Official Report 1515KB pdf
The next item of business is a statement by Natalie Don-Innes on improving provision and access to residential outdoor education for children and young people in Scotland. The minister will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interruptions or interventions.
14:50
I welcome the opportunity to address the Parliament to provide an update on the Scottish Government’s on-going support for outdoor learning provision for our children and young people and, in particular, on our formal position on the financial resolution for the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced by Liz Smith. As members are aware, for Liz Smith’s bill to proceed to stage 2, a motion for a financial resolution must be lodged within six months of the conclusion of stage 1. I very much welcome the engagement that I have had with members from across the chamber, and I thank the member in charge, Liz Smith, for the constructive discussions that we have held.
I am pleased to confirm that, following very careful and full consideration of the matter, the Scottish Government has today lodged a motion for a financial resolution for the bill, which we will vote to support when ministers move the motion tomorrow. I trust that that will come as welcome news to members from across the chamber.
As I have made clear to members since stage 1, the Scottish Government absolutely recognises the important role that outdoor learning in all its forms, including residential outdoor education, can play in supporting the development of our children and young people. That is reflected in our refreshed learning for sustainability action plan, which was published in 2023. It might be helpful to briefly note some of the Government’s activity in that regard for the Parliament’s awareness more widely. The work includes the new Scottish outdoor learning strategic working group, which will provide recommendations next month on how the Government and partners can continue to strengthen support for outdoor learning. Education Scotland is supporting the Association of Heads of Outdoor Education Centres and the Scottish Advisory Panel for Outdoor Education in the development of a quality residential framework and a training resource for outdoor education centre instructors. Systemic change is being delivered through the curriculum improvement cycle, which is strengthening the place of outdoor learning across the three-to-18 curriculum, and we continue to provide pupil equity funding and the learning estate investment programme, which many schools make use of to support delivery of residential and on-site outdoor learning.
What that package of work demonstrates is that, even in the absence of legislation, the Scottish Government is working with partners across the education sector to improve provision of and access to impactful, safe and varied outdoor learning experiences, including residential outdoor education. Our schools and dedicated school staff are doing their best to ensure that pupils can benefit from such experiences. For example, Cedarbank school, an additional support needs school in West Lothian, is committed to ensuring that all pupils across broad general education receive two hours of outdoor learning a week, and all subject areas across the senior phase are encouraged to integrate regular outdoor learning as part of lesson plans. Pupils at Ulva primary school on the Isle of Mull take part in regular outdoor learning through activities such as weekly shore school, learning key skills and taking ownership of their whole learning environment.
There is an important reason why I mention all that. The Scottish Government acknowledges the significant positive opportunity that Liz Smith’s bill represents, but, as it progresses to stage 2, we must ensure that the legislative approach aligns with and builds on, but does not detract from, all the good practice that is already under way to deliver outdoor learning across the system.
Although the Government accepts it as the Parliament’s will that the bill proceeds to stage 2 and is therefore lodging the necessary financial resolution, the Parliament has a responsibility to ensure that the bill, should it become law, is fit for purpose, meaning that it is affordable and, of course, deliverable. I have discussed that at length with Liz Smith, and I am grateful to her for her willingness to work through a range of options. That will include further considering the total potential costs of the bill, equity of provision and workforce implications. All those issues were recognised by the lead Education, Children and Young People Committee in its stage 1 report, and they have formed a central focus of my discussions with Liz Smith to date, as members are aware.
Indeed, the Education, Children and Young People Committee concluded that the bill should only progress if concerns relating to the affordability and deliverability of the provisions were addressed.
As I said, the Government respects the will of Parliament that was clearly demonstrated at stage 1 when it supported the bill’s moving forward. The onus is now on the Parliament to work with the member in charge of the bill—and, indeed, the Government—to address the challenges that have been raised in relation to funding. I assure members that the Government will play its part.
The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and I have discussed with Liz Smith how she, as the member in charge, and the Government may look to continue to work constructively together as the bill progresses. That we have established a shared understanding in that regard is important, as we are now beyond the point—as set out in standing orders—at which the Government would otherwise seek to take on the bill as Government legislation.
Specifically, we have agreed that, as the member in charge of the bill, Liz Smith will work with the Government on stage 2 amendments to address the challenges of affordability and deliverability, which relate to the duty to fund, the targeting of those children who might benefit the most and a change in commencement.
I believe that, across the Opposition parties, there is a wider recognition of the need to, and a willingness to, robustly consider amendments that seek to ensure that the bill will be more affordable. Amendments must also reflect the need for equity of provision and the time that will be required for the outdoor education sector to build sufficient readiness in advance of any new statutory duties coming into effect.
Further close collaboration with a range of stakeholders, including outdoor education centres, teacher trade unions, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland will be critical in informing stage 2 considerations. That is why I am pleased to confirm that Liz Smith has also agreed to develop, with the Government, a work plan that will set out activities to be undertaken, led by the member in charge, in the lead-up to the stage 2 proceedings to help to further address outstanding concerns and to develop draft amendments.
I have offered to undertake certain engagements with Liz Smith on a joint basis. Support from my officials will also be made available, as appropriate, to further the policy development and analysis that will be necessary to shape a suitable way forward that best takes account of the outstanding issues.
As part of our most recent conversation, Liz Smith discussed with ministers potential approaches to addressing the known challenges that the bill as introduced presents for the teacher workforce. We have also shared initial thinking on the potential role of capital investment in supporting improvements across the outdoor education estate. Those issues require more focused deliberation.
I am assured, and I am grateful, that the member in charge is open and willing to explore compromises in her bill to help to mitigate unintended consequences and to strengthen the feasibility of implementation, should the bill become law. Importantly, we discussed the fact that, in working to strengthen the deliverability of the bill, there must continue to be a focus on ensuring equity of provision and equity of access to residential outdoor education so that all pupils have the opportunity to experience the range of benefits that such activities can provide. For example, it is widely accepted that residential outdoor education can deliver improvements in personal development, behaviour, attendance and pupil-teacher relationships. Therefore, that will remain at the heart of the Scottish Government’s interactions with the member in charge and the Parliament more broadly as the bill progresses.
Subject to the Parliament agreeing to the motion for the financial resolution tomorrow, I assure members that I and Liz Smith will swiftly engage again to agree the details of a work plan. Of course, we must make the best use of the time that will be available ahead of the formal stage 2 proceedings to make the progress and improvements that are required.
The Scottish Government recognises the opportunity that the bill presents for children and young people across Scotland, but we must get it right. I look forward to working with the member in charge and members from across the Parliament to ensure that we do so.
I am now happy to take questions.
The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move to the next item of business.
I call Liz Smith, who joins us remotely.
I apologise profusely for not being in the chamber in person. The reason for that—the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s visit to the Lithuanian Parliament—is a rather different one from those that are normally given.
I thank the minister for the letter that she sent me this morning and for the statement. I am very grateful to her on both counts. I am obviously delighted that the Scottish Government has seen fit to ensure that the will of Parliament is supported and that it will now lodge the necessary financial resolution to allow the bill to proceed to stage 2.
I am also delighted by the commitment, which I received at an extremely positive meeting last week, that the Scottish Government and I, and members across the chamber, can work together to ensure that we lodge the best possible amendments so that we can, I hope, pass the bill at stage 3.
I am very aware that there is still an awful lot of work to be done on the bill, but I have to say that I think that today is a very good day for young people right across Scotland and for the outdoor education sector. It is also a very good day for MSPs right across the political spectrum who have worked so incredibly hard to persuade ministers as to why the bill is so necessary in building the resilience of our young people.
I will ask the minister two questions. First, can she give me a little bit of a guide as to when she thinks that the Scottish Government will be able to start the discussions that have to take place at stage 2? Secondly, how long does she envisage that process taking?
I am probably not able to give definitive answers.
On when I want those discussions to start, I am more than happy to contact Ms Smith following the statement to get arrangements in place to have a follow-up meeting about the matters that we discussed at our meeting last week. On the first point, the answer is therefore as soon as possible.
On the second point, which was about how long we think that deliberations at stage 2 will take, again I cannot give a definitive answer. Ms Smith is aware of the concerns that the Government has laid out, and I hope that we can get to the bottom of some of those, or find solutions for some of them, through stage 2 amendments. I cannot necessarily advise how long that will take. However, as I have said, I am very willing to engage with both Ms Smith and the associated groups that will be relevant to those concerns in order to find a way through at stage 2.
I thank the minister for advance sight of the statement.
I welcome the fact that the Government has decided to lay the financial resolution for this important bill, because outdoor education experiences are crucial for young people, and in particular young people with additional support needs. However, evidence to the committee found that a number of young people with ASN were missing out, which is, of course, unjust and unfair.
Will the minister set out what work she has done, in the time that it has taken to make the decision on the financial resolution and come back to the chamber, to establish what is needed to ensure access for pupils with ASN? What can she say to reassure Parliament today that the needs of those pupils will be fully considered as the Government engages and as the bill progresses through Parliament?
That has been a key consideration for the Government in our deliberations in relation to the financial resolution. I think that I set that out to the member in the committee. We have found similar issues, in that there are pupils and children with additional support needs who are not necessarily getting that experience.
Equally, one of the issues with the bill is that we are not sure that the centres and the capacity are necessarily there to deal with the number of children and the range of very complex needs.
I assure the member that that is a key consideration as we go into stage 2, because we want to ensure equity for all children in relation to residential outdoor experiences.
Among the many issues with the bill as it is currently drafted, which has been mentioned today, is the issue of costings. How did the member in charge improve the cost estimates, and is the financial memorandum still, at best, a guesstimate and, at worst, a complete fiscal fantasy? Will the minister also give me detail as to how the measures that are contained in the bill will be financed?
I have been clear that the Government’s position is that the proposals must be affordable and must support equity, as I have just advised, and that, when it comes to deliverability, due consideration must be given to the expectations that are placed on teachers to organise and take part in the trips. Liz Smith MSP’s proposals to adopt a transitional or phased approach to delivery, alongside the potential targeting of funding to support primary school pupils with additional support needs or in deprived circumstances, are truly welcomed in that regard. We had further discussion on some of those aspects in our meeting last week. However, the total costs that are cited in the financial memorandum are extensive, and they underestimate the total potential costs of the bill as introduced. We need to zone in on those aspects ahead of stage 2, because it is about not just the costs on the face of the bill but unknown costs as well.
I genuinely welcome what I think is a change of attitude from ministers, and I genuinely hope that they will work to help the member to deliver the will of Parliament, to deliver the bill and to deliver other members’ bills that are going through the Parliament. What steps will the Scottish Government take with local authorities and representatives of teachers to look at how the bill can be delivered, especially given that some councils, including my own—the City of Edinburgh Council—are already delivering the policy? The bill presents a huge opportunity to councils.
I thank Miles Briggs for those points. I remind members that it is Liz Smith’s bill, and it is up to Liz Smith to deal with some of the concerns and challenges that are ahead. However, as I set out in my statement, I am more than happy not only to engage with some of those organisations alongside Ms Smith but to continue discussions on those points. On engagement with COSLA and teachers’ unions, I believe that I said that I would meet them jointly with Liz Smith. COSLA has real concerns about affordability, equity of provision and workforce capacity. That was also discussed at length in a meeting that I had with trade union representatives.
I assure Mr Briggs that the Government is very alive to those issues and is willing to work with Liz Smith to find a solution in a way that will bring costs down.
To follow on from the final point that the minister touched on, what engagement has taken place with local authorities up to this point, and does local government support the bill as it is currently framed?
As I said, I met the COSLA spokespeople on 6 August, and officials have had on-going engagement with COSLA officers and the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland. COSLA has also written to me and the member in charge, expressing similar concerns to those of the Government and the Education, Children and Young People Committee on the costs, equity and workforce implications, as I laid out to Miles Briggs. It will be important to engage with COSLA again. Equally, we hear some very good examples of how individual local authorities are driving the agenda forward, so it will be important to engage with them as well.
The minister said that the Government respects the will of the Parliament. That is as it should be, although the progress of this part of the bill has involved a U-turn for the Scottish Government. Surely, good-faith engagement is the absolute minimum that any member of the Parliament should expect from the Government. I am therefore glad that the minister has said that she will commit to engaging in good faith with Liz Smith on the bill. Will she also make that commitment to all the parties and representatives who sit in the chamber, both on this bill and as other bills progress?
I believe that I said that in my closing line. I said that I look forward to working with Liz Smith and engaging with her and the rest of the Parliament.
I take a very open approach on any bill that I am involved in. I always want to hear from members across parties about ways in which they think we could improve provisions. I absolutely assure Martin Whitfield that I would be more than happy to meet him to discuss aspects of this bill.
Do the teaching unions support the bill as it is currently framed? What does it mean for the terms and conditions of teachers in Scotland?
I have touched on that, but I am happy to elaborate, because it is a key concern on the bill. The approach that is proposed by Liz Smith assumes that teachers will continue to engage voluntarily in residentials. That is a successful mode in the current context, and there are many examples of schools offering residential outdoor experiences on that basis. However, assurance has yet to be established that that approach is operable on a national scale to meet the legal duties that the bill will entail. That concern was expressed both at stage 1 by teachers and in my engagement with COSLA and the professional associations. There are ways in which we can work through that, and we will need to work through those issues during stage 2.
The minister referenced the importance of outdoor learning being reflected in the learning for sustainability action plan, which I was proud to work on with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills. I am glad to see it being referenced.
The passage of Liz Smith’s bill would result in far more children and young people gaining the kind of knowledge and skills that come from outdoor residential education. That knowledge and those skills should be formally recognised, in line with what the action plan says about developing new qualifications. Does the minister agree with that? Will the Scottish Government look again at Professor Louise Hayward’s proposals on that in her 2023 report?
I would be more than happy to discuss that with Mr Greer ahead of stage 2. As I outlined in my statement, I can see the benefits of residential outdoor education, which I spoke about at the centres that I visited. We know that it has many positive aspects, including the fact that it leads to huge improvements in pupils’ attendance, their behaviour and their relationships with teachers. On the other hand, the non-residential outdoor education that takes place at schools and nurseries daily also has huge benefits, which we need to continue to promote as the bill progresses. I am more than happy to discuss the specific points that Mr Greer raised, in the same vein as I have committed to speaking to members across the chamber.
What is the cash difference between Liz Smith’s costings and those of the minister? If the gap can be closed, will the Government support the bill?
I do not know whether I can give a specific answer. As I have laid out clearly to the Parliament, we have Liz Smith’s revised costs as well as the costs that the Government has put forward, but there are also a bunch of unknown costs, as I have discussed at length with Mr Rennie. That includes the cost of the workforce and of equity of provision, alongside issues of transport, centre capacity and potential upgrades. A host of work needs to be undertaken in order to consider some of those issues prior to stage 2. Members have been asking me about the bill’s affordability, but we need to understand the unknown costs before we can get to that stage.
As much as the statement is welcome news, it is disappointing that the Scottish Government delayed and obfuscated about the financial resolution. The statement highlights that our schools and dedicated school staff are doing their best to ensure that pupils can benefit from such experiences and that progress should be made, to align with and build on existing practices. Given that, what steps will the Government, local authorities and other partners take to ensure that as many children as possible are in a position to access their right to a week’s residential outdoor education? As Pam Duncan-Glancy noted, that needs to include pupils who have complex additional support needs.
I emphasise again that Liz Smith lodged the bill to introduce a week-long residential trip for children and young people across Scotland. I have given my commitment that I am more than willing to engage with her and members across the Parliament to ensure that we can get the bill to a deliverable and affordable place. [Interruption.] I am sorry; Roz McCall is saying something to me, but I cannot hear it.
Members should let the minister respond to the questions that have been asked.
Perhaps we could pick up those conversations after my statement.
I want to be as clear to the Parliament as possible that we have produced the financial resolution today and we will be voting for it tomorrow. I will continue to engage with members and others to get the bill to an appropriate place.
Having supported the bill at stage 1, subject to the caveats that I emphasised on both capital and revenue funding, I am pleased that it will now progress to stage 2. We know that those issues will not be easy to resolve.
Will Broomlee outdoor education centre in West Linton, in my constituency, which I have visited often, be a consultee? I have huge regard for the facility and its staff and would hope for an extended future for it, which could perhaps include provision for children with ASN in the Borders, which is much needed.
Although I am not aware of the specifics around Ms Grahame’s contribution, I have been clear to Mr Briggs and other members that it would be helpful to be able to draw on good practice and examples. If Ms Grahame is willing to write to me following the statement with the details of the issue that she raises, I can certainly consider them.
I have major reservations about the announcement, and I want to press the minister further. What kind of cost are we committing to? Is this a blank cheque? Is it £40 million? Is it £60 million?
As I have said, members have details of the finances in front of them, and I am aware of Mr Mason’s concerns, which we have discussed at length. I have been clear today that, although this is the approach that we are taking, the Government is still concerned about some of the specific aspects of affordability.
I assure Mr Mason that we are not issuing a blank cheque. What we will do at stage 2 is try to make the bill more affordable and deliverable. Ultimately, members will have the option to support the bill or not when it comes to the time to vote on the bill.
It is not normal for a curriculum to prescribe outdoor education in such a way as the bill proposes. Nonetheless, North Lanarkshire has a proud tradition of offering such an opportunity to young people. Unfortunately, the Kilbowie outdoor centre in Oban was closed in 2020 and has since been demolished. I am interested in hearing whether the minister can give us further information about how the capacity to fulfil the commitment in the bill could be provided, and about whether investment in centres will be needed.
Earlier in the year, work was done on capacity and understanding the sector’s needs. I have been clear in my answers today that further work is needed on that, specifically in relation to children with additional support needs. Although I cannot necessarily go into the specifics, because I have yet to engage with Ms Smith on the work plan, I assure Clare Adamson that that will be a key consideration.
Outdoor learning is said to be a core part of curriculum for excellence, but it was reported this week that Scottish primary school children receive only seven minutes a week of outdoor learning other than through their physical education classes, compared with 30 minutes a week about 10 years ago. Is that adequate? If it is not, what is adequate? What is the Scottish Government’s view? We are letting down our children at the moment, are we not?
I want all children to get access to outdoor learning and outdoor play on a daily basis. I saw the report that the member refers to, but I do not know all the details behind it. However, I do not think that looking at an average figure is a fair reflection of the situation, because that discounts some of the fantastic work that is under way. I have spoken at length before about some of the fantastic outdoor experiences that I have witnessed, and I am sure that members across the chamber will have seen the same thing in their local nurseries and schools.
Again, I have been clear that we are driving forward our ambitions in relation to outdoor learning, and now, in relation to the bill, residential outdoor learning. However, I know that we still have work to do on ensuring access for all pupils, and that continues to be a focus of the Government.
That concludes the statement.
Previous
Portfolio Question Time