Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will not press amendment 69, on the basis of what the minister has said. I am happy to try to work with him ahead of stage 3. However, with respect, I suggest that it would be helpful for the Government to come to such proceedings and be absolutely clear on where it agrees or disagrees with the policy objective of amendments. I accept that members lodge amendments with deficient drafting, given the limited resources that are available. The legislation team do fantastic work, but they are doing a monumental amount of work on our behalf.

It often feels as if the Government uses issues of drafting as an excuse to obscure the fact that it disagrees with the policy objective of particular amendments and simply does not want to put that on the record. It would be much more helpful for proceedings if the Government was totally straightforward and said whether it agrees with the objective of an amendment. If it agrees with the objective but the wording is deficient, it is clear that we can decide to not move it at stage 2 and work to produce something for stage 3.

I will move amendment 71. I am grateful for the minister’s support for it, and I hope that the committee agrees to it. I expect that Miles Briggs’s amendment 72 will be agreed to, which will make my amendment 75 unnecessary.

I will finish on this group by picking up on the debate between the minister and Pam Duncan-Glancy on the point that putting particular conditions into legislation, in the Government’s view, takes us beyond the Government’s competence. It sounds as though the Government’s position is that it is possible to achieve many of the objectives through policy decisions that are outwith legislation, by simply setting conditions of grants rather than putting those into legislation. The issues of competence would come to the fore if those objectives were put into primary legislation.

That would be a perfectly respectable position if the Government was putting those conditions in grant funding using its policy discretion. My frustration is that almost all, if not all, of the issues that we have been discussing today are not new. For example, before 2021, we had been told for around a decade that it was not possible for the Scottish Government to set conditions around procurement and grants in relation to the real living wage. In September and October of 2021, the minister’s party, together with mine, simply delivered that, and it turned out that it was possible.

I respect the Government’s position that it does not want to put those provisions into primary legislation because of the issues of competence and the risks that that might pose to the bill as a whole. However, the Government should make maximum use of its existing powers to set the conditions directly as a matter of Government policy rather than putting them into legislation. That would be a much more defensible position with which to push back against amendments, because amending bills is the only way in which other members of the Parliament have an opportunity to influence policy decisions. If the Government were simply following through on the agenda that it allegedly believes in in relation to fair work, we would not need to lodge amendments and test the legislative competence of the Parliament, because the Government would simply be getting on with setting those conditions in the first place.

I absolutely agree with that. It is essential, particularly if the Government does not want to be placed in the position of voting against policy objectives that it allegedly supports at stage 3. I am sure that Opposition members would be amenable and understanding and would simply not lodge such amendments if the Government had made a clear statement of its intent to deliver on the objectives through other means. We absolutely require a clear statement from the Government ahead of stage 3 proceedings covering many of the issues that have been raised today and that were raised during the stage 1 debate.

Amendment 69, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 70 not moved.

Amendment 71 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Amendment 4 moved—[Ben Macpherson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 72 moved—[Miles Briggs]—and agreed to.

Amendments 73 to 75 not moved.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Section 4—Scottish apprenticeships

I think that my amendments in this group are my largest set of amendments to the bill. I will try to be as brief as possible, but it will probably take a couple of minutes to speak to them. I promised the convener that I will make that time up in later groups.

Amendment 51 sets out the condition of a cap—which I propose that we initially set at 10 per cent—on the share of funding that should be paid to managing agents in relation to apprenticeships. We heard from a trade body during the stage 1 evidence that, when it acts as an agent, it takes a 40 per cent cut—I think that “cut” was the phrase that was used—of the funding per apprenticeship. That is 40p in every pound that is not going to the apprentice or the college. I have heard elsewhere that, in some cases, the figure is more than half the funding, and it is potentially as high as 60 per cent.

In England, the percentage of funding that managing agents get is capped at 15 per cent. Amendment 51 would replicate the English cap in Scottish legislation. I propose that we start the cap at 10 per cent, but I am not wedded to that specific figure—it is more important to set the principle of having a cap.

I note that the minister’s amendment 12, which comes in a later group, covers similar ground. I do not have any amendments in that group, so I will touch on it briefly now, because it is essentially a direct alternative to my amendment 51. The minister’s amendment 12 will give the SFC responsibility to limit the managing agent’s share of the funding. However, there is no definition in that amendment of what a “reasonable” fee may be. The amendment will provide that the SFC must limit the fee to something that is “reasonable”, but it does not require the SFC or ministers to set out what they believe to be reasonable.

The Parliament has received some clear and, frankly, outrageous evidence on this issue, and there was a strong consensus on the need for action. Amendment 51 would achieve such action by setting an initial cap of 10 per cent and allowing ministers to adjust that cap in the future as they deem necessary. Critically, the amendment would shift the responsibility for establishing a cap on to ministers, with an appropriate role for the Parliament via the approval of regulations.

As I said, I am not wedded to the figure of 10 per cent. There is an argument about whether it should be 10 per cent or whether we should start at 15 per cent, as is currently the case in England. What is important is that the responsibility for setting the cap should sit with ministers and the Parliament.

I absolutely agree. The member was right to predict that I would talk up the advantages of free bus travel for people under the age of 22. We should look at expanding that further, and not necessarily on the basis of age. For example, there is a compelling case for expanding concessionary travel to those who are undertaking an apprenticeship, in recognition of the fact that, if—this is the Government’s position—we are not able to boost apprentices’ wages, there might be other targeted measures that we can take that are clearly within the competence of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government that would reduce some of the cost barriers that they face. Given how low the apprentice wage is, an apprenticeship can be a non-viable option for a number of people, especially those in rural areas, where transport costs, for example, are so much higher.

I and, I expect, other members would be keen to discuss such matters with the minister ahead of stage 3, which will be necessary if the Government is keen to avoid many of the amendments before us being brought back and discussed in the chamber at stage 3.

Amendment 86 is straightforward. It specifies that, before amending or revoking an apprenticeship framework, the council may consult with such persons as it considers appropriate and that it must publish the reasons for the amendment or revocation of a framework as soon as is reasonably practicable afterwards. As has been mentioned, it is similar to the minister’s amendments 6 and 7 and Willie Rennie’s amendment 29.

I would be happy not to move amendment 86 and to support the other amendments if the minister were amenable to revisiting the issue at stage 3. What is specifically missing from his proposal—and which is included in mine, and which I would welcome as an amendment at stage 3—is the requirement for the council to publish its reasons for changes or revocations. I do not think that that is a cumbersome requirement to put on the council; I think that, particularly when a framework is fully revoked, it is reasonable to expect the council simply to lay out its reasons for doing so. If the minister is amenable to working on that ahead of stage 3, I am happy not to press amendment 86.

Amendment 87 seeks to add in that, when ministers make further provisions in relation to the process that the council should follow when it is preparing, publishing, amending, revoking the frameworks and so on, they ensure that details on consultation carried out with apprentices and those who represent them are included. The amendment is somewhat similar to Willie Rennie’s amendment 29, which is about consultation with employers, in seeking to specify how that process should be carried out.

I was not clear from the minister’s opening remarks what the Government’s position is in relation to amendment 87, and I wonder whether he will clarify it, as well as the Government’s position on amendment 86 and potentially working up a stage 3 amendment on compelling the council to publish its reasons for any changes that it makes. I would be happy not to press amendment 87 if, as with amendment 86, we could work together towards stage 3 amendments, but I am not sure whether the minister was indicating that in relation to amendment 87.

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

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 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.

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?

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.