Seòmar agus comataidhean

This is my very last question, then. How do you intend to measure and monitor the impact of the regulations? How will that be evaluated so that we know what needs to happen next?

Does COSLA agree that it has enough support?

Are there any other views?

That is fair. I suspect that it might be something of an understatement if I say that some of my colleagues would be sceptical that relying purely on our ability to persuade the Government to be forthcoming is enough. Some of our colleagues would trust that that might happen and some would be deeply sceptical about it.

I guess that my emphasis on trying to have some scrutiny before decisions are made is in the context that, for roughly half the history of the Scottish Parliament we have had a minority Government. In the Westminster culture—and some of this came across in the experience we had in our visit to London recently—there is almost an expectation that the Government is naturally the source of authority rather than merely a body to be scrutinised. In a period of minority government such as the current period, the Government still has the right to make decisions such as the signing off of common frameworks—let us assume that progress is made, at the tail end of this parliamentary session, on the signing off of common frameworks—and although, in theory, no Government can bind its successor, the UK Government would strongly expect that a common framework put in place will last through successive changes of Government.

However, if we simply accept that common frameworks have been signed off, that will constrain the ability of future devolved Scottish Governments, whether they have a majority or not, to make decisions on devolved matters, and that constraint will have been put in place by a minority Government, without the consent of Parliament. My concern is about the legitimacy of decisions that are being made in a Government-to-Government relationship without being held to scrutiny.

Thank you.

Good morning. I would like to focus on the comments about how those who are outside these structures are supposed to hold the process accountable.

I accept that there will always be a need for a degree of confidential space between the Governments for them to be able to discuss issues and understand each other’s perspectives on matters that are not yet ready for public discussion. We can all accept that there will be ebbs and flows in tensions or potential hostilities, whether from party politics or other factors.

However, I am concerned that, even when things are working well and there is less tension and less party politics getting in the way of discussing issues, agreement that works well between the Governments is still opaque. That is about the Governments making decisions in a grey-area space, which they announce to their respective legislatures and to the public when it is already too late to influence them, because the Governments have signed them off.

I accept that there will always be a need for confidential space, but should we not also assert that there needs to be space for public scrutiny, including by the multiple Parliaments of these islands, whether that is formal reporting requirements in the intergovernmental machinery, the council of nations and regions and so on, or the possibility of MSPs, MPs, members of the Welsh Parliament and others formally questioning ministers, including those from Governments other than their own, about the matters that are under consideration, before decisions are reached? I would like your views on whether that is a missing piece of what should be more transparent machinery.

I do not think that it is likely that anybody would raise it as a recommendation—I do not think that that would be intended.

I am curious about the fact that amendment 53 says that this cannot happen

“where the subject has not first been raised by the person with the registered medical practitioner”.

Surely in a situation where a child or young person has raised the issue with somebody else—for example, a family member or a professional in a non-medical capacity who is supporting them—by saying, “I have heard that this is an option. Will you ask the doctor to tell me about it?”, the amendment as written would prevent the doctor or the registered medical professional from doing so.

First, I want to make a minor point for clarity: the previous bill that the member referred to was introduced by Margo MacDonald. As the second member in charge, I took it through the committee process at stage 1.

Clearly, Stuart McMillan is quite correct to say that there is a wide range of strongly held views on this contested and difficult issue. However, it is not the only such contested and difficult issue. In the past, we have had campaigns calling for issues affecting my human rights, and my community’s human rights, to be subject to a referendum, including an attempt to stage a mock referendum that was funded by a private individual. I have no doubt that if the next Parliament were to legislate on, for example, recommendations on the reform of abortion care, there might be those who would call for that to be subject to a referendum, and for similar reasons to those that Stuart McMillan has just set out.

I am not convinced of the case that the member is making, but if he were successful at persuading the Parliament to authorise a referendum in this case, how would he say no to the many other potential campaigns that would arise to put the rights and freedoms of marginalised minorities, which are contested in society, to a referendum? How would he resist those much more provocative attempts to marshal the same argument?

Will the member give way?

Murdo Fraser seems to be coming to the end of his remarks, and I was wondering whether he was going to address why he chose to make specific reference to family members in his amendment. As the convener pointed out, we have criminal law and regulation of the medical professions. If an assisted death was provided today, in the absence of such legislation, it would be dealt with by those mechanisms. Those mechanisms will still be available if anybody had a concern that the law had been broken. I am wondering why Mr Fraser thinks that a different mechanism ought to be available if, and only if, a family member has such a concern.