Seòmar agus comataidhean

I agree that many of the groups that are involved in the provision of residential outdoor education do fantastic work. Although the residential outdoor education that I received as a youngster did not make any difference to my life, I know that it has been a good thing for some people.

However, there are other ways in which outdoor activities can be provided. The bill is very limited in its scope. I am thinking of activities such as ziplines and canoeing. There are many more ways in which children can learn about leadership. Surely a compromise could be reached whereby the aims of what the member is trying to achieve could be met by taking a different—and, in some respects, a more modern—approach.

I think you are talking about the limitations of the bill as it stands, because when I think about my 10-year-old granddaughter Daisy, who is autistic, and her additional support needs, the idea of going away to this kind of centre would absolutely terrify her. She would be up all night worrying about going to such a place. Therefore, you are quite right: there are other ways in which we can deal with these kinds of situations.

Well, it is an issue.

Good morning, everyone. I was struck by what Fiona Duncan said earlier, because I am an emotional guy. She said that you do not stop caring for your children at 16 and that there is language used about stopping caring for children. I get that, because my daughter is 32 today and she is in Edinburgh, and I am currently trying to negotiate for her to come visit her old da at his work, which is proving difficult. I agree with the point about language.

However, that has nothing to do with what I was going to ask about. Sheriff Mackie, you said that the bill is most notable for what is not in it. We agree that engagement was not great, but it has got better since the bill was published. As Fraser McKinlay said, not everything will be in legislation and in what we want to achieve with the bill. Fiona Duncan said that the bill is part of the process and that there might be another bill down the line or there might be other ways of doing things. As a back-bench MSP scrutinising the bill, what are the key things that you want me to look at during stage 1 and stage 2? How can we make this part of the process better?

Good morning, minister. You brought up an important point. You said that, if the financial memorandum was subject to the same level of scrutiny as the financial memorandums of Government bills are subject to, we would be hearing a completely different story from Opposition members. We are always told to follow the evidence, and when we do that, we see that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has severe concerns about the bill because of the costs that it would involve, which could lead to the reopening of negotiations with teachers.

Another issue is the fact that we heard evidence that many of the buildings that are used for residential outdoor education were built in the 1940s, some of them were built in the 1960s, and a number of them are in severe need of investment. I said that some of the buildings were falling down around people; other members said that I should correct that and say that they were in need of investment.

Is it not the case that the financial memorandum that is in front of us is, at best, a guesstimate and, at worst, complete fiscal fantasy? You are being asked to write a blank cheque. Surely that is not what you are here to do.

Thank you.

Constantly.

Good morning. I understand where you are coming from, because I know how much the cenotaph in Paisley means to the community. Equally, we have a religious covenanters memorial and a memorial to the 1820 insurrection martyrs. I will not ask you another question about that issue, because you have answered and said that you are willing to look at the issue at stage 2 if people bring in suggestions along those lines.

I want to turn to the deterrence aspect. There might be some who are minded to desecrate a memorial for a political or personal reason in order to get a point across. If they believe that they will not get a 10-year sentence or end up in the jail, they might not be deterred, and the bill might give them a bigger platform. How do you feel about that?

I am not being cynical—well, I am cynical—but the point is that someone who has made the decision to do something will see sheriff courts as better for them than a smaller court, because they will get a bigger platform, more newspaper coverage and more people listening to what they have to say and do. If they do not fear the sentence at the other side, that is a bit of an issue. I will not labour the point, but we can discuss it as the bill progresses.

My other point is this: will those who are here today supporting your bill not be disappointed by the suggestion that, although the bill says that there is a potential 10 years’ sentence, such a sentence is unlikely to be given out?

I get that.