.
Michael Marra is the final speaker in the open debate—briefly, please.
18:12
I appreciate the Presiding Officer accommodating my request to speak at late notice.
My support for Liz Smith’s fine work on her member’s bill, the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill, is on record, and I am glad to be able to speak in support of it in the debate. I agree with Mr Simpson that my colleague Martin Whitfield gave a fine speech on the confluence of his two great concerns in life—the rights of children and parliamentary procedure. He is passionate about both, so it is little wonder that he spoke so well.
I will briefly highlight a recent innovation by Dundee City Council—frankly, I will not often say that, as my local authority is not known for innovation. It recently set up a collaboration between Ancrum outdoor centre and Douglaswood scout centre, which is near Dundee and is a place that I know well from my youth. In essence, it has brought home outdoor education for Dundee, as money is spent locally and young people go on trips in the surrounding area. The immediate vicinity of the city has become open to them in a real way. The operation in the new area has been a huge success with schools from Dundee and across Angus, and it is exactly the kind of innovation that the bill could drive forward, so it is important.
I am hopeful that, in her concluding remarks, the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise will say that we have all been wrong—that this is not the approach that the Government is taking—and will tell us when the financial resolution will be laid. I genuinely hope that that is the case, because, as colleagues have pointed out, the parliamentary process is incredibly important.
John Mason set out a clear and principled position, explaining his financial concerns about the bill. The Government could have taken a similar approach, setting out those concerns at stage 1 and voting against the bill, but it did not. As members have pointed out, it also has the opportunity to vote down or vote against the bill at stage 3, and there will be an opportunity at stage 2 to amend it significantly.
What the Government cannot do is take the cowardly way out of this situation and create a deeply concerning precedent whereby the will of the Parliament is ignored. It cannot purposely find a way around the will of the Parliament by failing, on a point of procedure, to move forward legislation that has been voted for in principle by the Parliament and that should have the Parliament’s scrutiny. A failure to allow that would be deeply concerning.
I look forward to hearing the minister’s closing remarks, because I genuinely hope that she has listened to the debate tonight, that she will bring the right answer and that she will make sure that the financial resolution comes forward, so that the Parliament’s process can be held.
18:15
I thank all the members who have contributed to today’s debate, and I reiterate my recognition of the important role that is played by residential outdoor education in the development of our children and young people. I also thank Liz Smith for her continued work to raise awareness of the importance of residential education.
There are many examples of impactful residential outdoor education and wider outdoor learning provision in the Mid Scotland and Fife region, some of which we have already heard about in the debate. That includes the PGL Dalguise centre, which has outdoor adventure activities that can support the development of key life skills for young people. There are many other examples that are having hugely positive impacts, and I want to be clear that I share the enthusiasm for those.
However, residential experiences may not be suitable for all learners. Therefore, it is important to have other outdoor learning opportunities available for children and young people. Mr MacGregor rightly highlighted the benefits that outdoor learning in all its forms has for children and young people. A good example of that in the region is Fife Council’s non-residential outdoor education centre at Lochore meadows, which has a variety of adaptive equipment and accessible facilities for inclusive provision. Fife Council’s outdoor learning skills framework sets out how education practitioners can deliver progressive outdoor learning experiences—
Will the minister take an intervention?
Yes.
We do not really need to hear all that. All that we need to know is whether the Government will lay a financial resolution by 26 September.
I will be getting on to that—I have a lot to say and now, less time to say it.
Limekilns primary school in Fife demonstrates how localised outdoor learning activities can form part of the regular educational experiences of its pupils. The school has leased a piece of local vacant land that it has turned into a thriving community garden, with each class looking after its own raised bed. The children are outdoors all year round, building strong ties with their community. As the seasons change, they discover new things and get involved in that together.
However, those positive and inspiring examples of how outdoor learning in all its forms is being provided to deliver personal and educational outcomes for pupils are not unique to Mid Scotland and Fife. Staff and learners at Cedarbank, an additional support needs school in West Lothian, have found that a dedicated three-year outdoor learning programme benefits learners and provides rich opportunities to connect with nature, care for living things and develop lifelong skills.
All those examples—I have more, but I want to respond to the points that have been raised in the debate—show that the provision of impactful outdoor learning is already a key part of education and youth work, with or without legislation. They also show that provision is varied, reflecting the diversity of needs among our children and young people. Focusing on only one form of outdoor learning risks overlooking what may work best on the ground and which enabling measures may be the most supportive in continuing to improve that provision.
I have sat through the whole debate and it all comes down to exactly the point that Graham Simpson made. Will the minister answer the challenge from Graham Simpson? Will she announce the financial resolution—yes or no?
I will now respond to some of the points that have been raised in the debate. However, I wanted to cover the general idea of outdoor learning in all its forms.
I recognise the support that has been shown by the Parliament for the general principles of the member’s bill at stage 1. Whether the Government will lodge a motion for a financial resolution to the bill is a matter of on-going consideration.
It is not just a matter of on-going discussions; it is a matter of parliamentary democracy. Does the minister think that it is democratic for a stage 1 debate to be undermined by a Government that is unwilling to lodge a financial resolution after the Parliament has voted in favour of the bill at stage 1?
I can give you the time back for the intervention, minister.
As I have said, that is still being considered by Government. The financial resolution follows a legitimate and important process that is set out in standing orders to ensure that ministers and Government can exercise their responsibility and accountability for appropriate management of the Scottish budget. That is not a power or position that is unique to Scotland. I now need to make some progress.
On specific Government proposals relating to Ms Smith’s bill, in line with my commitment made at committee on 11 June that I would be happy to discuss proposed amendments, I discussed areas for potential stage 2 amendments with Liz Smith at our meeting on 1 July. At that meeting, she indicated that she would be open to a potentially more targeted approach, which I welcome, as well as to a change in the commencement provisions. However, I have made clear to Ms Smith that, procedurally—
Will the minister give way?
I will just finish this point.
I have made it clear to Ms Smith that, procedurally, we are not at the point at which producing draft legal text of stage 2 amendments is appropriate. Doing so would pre-empt the Government’s decision on whether to lodge a motion for a financial resolution, which we will confirm by 26 September.
Can the minister tell me what the Government’s stance is on the proposals that I have brought to the table? That is absolutely essential if we are to move any further on the financial resolution.
The proposals that Ms Smith has made are very welcome and have helped to inform the Government’s decision on the financial resolution. I have been very clear that I am very thankful for the effort that Ms Smith has made and the ways that she is willing to change aspects of the bill.
Will the minister give way?
I would like to make progress, please.
On affordability, in the current financial context, introducing new duties to fund forces extremely difficult choices about what to defund in order to accommodate any new expenditure. Even in a targeted form, a potential annual recurring cost of between £15.3 million and £16.8 million would require significant adjustments in the education portfolio budget. I hear what members say about a preventative spend—many aspects of the education portfolio budget are a preventative spend.
Ms Smith has not offered any suggestions about what in education could be stopped in order to preference residential outdoor education when ministers bring forward a budget for Parliament’s consideration. That difficulty is compounded by the fact that the total potential costs, which I have discussed with Ms Smith at length, remain unclear, due to gaps in the data available and the assumptions underpinning the proposed delivery approach. I have discussed those issues with the member, and they remain outstanding.
Will the minister give way?
Can I get the time back, Presiding Officer?
I can give you the time back, minister.
The minister makes some legitimate points regarding prioritising spending. That is clear. However, Parliament is saying quite clearly tonight—and it said this at stage 1—that withholding a financial memorandum as part of the process is not a legitimate way for Government to make that decision. It is absolutely essential that we have a financial memorandum so that Parliament can scrutinise it. Anything else would be profoundly undemocratic.
I think that I have been clear about the Government’s intention to bring forward a decision on the financial resolution.
I will move on to other issues around affordability. Mr Mason rightly brought up the issue of the workforce. I would like to correct Mr Ross. I did not feel that it was Ms Smith’s responsibility to negotiate teacher contracts—absolutely not. However, it was reasonable for Ms Smith, who has assumed that teacher participation would continue on a voluntary basis, to meet the unions to listen to their concerns and views on the bill. From my meetings with representatives of the five main professional associations, I have not had assurance on that. It is important that Ms Smith hears from all the stakeholders who would be involved.
I appreciate that time is short, so in concluding I thank Liz Smith again for raising the profile and discussion around residential outdoor education in Scotland.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance as to the expectation of a financial memorandum, as set out in rule 9.3 of the Parliament’s standing orders. My understanding is that it is the responsibility of the financial memorandum to set out
“estimates of the costs, savings and changes to revenues”,
rather than, as we have heard from some members in the debate this afternoon, the pros and cons of the bill. Is my understanding of the financial memorandum right? Is it correct to say that those issues are addressed through the financial memorandum, rather than the failure to deliver a motion for a financial memorandum?
I thank Mr Whitfield for his point of order. It will not surprise him to hear that I wish to reflect on it further before making any substantive response.
I ask the minister to conclude.
I was just concluding.
In response to the direct question from Liz Smith on the current member’s bill, I assure members that the Government is continuing to carefully consider whether to lodge that financial resolution, and we will confirm our position by 26 September.
Can the minister confirm when the Cabinet will discuss the financial resolution?
I cannot confirm that at this point, but I can confirm that I will advise the Parliament of the decision by 26 September.
I appreciate that I have not had time to respond to all the points that have been raised in the debate. I am sure that committee members will have plenty of questions for me in the morning.
That concludes the debate, and I close this meeting of the Parliament.
Meeting closed at 18:25.Previous
Decision Time