Seòmar agus comataidhean

Will the member take an intervention?

My intervention is about age. The Scottish Sentencing Council’s research highlights that young people

“are generally less able to exercise good judgement when making decisions”,

that they

“are more vulnerable to negative influences such as peer pressure and exploitative relationships”

and that they

“may take more risks”.

The research seems relevant to the decision that the committee will have to make about age. The decisions that young people can make when they are 16 or 18—for example, about getting married, starting smoking or drinking alcohol—are all reversible; they can get divorced, give up smoking or become teetotal. However, what we are talking about is not a reversible decision. I caution members on whether to accept that allowing such a decision to be made at 16 or 18 is appropriate.

Amendment 152 asks the committee to consider the appropriate age for people to be included in the bill. My understanding is that Liam McArthur has indicated that he supports raising the age to 18, but my amendment aligns the bill with comparable policy, which considers the cognitive maturity of young people.

The Scottish Sentencing Council, whose framework the Scottish Government accepts, states clearly that

“the brain does not fully mature until ... the age of 25”.

This scientific and psychological understanding guides how we treat culpability for crime, by recognising that young adults might not yet possess full emotional and cognitive maturity. There are a number of different landmark ages at which responsibilities and obligations are extended to young people, but I ask members to consider whether, if the principle of maturity at 25 is accepted when determining responsibility for wrongdoing, it should also apply when considering a decision that is far more permanent—indeed, one that would end one’s own life.

Raising the age to 25 aligns the bill with the same evidence-based understanding of brain development that already shapes our justice system. By applying an age of 16 or 18, we would be permitting individuals to make an irreversible choice during a period when their decision-making faculties are still developing. Surely, if we believe that a person under the age of 25 might not yet be fully capable of assessing long-term consequences when committing a crime, we must apply that same caution when it comes to their choosing to end their own life through an assisted suicide.

My amendment is about ensuring consistency, protecting the vulnerable and acting with the same moral seriousness across all areas of law.

Good morning, minister. In advance of this morning’s meeting, I had a look at our previous evidence sessions going back to 2023, when Neil Gray, who was the Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing Economy, Fair Work and Energy at the time, came to give evidence on Grangemouth. That followed the announcement of the closure in November of that year. At that meeting, the cabinet secretary said:

“We are talking about a century-old refinery that has had issues, where significant interventions have been made in the past and where the joint venture has provided a significant subsidy for a number of years. Therefore, the announcement was not a great surprise to us, and I do not think that it should have been to others.”—[Official Report, Economy and Fair Work Committee, 13 December 2023; c 52.]

Was it a surprise for you, when you came into office, that there was no transition plan in place for Grangemouth? We are still waiting on the Scottish Government’s just transition plan for Grangemouth. I hear what you are saying about positive working relationships, but how easy was it to start those relationships and get things moving?

Could you say a bit more about the decisions around project willow? You said that Scottish Enterprise is taking the lead on that, and others have talked about the timescales. There are nine options on the table. A lot of the decisions seem to concern new technologies and what will be feasible. Can you say more about how those decisions will be made?

I want to move on to a different subject, as other members will come back to NSET.

As part of our pre-budget scrutiny, we took evidence from VisitScotland, which, as you will know, has received an in-year adjustment of its budget. It told us that, as a result, planned digital campaigns cannot go ahead this year, and it explained that, with the impact happening in-year, the timescales for its businesses mean that it is anticipating that there will be a direct impact on our tourism sector this year as a result of its scaling back some of its digital work.

You will be familiar with the package of support measures that the tourism sector believes that it needs. Some are reserved—it has mentioned VAT—but others are devolved. I am thinking of business rates, and some concerns have been expressed about divergence in income tax policies. What priority does tourism have within NSET? As a comparison, the investment that Ireland makes puts us in the shade; it is not on the same scale. How do we ensure that tourism is prioritised?

Before we move to questions from Colin Smyth, I want to go back to NSET. Mark Logan, the chief entrepreneurial adviser to the Scottish Government, was initially serving a two-year term, which expired in September. What evaluation has been made of that role, is Mark Logan still in post, and what is the status of that post?

I would like to make some progress. I call Gordon MacDonald.

I have some final questions about Ana Stewart’s review, which was published just over a year ago. Although recent figures for the number of women starting businesses have been quite positive, showing that women start businesses at pretty much the same rate as men, we know that that is only part of the story. Women-owned businesses do not have the same longevity or lifespan as male-owned businesses and face difficulties in accessing finance, which is not such a barrier for male-owned businesses.

Can you say more about how you intend to implement Ana Stewart’s review and provide support? Where will that go next?

I thank the cabinet secretary for joining us. That brings us to the end of our evidence session, and the committee will now move into private session.