Chamber and committees

In my constituency, more than 86 per cent of homes are off the gas grid, and some 46 per cent are heated with oil. Given that critics have warned that Keir Starmer’s support package works out at around £33 per affected household—as the cabinet secretary also mentioned—does the cabinet secretary agree that that will be little consolation for the thousands of people whose fuel prices have doubled overnight? Does the cabinet secretary also agree that that cannot be the end of any action taken by the UK Government, given that energy policy is reserved?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update regarding the steps being taken to support families with the cost of living, in light of the conflict in the middle east and its impact on heating oil prices. (S6T-02959)

I welcome the Scottish Government’s work to support households and families across Scotland with the cost of living, in stark contrast, it would seem, to the inaction of the UK Labour Government. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that, for many island households in places such as Uist, soaring heating costs are now being compounded by other problems, such as the present unavailability of petrol, and that all that is yet more evidence of why Scotland should have control over our energy policy?

I appreciate the importance of the issue that Stephen Kerr is raising about not having a bill that would in some way be ultra vires in its operation. However, aside from the point that Mr Hepburn made, does Stephen Kerr not feel that the Scotland Act 1998 would preclude most of the problems that he is anticipating?

I see that the Government has not made comments about Daniel Johnson’s amendments 18 and 19, for instance. However, the cabinet secretary has referred to the duty of a medical professional to make all options known to the patient. Is his understanding that amendments 18 and 19 would impinge on that duty by—in my view, helpfully—avoiding the need to mention assisted dying?

Mr Greer has indicated that he may be about to speak to the question that I was going to raise. Can he clarify the reasoning behind leaving out the word “require” and inserting “request”? In practical terms, what would mean that for someone?

I appreciate the frustration that Stuart McMillan has expressed, which is felt by people from various parties, about the situation relating to the section 104 order. He mentioned that this is a contentious issue, but does he accept that the Scottish Parliament deals with all sorts of contentious issues and that, in a representative democracy, it is normal for people’s elected representatives to sort them out, unless it is a rule-changing constitutional issue?

20:30

Will the member take an intervention?

I wish to comment on amendment 112, which proposes that the bill could be the subject of a referendum after royal assent. I realise that my friend Stuart McMillan feels strongly about the issue—I also realise that he is sitting directly behind me—however, I believe that, in a representative democracy, referenda should be reserved for major changes on constitutional questions. That is a tradition that has grown up in Scotland and the UK over the past 60 years, although I stress that I am not making an argument from tradition; if I thought that the tradition was mistaken, I would say so. Indeed, the UK has not been responsive enough to demands for constitutional referenda.

Some mention has been made of the Republic of Ireland, and it is true to say that Ireland has referenda on issues of the kind that we are debating here today. However, as Mr O’Kane pointed out, that is because those questions involve changing parts of the 1937 constitution, which requires that all constitutional amendments be put to a referendum.

If we lived in ancient Athens or in some cantons of modern Switzerland, it is possible that referenda might form an established part of our day-to-day legislative process. However, I genuinely fear what would happen if we were to set a precedent today of moving to referenda on individual non-constitutional pieces of legislation. Without using hypothetical examples, I can say that, if we were to go down that route, it is easy to imagine situations in which some angry majority in the country might, at some stage, decide to whip up online hostility against some minority or other and then seek to press for a referendum on their interests.

I can understand the motivations that members might have for considering supporting amendment 112. They have been gone over. It is tempting to try to find some way of moving this difficult debate into another sphere. However, after many months of public engagement and debate, and after many days and nights of parliamentary scrutiny, the public expect us to make decisions.

I accept the point about the validity of referenda. I am merely making the point that they work best when we are talking about changing the rules of the game through some major constitutional change.

The public rightly hold us to account at elections. Constitutional questions aside, that is how representative democracy should work, so, respectfully, I cannot support Mr McMillan’s amendment 112.