Chamber and committees

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.

There will always be circumstances, such as illness or particular family circumstances, when a young person misses out for a variety of reasons—that is just as it is now. When it comes to changing school, the method of tracking in schools is much better now than it has ever been. If a youngster goes to a new school, that new school will be able to track what activities and curriculum the youngster has undertaken at the previous school. As I said, SEEMiS seems to be working pretty well at giving much better tracking information.

The Government flagged up the costs—quite rightly so. There are costs related to transportation, specialist equipment and specialist provision for staffing. That is part of the financial memorandum.

I found the statistics that came out last week on additional support for learning, which I know that you were leading on for the Labour Party in Parliament, pretty grim. We have a long way to go to ensure that we are looking after young people with additional support needs as well as we should be. I think that the Government has acknowledged that. I hope that the bill will help that in some respects, particularly on the life-changing experiences that they can get from the outdoors.

All aspects of teacher contracts have to go through that tripartite negotiation. That matter is not for me but, rightly, for the Government, local authorities and unions. That is the basis for those negotiations.

The evidence that was provided by the unions was, as you said, interesting, and it was important, because if we cannot take teachers with us on this, we will not go very far, as teachers are a very important part of it.

I was struck by the evidence that the unions provided about the benefits that outdoor education provides. All of them were supportive of the principle but, rightly, they raised concerns, which you have echoed, about how it would work when it came to teacher contracts. Some teachers will not be in favour of the bill, but a lot are in favour. We have heard an awful lot from them, including in the initial responses, about the voluntary aspect not being undermined.

I am not sure that there would have to be a renegotiation, but I am not an expert on such matters. A lot that goes on in the current provision works very well. Schools manage it very well, and a lot of teachers are keen to participate in outdoor education or outdoor visits. I do not think that the issue is a major problem. Nonetheless, I am conscious that I need to be able to take all teachers with me.

We saw a downturn in the 1980s when the playing fields scenario meant that a lot of schools cut their extracurricular activity. We saw a big downturn in the number of teachers who were responsible for looking after football, rugby, hockey or whatever it might have been. That activity is beginning to come back. I have been interested to see the number of extracurricular activities that are happening in some schools where there had previously been quite a big decline. I think that that represents an understanding in a lot of schools—to be fair to the Scottish Government, I think that it recognises this—that the benefits from physical activity and sport are pretty compelling. We are starting to see an upturn in the number of schools that are going back to running more teams and taking part in more activities.

We see that a lot of youngsters are now involved in local tournaments these days, at schools that had previously pretty much shut down their extracurricular activity in the last part of the 20th century. It is good to see that.

Yes, I do. Edinburgh is a classic example of a council doing everything that we would like to see. Not only does it have good data and background evidence on what is actually happening, but it puts a high priority on outdoor education.

That is not to say that other local authorities do not want to do that, but they have felt financial pressures. There are 13 local authorities that have been using the EVOLVEvisits system to track what is going on, and there are moves within quite a lot of other authorities to try to improve things. However, it is difficult. Some local authorities do not have the facilities in such numbers, which might also mean that they do not have youth hostels.

Some schools provide additional facilities for childcare, and some provide some outdoor equipment that people might need but do not have. That already goes on. Some teachers are able to enjoy benefits such as extra payments or extra days off in lieu, so there is some flexibility in that regard.

Will we be able to pay all teachers an extra salary for doing all that kind of stuff? No, I do not think so. It could be argued that taking on anything new as part of the curriculum should result in an incremental increase in salary, but that does not happen. It all comes back to teacher contracts. We cannot give a salary addition for every additional thing that teachers do. Teachers argue strongly—rightly so, in many cases—that they have had an awful lot of extra work to do, but they do not get paid for that extra work. In fact, that is sometimes a bone of contention.

I do not think that that is a major issue. The number of teachers who already engage in such education disproves the point that there is a major problem.

I come back to the point that you cannot force teachers to go to outdoor centres if they do not want to go, but I do not think that schools are doing that. Schools use the staff who buy into it. By no means are all school staff in Scotland going on residential outdoor education trips. It does not work like that. I would not want people to be forced to go, because if you start forcing people, you are in trouble.

Absolutely, and I can speak from many years of personal experience. Youngsters can see a teacher—such as me—not always getting things right, and they learn from that experience. They can also see us getting things right most of the time, which they learn from, too. We learn about our own professional expertise and how to handle different youngsters.

I could quote many youngsters whom I taught at George Watson’s college. Some of them were pupils who were not flourishing in the classroom, and some were perhaps not too keen on school, but they absolutely flourished in the outdoors. There were other youngsters who you thought would be an absolute star in the outdoors, but they were not quite as good as they thought they would be.

The educational and social experience is vital. It enhances the relationships that you have with your peers and it definitely enhances the teacher-pupil relationship in both directions. You learn so much as a teacher from that. I was a teacher for 16 years and I still contribute to a lot of outdoor education, and I learn so much from just watching youngsters who might have thought that they would never be able to do something and yet they did it. They come away a different person.

You are right that it is about the long term. Pupils perhaps do better in their exams and in their attainment. They take part in extracurricular activity. That swings it for me. If we are going to be concerned—as we have to be—about our young people and the outcomes that we can deliver, we should recognise that outdoor education contributes to that. It is not the only thing, but it does contribute.

I have spent an awful lot of time on bringing the bill to Parliament. I have welcomed in particular the engagement from this committee and from the Finance and Public Administration Committee, and I credit the Scottish Government for its engagement.

I will finish on this point. If we want all young people in Scotland to experience the kind of education that society believes they deserve and we want to see, the bill can make a huge difference through inspiring confidence, self-esteem and resilience, and by giving children an extra dimension that too many of them are missing out on.

You sound as though you are making a good case for being a leader on using public transport to get to outdoor education.

You make a good point. There is huge variation in transport costs because of geography. By definition, some schools have to pay a lot of money for a coach to get a set of youngsters to Loch Eil, Torridon or wherever it might be, whereas other schools have a fairly short trip, and a school or local authority minibus might be provided. I think that we can be imaginative about the issue.

I have spoken to a lot of employers about the bill, and they value the skills that outdoor education residentials provide so much. There is scope for employers to help with transport costs in some areas.