Chamber and committees

That is a possibility, convener. An interesting thing that came out in two or three of the Education, Children and Young People Committee’s evidence sessions is that much of the PEF—which has been a very successful way of funding support, particularly for schools and youngsters who have greater need, in some of the more disadvantaged communities—is currently being used for outdoor education. That speaks volumes about the choices that have been made in local authorities and schools to ensure that that money goes to something that clearly gives positive outcomes. I have engaged with the Scottish Government about the level of PEF that we have and how much of it is going to outdoor education, because it is important to find out what the total is. That funding is obviously provided by the Scottish Government.

It is true that any classroom provision has to be under GTCS control. That is absolutely right and proper, because that concerns the professional qualification.

Existing schools that undertake a considerable amount of outdoor education—a growing number—are able to cope with that scenario without any additional extra costs. They make their timetable work to suit the provision of what is happening both in school and in the outdoor education field. It is the same as for history trips or language trips. It is never easy to organise a school timetable—in fact, it is increasingly difficult, these days—but the issue is pretty well covered. I do not think that there is a significant cost that will impinge on the ability of schools to provide staffing for outdoor education, because the schools that currently take part do not seem to have that problem.

The NASUWT was very concerned about the SNCT aspect. It was able to produce evidence that almost 90 per cent of its members—I think that that was the figure—were very much in favour of school trips, which I thought was encouraging. However, you are right to say that it was concerned about the possibility of the matter becoming statutory and opening up all the tripartite negotiation, which would be difficult.

I must say that the evidence that we have taken from individual teachers, people who work in the sector and some local authorities—the City of Edinburgh Council, which gave evidence to the committee, is a case in point—shows that a lot of teachers are very keen to try to participate in this kind of thing without it having major implications. I got the slight impression from some of the evidence that a lot of teachers would walk away if they were asked to do extra things, but I do not see any evidence of that in the teaching profession just now. Some teachers might feel like that, but I do not see that as a major issue.

The Educational Institute of Scotland and the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association said in their evidence that, actually, they really quite like the principles of the bill; we just have to make it work. I have been clear all along that we just have to make it work. I must come up with the right suggestions about how we can make it work and make people feel confident in the bill’s financial aspects and its workability. From the feedback that we have had so far, we are halfway there on workability. On the finance aspect, we have to find a workable model that allows the Scottish Government to have confidence that it can pursue the bill.

That happens already. There are pressures on families, of course, and not just from childcare. If a member of staff is asked to go away at a time when his or her youngster is doing Scottish Qualifications Authority exams, that is a pressure as well, because they do not want to be away from home, and that puts pressure on another colleague to be able to take up that work. Those pressures have existed for all the time that I have been involved with the issue.

Yes, that is correct. If the bill is passed, the big question is how many schools from the primary sector and how many schools from the secondary sector will choose to participate. This is probably more anecdotal evidence than anything that we can pin down to finite figures. We think, certainly from what schools, local authorities and the sector have told us, that we will probably get more young people from the secondary sector in the second year. That was why we thought that the numbers might drop a bit but go back up. They could be slightly towards the higher end in year 3 and beyond.

The Welsh bill did not pass, but that was by one vote, which was because somebody was not there to vote—it was a very close-run thing. Sam Rowlands, the Welsh member who promoted the bill, came up here quite a lot and we had a lot of conversations. I followed the bill in the Senedd carefully. Although it was defeated by one vote, the Welsh Government went back to Sam Rowlands and said, “We don’t want this whole thing to completely collapse. We’re very keen to have outdoor education as one of the basic offerings in Welsh schools.” As I mentioned, the information that is available in Wales is much better than what is available in Scotland, so I think that that bill will come back.

As you know, Tim Farron had a similar bill, before the general election closed it down, and he has been doing the same thing in England. He comes from the Lake District area, so that is where he gets a lot of his information. When it comes to supporting our young people these days, this kind of thing is even more important than it was in the past. So, yes, I think that the proposal will come back in Wales.

A lot of employers are keen to develop our young people’s skills and some would like a model of trust funding for this kind of outdoor activity—it does not have to be outdoor education; it could be other things. Help could be given to our outdoor centres to provide quality provision through additional funding that employers could make available. Some centres have benefited from being able to upgrade some of their facilities.

There is a new outdoor education centre up in Aberdeenshire, and a lady from there gave evidence not to the Education, Children and Young People Committee but to the cross-party group on outdoor education. She told an inspiring story about the funding for that centre. When outdoor education centres do creative and imaginative things, funding can be found, but you are quite right that we must ensure that that can happen not just in a few cases but across the system.

There are issues about some of the existing outdoor centres needing to update their facilities. However, when it comes to bed space, which is important because that is the issue that determines how many youngsters can go to the centres, there is good capacity. We need to make a distinction between that and the structures that those who represented the outdoor education sector at the Education, Children and Young People Committee mentioned last week when they acknowledged that some of their facilities need to be updated. They are the ones who have to do that, and they are waiting to see what the demand level will be before they make investment decisions on that basis.

Having been a teacher myself, I am slightly biased.

On the same side of that coin, Mr Greer, is the fact that if those centres were to take bookings from non-school attendees and the price shot up, the temptation would then be to have fewer places for young people, because, obviously, there would be displacement and it would be more tempting for a provider to simply offer the space, not to young people, but to those who are able to pay more. I do not think that that will happen—I see no sign of that whatsoever. In fact, it is quite the reverse in the sector. However, that displacement effect could happen if the centres felt that they had to get an awful lot of extra money from somewhere else, because schools would simply not be able to pay those fees. That would reduce the number of spaces that were available for young people.