Chamber and committees

Your compliance figures look good. I presume that part of your job is to upset people who do not want to pay tax, and that your customer satisfaction score could never be 100 per cent, because some people just—

I picked up that you have had a few issues with the three-yearly lease reviews. Could you explain why we have the reviews and what the problems were?

Okay—thank you.

According to the savings section of the financial memorandum, it does not appear that the bill will result in a lot of savings. At the moment, it seems to me that parents—better-off parents, I presume—are paying most of the money for kids to have residential experiences. I think that 60 per cent or thereabouts of primary school kids go on residential trips at present. That means that there will be a big saving for better-off parents. Is that the best use of the money? I do not know what proportion of the £30 million, in effect, represents a saving to parents—maybe we are talking about half or a third of it. Is there not a better way of using public money? Some parents are willing and able to contribute, and some schools say that they benefit from fundraising and from kids working together to raise money for such events. Will we not lose out on all of that?

That is very kind, convener.

Along with Ross Greer, I have the privilege of being on the Education, Children and Young People Committee, so we have had a lot more background on the bill. I will press you a little more on capital spending, which the convener asked about. The education committee got the impression that some outdoor centres are really struggling and people’s expectations of them are rising. Some of the buildings were built in 1939—as it happens, I have stayed in some of those.

The current model seems to be that schools pay for only the running costs and that the capital funding for outdoor centres has to come from other sources. The centres are going around to trusts to beg for money and are fundraising and doing different things. I get the impression that some of the centres seem to be a little more successful than others, but that is to be expected. The suggestion was made that if an outdoor centre hits a major financial challenge, it may well close. The current funding model is working to an extent, but not hugely, and the councils have largely closed their centres. Surely, going forward, the model cannot continue, and some new money must come in on the capital side?

What was the reason for the three-yearly reviews? Most 10-year leases will not change.

Okay. That is helpful. Perhaps the issue can go into Liz Smith’s finance bill when it comes along.

It might need to be reviewed. That is great, thanks very much.

You said that you want to be inclusive, and we all agree with that. On your previous point, we all probably agree with the concept. The question is whether we support the bill, largely because of the cost.

Centres in Scotland can cope with those with additional support needs to a certain extent, but there is no one centre that can cope with some of the neediest children. Would the plan be that, in the short term, those children would go to England?

Would the alternative be to set up a fund of perhaps £10 million that was specifically for schools, children or outdoor centres to apply for to cover their costs?