Chamber and committees

I welcome the minister to his role, as I did on Tuesday.

I also thank Graeme Dey for his constructive work on the bill both cross party and with the Education, Children and Young People Committee, and I wish him well in his new role. I also thank the organisations that have provided useful briefings ahead of today’s debate.

On Monday, I visited Leith academy. I know that the minister, as the constituency member, is a regular visitor, too. I enjoyed a tour of the school and a very constructive conversation with the headteacher, Mike Irving. I believe that the cabinet secretary is also visiting the school next week—

Oh—this morning.

The work that the school is undertaking with young people in that part of the capital—especially those with attendance challenges—is exemplary, and I was really impressed with the school’s focus both on delivering positive outcomes and on making sure that we work to realise our young people’s potential.

That is why Scottish Conservatives want a radical new approach, with the development of a hybrid education—we want to give young people the opportunity to access college and take up an apprenticeship earlier in their learning careers. That has been missed from this bill, and I hope that we can pursue it at stage 2.

When Scottish ministers introduced the bill, we on the Conservative benches were open to the reasons and rationale behind it. It is worth reflecting on why the Scottish Government decided to legislate in this area. The independent review of the skills delivery landscape by James Withers in 2023 highlighted the need to focus on a new vision to meet the challenges of future needs. Principally, we need flexibility to be delivered across the post-school learning system in order to achieve genuine agility and to ensure that learners at all stages of life are accommodated.

Members from across the chamber will be hearing about or seeing the opportunities that apprenticeship schemes are delivering every week—they are critical to the skills that our economy needs now and in the future. I believe that they must be protected and nurtured, and not only so that we can grow and deliver more opportunities. We must ensure that we continue to fund those that are being delivered now.

Often, the key to success in the delivery of apprenticeships has been our fantastic college sector. Indeed, in his report, James Withers advocated

“a colleges and universities first approach”,

and I agree that there are opportunities to do more with the college sector in order to deliver them.

However, the sector itself has raised some concerns. For example, for every pound that leaves the Scottish Government, only 40 to 50 per cent is received by the colleges that undertake to provide the training for apprenticeship contracts in certain key sectors of the Scottish economy. As the committee heard, there is, in between the Scottish Government and the college, a managing agent that takes significant amounts of that funding.

I welcome the opportunity to streamline, and bring more money into, the college sector, and to deliver apprenticeships, even within the existing overall education and skills budget.

Yes, and I will come on to that. That is, as the committee highlighted, one of the main concerns.

According to Audit Scotland’s report “Scotland’s colleges 2024”, colleges face increasing financial challenges and a lack of clarity on their role from ministers, which hinders reform and sustainability. Funding has decreased in real terms since 2021, forcing colleges to cut costs and staff. It has been well documented that, under this Scottish Government, we have seen the loss of more than 100,000 college places.

I have met representatives from colleges across Scotland, and they expressed real concern about the limits that college credits are putting on many institutions. Indeed, the waiting lists for people to get on to courses often mirror directly the skills shortages that face our local and national economies.

Therefore, I believe that we need a review of college credits and a more agile delivery of credits for courses that are clearly needed in our economy today, net zero being one of them. Many meetings are taking place in the Highlands, for example, to discuss that very issue. Colleges Scotland states in its briefing that

“there is nothing else on the horizon which would bring significant change to the apprenticeship landscape in particular: this needs reform and colleges can support more people to gain an apprenticeship”.

During the committee’s evidence taking, it felt as though the Scottish Government did not have a vision of where it wanted apprenticeships in our country to go. I feel that the bill has not provided a route map for a genuine transformation of the delivery of apprenticeships. Fundamentally, the Government has not answered the question of what is wrong with the system; after all, we are currently delivering 25,000 apprenticeships when, last year, the demand was for between 35,000 and 40,000, according to the number registered.

The potential loss of the apprenticeship advisory board, as Douglas Ross mentioned, would have represented a backwards step, so I welcome some of the changes that the Government has outlined in that regard. However, there is nothing in the bill that focuses on the skills shortages that our national and local economies face. There is also nothing about targets that will help achieve the skills, the jobs and, ultimately, the economic growth that we hope that they will drive.

We must acknowledge the significant and important contribution of private training providers, particularly in the delivery of certification and registration services. Universities Scotland stated in its briefing that

“The current operation of the framework approach for new GAs effectively prevents universities from responding”

as well. I welcome what the minister has outlined, and I am sure that he will provide more details on graduate apprenticeships to members.

I agree with the concerns expressed by the Confederation of British Industry Scotland and the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, which were mentioned by Willie Rennie, that the bill has the potential to dismantle what already works and leaves employers in the dark in relation to the future of apprenticeships and the wider workforce system.

As Scottish Conservatives believe that the bill requires significant amendment, we will not be supporting it at decision time this evening. As drafted, it is problematic and poorly costed, and I believe that it represents a missed opportunity to take forward a radical and ambitious new approach to skills in Scotland.

That said, we believe that there is an opportunity here for the new minister, and I hope that he will genuinely work with MSPs from across the chamber to try to fix the bill. He will find an open door from Scottish Conservatives if he wants to do so, but we cannot support the bill at decision time.

The amount of money that we are talking about has been at the heart of major concerns. Does George Adam believe that the Government figures should now be subject to independent financial analysis to determine whether they show the right amounts, in order to move the process forward?

Yes, very briefly.

Willie Rennie has touched on a really important area—I know that from some of the conversations that I have had with Beth Morrison and Daniel Johnson about it.

There is some concern about one aspect of the bill in relation to schools, although I know that Beth is keen that the campaign is not framed around it. You have outlined really well the situation with children with additional support and complex needs. Restraint and seclusion should not be taking place in Scotland today, but they are. Sadly, we have violent behaviour in our schools, and we have heard from teachers who want to know whether, if a pupil comes to hit or punch them, they can hold that individual and what restraint can be used.

The position needs to be clarified. Such incidents need to be recorded, but they are not, and the level of attacks on teachers is totally unacceptable. As Suzi Martin outlined, guidance can provide clarity. However there is a lot of concern in the teaching community that we could say that they are not allowed to touch anybody. Kate Sanger gave the example of grabbing someone who is running into the road. Let me turn that around: if someone tries to physically attack a teacher, what would it be appropriate to do, in your view? The guidance cannot be woolly in that area. We have to make sure that we get it right.

It is also important to know where the element of self-defence is for a member of staff. I am not necessarily talking about children with additional support needs; I am talking about teachers who tell us about a disruptive teenager being violent in school. We need to be clear about what would be acceptable in such a case and what that would look like. In many cases, such situations are not being regulated—it is purely about self-defence and those situations are not being recorded. I am not sure what you would suggest that a teacher in a school could do.

The bill is specifically about restraint and seclusion. I go back to John Mason’s point that there is no national guidance in Scotland on how to keep children safe. It is interesting that earlier this month, in England, the Department for Education published statutory guidance for schools and colleges on this very issue. The document is called “Keeping children safe in education 2025”. Do you support taking a similar approach in Scotland, with teachers having that wider set of statutory guidance?

Thank you.

The Scottish Government’s policy memorandum to the bill explains that care providers and care services have a duty to record instances of restraint. I thought it interesting that in its evidence to the committee the Government suggested that there had been 6,263 incidents of physical restraint and 509 incidents of seclusion in 2024, showing that there had been 30 per cent fewer instances of seclusion than in the previous year. Does the panel have any evidence of what is behind that reduction and on whether the conversation that is going on nationally is helping to change children’s services?

Moreover, what role would the school inspectorate play with regard to the bill? Witnesses have mentioned that the information will be reported to Parliament, but if the school inspectorate is going to go into schools, it will be taking a formal look at how the policy is implemented, too.