���˿���

I said that the current system is not working well enough—those were the words that I used—because it is excluding too many young people. The current non-statutory provision is working for the young people who are benefiting from residential education, but the provision is not universal by any means. We think that around a third of pupils in secondary school are getting some sort of residential support. In primary school, it could be around a quarter to 30 per cent—we do not really know.

To answer your question, yes, it is about cost—of course it is about cost, because cost matters, both in terms of the delivery of residential outdoor education and in terms of the costs of ensuring that young people can get transport to their residential location. For some children, that might mean quite a journey, while, for others, it might mean a very small step to somewhere just a few miles from the school.

There are costs—of course there are. I have been keen to engage with the Government on what the level of those costs might be. We came out with roughly the same estimate—the ballpark figure in my financial memorandum was not too different from what the Government had estimated.

I am more than happy to say that the costs are probably around £36 million to £40 million. I am quite happy with the engagement that I have had with the Government about that. We have to deliver the money to finance that, and I have told the Government that I have various suggestions about what we can do to involve the private sector.

Under the model that I am proposing, the public trust is controlled by the Scottish Government, as the trustees are Government appointees. The Government is in control, and the bill provides that the Government would be responsible for disbursing the funds.

An application process is a possibility but, through the public trust model, I would like the Scottish Government to work with all 32 local authorities—as it has done with PEF—to ensure not only that the money was available for outdoor education centre provision but that we built on sustainability, which Mr Ross asked about. I am interested in a trust model because it tends to have such sustainability within it—Ireland has proved that, where the approach is about not only the next few years but the future, and that is embedded in the whole system.

I think that the question whether there should be an application process would be up for discussion. However, as I said, I think that the Scottish Government would be able to work with the 32 local authorities to ensure that the money was available for the outdoor education needs in each local authority.

The convener is absolutely right that the responsibility to lodge the financial resolution lies with the Scottish Government. I hope that it will be positive in relation to my request. I wrote to the Government last month to request that it lodge a financial resolution. The minister has said on, I think, three different occasions that the response is neutral. If the response is neutral, I would expect it to lodge a financial memorandum, but that is a matter for the Scottish Government.

I hope that I have been constructive in my engagement with the Scottish Government, and I will continue to be as constructive as I can. At the end of the day, I want all young people in Scotland to have the opportunity to participate in residential outdoor education, even if they do not all take it up.

I am satisfied that there is a mean average, because we worked out what the cost would be for those taking much longer journeys against those on much shorter journeys. We were quite content with the average, and I think that the Finance and Public Administration Committee was, too.

It is a fair question. Whatever model we use, the Government would be responsible for implementing the bill, should it pass. The costs of that provision are in the financial memorandum, and how we would choose to administer it is up for discussion.

It is a more narrow focus, but that could be said about lots of aspects of education anyway. To answer the question of whether it is too narrow, I do not believe that it is. The residential aspect of outdoor learning is a piece of the jigsaw. I come back to what Greg Mannion said in his evidence, which was that we should provide that opportunity for outdoor learning for all pupils. The residential part of that is a further entitlement. He said that that

“is not a big ask.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 6 November 2024; c 25.]

I chose the residential aspect because of the compelling evidence that we were getting about its benefits. I would like to see that piece of the jigsaw in place to ensure that there is an all-round experience for young people in the outdoors that complements and articulates with the curriculum for excellence.

Yes.

The bill is built on equity and inclusion.

It must continue. I would be very dissatisfied if the bill were passed and we still excluded some youngsters from such opportunities. That would be no good to me. We must ensure that we are making provision for residential outdoor education for all young people.