Hansard

I thank all the members who signed the motion and all those who will contribute to this evening’s debate.

I open the debate with two personal experiences in mind. First, during my teaching days in the 1980s and 1990s I was privileged to take charge of several outdoor education projects in Scotland. Secondly, over my 13 years as a member of the Scottish Parliament, I have been privileged to receive many emails that have told me just how much constituents have valued the opportunities that outdoor education has given to their families.

The value to families is surely exemplified by the fact that around 19,000 people have signed the “Save Scottish Outdoor Centres” petition, by the fact that when the Scout Association advertised on Facebook on 15 September that 144 places were available in outdoor activities, the places were gone within just a few minutes, by the fact that the Outward Bound Trust offer in August of 800 adventure days at Loch Eil and Ullswater was also taken up within a few hours, and by the considerable media interest in the issue over the past few days from the BBC, STV and Channel 5.

The popular appeal of outdoor education comes as no surprise to me. Before my first residential trip, when I was 15, I remember being anxious about being away from home for the first time, about not really knowing many people in the group, including the two members of staff who would be looking after us, and about not knowing what to expect in a remote environment, far removed from anything with which I was familiar.

When I returned, the anxieties with which I had started out had been completely defeated and replaced with a new mood of confidence and self-discipline and a much deeper understanding of who I was. I could cook, put up a tent, build a campfire, fish, and walk and climb the hills for hours on end. More important, I had learned what it means to be part of a team, I had learned about leadership and I had learned the value of friendship.

I did not know it at the time, but those two weeks are responsible for my lifetime of enjoyment of and commitment to the outdoors. In bringing this debate to the Parliament, I want to ensure that the opportunities that I was afforded will still be there for generations to come.

The evidence of the benefits of outdoor education is widespread and compelling. I pay tribute to all individuals in the outdoor education sector who have enriched the lives of our young people, providing them with a knowledge and appreciation of environments and communities that are very different from those with which they are familiar, building their confidence and self-esteem and developing in them an understanding of responsible behaviour and how to deal with new challenges and manage risk.

In an age—particularly during the Covid-19 pandemic—when there is growing concern about young people’s health and lifestyles, concern that many young people from deprived areas, in particular, do not get the same opportunities as their counterparts elsewhere, and concern that in some local authorities the feeling is that there is a need to cut back on such activity because of stringent financial circumstances, it is time to treasure our outdoor education centres in the same way as we treasure our schools.

As the circumstances stand just now, it is predicted that half—I repeat, half—of our 36 outdoor centres are likely to close by autumn 2021. If they do, they will likely not return. We simply cannot allow that to happen. Every single outdoor group to whom I have spoken over the past two weeks—I am grateful to them all—has told me that we must act now if we are to save our outdoor education centres.

That is an extremely blunt warning, but when we see the details of the financial situation that faces many centres, in local authorities of every political hue, we realise just how desperate the situation is.

The situation is especially bad in some of the most rural and remote locations, which in many cases have not been able to benefit from single days of outdoor education.

Nor is it just land-based outdoor education centres that are at risk. Ocean Youth Trust Scotland, which provides a floating outdoor education centre and which has, in the past 20 years, looked after 14,000 young people, many of them with specific challenges, has not been able to sail any boats at all this year. We know that schools are finding it particularly difficult to afford the necessary coach hire or the fees that are required for specialist assistance, whether that be for activities such as canoeing, rock-climbing or abseiling.

In August, the Scottish Government advised local authorities that residential school trips should not take place, and that that decision will not be reviewed until December at the earliest. That is a hammer blow. It will mean £2.3 million of lost income for the Scouts alone. At the Scottish Outdoor Education Centres charity, 50 jobs are at stake, despite the fact that its centres have received enquiries for 2021 bookings that make up almost £0.5 million of income.

With the current growth in Covid-19 and the on-going uncertainty, the SOEC can see that schools and local authorities will be unlikely to send youngsters to outdoor education centres for the rest of this term and possibly for the spring term. This is a desperate plea from all of them for the collective will of Government, of Parliament and other institutions to help them to find the necessary funds to tide them over until next summer to prevent any closures because, I repeat, if those centres close, they will not open again.

In its 2007 Scottish Parliament election manifesto, the Scottish National Party said:

“Scotland has one of the most spectacular and challenging outdoor environments in the world and all of our youngsters should have the opportunity to experience it. We will work towards a guarantee of 5 days outdoor education for every school pupil. To start this process, we will provide an additional £250,000 each year to support the expansion of 5 days subsidised outdoor education targeted at children from our most deprived communities.”

I agreed with that, and I also agreed with John Swinney when said recently that he was

“keen to ensure that residential outdoor learning experiences continue to be part of the Curriculum for Excellence.”

I remind the Scottish Government that, as part of the 2009-10 Scottish budget negotiations, a £1 million commitment to outdoor education was made; it is there in the budget lines. It was supported by several Scottish sports stars at the time, led by Gavin Hastings, who wanted to see combined support from Government, business and philanthropy via the Trusts (Scotland) Act 1961, to ensure that all pupils had access to at least one week of residential outdoor education by the time they are 15. In 2008, the SOEC advised that that would probably cost around £160 per pupil, so I expect it will now be nearer £250. At the time, however, the outdoor centres told me that they never saw that money, so it is now surely time to refocus all our minds. This is not a party-political issue; this is for us all. We must urgently find the financial assistance to allow the outdoor education centres to remain. That is the purpose of the debate.

There is the additional Covid context to all this. If outdoor education is a priceless asset in normal circumstances, it was never more needed than now. We are all too aware of how many young people have struggled through this crisis, missing several months of school, feeling lonely and isolated in many cases, and generally feeling less sure about themselves and their abilities, with all the impact that that has for their mental health.

Parliament, whether in the chamber or in committee, is all too accustomed to debating the progress of education in numbers—the number of teachers, the number of Scottish Qualification Authority passes, the percentage increase in literacy and numeracy skills, class sizes—when, more often, we should be turning our attention to the qualitative aspects of education that cannot be reduced to numbers but which, I argue, are intrinsic to what can be defined as good quality education. I have no doubt whatsoever that education in an outdoor environment provides one of the most valuable and rewarding learning experiences for a wide range of pupils, no matter what their backgrounds or abilities. To lose that precious asset is an unconscionable thought, and I hope the Scottish Government hears the loud message that is coming from the sector: if we do not get action, the outdoor education centres will no longer exist. I urge the Scottish Government to work with us all to find the necessary funding and ensure that they remain.