Parliament must progress outdoor activity bill

The parliamentary and governmental manoeuvres around outdoor education are both democracy at its best, and democracy at its worst. With what is at stake, it is to be hoped that the better side of democracy will prevail today.

As its best, democracy can take a good idea which was the effort of a single politician from a party generally considered to be isolated in the parliament and turn it into a consensus call for action. That is what happened when Conservative MSP Liz Smith proposed that all children should have a right to at least one week of residential outdoor activity in a rural setting during their school career.

This proposal presses so many positive buttons it is unsurprising it rapidly gained support across the political spectrum, and well beyond. Linking pupils to nature is important for mental health, important culturally (Scotland is a rural country and its history and culture is rooted in its land), good for health, invaluable in helping children to understand climate change, good to encourage personal resilience and lots more.

Partly through exemplary parliamentary work by Ms Smith who engaged positively across party boundaries, it did indeed get widespread support and passed Stage One of the parliamentary process. That indicates it had the support of parliament.

This is where the worse side of democracy comes in. For this legislation to progress, it needs to begin Stage Two. For that to happen the Scottish Government has to set out a financial statement of the projected costs of the legislation as enacted. Failure to do so by the deadline effectively means the legislation falls.

Why would the Scottish Government do this? That points to another big benefit of the initiative. All over Scotland there are outdoor activity facilities which are going out of business. Outdoor activities are not well funded in Scotland and most organisations in this field operate on very narrow margins.

They were devastated by Covid. It is not just that they lost business and momentum during lockdown, its that the aftermath of the pandemic was equally brutal. The cost of living crisis hammered households and discretionary spending declined rapidly. That hit outdoor activity hard.

But behaviours, habits and attitudes changed too. People were initially less keen to gather in larger groups and in residential settings. Many of the voluntary organisations which organised outdoor activity were themselves under extreme financial duress and were unable to commit to what had been annual visits in the past.

A web search will reveal just how many outdoor education facilities have closed in recent years. As always, in a rural area where there are fewer employers and fewer economic drivers, losing businesses like this is particularly harmful.

Guaranteed outdoor education for all pupils would be transformative for this sector and for many rural economies. It is not just the benefits of building a connection between young Scots and outdoor activities, it is hopefully about building attitudes and connections which last, which persuade urban children that the countryside is for them too – as adults.

Yet that is the problem; this is a major boost to rural Scotland because it would be a significant investment in rural Scotland. It will cost money.

And while the Scottish Government has not explicitly said so, it is widely assumed that Ministers would like to kill the initiative quietly to avoid having to invest the money. This is a manoeuvre unprecedented in the history of devolution.

It is not only an instance of the increasingly underhand procedural methods that are used to restrict democracy and accountability in Scotland (the bureaucratic withholding of information to thwart the progress of democratic and accountability procedures is routine in contemporary Scotland), it is that there is a strong whiff of pique that this isn't a governmental pet programme.

The tribalism in Holyrood means that there is suspicion of good ideas that come from 'the other side' and a fear that supporting them would provide positive PR 'for the other side'. That honest, collegiate working on popular legislation might possibly provide good PR for you does not seem to be considered.

It is being reported today that the Scottish Government, having been caught out over this move, is now relenting and planning to provide the financial documents necessary for this legislation to proceed. This is a good outcome, if for the wrong reason.

Given the vanity projects the Scottish Government has wasted money on and the very generous funding it gives to corporate interests, it is of deep concern that this highly positive and popular move is the one that the Scottish Government has chosen to block.

It must now throw its wholehearted support behind this initiative and get it over the line. This should be only the beginning of creating a new relationship between Scots, our land and our nature. But this will be a very big first step – if it is supported.