Chamber and committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those problems would exist whether or not the bill passes—let us be honest. Some updating has to be done, but we should remember that there is a wonderful brand-new facility in Aberdeenshire because demand is so strong. Nick March was clear in his evidence that some centres, especially those that were built in the 1930s, are definitely in need of an upgrade, and money has to be found for that.

If the bill passes, there would be an increase in demand, which would allow centres to take in more revenue, which could help with their investment. However, some centres have already found other ways of investing in provision.

I point to the independent sector, which, as you will have noticed, I did not include in the bill, for the very good reason that independent sector schools already provide such education through their fee structures. If we are working towards inclusion, that provision should be available to all youngsters in the state and grant-aided sectors, because why should they lose out when it is a given right in most independent schools now? I do not think that the bill will benefit better-off parents while excluding other parents; I think that it will provide for levelling up.

Mr Mason was absolutely right to mention fundraising. Not only are school fundraising activities generally very successful, but there is an esprit de corps in the way in which youngsters and families contribute to that fundraising, which is all part of the learning experience.

I point out that pupil equity funding, which was a fantastic innovation by the Scottish Government, is, as far as we know, largely being used for a lot of aspects of outdoor residential education. That tells me that that funding, which is about levelling up, has been very successful in providing more money.

I do not think that it would undermine any aspect of outdoor learning at all. As I said in my opening remarks, it is complementary to—

That is an excellent question. We must ensure that it is about inclusion and providing equity across the system. That is one of the reasons why we must have additional funding, to ensure that resource is there to allow young people from every background to participate. Should the bill pass, it is important that we have engagement between the local authorities and the outdoor sectors to ensure that we are coping well with young people who do not have the privilege that some of their peers might have.

If we look at the overall evidence, young people from disadvantaged backgrounds have provided some of the most compelling and positive evidence. That swings it for me. People will know that my professional background was in an independent school, and I always felt that it was wrong that other young people across Scotland were not able to benefit from what I could see happening on a regular basis in independent schools. We will never make everyone’s outdoor education experience identical, but the bill is about inclusion and ensuring that all young people have that opportunity. Mr Rennie asked about the return on the investment—for many of those young people, the value of that experience is perhaps even greater.