Seòmar agus comataidhean

Although amendment 91 sits in this group, it is very much connected to the debates that we have now quite thoroughly rehearsed in relation to reserved areas versus areas where we can stretch devolution, conditionality and so on. I will briefly summarise amendment 91, but, unlike previously, I will not go into it in depth, because we have rehearsed a lot of the underlying arguments.

Amendment 91 provides that

“Ministers must by regulations specify the minimum rate of pay”

for a Scottish apprentice. Such regulations would be subject to the negative procedure. Amendment 91A builds on that by specifying that the rate of pay must not be less than the national minimum wage.

I lodged the amendments because although I think that we all recognise the value of apprenticeships as a fantastic way to kick-start careers, apprentices are vastly underpaid a lot of the time, meaning that many people cannot afford to go down the apprenticeship path, even if they want to. The purpose of amendment 91A is to align the minimum wage payable to apprentices through the funding provided by the Scottish Government and the SFC with the wider national minimum wage.

At the end of June, there were just under 12,000 modern apprentices in Scotland in their first year of training, and about 6,000 of them were 19 or over. If amendments 91, 91A and 93 were to be agreed to, those apprentices, and every subsequent first-year apprentice, would be entitled to receive the minimum wage for their relevant age groups. For the 6,000 first-year apprentices this year, that would be a pay uplift of just under 50 per cent. Bringing apprenticeship wages in line with the existing national minimum wage would end what I think many of us see as the injustice that means that apprentices are paid less than the minimum wage of other workers of the same age, despite the fact that apprentices’ bills and other expenses are not less than anyone else’s.

Amendment 93 is consequential. It would remove Scottish apprentices from the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015. Even under devolution, we are able to make variances, as is evident in the fact that Scottish apprentices are currently included in the 2015 regulations. Amendment 93 would specify that the relevant regulation

“does not apply to Scottish apprenticeships as defined by section 12E of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005”,

which section 4 of the bill inserts.

I have already rehearsed why I think that it is possible to get into the area of conditionality in relation to wages. We have already had that argument with the Government. I understand the Government’s position, but I am disappointed by its lack of willingness to test the limits of legislative competence or to use non-legislative policy-setting powers in order to raise standards in the sector.

At this stage, I will not move my amendments, but I am keen to engage with the minister ahead of stage 3, especially on the issues that we have discussed with Pam Duncan-Glancy and the need for the Government to provide a clear statement before stage 3 on its wider approach to fair work in the sector and what other levers it intends to use to turn its policy aspirations into reality. The lack of action on the part of the Government in relation to the use of non-legislative mechanisms is why so many of the amendments in this group have been lodged.

I start by thanking the committee for its forbearance last week. In particular, I thank Patrick Harvie for reading out my script, when I literally was unable to talk, which is a bit of an inhibitor in this role that we have all chosen.

My amendments in the group are intended in part to mitigate the potential risks of the system being dispersed rather than specialist. If the bill passes, we expect that a lot of non-specialist clinicians will be involved, particularly GPs, who, as we all recognise, are already under huge pressure. In particular, we will expect them to make really difficult non-clinical judgments about issues such as potential coercion.

Clinicians—GPs in particular—already make non-clinical judgments as part of their wider duty of care towards their patients; however, when it concerns the potential choice to end one’s own life, the stakes are, clearly, extremely high. My earlier amendments on independent advocacy, which Miles Briggs has referenced, alongside those that he has proposed, would go some way to addressing that and providing a safeguard, but it is also important that we set minimum standards for both clinical and non-clinical staff who provide the service.

I support Miles Briggs’s amendments 261 and 262 in particular, which would change “may” to “must” when it comes to guidance, and my amendments 263 and 267 would build on those. Amendment 263 would, effectively, set mandatory minimum standards to which people must be trained in order to carry out functions under the act, as well as setting up a system to ensure that such functions are carried out to the required high quality. That would go some way to addressing the concern that has been expressed by the BMA and others about having the proposed dispersed service model rather than a specialist one, because it would require those who wished to provide the service to opt in by meeting certain standards or undergoing certain training. We should want that kind of service to be provided only by those who absolutely know what they are doing. Why would we not set some minimum standards for something so significant?

The intention of amendment 267 is to ensure that professionals who are less directly involved in the provision of assisted dying must also comply with minimum standards, as would be set out in the guidance. That reflects concerns that have been raised—certainly with me and, I know, with others—by stakeholders and experts, around the importance that people such as GP receptionists and carers play in a person’s experience of requesting and being provided with assistance. Clearly, the training that would be required of a receptionist would be different and altogether much lighter than what would be required of a GP but, if the goal is to ensure that the whole setting is as safe as possible for the patient, everyone in that space has a role to play.

Training for non-clinical staff—training for all staff in any workplace—is perfectly normal. In some cases, it would involve things as simple as ensuring that staff do not make comments to patients that could make them feel as though they are a burden, such as expressing concern about the impact that their condition must be having on their family. However, for clinical staff, I envisage training and guidance going into much greater detail on matters such as spotting potential coercion.

It would not be appropriate to specify the details of the training and guidance in the bill, but we should ensure that material is produced and that it applies to everyone with a role to play in the service. That is why—

I was just about to close, but I will be happy to take one.

I do not think—and I certainly do not think that it would be Liam McArthur’s intention—that such decisions would be taken purely in the space of a 10-minute appointment. It would be an iterative process and would require a lot of engagement. That is why I am concerned.

We are asking an awful lot of GPs. That profession is under a huge amount of pressure, and massive demands are made on the time of its members, who also need to be masters of all things. People will come to them with all sorts of issues—with multiple issues in the same appointment and with complex social issues, not just health issues. That is why I say that, in this case, we need to set out minimum standards, the minimum training that should be achieved in the first instance, and on-going quality assurance, so that, alongside the issues of capacity that Sue Webber is perfectly right to raise, the required expertise and knowledge are there—which involves not just the GP but everybody in the setting. Much as the training requirements would be different for the GP versus the receptionist, everybody should have some level of awareness and understanding of what would be required to make the setting as safe as possible for those who are potentially considering the option.

I am happy to close there.

Good morning. I will follow on from George Adam’s line of questioning in relation to the concerns, particularly about definitions, that the Government expressed in its memorandum on the bill. It is fair to say that quite a lot of the witnesses who have given evidence have also struggled with that issue. As you will be aware, the Government’s concern is that a very broad definition could capture things such as holding on to a child’s hand to cross the road safely and some of the support that is required for children with particularly complex needs. There is always a challenge in balancing how much detail we put in a bill with what we leave to regulations and guidance. I am keen to hear your response to the concerns that the Government has raised about the definition in the bill.

I am reflecting on a member’s bill from the previous session of Parliament: the Children (Equal Protection from Assault) (Scotland) Bill. A lot of the same suggestions were made at that point, particularly regarding holding a child’s hand or pulling them out of the way a moving vehicle if they jumped on to the road.

The same arguments were made and, as far as I am aware, no parent has been prosecuted for pulling their child out of the way of a moving vehicle.

That being said, you got into some really granular points, such as the distinction between holding a child for seconds or for minutes and the issue of on-going restraint. That all makes sense, but I am immediately struck by the fact that it would be impossible to put that level of detail in the bill and that it will have to be in the guidance and that, in turn, takes us back to the core argument about whether it is necessary to take a statutory approach via a bill when guidance already exists.

Some of the witnesses we heard from, particularly teachers, expressed concerns and fears about the fact that there will be something in law but that what will be in the law will not be specific enough to tell them what they should, or should not do, because that will be covered separately, in the guidance. Can you say a little bit more about how we can provide absolute clarity and confidence, particularly for teachers and other school staff, that they will be acting in compliance with the law even if there is quite a difference between what is in statute and what is in the guidance that is produced as a result of that?

I appreciate that. Your answer is useful, though.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. Earlier, you flagged up some issues with regard to reporting in independent schools, and I just want to clarify the Government’s position on that.

There are three overlapping issues here, I think. First, if we are going to go forward with this, we will not want some two-tier system in which independent schools are not held to the same standard as state schools. However, the fact is that independent schools, in general, do not have a direct relationship with the local authority in which they are situated. Moreover, the local authority in which the school is situated might differ from the local authority that has placed a child in the school’s care, particularly if we are talking about an independent special school. It does not even have to be a special school; many of the pupils who attend private schools in Glasgow and Edinburgh come from surrounding local authority areas.

In its initial memorandum on the bill, the Government flagged up a couple of these issues as being worthy of consideration and scrutiny, but I am not entirely clear what the Government’s position is on them. Can you clarify it? Is it your position that the bill would have to be amended to resolve some of these issues, particularly the potential for dual reporting?

My other line of questioning is a bit different, but it goes back to the point that you have touched on a few times about industrial relations and the position of the trade unions. It is fair to say that, at the moment, the general area of focus for teachers’ unions is not pay, but conditions, workload issues and so on. Do you envisage the bill having any impact, adverse or positive, on industrial relations and the atmosphere in the Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers?