Chamber and committees

Tara, you have talked about the challenges facing your members and the fact that teachers are having to engage almost in a plate-spinning exercise to ensure that they are getting everything done. How do they ensure that young people can achieve all of this? Surely they will say, “We know that certain young people engage in certain ways, and this might not necessarily be the way to do it.” You have already mentioned that your members believe that day trips, for example, have a lot more value.

You mentioned that there might be some capacity issues, should this sort of thing become mandatory and part of the curriculum, and you also said you had a fear of money that had been going into education being taken out of it. When you said that, I got a wee bit frightened, too. Can you elaborate on that a wee bit more? I can see where you are coming from, and I think that it is an important point.

I see that Phil Thompson’s buildings have been there since 1939.

I have a final question for Tara Lillis. In your written evidence, you say that you have advised members to participate only in visits with “clear educational outcomes” and proper approval. You have gone further than that today, saying that on the whole you advise them not to go, because of all kinds of other things. That is quite concerning in itself; I am also quite concerned by your comment that this could open up teachers’ pay and conditions. Can you give me some further detail on why that is such a major issue? It probably affects the financial memorandum, as Matthew Sweeney mentioned earlier.

Just to be clear, in the area that I come from, the vast majority of children—though not all—would not know a Duke of Edinburgh’s award if it bit them on the backside. How do we deal with those kids? From the experience in my own area and community, they are not likely to engage with these kinds of things.

Oh, those are Jamie’s. Sorry about that, Phil.

Good morning, everyone. I have listened to everything that you have said, and thinking back to what we heard last week, I remember being told that the outcomes for young people at these outdoor education centres is that they become good leaders—indeed, world leaders—and better people, and that they give them a focus on what they want to do in life.

However—and I am trying not to be a grumpy old man here—a lot of young people whom I know, including those in my own family and my own children, gained a lot of that from other things in school, whether from the football or netball team, or other sporting or academic endeavours. What, in your opinion, are the intended outcomes from the residential centres, and how do they feed into what we already currently do? I am struggling to marry all of that up. Matthew Sweeney has said that we are already doing quite a lot of work on this, and that doing something nationally might take away from that. I have to say that I share that concern.

That kind of change gets us back into the financial realm, and there will be quite big outgoings for you. How will that be financed?

If residential outdoor education becomes part of the statutory requirement, and we are doing that across the board so that every child gets an opportunity, how feasible is it to do that and to give that level of focus?

Where do you see that funding coming from? Is that a mishmash or—