Seòmar agus comataidhean

I know from conversations that the member is open to the drafting of amendments. It is more about ensuring that the foundations of the bill look across sectors. The member has given me flexibility to move or not move the amendments so that we get this right as we go forward.

Turning to amendment 43, I note that the argument is simple but crucial. Scotland invests millions of pounds every year in tertiary education and our skills system, yet the bill contains no explicit requirement for ministers to demonstrate that that expenditure leads to improved outcomes. It does not require ministers to demonstrate improvements in the skills of the workforce, productivity or the achievements of learning. Without that requirement, there is a risk that we create a structure in which money continues to be spent without any meaningful connection to the economic needs of our country.

Scotland faces a number of serious and well-documented productivity challenges. Employers repeatedly identify skills shortages with every committee member as one of the principal barriers to growth in our economy. If the bill does not oblige ministers to consider whether their decisions are improving the situation, we risk entrenching an accountability gap at the very heart of the system.

Amendment 43 would ensure that the public investment must be tied to measurable improvements. It would require ministers to reflect on outcomes, not simply intentions, and to consider the impact of their decisions on productivity and the skills that Scotland needs for the future. The amendment introduces the discipline and transparency that should be expected in any modern skills system, which the bill currently lacks.

Amendment 46 naturally follows from that logic. If we are to transfer significant responsibilities to the Funding Council, including responsibilities for apprenticeships, national training programmes, work-based learning, and the wider landscape of post-school provision, the Parliament must be able to assess at regular intervals whether those responsibilities are being carried out effectively. The bill currently provides no structured mechanism for independent valuation of a council’s performance. That omission leaves the Parliament dependent on ministerial assurances, rather than objective evidence. Amendment 46 seeks to address the gap by requiring an independent evaluation of the council every three years, with a report laid before the Parliament. That is not an undue burden, but it is a reasonable expectation when the council is being asked to steward such a large portion of Scotland’s skills system. Independent evaluation would prevent complacency, protect learners and employers, and ensure that the system adapts to Scotland’s economic needs as they change. It would also provide the Parliament with a reliable basis on which to judge the success of the reforms over a period of time. If the Government believes that the bill will improve Scotland’s skills landscape, it should have no hesitation in welcoming the scrutiny that the amendment would provide for.

The amendments reflect Stephen Kerr’s consistent argument that Scotland needs a tertiary system that is grounded in evidence, focused on outcomes, and transparent in its operation. Amendment 43 would ensure that ministerial decisions must contribute meaningfully to the skills and productivity that Scotland’s economy requires. Amendment 46 would ensure that the council’s performance will be judged independently and openly, rather than being left to assumptions. Together, I believe that they strengthen the bill, strengthen accountability and strengthen the prospects of delivering a skills system that is worthy of Scotland’s workforce. Therefore, I invite colleagues to support amendments 43 and 46, as well as amendments 40 to 42, 44 and 45, in my name.

In light of what the minister has said, I will not move amendment 44.

Amendments 44 and 45 not moved.

I hear what the minister says, but a lot of employers have become very much used to those terms. They understand what an apprentice is. In fact, some of the asks that have been made involve the potential to develop a degree apprenticeship, rather than removing the existing terminology. Has the Government reflected on that? I am worried that the terms might get lost in translation if the Government does not look towards what is now a set of defined apprenticeship terms—“foundation”, “modern” and “graduate”—along with an aspiration for a degree apprenticeship to be developed in the future.

Further to the minister’s commitment to consider the issue further, I seek to withdraw amendment 50.

I welcome Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 48 and very much endorse what she has just said. Many of us hoped that the bill would set out a real vision for the college sector and would be an opportunity to realise colleges’ potential. On Monday, I visited Dundee and Angus College. I believe that Willie Rennie was there the week before; it turns out that he makes a better sparky than I do, from what I was told.

It is important that we consider how to realise the potential of our college sector, especially with regard to the resources that they can potentially access. That is why I welcome Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment.

Amendment 50, which relates to fair work first principles, is one of a set of amendments on terms and conditions for apprenticeships and apprentices, and it seeks to ensure parity between the conditions that will apply to those receiving grants for the purpose of the delivery of programmes of training for employment and those imposed on fundable bodies and regional strategic bodies in terms of repayment under sections 12A and 12B of the 2005 act. It is vital that, in the outlay of public money, there is clarity on the actions that will be taken if the provider fails to comply with the terms and conditions imposed, and on the requirement for the provider to be compliant with fair work first criteria, given the links to the Scottish Government policy in that regard.

Amendment 63 is a probing amendment that relates to the provision of student mental health and wellbeing support services for our young people. On my visit to Dundee and Angus College on Monday, I met representatives from the student association and heard about the support services that they are working to provide to students. Funding provided by Scottish ministers in support of mental health and wellbeing services has come to an end in recent years, and in many cases, colleges and other training providers have had to find the resources to keep such services going. I believe that the bill presents an opportunity for us to correct that situation and for ministers to create a common national framework that will put mental health and wellbeing support services in place at the heart of our institutions in order to support students.

I am also very supportive of a number of amendments in the name of Ross Greer that, in general, seek to support the student body in delivering those kinds of support services. I look forward to hearing more about them.

For now, I move amendment 50.

I respect the principles that lie behind Mr Greer’s amendments. An issue that has been consistently raised is that of transport costs for students. I am sure that Mr Greer will mention the free bus pass when he responds to me, but that is not an option for many students in rural Scotland. On Monday, I met a student who spends £120 a week travelling from rural Perthshire to do her course in Dundee.

I take on board what Mr Greer is trying to do, but there seems to be a wider issue to do with the package of support that is available for students—especially students from rural communities—to access training.

Thank you, convener. I feel that I have now morphed completely into being Stephen Kerr’s apprentice at this committee meeting.

I will speak to amendments 85, 89 and 90 in my colleague Stephen Kerr’s name, which deal with the frameworks that underpin Scottish apprenticeships. The amendments in this group might appear to be technical, but they go to the heart of the credibility, quality and responsiveness of the apprenticeship system, and my colleague has lodged them, because the bill as drafted does not provide enough assurance that the apprenticeship framework will be governed in a way that reflects the needs of employers, the expectations of learners and the long-term economic interests of Scotland.

Amendment 85 seeks to ensure that apprenticeship frameworks are not treated merely as administrative instruments but as structured and carefully-design programmes that must meet clear standards of relevance and quality. It makes explicit that frameworks must be delivered by whichever body is most suitable, whether it be a college or a local authority. That is crucial because, if the framework does not reflect the realities of the sector or its local environment, it will quickly become obsolete and, when that happens, it will be the apprentice who will pay the price in diminished opportunities and reduced employability.

Amendment 89 adds a further essential element by requiring regular reviews of apprenticeship frameworks. Scotland’s economy is evolving rapidly; technology is changing workplace practices at speed; industries are rising and declining; and skills that were considered sufficient five or 10 years ago are no longer adequate. However, the bill provides no guarantee that frameworks will periodically be reviewed to ensure that they remain current. This amendment in my party colleague’s name seeks to introduce such a guarantee and would ensure that frameworks are not left to stagnate but can be updated in line with technological processes, shifts in employer demand and emerging opportunities for the Scottish workforce. It provides the system with the dynamism that is needed in modern skills economies.

Amendment 90 strengthens the accountability around the creation of those frameworks by requiring that their development be undertaken in consultation with those who rely on them—employers, industries, learners and training providers. Stephen Kerr has argued consistently that one of the weaknesses in the system is the distance between policy makers and practitioners. Decisions are too often made centrally, without sufficient engagement with key stakeholders, who understand what a competent worker in their field needs to know and be able to do.

Amendment 90 corrects that by embedding consultation as a statutory requirement rather than a discretionary courtesy, thereby preventing frameworks from being created or amended in isolation and ensuring that they are grounded in real labour market intelligence. Like me, the minister will be aware of the work that Edinburgh College has undertaken with its net zero courses—for example, linking with employers on the provision of heat source pumps, which trainees will be working on, in order to have skilled workforce-ready employees. That is a live example of what is being achieved.

Taken together, amendments 85, 89 and 90 put in place a coherent structure for the development, consultation and review of apprenticeship frameworks. They ensure that the apprenticeship system does not become detached from the world of work; they support a model of rigorous, industry-informed and adaptable frameworks; and they serve the wider principle that my colleague Stephen Kerr championed in his stage 1 speech—namely, that Scotland’s apprenticeship system must be an engine of productivity, not merely an administrative category in tertiary education.

If Scotland wants an apprenticeship system that commands the respect of employers, inspires confidence in learners and drives economic opportunity, the frameworks must, at their core, be robust, relevant and regularly renewed. The amendments help to achieve that and strengthen the bill in a practical and necessary way.

I invite colleagues to support amendments 85, 89 and 90 in the name of my colleague Stephen Kerr.

Thank you, convener. I feel that I have now morphed completely into being Stephen Kerr’s apprentice at this committee meeting.

I will speak to amendments 85, 89 and 90 in my colleague Stephen Kerr’s name, which deal with the frameworks that underpin Scottish apprenticeships. The amendments in this group might appear to be technical, but they go to the heart of the credibility, quality and responsiveness of the apprenticeship system, and my colleague has lodged them, because the bill as drafted does not provide enough assurance that the apprenticeship framework will be governed in a way that reflects the needs of employers, the expectations of learners and the long-term economic interests of Scotland.

Amendment 85 seeks to ensure that apprenticeship frameworks are not treated merely as administrative instruments but as structured and carefully-design programmes that must meet clear standards of relevance and quality. It makes explicit that frameworks must be delivered by whichever body is most suitable, whether it be a college or a local authority. That is crucial because, if the framework does not reflect the realities of the sector or its local environment, it will quickly become obsolete and, when that happens, it will be the apprentice who will pay the price in diminished opportunities and reduced employability.

Amendment 89 adds a further essential element by requiring regular reviews of apprenticeship frameworks. Scotland’s economy is evolving rapidly; technology is changing workplace practices at speed; industries are rising and declining; and skills that were considered sufficient five or 10 years ago are no longer adequate. However, the bill provides no guarantee that frameworks will periodically be reviewed to ensure that they remain current. This amendment in my party colleague’s name seeks to introduce such a guarantee and would ensure that frameworks are not left to stagnate but can be updated in line with technological processes, shifts in employer demand and emerging opportunities for the Scottish workforce. It provides the system with the dynamism that is needed in modern skills economies.

Amendment 90 strengthens the accountability around the creation of those frameworks by requiring that their development be undertaken in consultation with those who rely on them—employers, industries, learners and training providers. Stephen Kerr has argued consistently that one of the weaknesses in the system is the distance between policy makers and practitioners. Decisions are too often made centrally, without sufficient engagement with key stakeholders, who understand what a competent worker in their field needs to know and be able to do.

Amendment 90 corrects that by embedding consultation as a statutory requirement rather than a discretionary courtesy, thereby preventing frameworks from being created or amended in isolation and ensuring that they are grounded in real labour market intelligence. Like me, the minister will be aware of the work that Edinburgh College has undertaken with its net zero courses—for example, linking with employers on the provision of heat source pumps, which trainees will be working on, in order to have skilled workforce-ready employees. That is a live example of what is being achieved.

Taken together, amendments 85, 89 and 90 put in place a coherent structure for the development, consultation and review of apprenticeship frameworks. They ensure that the apprenticeship system does not become detached from the world of work; they support a model of rigorous, industry-informed and adaptable frameworks; and they serve the wider principle that my colleague Stephen Kerr championed in his stage 1 speech—namely, that Scotland’s apprenticeship system must be an engine of productivity, not merely an administrative category in tertiary education.

If Scotland wants an apprenticeship system that commands the respect of employers, inspires confidence in learners and drives economic opportunity, the frameworks must, at their core, be robust, relevant and regularly renewed. The amendments help to achieve that and strengthen the bill in a practical and necessary way.

I invite colleagues to support amendments 85, 89 and 90 in the name of my colleague Stephen Kerr.

Good morning, members. I have the majority of the amendments in the group, so I apologise for the time that I might take to talk through them.

My amendments 197 and 212 relate to the provision of information and guidance, and I have taken the proposals forward on behalf of the British Medical Association Scotland and the Royal College of General Practitioners Scotland. The amendments would require the establishment of an independent information service to provide information and support to people who may be eligible for assisted dying and who wish to pursue the option to help them to navigate the process. The service that the amendments look to establish would provide factual information about the full range of options that are available to patients, which would help them to make informed decisions and ensure that doctors who did not wish to or did not feel confident about providing information to patients about assisted dying had somewhere that they could direct patients to, in the knowledge that they would receive accurate and objective information. Patients who may meet the eligibility criteria would be able to access the information that they need without the requirement to go through their doctor, and would also have support to navigate the process.

The Nuffield Trust report, “Assisted dying in practice: International experiences and implications for health and social care”, looked at the implications of assisted dying legislation in 15 jurisdictions. It recommended that policy makers consider examples from other countries, such as

“establishing dedicated care navigator roles to provide information on assisted dying”

and about how service information can be accessed and how people can be connected with eligible clinicians, and to

“offer support to families, carers and health professionals.”

The report concludes that there is evidence that such roles help to improve access and understanding.

I appreciate amendment 44 in Liam McArthur’s name, but I do not think that it goes far enough. Although it focuses on the provision of information, it does not focus on the aspect of support, which I would also like to be included in the bill. It is not clear whether amendment 44 would cover personalised information for patients or whether it could also take the form of generic leaflets setting out information for eligibility to access assisted dying. I welcome the amendments in Ross Greer’s name that were passed on advocacy services and care navigation services, which are really important and almost supersede some of what I am trying to create. My amendments are important, especially in providing clarification for healthcare professionals.