Scottish Parliament, 20 January 2026

469 contributions from 56 members. The official report.

Time for Reflection

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is time for reflection, and our time for reflection leader is Ian Houston, GlobalScot, writer and trustee at the Robert Burns Ellisland farm and museum.

Ian Houston

Presiding Officer, members of the Scottish Parliament, staff, family and friends, sometimes we find ourselves at the firth, where rivers meet the sea, standing at a threshold beneath the starry skies. I hope that each person listening, wherever they may be, hears this today: you matter and are of profound worth. You glisten like the River Clyde on a crisp winter morning, shimmer like the spring dew upon the Shenandoah valley, hold the elegance of a San Francisco fog in summer and glow with the hues of a Highland forest in autumn—luminous in every place.

As Michael Lloyd, the silversmith behind the extraordinary mace before us, said,

“Things that are made with passion and love are special”,

and so are you—full of lustre. Like the shining mace of silver, banded with gold, the human soul is, after all, delicate and deserving of the polish of tenderness.

Ecclesiastes tells us:

“To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.”

Seasons cross fields of thorns. A pilgrimage to growth carries us through moors of skelping wind and rain, but that journey is never—never—walked alone. Along the way, we rediscover the resilient magic within us: the rowan tree-like spirit.

“Faith is taking the first step, even when you don’t see the whole staircase,”

said Dr Martin Luther King Jr, whose birthday we honour this week. After his passing, Coretta Scott King lived those words—walking forward in faith, carrying the dream through loss.

We need one another to rise, to nurture the lilac heather that graces each of our souls. At the gem of Ellisland farm, near Dumfries, Robert Burns composed the classic “Auld Lang Syne”. However, let us also remember Jean Armour Burns, who was steadfast and encouraging. A simple “well done” from Jean was a cup of kindness and validation that carried Rabbie onward.

Embrace the stanza of seasons. Carry your silver and gold—the sheen of your innate worth—and the purpose that calls each of us through the firth and onward to the call of the sea.

Together—as Scots, as a woodland of good will across the glens of the world and as voices in the parliament of humanity—wherever our branches stretch and thistles intertwine, that patch of earth is stronger, wiser and more peaceful. Leaving a bothy cleaner than when it was found is more than etiquette; it is dùthchas—respect for the soul of our heritage. So, with all our shine, let us be mindful stewards of our gift of time, for auld lang syne.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you.

Business Motion

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-20495, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to business. Any member who wishes to speak to the motion should press their request-to-speak button now.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees to the following revisions to the programme of business for—

(a) Tuesday 20 January 2026—

delete

9.00 pm Decision Time

followed by Members’ Business

and insert

9.05 pm Decision Time

(b) Thursday 22 January 2026—

after

5.00 pm Decision Time

insert

followed by Members’ Business—[Graeme Dey].

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I wonder whether the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans will genuinely consider the point that I am about to make.

I submitted an urgent question to the Presiding Officer outwith the time limit. I will raise this in a point of order after topical questions if I have to, but we are being asked to agree a change of business today.

My urgent question was to ask Government ministers to present to Parliament the written case that they have now presented to court about the transgender prisoner policy. We became aware of that at 9.46 am, when the Government issued a press release. That left 14 minutes for members of the Scottish Parliament to know about the press release, read the press release, read the written submission and get an urgent question in. I do not think that it is physically possible to do that.

To save me from having to make a point of order to ask for a suspension of standing orders, would the minister consider an addition to the business motion to allow a statement from Government ministers on the issue, given that it was of considerable cross-party importance at First Minister’s question time last week, when John Swinney himself said that it was right that all the information was in the public domain? Surely, therefore, it is also right for ministers to raise the issue.

I hope that the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans could perhaps consider that we should have a ministerial statement on the issue today.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I understand the interest in the subject, but today’s business has been agreed by the Parliamentary Bureau and we will sit until 9 o’clock this evening. I point out to Mr Ross that there are other means through which to request a statement or an urgent question, or whatever he sees fit to pursue.

Motion agreed to.

Topical Question Time

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde’s admission of a likely link between issues with the water supply at Queen Elizabeth university hospital and patient infections. (S6T-02845)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

First, I offer my deepest condolences to all the families who have loved ones who are affected by the issues that we are discussing today relating to the hospital’s inquiry. Ministers take seriously all concerns about patient safety and patient care. That is why we established a statutory public inquiry to investigate in detail all matters relating to those cases of infection and to provide patients and families with the answers to their questions and concerns.

The closing statements from core participants were published by the inquiry on Friday 16 January. The contents of those statements will now be considered as part of the final inquiry hearings this week, so it would be inappropriate to comment further on the proceedings at this stage. We look forward to Lord Brodie’s final report and recommendations, which will be forthcoming in due course.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

I declare an interest as I am a practising national health service general practitioner.

The unforgivable cover-up of infected water that led to the unnecessary deaths of cancer patients, including two children, is the most appalling and disgusting hospital scandal to engulf our health service. After more than a decade of denial, we have had to drag the health secretary here today after NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde admitted at the 11th hour, in the most sleekit way, that the water system at the Queen Elizabeth hospital caused infections in cancer patients. Victims include Gail Armstrong, Molly Cuddihy and 10-year-old Milly Main, whose mother said last week that she had been fighting for answers for six years.

As early as 2015, multiple hospital inspections exposed the fact that water at the hospital was not safe and that there was a high risk of subsequent infection. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has spent years covering that up, silencing whistleblowers, gaslighting families and betraying the trust of patients. The calculated attempts at hiding the truth have denied the victims’ families closure.

How many more times must we say, “Never again”, before this culture of secrecy and cover-up ends? What is the health secretary doing to hold past and present senior management at NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to account for their lies, failures and dereliction of duty?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

On the question of transparency, I note that the Government brought forward the public inquiry so that families—some of whom I have met, and to whom I pay tribute for their work and their diligence following the trauma that they have undoubtedly experienced—can get answers to the questions that they are posing, as Dr Gulhane sets out. It is because we have instigated a public inquiry that, I believe, we are getting to the truth.

It is important that we allow the public inquiry the space to consider its final conclusions, so that the final report can be considered before we determine any final considerations. I am duty bound as a minister to do that—there are strict rules about seeking to influence, commenting on or pre-empting public inquiries—and it would be best for the Parliament to do likewise.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

The issues with the water supply have not been solved. A whistleblower told me today that the pressure is so bad that dishwashers have been out of action for months, and taps stop running water monthly. It is time for honesty, transparency and accountability—and it should not have taken a public inquiry to get here.

For more than a decade, successive Scottish National Party health secretaries have presided over a culture of secrecy and cover-up at the expense of patients. SNP ministers must take responsibility for this scandal. They have refused to intervene or to hold senior management responsible, despite mounting evidence and patients demanding the truth.

Nicola Sturgeon opened the hospital, Shona Robison was health secretary at the time of Milly Main’s death, and John Swinney served in senior positions throughout. For the sake of the victims, will the Scottish Government make clear who knew what and when? Will the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care commit today to saying that anyone who was involved in a cover-up, even if they were senior Government ministers, will face justice, including for corporate homicide?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Those issues are currently under the live consideration of a public inquiry and an investigation by the Crown. It would be completely inappropriate for me to comment on or pre-empt those investigations.

We take the issues of transparency and patient safety extremely seriously. That is why we instigated the statutory independent public inquiry that Lord Brodie presides over. As at all hospital sites, there is a comprehensive system of clinical oversight and patient safety monitoring at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. No information has been reported through our robust governance arrangements that questions the hospital’s safety. While the inquiry continues, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is required to ensure that its hospitals remain safe for patients, and it will continue to closely monitor a range of data and quality indicators to demonstrate that.

I add to that the work that has been done to establish the Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland—that is Karen Titchener, who I have had the pleasure to meet and with whom I now meet routinely—which underlines the Government’s commitment to patient safety and transparency for those who are impacted by these issues.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

It is right to remind members that, when the Queen Elizabeth university hospital opened in 2015, Nicola Sturgeon was the First Minister, Shona Robison was the health secretary and John Swinney was the finance minister. Their fingerprints are all over this. We need to know what they knew, when they knew it and exactly who pressured the health board to open the hospital before it was safe, causing the death of children.

We know that the SNP cares only about announcements, rather than delivery. We have experienced the ferry with painted-on windows that has yet to sail, and now a hospital that ministers pushed to open when it was not safe to do so. Who does the cabinet secretary believe is responsible for the deaths of children at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Those matters are subject to live public inquiry and live Crown Office investigations. It would be completely inappropriate for ministers to comment on or narrate what is going on around those issues. Jackie Baillie talks about keeping things secret, but it is the contrary: there are live public inquiries, one of which was instigated by the Scottish Government, and the Crown investigation will clearly have to report. It would be completely inappropriate for ministers to seek to intervene or suppress those inquiries, or to do anything other than allow those processes to continue. I think that you would expect nothing less of a Government minister, Presiding Officer.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

The issue with the water supply has been going on for a number of years, and the hospital cannot function without its water supply. What has changed to make the water supply safe, and what has been put in place to make sure that those who are in hospital remain safe?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

As I set out in response to the question from Mr Whittle’s colleague Dr Gulhane, all hospital sites—Queen Elizabeth university hospital included—have a comprehensive system of clinical oversight and patient safety monitoring, and no information has been reported through that governance process that questions the hospital’s safety. These are matters that require the attention of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and all health boards in ensuring the safe and effective operation of their sites.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests as a director of WhistleblowersUK.

In relation to the scandal, I note that there were whistleblowers in 2017 and as early as 2015. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has admitted that whistleblowers were subject to recrimination and retaliation; they were ignored and much worse besides. It is clear that there is something very wrong with the whistleblowing culture in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, so I ask the cabinet secretary not to hide behind any on-going procedures and to order an immediate review of whistleblowing culture and processes in all of Scotland’s NHS boards.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Please answer in relation to the substantive question.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The issue at hand regarding the hospital’s inquiry is not an issue of procedure, and there are clear rules around ministerial comment or ministers seeking to undermine or in any way influence a public inquiry. I hope that Mr Kerr understands that.

However, in general, I note that Mr Kerr and I have corresponded on the matter regularly. I have set out very clearly my expectation of the national health service’s culture, speak-up culture and attention to patient safety to ensure that, when people—whether they are staff, patients or anyone else—come forward with concerns or complaints, they are treated seriously, the concerns or complaints are dealt with timeously and effectively and patient safety always comes first.

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the potential impact of US tariffs on Scotland’s economy, in light of the announcement this weekend of President Trump’s decision to impose new tariffs on the UK. (S6T-02839)

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

We are deeply concerned about the President of the United States’ proposed use of tariffs to change Greenland’s future. Greenland’s future should be decided by the people of Greenland, and threats of tariffs should not be a bargaining chip in place of reasonable dialogue between international partners.

Any US tariff increase on the United Kingdom will be a concern for Scottish exporters, but, so far, the legal texts that would be necessary for the US Administration to implement such a policy have not been issued. Therefore, it is not possible to assess the precise economic impact. Needless to say, any further tariffs would be deeply damaging for jobs and economic growth across Scotland, given that the whisky industry has already reported the loss of 1,000 jobs last year. We will continue to engage with key partners on the issue.

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

The US is Scotland’s largest export market, and many businesses will be concerned by this move by Washington. Will the Deputy First Minister set out what steps the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that Scottish businesses can identify new markets and can thrive in spite of the punitive tariffs?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

Evelyn Tweed is absolutely right to highlight how critical the US is for Scotland as an export market. International trade is crucial to our economic growth and resilience. We will continue to promote the export growth of Scottish businesses in both current and emerging markets in response to the increasing global uncertainty.

There are a number of examples of how we are building trading relations around the world, including through our participation in the Osaka expo in 2025, which opened new opportunities for businesses in Japan. Later this month, the second Scotland week to be held in the United Arab Emirates will further boost trade and investment ties. Plans for increasing our engagement with India are advancing well, too. We have also approved and financed 19 trade missions led by chambers of commerce through our international trade partnership programme.

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

European leaders have stated their full support for Greenland and for the Kingdom of Denmark. The Presidents of the European Council and the European Commission have warned that tariffs would undermine transatlantic relations and risk creating a dangerous downward spiral. Does the Scottish Government support their calls for international law to be upheld, for NATO allies to respect the sovereignty of its member states and for the future of Greenland to be decided solely by the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

Tariff increases by the US would be a real concern for Scottish exporters, and well-established sources are detailing those concerns right now. I welcome Greenland’s clear statement of its right to self-determination and the endorsement of that by European leaders and by the UK Government. Decisions concerning Greenland can be made only by the people of Greenland, and we are clear that all nations must abide by the international rules-based system.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

According to research from the Common Wealth think tank, Scotland has one of the most foreign-owned economies in Europe. Dependence on overseas direct investment not only bleeds Scotland of the wealth required to fund our public services but pressures Scottish politicians, such as our First Minister, to appease foreign capital by lowering taxes, weakening workers’ rights and eroding environmental standards. Such reliance leaves Scotland vulnerable to dramatic geopolitical change, such as Trump’s latest tariffs. Given that threat, does the Deputy First Minister agree that what Scotland needs is not further private foreign ownership but a strong domestic industrial strategy?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

I reject much of that characterisation of the Scottish economy, and I certainly reject any suggestion that the First Minister is under any pressure but that from the voters who have democratically elected the Scottish Government to ensure that Scotland’s economy is growing and prosperous and that we are able to support workers across the country.

The initial question was all about exports, which is the direct polar opposite to a question about foreign direct investment. We have made clear that we are supporting Scottish exporters. We are an island nation and are reliant on ensuring that the goods and services that are produced to such a high standard here in Scotland reach markets across the world. Those markets include not only North America but the European Union, and this Government continues to back a return to the common market.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests in relation to hospitality that I have received from the Scotch Whisky Association. That association warns that the impact of tariffs has already cost more than 1,000 jobs in Scotland and is costing the industry £20 million a month and that further tariffs would be devastating for the Scottish economy. Just a couple of months ago, the First Minister went to Washington to meet President Trump and came away feeling very optimistic. What has happened to that optimism? Is there anything that the First Minister can do to reach out to President Trump and build on that warm relationship to try to get that threat removed? What can the Scottish Government do with its budget to support industries here that might be impacted by tariffs?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

I will begin by answering the first part of that question. It was with the support of the Scotch Whisky Association that the First Minister made as much progress as he did in his direct engagement with the President.

Murdo Fraser will appreciate that the work to secure an agreement and to nail down that progress is an issue for the UK Government. I think that the First Minister did an admirable job in highlighting the issues, particularly those concerning reciprocal damage. The issue is not only about economic damage to and job losses in the whisky industry, which I outlined in my first answer, but about the damage that is replicated in the United States because of the reciprocal relationship with the bourbon industry.

Regarding the progress that we will now make, the member will appreciate that the First Minister is looking for any and all opportunities and has used such opportunities to make the case for whisky, and will continue doing so, but we are in extremely unprecedented and unstable times.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Members will appreciate the time. I would be grateful for concise questions and responses.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

This goes far beyond export interests. The latest economic threat from Trump follows on from his attacks on the sovereignty of Greenland, his unilateral military action against Venezuela, his support for genocide in Palestine, his attempts to wreck international climate efforts and the brutal violence of his regime against his own citizens. Surely it is clear that democratic countries can no longer treat this lawless US President as a security partner.

Does the Government agree that, in that context, a formal visit by the UK’s head of state would only feed Trump’s ego and would continue a failed policy of appeasement against this extremist, and that the visit should be cancelled?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Please answer on the substantive question, Deputy First Minister.

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

The First Minister has been very robust over the weekend in particular, and he was robust again last night in expressing very clearly his view that the future of Greenland is for the people of Greenland to determine. The First Minister’s primary interest is in respecting the rule-based international system and protecting Scottish interests.

In relation to the first question that I was asked, which was largely about export, this is about how to protect Scottish jobs and interests and how to protect communities across Scotland who are at risk right now.

Jamie Greene (Liberal Democrat, West Scotland)

The way to beat economic bullying is to make trade easier. With the threat of tariffs looming, Scotland, the UK and the EU must unite in their stance against US protectionism. On a practical level, will the Scottish Government join the Scottish Liberal Democrats in calling on the UK Government to implement an immediate cut of 5 per cent to whisky duty to show that we stand behind our whisky industry and to show President Trump that free trade will always trump isolationism?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

I confirm to the member that, in previous budgets, we have been very robust in representing the Scottish whisky industry and calling for fair duty and excise. That is on the record, and that goes back a few years, when letters in my name were drafted to the UK Government expressing that position.

We feel that it is particularly important to support the industry right now as it is seeing a massive impact from the tariffs, with significant job losses and economic damage on a weekly basis. The figures are quite clear, and now is the time to support our domestic production of whisky because of those international risks.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that grooming gangs are targeting children living in residential care homes in Scotland. (S6T-02850)

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Sexual abuse and exploitation of children are abhorrent crimes with devastating impacts on victims and their families. The first part of the independent national review that I announced last month will focus on rigorous, detailed scrutiny of local authorities’ assessments of the threat and risk of group-based child sexual abuse and exploitation.

The review, which will be undertaken by the four independent inspectorates, will assess local areas’ understanding of and response to known risk factors, including children who regularly go missing from home or care. If any harm or risk is identified during the review, it will be escalated immediately through the appropriate channels, including to Police Scotland as required, and will be acted on. I intend to update Parliament more fully on that work in February.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The sinister revelation that grooming gangs are putting mobile phones into residential care homes exposes once again how much remains unknown and how sophisticated these vile predators actually are. Whereas a full inquiry would shine a light on all the dark corners of this nefarious, vicious practice, this Government contents itself with an ill-defined review. In the light of the latest revelations, surely the cabinet secretary now concedes that what is needed is not a review but the full inquiry that everyone is demanding.

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I thank Mr Kerr for his question and his on-going interest in and pursuit of these matters. I was very pleased that he attended the cross-party meeting that I held last week with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, in which we heard an update from Professor Alexis Jay, Police Scotland and the four independent inspectorates that will be leading the work.

I want to be clear again today that the Government is not ruling out further inquiries. I made that substantive point in my statement to Parliament in December. However, there is a need for an evidence base, and that is exactly why the inspectorates are taking the work forward appropriately. To that end, as I intimated in my first answer, I will update Parliament further in February.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I think that the cabinet secretary’s response will disappoint so many.

She listed, and places great reliance on, those in the field. Last September’s initial report of a national child sexual abuse and exploitation sub-group

“found little evidence that training in Scotland adequately equips professionals with the skills needed to respond ... current practice often relies on children verbally disclosing their abuse before decisive protective action is taken”.

What meaningful, substantive action has the Government taken to protect Scotland’s children in the months since its own experts gave it that warning? If something was done, why has it not worked?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I thank Mr Kerr for raising that substantively important matter. I am also mindful that, every time we discuss these topics, victims of child sexual abuse might be listening, and it is important that we discuss the issues in a sympathetic and appropriate manner that is reflective of victims’ trauma. I am mindful of that, particularly in my own role.

Children disclose or report allegations in relation to child sexual abuse in a range of ways. Given my experience as a teacher, I know how that works in a school. However, four different independent inspectorates will be looking in clearer detail at the ways in which that works within their relevant responsibilities.

I want to come back to Parliament with a fuller update on the substantive point that the member raises, which is hugely important. I have been clear throughout my time in Government, in responding on the Government’s approach to this issue, that we need to hear from victims of child sexual abuse in order to ensure that we can learn from their experiences, improve our response and eradicate that type of behaviour in our society.

Given the importance of the issue, it is important that we work on it on a cross-party basis, and that is exactly the approach that I will continue to take. At the meeting that we had last week, which included Mr Kerr, I suggested that we have a fuller update for MSPs in March that will allow for a consistent flow of information to members on the Government’s work on the topic. I will be able to share more with members on that in my statement in February, and then again in March, before Parliament dissolves.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

All sexual abuse and exploitation of children is horrific, and it is important that we treat the issue sensitively when we discuss it.

Can the cabinet secretary set out more detail of what the national review will involve? What more can she say about the evidence and information that it will collate and what will happen when it is received?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I want to be absolutely clear that the four inspectorates that are leading the national review are independent of Government. They will show no fear or favour in the work that they have been instructed to undertake urgently and at pace, and, crucially, they have powers to compel public authorities to provide the information that they request. Those powers will be critical to the success of the review. Public agencies will not be able to refuse to co-operate, and the inspectorates will help to obtain the evidence that is needed to inform future decisions and investigations.

Once the independent national review is complete, the national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group, which is independently chaired by Professor Alexis Jay, will consider the findings and provide expert advice to ministers regarding our next steps.

As I set out previously, if any harm or risk is identified during that process, that matter will be escalated, including to Police Scotland, as appropriate.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

There is a lot of interest in this sensitive issue. I believe that Scotland had not up till now addressed the need to interrogate the data to assess the scale of the problem. Given that it could take months or years to do such an assessment and we have not—I think—been given a timescale for it, and given that we already know that children in the care system are at the highest risk, I ask the cabinet secretary to elaborate on the immediate actions that the Government will take to identify and protect the children who are most at risk. If there is any validity to the reports that Liam Kerr refers to, there is a need for urgency, and we cannot wait to protect children.

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

It would be inappropriate for me to comment on those reports themselves. Of course, I have read the press article in question, and those points have been put to my officials. However, any criminal activity would be a matter for Police Scotland to investigate.

In relation to timescales, I set out in my previous answer that I will come back to Parliament in the coming weeks, in February, to give a fuller update. At the meeting that Ms McNeill and other MSPs attended last week, a range of different agencies set out some of their work on next steps in relation to their responsibilities, and I have committed to provide a further update for MSPs in March. There is a range of different points in relation to the timescales that we are currently working on, but I hope to say more on the detail on next steps in the statement to Parliament in the coming weeks.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

The serious organised crime task force has acknowledged that the scale of child sexual abuse and exploitation is hidden and underreported and that national monitoring is weak. Given that the Government admits that it does not know the true scale of the abuse, what specific evidential threshold from the national review does the cabinet secretary need to establish a full national inquiry into grooming gangs in Scotland?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I note that we have only been able to engage with Ms Dowey’s audio. We will certainly look into that issue, but I would be grateful if the cabinet secretary could respond to the question.

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The first part of Ms Dowey’s question related to the way that we record and report the crimes that we have discussed today. We should also reflect on the power imbalance that often exists in relation to child sexual exploitation, which is also a causal factor in underreporting. I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the review, but as I have set out today, I will give Ms Dowey and MSPs a fuller update in February, when I have received an update from the agencies on their progress in relation to their statutory responsibilities and the review that I announced in December.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes topical questions.

Point of Order

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek a ruling from you on standing orders rule 17.2.1(a), on suspending rule 13.8.1.

Rule 13.8.1 relates to the lodging of urgent questions and states that they must be lodged by 10 am on the day that they are to be taken. If we can agree to suspend standing orders to vary the time—the time only—in rule 13.8.1, I can resubmit my urgent question for you to consider on whether ministers should be brought to the Parliament today to speak about the Scottish Government’s written case that has now been presented in the judicial review petitioned for by For Women Scotland on the Scottish Prison Service’s transgender prisoner policy.

Two weeks ago, you rightly said during First Minister’s questions that the Parliament should not be “a library”—I agree with that—but the Parliament should also be a Parliament. Surely, on an issue of importance such as this, on which there have been cross-party questions to the Government, we should act as a Parliament and hear from ministers on the same day that the information is made public.

I also note that, in response to my asking a question on this topic last week, the First Minister said:

“The Government is trying to make information available to ensure that members of the public ... can follow the case in a well-informed way.”—[Official Report, 15 January 2026; c 20.]

We will be able to follow the case in a well-informed way by questioning ministers.

As I said to the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans, the information came out in a Government press release at 9.46 am. There was no Government-initiated question to alert every MSP to it, and to the best of my knowledge, there was no offer from the Government for a minister to make a statement. Therefore, our only recourse, as Opposition parties and back-bench MSPs, is through an urgent question.

I fully accept that, when I lodged my urgent question, it was beyond the time limit, but there are compelling reasons for the issue to be debated today in the Parliament, through ministers answering questions. Therefore, I seek your guidance on how I can move a motion under rule 17.2.1(a) to suspend rule 13.8.1 to allow an urgent question to be considered today.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Mr Ross, and I appreciate advance notice of your intention to raise the matter. I am not minded today to accept a motion without notice. I think that my determination to ensure that all members have an opportunity to scrutinise the Government fully and regularly, whether that be through urgent questions or the selection of other questions, is very clear to the Parliament. I remind Mr Ross of the other opportunities that exist, and which are available to him this week.

Business Motion

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-20486, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for stage 3 consideration of the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limits indicated, those time limits being calculated from when the stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended or otherwise not in progress:

Groups 1 to 3: 1 hour

Groups 4 to 7: 1 hour 45 minutes

Groups 8 and 9: 3 hours

Groups 10 to 12: 4 hours 10 minutes

Groups 13 to 15: 5 hours 25 minutes.—[Graeme Dey]

Motion agreed to.

Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, Scottish Parliament bill 57A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments.

The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes if there is a division. The period of voting for the division will be 30 seconds. Members who wish to speak in the debate on an amendment should press their request-to-speak button or enter RTS in the chat function as soon as an amendment is called.

Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.

Before section 1

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Group 1 is on a national funding strategy. Amendment 10, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 74.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I am grateful to the Presiding Officer, all the Parliament staff and all MSP colleagues for their engagement with this bill and I am pleased to open this afternoon’s debate on the stage 3 amendments with an amendment that I hope a lot of members in this chamber will welcome and be interested in. The amendment gives effect to the commitment that I gave at stage 2 to consider further what, if anything, the Government could introduce in response to Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 38 and 39 at stage 2.

My amendment 10 will require the Scottish ministers to create and maintain a national funding strategy for tertiary education, skills and apprenticeships in Scotland. The strategy will establish a foundation for our tertiary education and skills system to ensure that funding decisions are based on an even more robust understanding of the skills needs in Scotland, not only at the national level but across Scotland’s diverse local and regional contexts, which I know a number of members are—quite rightly—interested in, as is the Government.

Under amendment 10, the national funding strategy will have to explain Scotland’s skills needs and set out the Scottish ministers’ priorities for funding for further and higher education, national training programmes, apprenticeships and work-based learning. Additionally, the strategy will set out the outcomes that the Scottish ministers intend to achieve through that investment. For clarity, for universities, it will not direct funding towards provision specifically, as universities are autonomous bodies. I believe that amendment 10 will, overall, create a coherent strategic direction for Scotland that is better aligned with the skills needs that we have.

The Scottish ministers will be required to publish and update the strategy and, of course, lay it before Parliament. Publishing ministerial priorities and intended outcomes aids transparency and ensures that Parliament, stakeholders and the public can—rightly—scrutinise the Government’s policy direction on skills and the progress that it achieves. The requirement to report regularly will reinforce that.

Crucially, the preparation and revision of the strategy will be informed by meaningful consultation with a wide range of relevant stakeholders, including employers, trade unions and the bodies delivering education and skills training. The amendment does not set out an exhaustive list—for example, it is important, and it is my intention, that organisations and groups representing students and apprentices, and those with disabilities, will be included among those consulted, so that their important and specific needs are provided for in any funding strategy.

By ensuring that the strategy is rooted in evidence and shaped through collaboration and engagement, with clearly specified outcomes, amendment 10 strengthens the Government’s approach—and, therefore, the nation’s approach—to skills planning and to the funding of the tertiary education and skills system.

An important outcome, which we want to track and report on, is improved access to education and training opportunities for people with disabilities and other disadvantaged groups. I know that that is of particular interest to my colleague Jeremy Balfour.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

The Conservative members are supportive of amendment 10, but I want to ask the minister whether it is the Scottish Government’s vision that it will make colleges lead delivery providers for modern apprenticeships under the bill, with a minimum percentage of apprenticeships delivered through colleges as part of the “college first” principle that I tried to progress at stage 2.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

The importance of colleges in the delivery of apprenticeships, as Mr Briggs rightly emphasises, should not be underestimated. We want our colleges to take the lead, but important roles are occupied in the current system by training providers. We want to enhance the system overall, and the role of colleges in the delivery of our apprenticeship system will continue to progress and become more important in the years ahead.

I hope that members will support amendment 10, particularly given the points that were made at stage 2.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The minister will know that Universities Scotland has expressed concern about the national funding strategy. It feels that the strategy risks encroaching on the Office for National Statistics classification and the independent status of universities. That has been a sensitive issue, particularly with regard to the University of Dundee and the use of powers under section 25 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005. What will the minister say to assure Universities Scotland that that is not what he and the Government intend?

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I thank Willie Rennie for raising that important point and for the engagement that I have had with him on this matter, and I thank Universities Scotland for its engagement in advance of these stage 3 proceedings. I refer back to the point that I made a moment ago, in which I sought to emphasise that the strategy will not direct funding towards specific provision in universities, because they are autonomous bodies. In preparing the strategy, the Government will be meticulously careful in setting out what it will mean for universities, in order to make sure that there is no encroachment on their autonomy and that their existing status is protected and preserved.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Is the minister in a position to set out when the Government will publish the responses to the consultation that it recently carried out on support for part-time study and disabled students, which closed on 9 October?

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for raising that point and highlighting that important consultation. I will take that away as an action and update her and the Parliament more widely on progress relating to the findings of the consultation, when the responses will be published and when the Parliament and the public will be able to see the outcomes.

As I said, I hope that members will support amendment 10, particularly given some of the points that were made at stage 2 about ensuring that we collectively take a strategic approach and that we consider the short, medium and long-term interests of the economy and the skills that we will require. Amendment 10 will further ensure that decisions about funding Scotland’s tertiary education and skills system are shaped by evidence, informed by stakeholders and responsive to the needs of learners, employers and communities across Scotland.

Amendment 74 will make a consequential change to the bill’s long title to add a reference to the strategy.

I urge members to support my amendments in group 1.

I move amendment 10.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

I thank the minister for his constructive engagement on the strategy; we had several interesting conversations about its critical nature. I emphasise that, although I welcome amendment 10 and although Labour will support it, there is an issue that is necessary to address. It is interesting that people have so many questions, because the fundamental issue with the bill is that no such strategy currently exists. The problem with the approach that has been taken towards the bill is that, without the strategy, we cannot be clear about whether the structure is right. It will always be problematic to have a structure before we are clear about the strategy.

I am grateful for amendment 10. Although I appreciate that a version of it was offered as a handout amendment, we could not take that because of the inherent flaw in the Government’s approach. When the minister winds up, I ask him to acknowledge that we are 10 years on from the enterprise and skills review. At the heart of the issues that Audit Scotland found was a lack of strategic direction and clarity about how systems should work together.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

I am happy to do so.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

I am grateful to Daniel Johnson for taking the intervention and I apologise for being unable to intervene on the minister.

Are we not confronted today with the fact that we are designing an answer before we even know what the question is?

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Indeed, and I believe that the member has provided me with an answer—that is exactly the issue that we have. This strategy might be the right solution or structural reform, but we do not know. We do not understand the Government’s vision or intent or how it will deal with things such as flexibility, upskilling, reskilling, digital passports and regionalisation—many of the strategic aspects that were identified by Withers and highlighted in the many reports. Yes, the strategy will help, but I believe that it exposes the fundamental flaw in the Government’s approach.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I thank members for their contributions. By way of response to what has just been said, I emphasise that the strategic work that will be taken forward through amendment 10, together with amendment 74, has already been happening within the Scottish Government. There will be more to say about that in the months ahead.

The commissioning of the Withers report was part of building that strategic approach and, today, in the legislation that is before Parliament, we seek to advance much of what the Withers report advocated for, particularly with regard to moving funding for apprenticeships into the remit of the Scottish Funding Council and putting apprenticeships on a statutory footing.

It is not fair to say that there has not been a strategic approach, that we have not been undertaking consultation and responding to it, or that our approach has not been evidence led. However, I appreciate members’ engagement on this issue. Through the deliberations between stage 2 and today, I have sought to listen to colleagues so that we can come together on a position that helps us to move forward as a nation. I am glad to hear that there is support for amendment 10 and, if Parliament passes the bill, I will look forward to the strategy being an important aspect for Government and for business, in order to make sure that we progress together in the right way.

Amendment 10 agreed to.

Section 2—General duty of the Scottish Ministers to support delivery

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We move to group 2, which is on the general duty of the Scottish ministers to support delivery. Amendment 75, in the name of Miles Briggs, is grouped with amendment 11. I call Miles Briggs to move amendment 75 and speak to both amendments in the group.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I start by thanking the Parliament’s legislative team for its support—to be quite honest, the team could also do with some more apprentices, given the amount of legislation that is going through Parliament. I also pay tribute to and thank our stakeholders, who have provided a lot of support during the passage of the bill on its way to stage 3.

Throughout the passage of the bill, Scottish Conservatives have worked to strengthen and embed the voice of industry in the development of Scotland’s skills strategy and the development of qualifications for apprenticeships.

In line with that approach, my amendment 75 would maintain

“an independent industry-led board to lead the oversight of the design, development, approval and delivery processes of Scottish apprenticeships”.

That is important, and we tried to safeguard and progress that at stage 2.

I welcome Willie Rennie’s amendment, which we will discuss later, to create a sub-committee of the apprenticeship committee, but, alongside many industry leaders, I continue to have concerns that the bill as it stands—and the changes that it will bring to the apprenticeship delivery environment in Scotland—could see the voice of industry in developing apprenticeships lost in translation.

An Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report from 2024 advocates for a statutory framework for employer involvement in apprenticeships, citing a range of international best practice in that regard. It specifically recommends establishing that statutory framework for employers in order to enable them to retain authority with regard to overseeing apprenticeship delivery and developing and approving frameworks, and to ensure that there is a legal obligation for them to be consulted with regard to commissioning decisions. I believe that that should be the approach in Scotland.

I also welcome amendment 11, in the name of my colleague Stephen Kerr.

I move amendment 75.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The minister is to be commended for getting this bill to stage 3, because, frankly, he inherited a guddle and is having to work his way through it. Trying to make something worth while out of this is very difficult, as Miles Briggs has alluded to this afternoon and on other occasions.

My amendment 11 is very basic, but it concerns a basic thing that is all too often missing from how Government approaches education and skills policy in Scotland, and that is outcomes. Amendment 11 would simply require that, in exercising their functions under the legislation, ministers must have regard to what public expenditure is actually achieving—a breakthrough moment! They would also have to

“ensure that funding supports measurable improvements in skills, productivity and learner achievement.”

It concerns not intentions, strategies or process, but actual outcomes. That matters, because, while Scotland already spends substantial sums across further education, higher education, apprenticeships and national training programmes, employers repeatedly tell us that the spend and the impact are drifting apart.

Productivity growth in Scotland has lagged behind the United Kingdom average for more than a decade. Skills shortages remain acute in engineering, construction, digital technology, life sciences and advanced manufacturing, and too many young people still struggle to see a clear, credible route from education into sustained employment.

The bill talks a great deal about duties, structures and governance. What it does not do is anchor ministerial decision making in whether those structures are actually delivering skills that the economy needs. Amendment 11 would close that gap.

That is not ideological. Colleges Scotland has made it clear that colleges already deliver strong value for money and contribute directly to productivity and learner outcomes. The organisation supports the amendment, precisely because it reflects what good providers already do when they focus on results, not rhetoric.

The same point is made in the Scottish Parliament information centre’s analysis ahead of stage 3, which highlights the importance of aligning the expanded remit of the Scottish Funding Council with economic need, not simply administrative consolidation.

Amendment 11 is about discipline and realism. Public money should work harder. If we are serious about ensuring parity of esteem between academic and vocational pathways, we must be serious about measuring whether funding is raising skill levels, improving completion rates and supporting progression into work, including through apprenticeships and graduate apprenticeships.

Graduate apprenticeships, or degree apprenticeships—I prefer the latter term because I think that it is a better description of what they are—are a good example. Where they work well, they deliver degree-level skills aligned directly with employer demand, with high completion and employment rates. However, uptake remains patchy and expansion has been inconsistent. Amendment 11 would give ministers a clear statutory prompt to ask whether their funding decisions are actually scaling what works.

I do not think that that should trouble the Government. If ministers are confident that the system that they are building will raise standards, boost productivity and properly equip Scotland’s future workforce, they should see writing that expectation into law as entirely reasonable—and, if I may say so, the minister who is guiding the bill is a very reasonable fellow, on a good day.

Members:

Oh!

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

That was a compliment, Presiding Officer—I do not know how I can reach higher on compliments than to say that the minister is reasonable.

My amendment would not tie ministers’ hands. It does not prescribe targets or privilege one route over another. It simply asks ministers to look squarely at outcomes and to fund what delivers them. That is sensible and sober, and it is exactly the mindset that we need if the bill is to be about economic growth, opportunity and raising standards, rather than just a rearrangement of the system.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I thank colleagues for explaining their amendments. The two amendments in this group revisit proposals that were previously brought forward at stage 2, and which the Education, Children and Young People Committee resisted at that juncture.

Amendment 75, from Miles Briggs, is similar to an amendment that was lodged by Willie Rennie at stage 2, concerning an industry-led board to oversee apprenticeships. Amendment 75 would effectively reinstate the Scottish Apprenticeship Advisory Board—otherwise known as SAAB. I put on record the great work that SAAB has done for many years. I am grateful for the engagement that I have had with it since my appointment, on the bill and other matters.

However, the bill already establishes an apprenticeship committee within the Scottish Funding Council that is expected to lead on some of the responsibilities of SAAB. Recreating an additional board with overlapping responsibilities would clutter the system at a time when we are trying to simplify it. It would duplicate roles and introduce unnecessary complexity without delivering added value to the system. The bill, as amended at stage 2, also formalises and strengthens the role of employers in the system.

Those changes will ensure that employers continue to be central to apprenticeship delivery, but in a way that fits coherently with the new governance arrangements, rather than creating unnecessary parallel structures.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

We have not got to Willie Rennie’s amendment on the issue yet, but I think that the minister is almost making the argument against it, as it would introduce another sub-committee structure. Is that not the case? What industry is concerned about is that, by being just part of a wider conversation in that sub-committee, its voice and needs could be lost in translation. That is why we think that a version of SAAB should be retained.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

We agreed to a number of amendments at stage 2 to ensure that the voice of business and industry is even more significant under the bill. Later in today’s proceedings, I will urge Parliament to support amendments to give industry and business further voice in the process. On the sub-committee, that can of course be determined by the SFC, and we will come to Willie Rennie’s amendment on that in due course.

If Miles Briggs is content, I turn to Stephen Kerr’s amendment 11, which revisits one of his stage 2 amendments. With respect to Mr Kerr, I must say that, as I set out to the committee then, in the Government’s view, the amendment is ambiguous on what constitutes

“measurable improvements in skills, productivity and learner achievement.”

The appropriate mechanism for setting expectations on funding outcomes is already available through the terms and conditions of funding that ministers can impose on the SFC. That is already possible under powers in the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005. Through amendment 10 in group 1, which we have just discussed, the new national funding strategy will require the Scottish ministers to set out the outcomes that the Government is seeking to deliver through funding tertiary education and skills training. I know that Mr Kerr supports that amendment, and I hope that he welcomes it.

For the reasons that I have set out, I ask Miles Briggs not to press amendment 75 and Stephen Kerr not to move amendment 11. If they do, I encourage colleagues to vote against the amendments.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Amendment 75 goes to the heart of some of the concerns that the Education, Children and Young People Committee has heard. Industries and businesses that are desperate for apprenticeships do not feel that the current system is delivering for them. However, their voice is not going to be specifically included. As the minister did, I pay tribute to SAAB for the work that it has done but, if that board is not fundamentally at the heart of the bill, the voice of industry and business will be lost.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

The member is right to highlight the difference between SAAB and the proposed structures. Fundamentally, SAAB is about industry representatives coming forward. The concern is that the people who make up the proposed committees and sub-committees—and, indeed, the council itself—will be picked by Government and might not provide the candid insight that is required if we are to have a system that is truly reflective of industry views. Does the member agree with that?

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Yes, I agree with that. One of the missed opportunities is that the bill does not deal with regional skills shortages. On Friday, I was in Aberdeen, where I heard about not just the opportunities but the shortages that exist there. There is real concern that the bill has watered down the voice of industry. We need to strengthen it, and that is why I want to—

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Yes, I am happy to.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Does my colleague agree that it is very confusing that ministers are refusing the opportunity to take for themselves directive powers on what outcomes will match their aspirations for Scotland’s economy on issues such as improvement in skills, productivity and learner achievement? Is he as confused as I am about the minister’s reluctance to include outcomes in the bill?

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

That has been a concern during the passage of the bill. Parliament has tried to influence the Government by getting it to focus on where industry must be a part of this, rather than treating it as an afterthought. The minister has moved on some of that—perhaps he wants to intervene.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I ask Miles Briggs to be slightly patient, as he will be uplifted on some of those points as we get to later groups.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

We will see. For now, I press amendment 75.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 75 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

As this is the first division of stage 3 today, I will suspend the meeting for around five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We move to the vote on amendment 75. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Ms Callaghan. I will ensure that that vote is recorded.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect to the voting system. I would have voted no.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Mr Gibson. I will ensure that that vote is recorded.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect to the system, either. I would have voted no.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Ms Harper. I will ensure that that vote is recorded.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 48, Against 68, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 75 disagreed to.

Amendment 11 moved—[Stephen Kerr].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The app would not let me connect. I would have voted no.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Mr Gibson. I will make sure that that is recorded.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My vote would not record. I would have voted no.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Ms McNair. I will make sure that that is recorded.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Ms Smith. I will make sure that that is recorded.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app froze. I would have voted yes.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Mr Hoy. I will make sure that that is recorded.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 48, Against 68, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 11 disagreed to.

After section 2

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Group 3 is on student support, including students with support needs. Amendment 1, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, is grouped with amendments 3 to 9.

Jeremy Balfour (Independent, Lothian)

I, too, start by thanking the minister for his constructive engagement, particularly as I came to the party quite late. My amendments are the result of a number of discussions that I had with charities—especially charities for the disabled—that wanted to engage on the bill.

Amendment 1 would place a clear duty on the Scottish ministers and the Scottish Funding Council to maintain funding for students with support needs by adding proposed new section 4A to the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005. The intention is simply to ensure that the support that students rely on is properly funded and that it cannot be chipped away by inflation or a shifting budget. Amendment 1 would secure funding at no less than the real-terms level of 2025-26, which would protect vulnerable students from rising costs. It also asks ministers to set out clear eligibility criteria for support, so that students and institutions would know exactly how decisions were made.

To keep the system transparent, the SFC would publish an annual assessment that would show the impact of funding decisions, the level of unmet need and how support was being used. Before any regulations were introduced, ministers would have to consult those who represent students with support needs to ensure that lived experience informed the process. The use of the affirmative procedure would ensure that Parliament would retain proper oversight.

Amendment 1 is a sensible and proportionate amendment that would protect existing commitments, improve transparency and reflect the Parliament’s long-standing commitment to fairness and inclusion. By backing it, members would ensure that students with support needs would not be left behind and that the system would remain accountable and responsive.

Amendment 3 would add a simple but important requirement to the consultation process that is set out in section 2E of the bill. It would ensure that, when decisions are made about a body’s functions, ministers must consult those who represent students with support needs. That would strengthen the bill by making sure that the voices of students who often face the greatest barriers are not overlooked. It would bring their lived experience directly into the decision-making process and would help to ensure that any changes that are made would be fair, inclusive and properly informed. Although amendment 3 proposes a modest addition, it is one that would improve the quality and legitimacy of future consultations and that would help to safeguard the interests of students who rely on support.

Amendment 4 would ensure that, when ministers consult on matters relating to apprenticeships, they must also hear from those who represent apprentices and prospective apprentices with support needs. I believe that it would strengthen the bill by making sure that the experience of disabled apprentices and others who require additional support would be properly taken into account before decisions are made. Too often, such learners face barriers that are not always visible in the headline data, and their perspectives can be missed unless they are explicitly included in the consultation process. That small but important change would help to ensure that future policy is shaped by the people who understand those challenges best, which I hope will result in decisions being more inclusive and better informed.

Amendment 5 would ensure that, when ministers consult under section 10, they must also include those who represent students with support needs. That is a straightforward but, again, important addition to the bill, which would help to guarantee that the voices of students who often face the greatest barriers would be heard before decisions are taken for or about them. By explicitly requiring their inclusion in the consultation process, amendment 5 would strengthen the bill’s commitment to fairness and would ensure that policy would be shaped by a proper understanding of the challenges that such students face. It proposes another important change that would improve the quality of decision making and that would help to ensure that future arrangements were generally inclusive.

Amendment 6 would require the Scottish ministers to introduce regulations to ensure that anybody who is responsible for providing funding to support people with additional needs in further or higher education must report on how that funding is used. The amendment would create a straightforward but important layer of transparency that would allow Parliament and the public to see whether the support is actually reaching the students it is meant to reach. It is intended to help by including the relevant duty in regulations that would be subject to the affirmative procedure, thereby ensuring that Parliament could scrutinise and approve the measures.

Amendment 7 would require the Scottish ministers to publish guidance for post-16 education bodies on how to use funding effectively to support students with additional needs. It would ensure that colleges, training providers and other bodies had clear expectations about how the funding should be directed so that it generally benefits students. It is intended to help. The amendment would ensure that the guidance would cover how information about the support that is available is communicated to students and prospective students, so that no one misses out simply because they had not heard of it or did not realise that it existed. The amendment represents a practical and constructive step that would aid transparency; more importantly, it would help those students who need such support.

Amendment 8 would require the Scottish ministers to commission an independent review of how funding for students with support needs was being used and how effective that funding was in improving access, retention and outcomes for disabled learners in further and higher education. It would ensure that Parliament would receive a robust and evidence-based assessment of whether current arrangements were delivering what they were supposed to deliver and whether the support provided was generally helping students to enter education, stay on their courses and achieve positive results at the end. Once the review was completed, ministers would be required to publish the findings and lay a report before the Parliament, thereby ensuring full transparency and allowing members to scrutinise the evidence. I hope that amendment 8 is seen as a constructive amendment that would strengthen accountability, support continuous improvement and help to ensure that funding for support needs is used in a way that truly benefits the students who rely on it.

Finally, amendment 9 would require ministers to carry out a full review of student support funding within a year of the provision coming into force and to report the findings to Parliament. The review would look closely at how the system was supporting students with additional needs, how funding would be protected or improved as responsibilities moved between different bodies, and what the equality impacts were, both of the current arrangements and of the proposed changes. Once the review was completed, ministers would be required to lay a report before the Parliament, thereby allowing members to scrutinise the evidence. I believe that amendment 9 is a sensible and constructive amendment that would bring clarity to an area that is undergoing sufficient change. It would help to safeguard the interests of students who rely on support and to ensure that the Parliament has the information that it needs to oversee future decisions as things develop.

I look forward to hearing what the minister and others have to say.

I move amendment 1.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

Like Jeremy Balfour, I come late to the party in some ways. I thank him for his amendments and the intent behind them. It is important to recognise the vital element of providing support to people with additional needs. There is always a desire to do more in that regard, which was recognised widely by stakeholders, including those in the college sector, who pointed to the fact that many of our institutions are focused on ensuring that they can widen access and support young people, in particular, who have an additional support need to be engaged in courses that are really important to them. We recognise and know the funding challenges that exist, and it is important that Jeremy Balfour has brought that to the fore through his amendments.

Scottish Labour is broadly supportive of the intent behind the amendments, which were also discussed as probing amendments at stage 2. However, I have concerns about how the amendments are drafted and about the principle of putting in primary legislation something that would tie the hands of future Parliaments and Governments and, indeed, the council that will be established by the bill.

There is a broader concern about the requirement in amendment 1 to maintain funding levels. Obviously, I recognise that that is an important ambition, which, again, would command general support, but I would be keen to understand how Jeremy Balfour envisages primary legislation doing that without tying the hands of future Governments in their budgets. There might be situations in which, for a variety of reasons, colleges had to move funding around or to look at where there might be reduced demand in any given year. Would agreeing to amendment 1 mean, for example, that money would sit unspent because an institution could not spend it in a different budget line? That might be detrimental to what we are all seeking to find agreement on this afternoon.

We all agree that there is a need to provide enhanced support for those with additional support needs. I applaud Jeremy Balfour’s tenacity in pursuing the issue, but I have the general concern that legislating in the way that he proposes might not be the correct way to go about it. We must continue to work together to hold the Government of the day to account for its actions, but I think that we need to build the policy consensus rather than trying to legislate for something in primary legislation.

I will leave my comments there. I am sure that we will hear more from the minister and Mr Balfour.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I, too, am very grateful to Jeremy Balfour for lodging the amendments on the important issue of supporting students with support needs. It was really good to meet him at the end of last week and have the discussion that we had. I put on the record again today, as I expressed in our discussion, that I am, of course, very sympathetic to and agree with the intent behind the amendments. Everyone should be enabled and supported to participate in post-school education, training or skills development.

I want to mention the points that Jeremy Balfour made about the importance of inclusion and of ensuring that lived experience is involved in the formation of policy. We in the Government appreciate that people with support needs and disabilities are, at present, less likely to be economically active than others, and we are constantly exploring what more Government and its agencies might be able to do to change that. I know that Jeremy Balfour has been engaged in that matter for many years.

The Scottish Government is firmly committed to building a fairer Scotland in which people can access the support that they need to fulfil their potential in post-school education and training. Therefore, I reassure Mr Balfour and other members that the matters that are put forward in his amendments are being considered, or are best considered, administratively, and I will explain why. To ensure that that happens, I advise the Parliament that, as Mr Balfour and I agreed at the end of last week, I will arrange a meeting involving him, charities and organisations representing disabled people, Scottish Government officials, the Student Awards Agency Scotland and the SFC before the Parliament is dissolved at the end of March, so that further discussions can take place. Mr Balfour and I would welcome the involvement in that meeting of any other members who have an interest in the matter.

I now turn to the amendments themselves and will set out my rationale for believing that they are unnecessary and that they threaten to reduce flexibility or to create duplication of existing measures and legal duties, and that such matters, as I said, would be better considered administratively.

Amendment 1 would require ministers to

“ensure funding is provided to meet the support needs of students”.

As has been explained, all Scotland’s colleges and universities are already under a statutory duty, through the Equality Act 2010, to make reasonable adjustments so that disabled students, including those with long-term conditions, are not placed at a disadvantage. That enforceable legal obligation exists independently of this bill, so using the bill to create an additional statutory duty would not change or strengthen that requirement but would duplicate protections that already exist.

Any funding obligation on ministers is more properly a matter for the annual budget process and not for the bill. However, I acknowledge that there might be inconsistencies in how those duties are applied and in the extent to which support is provided. I hope that we can explore that in the discussion that I have committed to holding to determine whether we can improve how support is provided.

I understand that the intention behind amendment 3 is to ensure that the interests of students who have support needs are taken into account before any decisions that might significantly impact them are made. The bill already includes mandatory consultation requirements. Section 2E of the bill requires the fundable bodies to inform and consult the organisations that represent their students as a mandatory condition of receiving their funding. That is deliberately broad and already enables engagement with any organisation that represents students with support needs.

Similarly, amendment 4 is unnecessary given my amendment 31 in group 8. Amendment 4 would require ministers to consult apprentices and persons who appear to represent apprentices’ interests. Once again, I consider that that is broad enough to include all kinds of apprentices, including those with support needs.

Amendment 5 would duplicate a provision in section 10 that gives the SFC the power to issue statutory guidance to fundable bodies and to consult any stakeholders that it considers to be appropriate. Those to be consulted could include apprentices with support needs or organisations such as Lead Scotland.

Amendment 6 would require bodies that provide funding to people with support needs to report on that funding. Any funding for those with support needs is already monitored and reported on annually by SAAS, so amendment 6 would therefore duplicate existing reporting mechanisms.

Amendment 7 would require ministers to

“prepare and publish guidance ... in relation to the effective use of funding provided ... to students with support needs.”

Guidance on disabled students allowance and on the additional support needs for learners allowance is already publicly available via SAAS and the SFC. Once again, that amendment would therefore duplicate existing provision.

Amendments 8 and 9 would require reviews of the funding that is provided to students with support needs. A consultation on support for part-time and disabled students was undertaken between June and October 2025 and captured views from both FE and HE students, including those undertaking distance learning. The responses are currently being independently analysed. The findings are due to be published this spring and I will ensure that that happens before the dissolution of Parliament. I appreciate that Pam Duncan-Glancy asked about that earlier and hope that my response will give early clarity about her expectations. The analysis of the results of that consultation will inform future policy and funding considerations whereas introducing parallel statutory reviews, as the amendments propose, would duplicate work that is already in progress. I am also conscious that Willie Rennie has lodged amendment 113 to ask for a more far-reaching review provision that would require a review of the operation of the entire act. We consider that proposal, which could include a review of funding, to be far preferable to amendment 9, making amendment 113 a better option.

All that considered, I thank Jeremy Balfour for lodging his amendments in group 3 and for ensuring that the bill process has considered the needs of a specific and important group of people. I hope that I have articulated and demonstrated why the Government does not believe that his amendments are necessary and that I have provided him with sufficient reassurance of the practical actions that I will undertake with him. I also hope that he will not press his amendments but, if he does, I encourage members to vote against them for the reasons that I have set out.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Jeremy Balfour to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 1.

Jeremy Balfour (Independent, Lothian)

I thank Paul O’Kane and the minister for their contributions. With regard to Labour’s comments, I note that it is sometimes not a bad thing to tie future Governments. We do not know what future Parliaments will look like or what they will do. We know that at least one member with an obvious disability is not coming back next time. Future Governments can always amend legislation if they feel strongly about it, so I am not convinced that the argument about tying future Governments is always the strongest one. It is sometimes good to put things down that would require a change in legislation so that the whole Parliament can think about them.

I thank the minister for our constructive dialogue on Friday and for his very public offer of the meeting with the disabled people’s charities, colleagues and others. I hope that members from other parties will attend that meeting, because it will be an opportunity to lay out the concerns and see how, in practical ways, they can be dealt with.

In light of the minister’s offer, his comments and, in particular, Mr Rennie’s amendment 113, which we will come to later and which I hope the Parliament will agree to, I do not intend to press amendment 1.

Amendment 1, by agreement, withdrawn.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Group 4 is on publication duties. Amendment 2, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, is grouped with amendments 46 and 47.

Jeremy Balfour (Independent, Lothian)

Members will be pleased to hear that amendment 2 is my final amendment and, in speaking to it, I will be a lot briefer than I was last time.

Amendment 2 is an important amendment as it would introduce a new requirement on anyone who carries out a consultation under the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005 to publish a summary of the responses that they receive, along with an explanation of how the responses have been taken into account. The amendment would build greater transparency into the consultation process and help to ensure that those who take the time to contribute can see how their views have influenced the final outcome, if at all. Importantly, the amendment includes a sensible safeguard that would allow the person who conducts the consultation not to publish where doing so would be inappropriate.

The straightforward and proportionate measure that I propose in the amendment would strengthen accountability and improve public confidence in decision making. Ultimately, it would ensure that consultations are not treated as tick-box exercises but are a meaningful part of the shaping of policy.

I move amendment 2.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

I was pleased that the committee agreed to my amendment proposing the insertion of new section 6A at stage 2. It is a hobby-horse of mine that the public have the right to access public data. Section 6A places a duty on the SFC and any education body that receives funding from it to adopt a proactive approach to the publication of data that is considered appropriate for disclosure in the public domain. There is a huge amount of lost economic value in Scotland due to the fact that vast amounts of public data are not routinely available to the public.

New section 6A(2) outlines that the approach is intended, in essence, to be the opposite of reactive publication. The SFC will have to identify and publish information without the need for a specific request such as a freedom of information request or a written question by an elected member. Amendment 46 will refine that provision slightly to align it with the language of section 12 of the 2005 act, on the SFC’s funding powers, and to make it clear that it applies to post-16 education bodies.

Amendment 47 proposes the addition of a new subsection (1A) to section 6A, such that the new duty will apply only to information that relates to the activities for which the body receives funding from the SFC, whether that is higher education, further education, apprenticeships, work-based learning or national training programmes. That is intended to make the provision proportionate and ensure that we do not impose a blanket duty on those bodies, so it should be easier to operate in practice.

For those reasons, my amendments 46 and 47 tidy up and clarify a principle that has already been accepted by the committee, and I hope that the Parliament will agree to them.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I thank Jeremy Balfour for lodging amendment 2, but I am afraid that I cannot support it. The Scottish Government believes that it is inadvisable to put publication requirements for consultations into primary legislation without strong reasons why it is specifically needed in those circumstances.

There are many consultation requirements in the 2005 act, and they are not just for the SFC and Scottish ministers. Colleges and higher education institutions are in some cases required to consult, and, in some places, the 2005 acts says that the SFC must consult only and directly with ministers. Furthermore, the SFC is subject to a general “consultation and collaboration” requirement under section 22 of the 2005 act, which is an on-going obligation and not limited to specific functions. Amendment 2 creates a blanket requirement that could cut across the whole operation of the 2005 act and result in an unnecessary burden on the organisations involved. It would also be out of step with most other statutory consultation requirements.

However, I am happy to support Ross Greer’s amendments 46 and 47. As he has stated, they improve new section 6A on proactive publication, which was introduced in an amendment that was agreed to at stage 2. Amendments 46 and 47 bring forward sensible changes to that provision to ensure that the duty to proactively publish bites on the right institutions—fundable post-16 education bodies—and that it applies only in respect of data that relates to the activities for which the body receives public funding. I hope that members will also support amendments 46 and 47 from Ross Greer.

I ask Jeremy Balfour not to press his amendment 2, for the reasons that I have set out. If he does press it, I encourage members to vote against it.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Jeremy Balfour to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 2.

Jeremy Balfour (Independent, Lothian)

I have nothing to add, Deputy Presiding Officer. I seek to withdraw amendment 2 as well.

Amendment 2, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 2A—Review of credit-based funding model

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That takes us on to group 5, on minor and technical amendments. Amendment 12, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 13, 15 to 18, 20 to 25, 27, 28 and 61.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

All the amendments in group 5 seek to tidy up the legislation. They consist of minor and technical drafting adjustments to ensure the good operation of the legislation.

All of them, except amendment 61, arise from changes that were made through non-Government amendments that were accepted at stage 2. For instance, amendment 12 inserts the correct definitions from the 2005 act into section 2A of the bill, which were missing from the provision at stage 2. Other amendments correct references to “fundable bodies” to make them refer, more accurately, to “fundable post-16 education bodies”. Amendment 61 tidies up a similar reference in new section 12C, on widening access, which resulted from one of my stage 2 amendments.

There are no practical or policy changes resulting from any of the amendments in the group. I urge members to support the amendments to ensure—

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I will.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

I appreciate what the minister is saying about the technical nature of the amendments. However, would he be able to put on the record a response to the concerns that Universities Scotland has expressed on the amendments and the definitions that are being used, particularly with regard to issues around conflict of interest, transparency and other considerations potentially not applying to training providers and applying only to colleges and universities? Will the minister clarify whether that was the intention and what consideration he has given to that point?

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I thank Paul O’Kane for raising those matters and I thank Universities Scotland for its engagement on them. To be clear, the change to the use of the term “fundable post-16 education bodies” is to make the new section consistent with the rest of the 2005 act, so that legislation marries up across the two pieces of law. Of course, post-16 education bodies are slightly different from training providers, in that they have privileges and obligations under the 2005 act that training providers do not. Criteria for training providers will be set out in regulations, and when we award contracts, we can set out conditions in them—for example, on fair work. I hope that that reassures Parliament and Universities Scotland about why we are making these changes. Important considerations for training providers will be set out through regulations in due course and through contracts awarded.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

No other members have asked to speak. Minister, do you wish to add anything in winding up?

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I emphasise that no practical or policy changes result from any of the amendments in this group. I urge members to support the amendments to ensure that the bill functions effectively.

Amendment 12 agreed to.

Section 2C—Duty to place conditions on funding: conflict of interest

Amendment 13 moved—[Ben Macpherson]—and agreed to.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Group 6 is on conditions of funding: general. Amendment 14, in the name of Ben Macpherson, is grouped with amendments 19 and 26.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

My amendments 14, 19 and 26 make the same technical adjustments to the new sections 9F, 9G and 9H of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005, as inserted by the bill through non-Government amendments that were accepted at stage 2 to remove incorrect references to sections 12D and 12J of the 2005 act.

Those changes simply correct references so that the 2005 act is clearly drafted and functions properly. There is no practical difference to how the provisions will operate in effect. Where conditions are attached to post-16 education bodies by virtue of sections 9F, 9G and 9H, they will apply to all of the operations of the post-16 education bodies, notwithstanding that those bodies might also provide education and training under other aspects of the 2005 act.

I ask members to support all of my amendments in the group. I move amendment 14.

Amendment 14 agreed to.

Amendments 15 and 16 moved—[Ben Macpherson]—and agreed to.

Section 2D—Duty to place conditions on funding: whistleblowing

Amendments 17 to 23 moved—[Ben Macpherson]—and agreed to.

Section 2E—Duty to place conditions on funding: engagement with trade unions, students and external partners

Amendments 24 to 28 moved—[Ben Macpherson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 3 not moved.

After section 2E

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Group 7 is on conditions of funding: prevention of gender-based violence. Amendment 29, in the name of Ben Macpherson, is the only amendment in the group.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

Amendment 29 enables Scottish ministers to impose a condition on the SFC to require the further and higher education bodies that it funds to take action against gender-based violence in their institutions. Colleagues will know that I have been engaged with that work for some years, and today we have a chance to make a meaningful difference.

First, I pay tribute to the remarkable and powerful campaigning that Fiona Drouet and EmilyTest have undertaken on the issue. I also thank Pam Gosal MSP for lodging an amendment on the issue at stage 2; we have worked together on amendment 29.

As I said at stage 2, good work is on-going across higher and further education institutions to address gender-based violence issues on campuses. Amendment 29 intends to build on that good work. I am grateful to Ms Drouet and Pam Gosal for our valuable discussion on the amendment earlier this month, and to Colleges Scotland and Universities Scotland for their constructive engagement with officials on the amendment and the matters that it raises.

Our colleges and universities should be places where all students can live, study and socialise safe from harm and harassment. Staff should also be able to work in an environment that is free from the risk of abuse and violence. The amendment can help to deliver that for all. The provision requires post-16 education bodies to act to prevent gender-based violence against their students and staff, and to provide support for students and staff who experience or have experienced gender-based violence.

Such bodies will be required to report annually to the SFC on compliance with those new requirements, and the SFC will be required to publish the requirements that it imposes on those bodies.

Gender-based violence is not defined in the bill, but the SFC will be required to provide guidance on that and on compliance with the new requirements in general. The SFC must also consult before it issues guidance. Taking such a collaborative approach is preferable to rushing to define gender-based violence in the bill. It is a sensitive and complex term, with different organisations using competing definitions. To make a practical difference, we need to get the definition right in future legislation.

Colleges and universities must take every action within their power to reduce the risk of gender-based violence happening. We need to be consistent and cohesive in our approach. Today, we have the opportunity to make meaningful progress on this, so I hope that all members can support this provision.

I move amendment 29.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you—no other members have asked to speak on the amendment—[ Interruption .]

On the basis that the member has been name-checked in the minister’s contribution, I am prepared to invite Pam Gosal to make a brief contribution at this stage.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I apologise for being late.

I thank the minister for lodging the amendment, which is similar to one that I lodged at stage 2. A couple of weeks ago, the minister and I met Fiona Drouet from EmilyTest. Fiona’s daughter Emily took her own life after suffering abuse from her partner, who lived in the same University of Aberdeen halls as she did. Fiona has been clear that, had the university staff been better trained to identify and respond to the signs of abusive behaviour, there might have been an opportunity to intervene.

Although amendment 29 is not exactly what Fiona and I had hoped for, it includes some important and welcome elements. In particular, it makes clear that, in order to receive public funding, higher and further education institutions must take action to prevent gender-based violence against students and staff and to support those who are experiencing or who have experienced it.

For those reasons, I am happy to support amendment 29.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you. I call the minister to wind up.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I will wind up by again paying tribute to Fiona Drouet and EmilyTest, along with other organisations, and campaigns such as “Sex? On campus!”, which have raised these issues for some years.

We have spoken about these issues as a Parliament through, for example, the 16 days of activism that we mark in various ways in this institution and through seeking to support those whom we represent. There is a lot of good work taking place on campuses to tackle gender-based violence in our colleges and universities but there is still progress to make. Amendment 29 will help in that regard and I urge all members to support it.

Amendment 29 agreed to.

Section 4—Scottish apprenticeships

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Group 8 is on Scottish apprenticeships and work-based learning. Amendment 30, in the name of Brian Whittle, is grouped with amendments 76 to 79, 31, 80, 81, 32, 82, 83, 34 to 38, 84, 40, and 85. I call Brian Whittle to move amendment 30 and to speak to all the amendments in the group.

In the absence of Mr Whittle from the chamber, I will have to call Miles Briggs to speak to amendment 76 and other amendments in the group.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Following some debate and discussion at stage 2, I lodged a number of amendments to look towards a definition of a Scottish apprenticeship. Specifically, I stated during stage 2 that I felt that the bill had missed an opportunity to provide improvements to the terms and conditions for apprentices and also to develop clear pathways to employment.

As the bill stands, there is no requirement for an apprentice to have a contract of employment or to be paid rather than receive other forms of reward. There is also no specific reference to the development and demonstration of competence in key areas, which is where I had hoped that the Government would work more with us to look for solutions.

From the outset, the Scottish Conservatives have expressed our concern that the bill could jeopardise foundation apprenticeships by removing them from the apprenticeship family as they stand and reclassifying them as as-yet-undefined work-based learning courses. Taking out formally assessed Scottish Qualifications Authority work placements and leaving a school-based “skills-for-work” type of course on its own would not achieve the same outcomes as a foundation apprenticeship.

Every MSP will have met people who are undertaking foundation apprenticeships and will have seen the huge opportunities and pathways into work that they provide. I have raised this issue privately and publicly with the minister. I am concerned about the loss of foundation apprenticeships, which is something that I want to highlight, as will Brian Whittle when he speaks to his amendments. We want to give the Parliament the opportunity to retain foundation apprenticeships as part of the bill. Given that the bill is still relatively vague in this area, there is no confidence that it will provide the certainty and the sound footing that are necessary for the continued delivery of foundation apprenticeships, which are internationally recognised and are a real Scottish success story.

The Government should have paused to consider what is essential if we are to meet the ambitions of our Scottish education system and to deliver on its key education priorities. As we debate stage 3, there is a lack of focus in the bill on the frameworks to support and protect apprenticeships—it has fallen short in that area.

I will listen to what the minister has to say in deciding whether to move amendments 76, 78, 80 and 82, in my name. However, for now, I intend to move them.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I have been working with Universities Scotland on my five amendments in this group. Universities Scotland is concerned that adding the terminology of “frameworks” into legislation when it was not previously there might embed the slow, overly bureaucratic and unresponsive apprenticeship framework system that—in Universities Scotland’s experience—we currently have. Universities Scotland is not against frameworks; it thinks that there should be an opportunity to have frameworks but that they should not be stipulated in law.

Ultimately, it wants a system that is much more responsive and that adapts to the modern needs of employers. It takes a long time to develop new frameworks or to change existing frameworks for apprenticeships. Some higher education institutions have had to go down alternative routes rather than using the graduate apprenticeship to seize opportunities that exist in the economy for particular areas of study or work-based learning.

My plea to the minister is to stick with the framework in existing legislation, in order to allow greater flexibility in the system, rather than to put frameworks in the law and potentially embed the slow and unresponsive system that exists at present.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

Several amendments in the group revisit amendments that were lodged at stage 2. In speaking to those amendments, I will group them together where possible.

Assuming that Brian Whittle’s amendments 30 and 32 will be moved, they seek to bring back the provisions in Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments at stage 2. Amendment 30 seeks to add foundation apprenticeships to the definition of “Scottish apprenticeship”. As I explained at stage 2, the bill has separate provisions for work-based learning that were expanded on at stage 2 to allow for the current arrangements for foundation apprenticeships to continue. The bill, as drafted and amended at stage 2, will allow the current arrangements for foundation apprenticeships to continue—I hope that that is absolutely clear to the Parliament.

I am sure that we will all agree that foundation apprenticeships are excellent for many of the people who engage with them. We want good practice to continue and grow. However, we should also acknowledge that there are many employers who do not like the term and description of “foundation apprenticeship”. That is because school pupils are not in a contract of employment and foundation apprenticeships are perceived by some as devaluing apprenticeships, notwithstanding their value and what they achieve for many people. That is one reason why we were careful not to use the term “foundation apprenticeship” in the bill.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Throughout our conversations, I have found the minister’s point to be problematic. From speaking to the industry and to young people who are in foundation apprenticeships, I do not think that such stigma exists. My concern has been that the OECD 2024 report, “Innovation in career pathways across five countries”, identified foundation apprenticeships as a critical entry point to a wider apprenticeship network, but the Government will be taking that option away. Does the minister agree that it is problematic and concerning that the OECD report was not used in the formulation of the bill?

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

Again, I will be absolutely clear that nothing in the bill takes away the provision of foundation apprenticeships as they are right now. The terminology will change to “work-based learning”—that is it. It will continue to be possible to deliver what is delivered by foundation apprenticeships now should the bill be passed and implemented—I want to be absolutely clear about that.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

If Daniel Johnson wants to make us clearer, I will be happy to take his intervention.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

I will try to be helpful. One of the interesting points in the Withers report was the need for consistent terminology about different levels of learning. I am interested in how the Government seeks to address that. In my view, a higher should be called a higher, whether it is a vocational, technical or academic qualification. Is the Government thinking about ensuring that we encourage parity of esteem by having consistent understandings about levels of attainment, regardless of the mode of learning? I am interested in the Government’s view.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

Daniel Johnson raises very important points. A determination to achieve greater parity of esteem is at the heart of the process and of the Withers report. I am grateful to him for emphasising those points.

Brian Whittle’s amendment 40 also appears to entirely exclude apprenticeships from the definition of work-based learning, which is, unfortunately, inconsistent with the fundamental aims of the bill.

Moving on to Willie Rennie’s amendment 84, I am grateful for his comments today and for the exchanges that we have had on this point in meetings in recent weeks. Amendment 84 would change the definition of work-based learning to align it to “industry capabilities and skills”. Work-based learning, as defined in the bill, is not limited to traditional industry sectors. It can also be aligned to a wide range of public sector occupations and pathways. The Scottish ministers will be able to set out further in regulations the requirements of—and activities that will constitute—work-based learning. In my view, that is a better place for specification, because it will allow for further change in the future and will allow us to engage and consult on what should be set out.

Miles Briggs’s amendment 76 proposes that a Scottish apprenticeship must involve

“a paid contract of employment”

and that the apprentice must receive

“no less than the minimum wage for apprentices”.

In practice, almost all apprentices will have a contract of employment. The bill already requires apprentices to work for reward, and whether a contract provides adequate pay and conditions for periods of learning will depend on its specific terms. As I indicated at stage 2 in response to very similar amendments, we expect that the vast majority of apprentices will be under a contract of employment. The bill includes a carefully framed definition that does not exclude the range of possible arrangements that would otherwise come within an apprenticeship. We do not want to limit future innovation, for example, to enable shared apprenticeships with multiple small employers. We must also reiterate that apprentices are given the full protections of an employee under employment rights legislation. The minimum wage for apprentices is set by the UK Government, and that already does—and will continue to—apply to Scottish apprentices. Amendment 76 is not only unnecessary but could be limiting, so I cannot support it.

Amendments 77, 79 and 81 seek to remove the requirement for Scottish apprenticeship frameworks. I acknowledge that there is frustration, especially among universities, with the pace of delivery of new graduate apprenticeships. I have appreciated discussions with Universities Scotland and others on that issue in recent weeks. Work on fixing those issues was already going on before the bill got to this stage and it will continue before the bill comes into force, but the bill will further assist with that work. The existence of frameworks is not, in itself, the problem. However, the process of developing graduate frameworks needs to be much more efficient, and frameworks should be shorter and simpler. The bill gives any person the power to request that a framework be prepared, and ministers have the power to set out in regulations the process to be followed by the SFC in response. We could therefore, for example, require that a request to the SFC be responded to within a certain timeframe, which would speed things up.

I cannot support these amendments because frameworks are, in themselves, fundamental to the operation of apprenticeships in Scotland. They can define the competency and professional standards expected of those who are delivering, assessing, verifying and assuring the quality of apprenticeship programmes. Frameworks also set out the role of employers and industry, and they specify the qualifications that are required for each apprenticeship type, supporting transparency and—crucially—quality of delivery. Removing the frameworks would place their development and quality assurance outside the statutory protections that are provided by legislation and could result in an unhelpful free-for-all. We need to be able to trust that apprentices across the same discipline, within different employers or even sectors, are all broadly working to the same standards, so we need to take action on frameworks, but frameworks themselves are important.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

If this provision is not in the current legislative arrangement, why is it necessary to include it now? What will actually change? What has been prevented from happening before that will be enabled now that it is in the legislation?

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

As I said, first, the bill gives any person the power to request a framework to be prepared, which is a change, and, secondly, it gives ministers the power to set out in regulations the process to be followed by the SFC in response. The bill will help to provide the ability to give the SFC stronger direction on what needs to be done.

Amendments 78, 80 and 92 would shift the definition of a Scottish apprenticeship from a focus on agreed training to a focus on the attainment of competence. They would require apprentices to achieve competency through a combination of training and workplace demonstration, as set out in the relevant framework. However, that is not workable. The definition of a Scottish apprenticeship must be based on the work that is undertaken, the training that is provided and the agreement between the parties; it cannot be defined by whether an individual achieves a particular outcome.

Stephen Kerr’s amendment 83 revisits his stage 2 amendment that sought to put colleges and local authorities ahead of private training providers in delivering training of apprentices to meet the requirements set out in apprenticeship frameworks. Amendment 83 would at least enable the mixed economy of public and private provision to continue. However, the relevant requirements of an apprenticeship are expected to be prepared with a view not to who would provide the training, but, rather, to the required standards or qualifications to be achieved and the types or amounts of necessary training.

Turning to my amendment 31 and Ross Greer’s amendments 34 and 36—

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Would the minister give way?

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I apologise to Mr Kerr. I have moved on to Ross Greer’s amendments, but I will be listening carefully to what is said later.

My amendment 31 and Ross Greer’s amendments 34 and 36, together with amendment 60—in my name, in group 12—augment the lists of consultees across the bill. They ensure the inclusion of apprentices and their representatives and trade unions where appropriate. These amendments respond directly to the appeals that were made by various members at stage 2.

Finally, Ross Greer’s amendment 35 would place a duty on the SFC to publish its reasons for amending or revoking an apprenticeship framework. Although that could have been achieved through regulations under section 12F(4), placing the requirement in primary legislation ensures even greater transparency, and I am pleased to support Ross Greer’s helpful amendment.

As I mentioned, many of the amendments in this group cover similar ground to amendments that were lodged at stage 2, and my arguments against them remain the same. I hope, therefore, that Brian Whittle will not move his amendments 30, 32 and 40—or that Miles Briggs will not do so on his behalf, if that is the case—and that Stephen Kerr will not press his amendments 37, 38 and 83. Similarly, I ask Miles Briggs not to move his amendments 76, 78, 80 and 82, and I ask Willie Rennie not to move his amendments 77, 79, 81, 84 and 85. In all those cases, if the amendments are moved, I urge other members to vote against them. I ask members to vote for my amendment 31 and for Ross Greer’s amendments 34, 35 and 36.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I listened to what the minister said about my amendments and in response to Willie Rennie’s intervention. He described his aspiration for the preparation of frameworks for apprenticeships as a desire for efficiency. I think that a better word would be “effectiveness”. I am afraid that the word “efficiency” does not inspire me to believe that everyone who should be involved in the preparation of a framework would be involved. That is the motivation behind my amendments in this group.

The truth is that apprenticeship frameworks will work only if they are rooted in the real economy. They cannot be designed in isolation and then imposed on the real economy. Amendment 83, which the minister addressed in his remarks—I tried to intervene on him at that point—would go beyond the broad and non-specific general approach that he outlined as the preference of ministers. I know that Government ministers, and the Government in general, always like to have the maximum amount of broad and non-specific manoeuvrability, but amendment 83 asks that the Scottish Funding Council, when preparing a framework, consider who is best to deliver it—whether it be a college, a local authority or a private provider—as part of the preparation.

That would mean that we would not be building a framework around the institutions or organisations that we ask to be involved in the preparation of a framework; we would be involving the appropriate people in the preparation of the framework from the beginning. To me, that sounds obvious, and it matters, because Scotland’s labour market is not uniform. Capacity, expertise and employer relationships vary by sector and by place. A one-size-fits-all assumption about delivery leads to a risk of having frameworks that look neat on paper and are, to paraphrase the minister, efficient, but that do not actually work on the ground or in the real world.

Colleges Scotland supports amendment 83, precisely because colleges already play a central role in apprenticeship delivery and design, but also because it recognises that flexibility matters if we want frameworks to stay relevant and responsive. The amendment would protect the flexibility that the minister alluded to but would avoid hardwiring a system that becomes outdated as sectors evolve.

Amendments 37 and 38 deal with how frameworks are created in the first place. They would require the Scottish Funding Council to work in conjunction with employers, industry representatives, managing agents and training providers when preparing, amending or revoking frameworks. In other words, the amendments would put those who actually employ apprentices and train them at the heart of the process.

That is not an abstract principle. It is not ideology or some kind of grandiose theory. Employers are the ones who know where skills shortages are emerging, how technology is changing job roles and what competence looks like in practice. We already know, from evidence to committees of the Parliament and from the SPICe analysis, that weak employer engagement is one of the reasons why apprenticeship frameworks can lag behind labour market need.

From my point of view, this is about economic realism. If we want apprenticeships to be a genuine alternative to the traditional university route, and if we want real parity of esteem—there has been a bit of a mention of nomenclature, which I think is relevant—apprenticeships must lead to real jobs in growing sectors, with progression and earning power. That becomes a compelling reason for apprenticeships to become a priority choice that people make.

That is why I lodged the amendment on outcomes, which we debated earlier. Obviously, outcomes matter to the people involved, but they also matter enormously to all of us who are part of the real-world economy, and they should certainly matter to the Government.

If we are talking about expanding the tax base in this country—the Conservatives certainly want to talk about doing that—we need to tool up the economy to allow it to grow. All that matters, because if employers are not at the heart of the process—if they are not consulted or are only consulted at the margins and are not embedded in the framework—we undermine the very outcomes that I think that we all agree that we would like to see.

That also matters for productivity. It is not just Scotland in the United Kingdom that has a productivity gap—the UK as a whole has a problem with productivity. The gap will not be closed by providing qualifications that do not match what businesses need. Frameworks that are designed with employers, training providers and colleges together are far more likely to deliver skills that raise output, support innovation and help firms to grow.

I keep hoping that the minister might intervene to explain to me why what I am saying is not entirely logical to him. I think that it is logical that my amendments have a place in the bill.

I am not at all suggesting that ministers step back from their responsibilities—I am not removing or diminishing their role—but there is a difference between strategic oversight and centralised control. The amendments strike that balance. They keep national coherence while grounding frameworks in evidence, demand—that is the real economy—and delivery capacity. That is why I lodged amendment 83 in the first place. We must have the means to deliver the apprenticeships.

Taken together, amendments 83, 37 and 38 would make the system more responsive, more credible and more durable. They would support apprenticeships as a serious route into skilled work, including higher and graduate apprenticeships—or degree apprenticeships—and they strengthen the link between education, skills, industry and the outcome of real economic growth. That is why I urge the Parliament to support them.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

As the minister mentioned, my amendments 34 and 36 would add to the list of consultees in section 4. Amendment 34 would add apprentices, representative bodies and trade unions to the list of required consultees for the preparation of the apprenticeship frameworks, and amendment 36 would make the same change for when a framework is being amended or revoked. I hope that all members will support giving greater recognition to the voice of apprentices and trade unions in the system.

Amendment 35 would make a further slight tweak. The minister and I lodged similar amendments at stage 2, but I agreed to support his amendment at that point on the proviso that we could add this further tweak at stage 3, which would simply require the SFC to publish its reasons for amending or revoking an apprenticeship framework when it takes those actions. It would provide a bit more transparency and allow us to understand the SFC’s rationale for taking whichever course of action it has chosen to take.

I am pleased to have the minister’s support for those amendments, and I hope that the rest of the chamber will support them, too.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I apologise to you, Presiding Officer, and to everyone in the chamber, for missing the start of the group. Three groups were swiftly gone through after I went for a comfort break, and I find myself in the position of speaking to my amendments after the minister has replied to them, which is quite a novel thing to happen.

I lodged my amendments on the back of speaking to many councils, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, which is the membership network for public sector and local government professionals, and the employer-led Scottish Apprenticeship Advisory Board. Their fear is that, without amendment, the bill risks foundation apprenticeships by removing them from the apprenticeship family and reclassifying them as “work-based learning” courses that have yet to be formally defined.

When a student disengages, we lose their potential. Although getting a modern apprenticeship is a fantastic goal for a 16-year-old who has lost faith in the classroom, jumping straight into full-time employment can be a leap too far for those students, because they often lack the soft skills, resilience and confidence that experience can inspire. I have spoken to teachers, and we are talking about pupils who have disengaged from school.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I appreciate that we did not have a chance to engage before stage 3 because of the late lodging of his amendments, but I would have been very pleased to have met Brian Whittle on these matters.

In case Brian Whittle did not hear my responses to Miles Briggs and other members, I want to make it absolutely clear again that everything that is currently delivered under foundation apprenticeships can be delivered under the new “work-based learning” definition. There will be no change and no detriment. We are seeking to put apprenticeships on a statutory footing, and the bill will provide parity of esteem and increase the opportunities for apprenticeships to grow and develop. I make it absolutely clear that we are not diminishing the offer of apprenticeships, including foundation apprenticeships. If any local authorities want to write to me on the matter—some already have—I will respond to them in detail. The concept of foundation apprenticeships will continue, but that name is not in the bill.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I was in the chamber to hear what the minister said. He said that councils and other organisations can speak to him about the matter, but why has he not spoken to them before this point? They are concerned about the renaming of foundation apprenticeships, because they have no problem with that name whatsoever. Why are we changing something that is not broken?

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

For the record, I note that I have engaged with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the issue and that I have had other conversations about it. As I said in my response to Miles Briggs, everyone with whom I have engaged has been supportive of the practical learning that foundation apprenticeships deliver, but there is some disagreement about that name as a descriptor. That is why we have not included that name in the bill and why “work-based learning” is more appropriate and advantageous as a definition. That is why we are seeking to make the changes that I have outlined.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Minister, you have not yet formally defined what you mean by “work-based learning”.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Always speak through the chair, please.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I am sorry, Presiding Officer.

I note that, although the Scottish Government committed to undertake a review of foundation apprenticeships, that work has not begun. It seems short sighted, at the very least, to legislate in this policy area without knowing the outcome of that review.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

In this debate, we need to focus on what often goes on in schools. I do not think that we would say that what goes on is work-based learning, but foundation apprenticeships take place in our schools. Often, those who are furthest away from the education system are the ones who access those.

I have raised the issue with the minister, because I am concerned about it. Recently, along with other Edinburgh MSPs, I visited Liberton high school, which, through Tigers, is providing access to foundation apprenticeships that provide skills in key sectors, such as construction. The Government is sending the signal that the learning will be workplace based, but I am not sure that it understands that schools will not necessarily be captured. The local authorities that fund such programmes might decide not to fund them in the future, which would take away those opportunities.

I have made that case several times to ministers, but it does not seem to have been heard. What guarantee will the Government give—I am sure that Brian Whittle will want to know this—that we will not lose such opportunities in translation through the bill?

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I have very similar concerns.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

Will Brian Whittle take an intervention?

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

If I can, I will address the previous intervention.

At the school that I visited, we were talking about children who, throughout their time in primary and secondary school, had spent approximately one year in total in school. That had been the case for three generations, so those children were lost to the education system.

The teachers were able to deliver a foundation apprenticeship that brought them back into the fold, back into education and on to positive destinations. What do we mean by a positive destination? How do we define that quality job? If we asked everyone in the chamber, I am sure that they would all give different answers.

I want to use a case study, if I can. I am not one for statistics, but I was speaking to Aberdeenshire Council, and it has delivered foundation apprenticeships and sustained positive destinations—into employment, higher education and modern apprenticeships—to a level that is 10 per cent higher than the national average for those in foundation apprenticeships. There is increased average attainment of 61 per cent for all school leavers who completed a foundation apprenticeship. Is that not what we are trying to achieve?

There is no lack of want from the industry, despite what the minister says. Ninety-six per cent of employers would be willing to host a foundation apprenticeship. Most importantly, 93 per cent of pupils rated their foundation apprenticeships as being good or excellent, and 60 per cent of foundation apprentices said that completing a foundation apprenticeship would encourage them to stay on at school, and re-engage them as students, while 82 per cent said that learning in a foundation apprenticeship is more enjoyable than learning in a national 4 or 5.

That is why we need to ensure that there are multiple pathways for students to reach positive destinations. We cannot afford to lose foundation apprenticeships, which are a valuable pathway, just because the bill does not describe them.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I reiterate that the concept of foundation apprenticeships and what they deliver are not affected by the bill. I feel like I need to repeat that, because statements are being made that insinuate that foundation apprenticeships will not continue.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Will the member give way?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Mr Briggs, the minister is intervening on Mr Whittle.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I am sure that members would not want to mislead Parliament inadvertently, so I feel that I should state that in section 5 of the bill, as amended at stage 2, proposed new sections 12I(2)(a) and 12I(2)(b) of the 2005 act define work-based learning. To reassure Mr Briggs and Mr Whittle, they also articulate that work-based learning means

“education and training received by an individual—

(a) in a working environment, or in an educational environment in which work-based activities are undertaken by the individual,

which should reassure Mr Briggs on the point that he raises, and, for completeness,

“(b) on the basis of a work-based learning agreement.”

I encourage colleagues to look at section 5(2), as amended at stage 2, and I am sure that they will be reassured.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I also feel as though I am repeating myself all the time. If 96 per cent of employers are willing to host foundation apprenticeships again, that sounds like a success to me. The minister is talking about reclassifying them as “work-based learning” courses, which have still yet to be defined. The Government has also committed to undertaking a review of foundation apprenticeships—work that has not been done, and yet it is making those changes.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Does my friend agree that he is making an excellent point to illustrate why the bill is such an unsatisfactory piece of legislation? There was a great opportunity for us to work across the chamber to deliver a refreshed landscape for post-school—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Mr Kerr, could you please address your remarks to the microphone so that the official report staff can hear?

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

It is the funny shape of our chamber, is it not? I will face forward to speak to Mr Whittle. [Interruption.] Somebody is commenting on my funny shape, but that is a different matter.

The reality is that the bill was an opportunity, and that opportunity has been squandered. There are all kinds of ideas coming from across the chamber and outside Parliament that could have refreshed the post-school landscape, and we are missing that open goal.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I thank my colleague for that intervention. In this case, the Government is trying to make changes for change’s sake. I do not know why we are trying to change something that is extremely successful. I want to see foundation apprenticeships increase. Everybody understands what a foundation apprenticeship is. Not one person I have spoken to across all those organisations has had any problem with calling it a foundation apprenticeship. Everybody understands what that means.

As I have said before, that approach is supported by many of the councils that I have spoken to, by the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, by members of SOLACE—the network for public sector and local government professionals—and by the employer-led Scottish Apprenticeship Advisory Board. Why change something that is not broken?

I move amendment 30.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I will ask you formally, Mr Whittle: do you intend to press or withdraw amendment 30?

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Press.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am afraid that, for the third time this afternoon, my app did not work. I would have voted no.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

You were not in the chamber.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I am in the chamber!

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Members! [Interruption.] Please resume your seat, Mr Gibson.

Members—[ Interruption .] Excuse me! If members wish to make any point, they should do so on their feet, not from a sedentary position.

Could you repeat what you were saying, Mr Gibson?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I would have voted no, Presiding Officer.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Gibson. Your vote will be recorded.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was unable to connect. I would have voted no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Ms Thomson. Your vote will be recorded.

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app did not connect. I would have voted no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Ms Gilruth. Your vote will be recorded.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Ms Maguire. Your vote will be recorded.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was in the chamber when the vote was called. A number of members ran in after the vote was called. Presumably they were having a cup of tea and were watching proceedings. Is there an obligation on you, Presiding Officer, to ensure that only those in the chamber at the time register their vote, so that we do not all have to wait for those who are finishing their cup of tea to register their votes? [Interruption.]

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Members!

Further to Mr Ross’s contribution, my understanding is that members were indeed logged into the system.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am glad to hear your ruling. However, this afternoon there have been folks who have been called to speak in debates who have not been in the chamber, or who have come in just seconds before they started. Surely that is a greater discourtesy to the Parliament.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

That is not a point of order, Mr Stewart. The member concerned apologised.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 45, Against 71, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 30 disagreed to.

Amendments 76 to 79 not moved.

Amendment 31 moved—[Ben Macpherson]—and agreed to.

Amendments 4, 80 and 81 not moved.

Amendment 32 moved—[Brian Whittle].

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect, but I would have voted yes.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Ms McNeill. Your vote will be recorded.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 45, Against 70, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 32 disagreed to.

Amendment 82 not moved.

Amendment 83 moved—[Stephen Kerr].

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 83 be agreed to. Are we agreed?