Chamber and committees

Finally, let us turn to the issue of age. There seems to be a broad welcome for having an age limit of 18. I do not hear any dissent about that. However, judging from one or two of the comments that I have heard, there is a question mark over whether any additional safeguards are needed for younger adults—that is, people who are over 18, who are adults, but who may for one reason or another be particularly vulnerable to social media influence, coercion or the social pressures that drive people to access these services for the wrong reasons.

If we were talking about healthcare, I would say that I am a strong advocate of Gillick competence. The principle that young people—including those who are not yet adults—have the competence to understand decisions about their own lives needs to be respected on an individual basis. However, we are not talking about healthcare; we are talking about buying services. I am resistant to using the term “treatment”, which implies that it is treatment for a condition, as these services are on sale on a commercial basis. Is there a need for any additional safeguards for younger adults or for other groups that may be particularly vulnerable to those pressures and social influences?

Good morning. As the Scottish Government does with all legislation, it has carried out an equalities impact assessment. Several witnesses have mentioned that a great many of the businesses that would be affected by the bill are female led. Unless I missed something, that might be the only equalities impact that has come up in the discussion so far.

Aside from that issue about providers of services or the people running businesses, can you reflect on the range of equalities impacts in relation to people who access or buy services, whether those relate to gender, socioeconomic inequalities, disability or the impact on rural areas? In doing so, could you consider not only access to the services but safety and whether the attempt to drive out what some witnesses have described as rogue operators and to ensure a high standard of safety has a positive equalities impact for the particular groups that might have specific reasons for accessing the services that these businesses provide?

As I am not in the room, I will not point to anyone, so whichever witness wants to jump in will be very welcome.

Sorry, convener, but I would like to come back in, as neither of the witnesses who has spoken so far has touched on the second aspect that I raised.

The Government asserts that the equalities impact of raising standards and addressing the safety issues that particular groups who are perhaps more likely to access those services are currently exposed to will be positive. This touches a bit on the points that Brian Whittle raised about advertising. Advertising in its broadest sense and cultural pressures impact on marginalised groups, whether that is around gender norms or the way that gender norms can be racialised. Those issues might push people toward accessing services in different ways.

I encourage the two witnesses who have not spoken to touch on that aspect. Will the raising of standards have a positive impact, as the Government suggests, for disadvantaged, marginalised or other equalities groups?

I am grateful for the advance copy of the statement, but, like a couple of members, I was a little surprised that the cabinet secretary did not mention some of the transport issues when he mentioned other matters that are also the responsibility of the organising company. He will be aware that, unlike in 2014, there will be a trial in 2026 of free public transport during the games for a limited number of Glasgow residents. How will the Scottish Government work constructively with Glasgow City Council and Strathclyde Partnership for Transport to evaluate the effectiveness of the pilot so that we can properly understand the value of free public transport, not just during big events such as the games but on an on-going basis?

Does anyone have the secret plan?

Good morning to our witnesses.

First, I will just briefly reassure Mr Halcro Johnston that, if there is a genuine and sincere secessionist movement arising in Orkney or in Shetland or in both, if the goal is to establish how it would assert itself today, while that sovereignty lies at Westminster, I fully support that—that is exactly what we are trying to achieve for the whole of Scotland. If the goal is to assess how it would assert itself in the context of an independent Scottish constitution, I would support a constitution that gives the right of a serious and genuine movement such as that to test public opinion. I think that the answers that we are looking for in this inquiry are exactly the answers that you were seeking.

I wonder whether I could come back to the phrase “settled will”. It seems to me that we should be dismissing this just as a piece of political rhetoric, in the same way that some of our witnesses suggested we should in relation to the phrase “once in a generation”. These are political phrases used in debate rather than points of principle. That is partly because, as some have argued, settled will is hard to define; it is partly because it is not the precedent.

Even in the 1997 devolution referendum, I do not think that anyone was really rock-solid sure whether the tax-varying power would be supported by the overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland. The AV referendum, certainly, was not about establishing the settled will; it was a wheeze to offer people a voting system that nobody really wanted in order to protect the existing one. The EU referendum in no way represented an attempt to define the settled will. It was a very open question and since then it has given rise to a majority for rejoining in many opinion polls. Therefore, should we not dismiss this idea of settled will and the associated argument that Adam Tomkins gave us in an earlier session that we should only ever use referendums to establish what we all already know?

The final aspect of this is that, in the question of Scottish independence—where we all accept that a referendum would have to be agreed by two different Governments, presumably wanting two different outcomes—saying that it is about establishing the settled will is almost a recipe for paralysis, because you will never have a position where both Governments are 100 per cent confident that they represent the settled will. Should we not forget this phrase altogether?

The question is for whoever would like to jump in. I am looking at the people in the room, and I am looking at the screen.

Do the online witnesses want to jump in at this point?

Forgive me for jumping in, but I framed the question as I did in order to stress that it is not so much about deciding whether a referendum should be triggered, as forcing an answer—which is absent from the UK Government at the moment—to the question of how the right to choose, the right to decide, might be exercised.

I think that it should be as well, but it has not been so far.

That answer comes on to the second point that I want to explore, which is the principle that the people of Scotland have the right to decide and that Scotland can become independent if the people of Scotland so decide. That is not ancient history. It has been agreed by all political parties elected to the Scottish Parliament, by both Governments and it has been made explicit in the Smith commission report. The people of Scotland have been given that right but are being told that, although they have it, they may not exercise it and they will not be given any means by which to exercise it. If an individual is told that they have the right to vote but that no polling places will be opened and no ballot papers printed, then the right is meaningless.

I have previously explored whether the political dysfunction around creating a means for people to exercise that right could be broken by some kind of element of direct democracy or participative or deliberative process. I appreciate Professor Renwick’s evidence that there might be more value to formal processes such as citizens assemblies in informing a referendum debate than in triggering a referendum. I appreciate that. I know that I am asking this slightly out of desperation, but is there any way that the witnesses can think of to enable the people of Scotland to break the deadlock? That need not necessarily be a formal process that triggers a referendum, but could you define how to answer the question of how, if the people of Scotland have that right, they may exercise it?