���˿���

Professor Roy, at the Finance and Public Administration Committee just two weeks ago, you highlighted four specific risks for the Scottish budget—namely, the growth in public sector pay, the on-going demographic issue affecting the labour market, the national insurance changes that will have to take place in various portfolios and—as you mentioned just then—the social security gap of £1.3 billion over and above the block grant. Helpfully, you have also just said that, on 7 January, you will provide projected costings for the change to the two-child cap. Given those substantial risks across the economy, do you feel that the social security situation is dominating, in terms of the longer-term projections?

All countries are facing similar pressures, with the demand-led situation, the demographic change in the labour market and so on. How easy is it to make predictions in respect of the UK system of social security, which will obviously have implications for Scotland? Is it broadly in line with other countries when it comes to the share of the budget increasing?

I have a very technical question for Professor Roy. When the cabinet secretary announced in the budget statement her intention for the two-child limit policy to come in, she intimated that it would take time to be implemented. She said that it would be dependent on the Scottish Government being able to access good-quality information from the DWP. If that does take time, might it mean that, although you will produce your best estimates on 7 January based on the statistics, there might have to be a revision further down the road?

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.

I thank the committee for its rigorous and important investigation into the bill. I very much appreciated 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.

Very much so. Over the years, I have visited most outdoor education centres across Scotland and many of the other facilities that offer outdoor education, and the professionalism is second to none. People must realise that outdoor education is evolving. It is not just about people climbing Munros, canoeing or rock climbing, which has perhaps been its image. Given their professional development, many of the people who deliver outdoor education are trying to embrace the spirit of the getting it right for every child policy—that is, we have to get it right for every child, whatever their needs are, in outdoor settings.

They have done a huge amount not only to modernise the delivery of what they are offering but to try to articulate it with the modern curriculum, which I think is very important. The Government quite rightly asked how the proposals in the bill would articulate with the curriculum for excellence, and I think that they complement it 100 per cent. The principles behind the curriculum for excellence are exactly the principles that are behind the outdoor education sector.

I come back to Professor Greg Mannion’s point when he gave evidence to the committee. He said:

“We should make it an entitlement in the curriculum that everybody gets education in outdoor settings, and within that we should make it a further entitlement that people get a residential experience.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 6 November 2024; c 25.]

I could not agree more.

I am impressed by what I see, but I also do not want us to get into a situation where we force all young people into outdoor residential education. That is not the intention behind the bill. All I want to see is that the opportunities are there for every child, should their school wish to take them up.

I hope that that does not happen. I say again that the Government has been very engaged. I have been very pleased with the constructive discussions that I have had with the cabinet secretary and the minister. There is a genuine agreement that the principles of the bill are the right ones.

I do not see how anybody could argue that the principles would not articulate what we are trying to do with Scottish education. They articulate with the curriculum for excellence and with the Scottish Government’s approach to learning for sustainability. There is a firm commitment. Does the approach have to be statutory? I come back to my earlier answer, which is that we have tried the non-statutory route, some of which worked and some of which is not working. To ensure inclusion and equity, we perhaps need to take the statutory route.

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.

That is an important question, and the Government has asked it, too. The reason why it has to be statutory is that, although the current system has good principles behind it, dating from 2010, when the Government set out that vision about outdoor learning and linked it with the sustainability aspect, we have to accept that the system of non-statutory provision is not delivering for enough young people. I do not think that we are there yet with regard to allowing all young people to take advantages of the experiences. That is why I believe that the proposal should be put on to a statutory foundation.

Some councils are not convinced, and, in councils that are convinced, there are some people who are not convinced. There is a mix of opinion, which has come about, quite rightly, because there are questions about cost and about transportation. If you look at a lot of the evidence from some of the local authorities, you will see that their problem is not to do with the fact that they cannot get the benefit out of a residential centre but to do with the fact that they cannot get the children there. That is a big issue, and I think that that is particularly true in relation to youngsters who have special needs. I have tried to address that in the financial memorandum.

There are other questions, such as those around teachers’ time. For example, people have asked whether the proposals would undermine teachers’ ability to do other things. I do not think that they would, and I do not think that the schools and local authorities that are already engaged in residentials have seen any undermining of the rest of the curriculum, nor do they see any displacement.

How do you measure the benefits of education? It is not easy, but it is a key question.