Chamber and committees

The minister is right that we have not had the opportunity to discuss my amendments before today’s meeting. I am quite anxious to engage with the minister on those issues, because at their heart is my concern, which I know is shared across all parties, that there is currently a disparity of esteem between the post-school routes that a young person might take.

I raise broader issues in my amendments, but at the heart of my concerns lies a concern about a baked-in inequality in which different groups of young people are being given different amounts of backing, particularly when it comes to public funds. In my view, that approach has discriminated in favour of universities.

There is a strong predominant feeling in the country, which I feel is misplaced, that going to university is the be-all and end-all on leaving school. That is clearly not the case, particularly in the age of the apprenticeships that we now enjoy, including those that we describe in Scotland as graduate apprenticeships. By the way, I believe that those apprenticeships are misnamed; they are really degree apprenticeships, because they are not for graduates but for undergraduates. Indeed, I have raised that point before.

At the root of this is my personal dissatisfaction—though, again, I think that it is shared by many other people in all parties—with the current description of positive destinations. It is an inadequate measurement, with a very short-term follow-through—I think that the maximum is about nine months. There are variable degrees of what one might call a “positive destination”, and I feel that it is an inadequate way of describing our young people’s post-school experience.

It is because of my on-going concern about inequality of opportunity for young people—and, in fact, inequality of opportunity across society—that I have lodged my amendments. Because I have not had the opportunity to meet the minister and discuss the amendments in detail, and because I believe that there is some mileage in the amendments that we should explore, I will not press amendment 94 or move any of my other amendments in the group. I will meet the minister, have a discussion with him, see what common ground there might be, reconsider the matter and see what amendments might be lodged at stage 3.

Amendment 94, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 9 and 10 moved—[Jackie Dunbar]—and agreed to.

Will the member take an intervention?

The issue—which I think you appreciate—is that the bill represents a fundamental change in the relationship between patients and doctors, and between patients and lots of other people who are there to help them. Naturally, should the bill pass into legislation, the start-up phase would be a period in which we as legislators would be required to take a keen interest in how the law was working and the impact it was having on the very people that, I sincerely believe, you have at heart.

At least in the initial phase of the enactment of the law, would it not be a good idea—with that close inspection in mind—to narrow the five-year period to two years so that we get real-time information about what is happening because of the law? It will be an area that we have never gone into before. Assisted dying has not happened anywhere in the United Kingdom before, although it has happened in other places, and the need to pay close attention to it is met by amendment 206.

Okay.

I am grateful to Liam McArthur for his response to my intervention. However, because of the expectation he outlined—which may or may not be met—of the number of people who will ask to have the procedure, I think that he made the case for a two-year review at the outset of the bill. The need for close inspection and careful and proper review is much greater during the initial phases and the initial experiences of patients, doctors and every other individual and organisation that is impacted by them.

I am not trying to read Liam McArthur’s mind or heart on these matters. However, there could be a real danger that the way in which the law is enacted will spiral in a direction that I genuinely do not think that he would anticipate. Having such a check and balance built in by way of a two-year review would satisfy that concern.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am one of those colleagues whom Patrick Harvie identified as not trusting Governments. I believe that we need strong parliaments and transparency, which is why the language around the reset interests me. We are almost repeating the messages that the Labour Government is giving about an improvement in tone when the actual output evidence, based on the number of meetings that are being held within the structure, including the two meetings that have been held of the council of the nations and regions, suggests that there is more rhetoric than reality.

Can I have a quick around-the-table on the reset and what it means? No long answers are required, because I think that I already know the answer, but I would like to hear it from you, as academics.

Is there not a context to be considered here? Previous Governments, since 2016, were dealing with two epoch-type events with inadequate structures—hence the political crises that followed intergovernmental relations at every twist and turn. Brexit, of course, led pretty much to a breakdown of relationships between the Governments at times, and the other event was the pandemic. We are not in those situations now and we have structures, but the structures seem to be very loose.

You said earlier—I am not sure that I agree with this, but I am happy to quote it back to you—that informality is the modus operandi of our constitutional working. In fact, if you look at the work of a UK minister or even a Scottish minister, there is not a lot of informality about what they do. Everything is recorded—everything that they do and every meeting. The same formalities do not exist in these structures, even without the crises-making context of Brexit and the pandemic.

I agree with the use of the phrase ad hoc, because that is exactly what we have. We have a form of structure but not actual structure, and we have ad hocery, which is how we seem to do everything.

Yes.