Outdoor Education
Debate between Tim Farron and Caroline Voaden(5 days, 3 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tim Farron
Absolutely. That builds on what I am saying. When it comes to poor mental health, it feels like we are figuratively fishing struggling people out of water, when perhaps what we really need to do is build their resilience so that they do not fall in in the first place. Ironically, of course, we do that in part by pushing people into the water—after an entirely appropriate risk assessment, of course.
Education and policy of successive Governments has failed to prioritise outdoor education to the extent that it has become for many a nice luxury at best, rather than the essential that it ought to be.
Caroline Voaden
My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument about the mental health benefits of outdoor education, which I wholeheartedly support. Does he agree with me that if we are to inspire the next generation to appreciate, understand and love nature and promote nature recovery, we need to introduce them to nature? In that spirit, will he commend Grenville House in Brixham and Forest and Beach outdoor education in my constituency, along with all the other schools that promote the Ten Tors expeditions on Dartmoor, for the vital work they do?
Tim Farron
I absolutely will. My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point about integrating outdoor education in the curriculum as a whole.
To turn the situation around will take a serious, conscious and deliberate effort, and I want the Government to take this opportunity to make that happen. This absolutely has to be a cross-party mission. By the way, this is a small half-hour debate, and yet there are more people here than in many hour and a half debates, which shows how important this is to many people. There are no Conservatives here, but I want to pay tribute to two of them: Sam Rowlands, a Member of the Senedd in Wales, and Liz Smith in the Scottish Parliament, who have so ably led campaigns to increase access to outdoor learning. It is a joy to work with and learn from them.
I met the Minister’s colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), recently, and was impressed by his engagement and interest in the issue. I raised with him a point that I want to raise with the Minister here today; I also have a specific request to make—a few of them, actually. Here we go.
First, will the Minister conduct a review of access to outdoor education experiences in our schools? Specifically, will the Department for Education conduct a review of which children and schools are accessing outdoor education opportunities and which children and schools are not accessing those opportunities? Will she ensure that the review analyses why those who are not getting outdoor education experiences are missing out? Then, having identified those barriers, will she come to Parliament with a plan for systematically tackling them? Will she review the capacity in the sector to ascertain our ability to provide access in reality for every young person?
My second ask is for a nature premium, modelled on the existing PE and sport premium, for the 18% in the poorest of our communities who never even visit the natural environment. Children whose imagination is captured by the outdoors in early life through outdoor education are much more likely to make their own choices in an environmentally beneficial way through the rest of their life. Will the Minister look at the evidence from the trial in Glasgow, which is supported by a private donor, and commit to rolling out the nature premium across the country?
My third ask is basically three asks in one. There are three reviews happening right now that should have outdoor learning at their heart and could transform opportunities for young people if the Government choose to seize the moment. First, DEFRA’s access to nature scheme is under review. It provides residentials for young people at schools where more than 30% of children have pupil premium funding. Is the Minister involved in that review, and is she pushing for that scheme to be maintained and extended?
Secondly, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is leading on the Government’s youth strategy. I understand that the interim report is due out this month. Is the Minister involved in the review, and has the Department for Education pushed for outdoor education to be central and integral to the youth strategy’s mission to radically improve outcomes for our young people?
Thirdly, on the Department for Education’s own curriculum review, will the Minister say something about her work to ensure that outdoor learning, including the importance of residentials, becomes central to the curriculum at both primary and secondary level? At the moment, I have to say, the signs are not encouraging: in the draft curriculum review, the word “outdoor” appears just once. How can the Minister reassure us that the final review will not completely miss this golden opportunity?
My final and fourth ask is an ambitious one, but surely this is the time to be ambitious for our young people. If the Government want to do something utterly transformational that will improve education and mental health outcomes, tackle obesity and physical poor health, and increase life chances and cohesion in our society, they should support my presentation Bill, which calls for every child to have an entitlement to a week-long residential outdoor education experience at primary, and then again at secondary school.
Schools should be fully funded to provide those experiences. Outdoor education centres should be involved in the design of those programmes, and they should be given the ability to expand capacity. No child should miss out because their parents could not afford it. The value would be immense. It would light the blue touchpaper on a lifelong love of nature, adventure and the outdoors. It would build citizens who can cope and thrive in the modern world. It would mean happier and healthier people, better learners, better workers and a better country.
Sewage
Debate between Tim Farron and Caroline Voaden(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tim Farron
I will talk later about why privatisation of the water industry was such a colossal mistake, and that is one of the consequences—a predictable consequence. The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point.
Recent research by Surfers Against Sewage covers all the water companies, but I am bound to pick out United Utilities as an example. United Utilities paid out £320 million to investors last year, while its customers—my constituents—will pay 32% more in bills. By the way, 11% of every one of my constituents’ water bills is going to service that company’s debts—debts racked up in part by borrowing money in order to give huge, undeserved paydays to their investors.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
In South Devon last year, we had an astonishing 49,904 hours of sewage leaks, or 5.69 years-worth of sewage pouring into the glorious Dart and Avon and into the sea around South Devon. Meanwhile, my constituents write to me about bills that have gone up by as much as 50%. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an outrage that the privatised water companies are able to carry on increasing bills, increasing dividends to shareholders and paying multimillion-pound salaries to CEOs while this obscenity of sewage pouring into our rivers, seas and lakes continues?
Tim Farron
My hon. Friend represents an utterly beautiful part of the country and she fights for it admirably; her constituents are lucky to have her. She makes an important point. I mentioned that 11% of the bills paid by my constituents in the north-west of England goes to service United Utilities’ debt, but that is one of the lowest levels. For many other colleagues on both sides of the House, their local water companies will be using up to 30% of the bills charged just to service their debt. The sewage scandal is an environmental scandal, but it is also a financial one—an affront to justice and fairness, as well as to our ecology.