Martin Whitfield
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“To ask the Scottish Government, regarding any impact on its energy policy and strategy, and in light of reports that Torness nuclear power station is due to close by 2030, what its response is to the United Kingdom Government’s new fusion strategy, which aims to deliver thousands of jobs and long-term energy security. (S6O-05690)”
“I ask members to note my entry in the members’ register of interests. As we come to the conclusion of today’s debate, I rise to offer the full support of Scottish Labour for the Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill.”
“The last few motions before us today are the final motions from the committee designed to put the standing orders book in its best possible state for the next session. The first motion, regarding the sixth report, relates to cross-party groups. We have had some challenges this session with the compliance of cross-party groups.”
“Last year’s fostering and adoption statistics show that children who are going through the adoption system face significant delays, with some waiting for six months or longer.”
“I will dwell on the comments he made as convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, because it is a tribute to him that he saw, in that committee, the ability to fulfil a role that is crucial for committees in a unicameral Parliament.”
“The Presiding Officer: The next question is, that motion S6M-21167, in the name of Graeme Dey, on a motion on legislative consent for the Armed Forces Bill, which is UK legislation, be agreed to.”
The complete record
Every one of 844 lines we hold for Martin Whitfield, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 17.
“We heard that some requesters might have experienced clarifications being used as a delaying tactic, but there is a lack of data to determine the extent of such practice. Although some stakeholders thought that the proposal would improve the relationship between public bodies and information requesters, others cautioned that it could lead to poorer responses and have an impact on front-line services. We think that further detailed work is needed to assess the impact that such a change might have. Although we saw merit in the proposals for providing the commissioner with greater powers, particularly the power to require individuals to give evidence, we thought that such matters also required more detailed consideration by the Scottish Government.”
“The committee had no concerns about providing for the Government to consider the commissioner’s proposals on designations. However, we had reservations about the proposals for the Parliament to have the power to designate. In our view, the process for using such a power has not been sufficiently considered or laid out in the bill, so we cannot determine whether the power would deliver a faster pace of designations or lead to more designations. Similarly, greater detail is needed on the proposal for the Parliament to scrutinise the Government’s section 5 reports on designation. Several of the bill’s provisions are aimed at improving compliance with information requests. The bill proposes that the limit of 20 working days for compliance be paused, rather than reset, when a public body seeks a clarification.”
“I rise as convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. I thank everyone who contributed to the committee’s scrutiny of the bill at stage 1. We had the opportunity to hear from academics and public bodies, and from information requesters and those who respond to them. We heard from the Scottish Information Commissioner, the minister and Ms Clark, the sponsoring MSP for the bill. In this speech, I will set out the committee’s main conclusions on the bill. The bill proposes alternative mechanisms for designating public bodies under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 on the basis that the Scottish Government has been slow in using its powers in that regard. That view was shared by many stakeholders, with the commissioner describing the pace of designation as “glacial”.”
“The majority of short-term prisoners are released under no compulsion and are automatically released with no supervision. There are important safeguards in this measure, in that some offenders are excluded from the release programme. With previous release programmes, we found that the rate of return to custody varied between 5 and 13 per cent. That is because of the extensive work by partnership organisations, justice social work services and the third sector in supporting the Prison Service when it identifies people who will be released earlier. Those people are all returning to our communities, and the pre-release work that is done by Upside and justice social work speaks to what we should more routinely do with short-term prisoners in the future.”
“In the “Justice That Works” report, emphasis was put on the importance of rehabilitation, but we have heard today that some prisoners will be released after serving only 30 per cent of their sentence. Teresa Medhurst has talked about the ageing estate resulting in “catastrophic failure” and commented on a bottleneck in the rehabilitation services that we are talking about. Is it not the case that the proposal is setting up prisoners to fail and, more important, putting communities at risk, with prisoners being released without rehabilitation, while we shift to community sentencing? Angela Constance: I appreciate Mr Whitfield’s interest and, in particular, his interest in rehabilitation. It is important to recognise a couple of factors.”
“As I said, it has taken a long time to get to this point. I am aware that there are many bills up for debate at this late stage of the parliamentary session, but I hope that it will be a relatively easy and efficient process to get the bill back over the line to the satisfaction of all who are concerned and that there will be no further delay. I move, That the Parliament agrees to reconsider the European Charter of Local Self-Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill. 17:15”
“During session 6, I have kept the opportunity to fix the bill open, and I have liaised with both the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities throughout. In October 2024, the Scottish Government confirmed that it would lodge and speak to the necessary amendments, given its experience with the 2023 bill reconsideration stage. Under standing orders, only the member in charge of a bill may propose that the Parliament reconsider a bill following a reference to the Supreme Court. I have lodged the motion to do so, which we will consider today. I urge members to vote for the motion so that we can allow amendments to be made and so that the bill can, I hope, be agreed to again and move towards royal assent. I thank the cabinet secretary for engaging with me on the bill.”
“Clearly, a long time has elapsed, and there have been considerable conversations as well as consideration by both Governments about what would be a legally robust way forward. I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary’s comments later in the debate, but I think that we have enough time to process the bill efficiently towards a reconsideration phase. In May 2022, John Swinney gave a statement to Parliament with an update on next steps following the judgment. He said that, although the Euro charter bill was a member’s bill, the Scottish Government remained committed to supporting it. Since then, my approach as the designated member has been to respect the will of the Parliament that was expressed in session 5 and to allow the Scottish and UK Governments the opportunity to resolve the issues at the heart of the Supreme Court judgment.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Mark Ruskell: If there is time in hand, I will. The Presiding Officer: There is a little. Martin Whitfield: I am grateful to Mark Ruskell for taking the intervention and explaining the anomaly that we face. There are proposals with regard to how the bill, if the motion is agreed to this evening, can be rectified, but does he agree that the parliamentary process does not involve quite the same questions as confronted us with the UNCRC bill? There will have to be careful consideration of how we propose to amend this bill so that, if it comes back, we do not find ourselves in a horrible roundabout that takes us back to where we were. Mark Ruskell: I agree with the member on that.”
“That is why the action plan is important. It sets a clear path for Dundee and the wider Scottish economy to capitalise on the huge opportunity in front of us. At the launch of the plan at Codebase, in Edinburgh, Mark Logan rightly challenged all of us to think about how we can move beyond our pioneering games history and write new stories of success for our national future. I will conclude by quoting from Marx—not Karl Marx, but Marx Watanabe, a character in a wonderful novel by Gabrielle Zivine on finding purpose in work and the joy of gaming. He says: “What is a game? It’s tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. It’s the possibility of infinite rebirth”. Therein lies our chance of building something ever more brilliant for Scotland. 19:07”
“It is right that we recognise the challenges that those kinds of cultures and practices pose for the health of workers and the success of the sector as a whole. Governments should carefully consider how to ensure that workers are protected, that talent is nurtured and that people’s right to organise is protected in this industry and everywhere else. I am proud to champion the games industry in Dundee and Scotland. It provides young people with real opportunities for the future that draw on our city’s proud history in the sector and look with hope towards the future of the world’s largest entertainment industry. There are new studios, new games and innovations happening all the time. I am sure that we will hear about some of them tonight from other members. Future generations can credibly look forward to being a part of all that.”
“It is the tangible impact of those innovative studios, which comes in the form of investment, high-value jobs and supply chains, that attracts people to Dundee and the wider region. The question must now be how we can rapidly expand the industry, building on our own track record of innovation. Finland offers a fine example of what can be achieved by having a focus on scaling appropriately. It has built a £2.5 billion mobile gaming industry from the legacy of Nokia and hits such as Angry Birds. I want to touch briefly on issues that have arisen recently. Members will be aware of some growing concerns about precarious work and reports of anti-trade union actions and negative working practices in the sector. It would be remiss of me not to mention that tonight, given that members will have been contacted in that regard.”
“The willingness to invest in their communities in East Lothian and Dundee and to support jobs shows the potential for setting up smaller clusters of studios that can support high-value jobs in diverse parts of our country. A critical mass can be required and can help to create a clustering effect, and our universities play an instrumental part in that. An example of that is the InGAME project that is run by Abertay University—again, in Dundee—along with the University of Dundee and the University of St Andrews. It has upskilled thousands of people who are now working in the sector. In 2023, the economic analysis for InGAME showed that it was expected to generate a total of £84.7 million of gross value added over 10 years, supporting around 175 jobs. It is an example of strategic investments that help to grow our economy.”
“I compliment Michael Marra on securing this debate, but I am going to scold him, in part. He mentioned the growth of the sector in Dundee, but 4J Studios began life in East Linton, in East Lothian, although it now has a small but significant outlet in Dundee that supports Minecraft and other developments. Does he agree that the games industry is an industry for the whole of Scotland and that our size allows for that, but we need to grow the expertise in some areas? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can give you the time back, Mr Marra. Michael Marra: I fully agree with my colleague. There is a great partnership between Chris van der Kuyl and his business partner, Paddy Burns.”
“The provisions that are subject to the motion will ensure that consequential amendments that are made to devolved legislation are made by the Scottish ministers, reflecting the core principle that changes to devolved legislation should be made in this Parliament, unless there are compelling reasons not to do so.”
“Last June, we had agreement from Parliament, and further consideration was given to granting powers to the Scottish ministers, as I have alluded to, to make provision that is consequential on devolved aspects of the bill, specifically in relation to accommodation that is used for the deprivation of liberty. Although the provisions that were consented to in June should cover all necessary amendments to Scottish legislation, taking the additional powers that we are considering today would provide flexibility should future changes to Scottish legislation be required. That will ensure that children’s rights remain fully protected and that their best interests continue to guide every decision that we make. Taking these powers also protects the devolution settlement.”
“Will the LCM or the UK legislation alter the status of English young people in secure accommodation in Scotland, with regard to their human rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which now applies in Scotland? Jenny Gilruth: It my understanding that the LCM will not alter things in relation to the specific point that the member makes. It is important to say that the measure is a future-proofing one and is reflective of the powers that are being brought forward for the Welsh ministers, as it is important that we have consistency across the piece.”
“I think that it is important—I think that Martin Whitfield would also—that Lord Brodie is able to conduct his business and come to his conclusions, independent of any interference, so that the families can get answers. That is fundamental to the effective operation of public inquiries and to the continued confidence of the public in Parliament. The Presiding Officer: That concludes the ministerial statement.”
“The cabinet secretary has in his own mind used the question of the inquiry to ascertain whether the hospital is safe today. At what date can the inquiry publish that the hospital is safe, given that it will not report for many months? Neil Gray: I have been quoting evidence that has been led in the public inquiry, but I have not sought to make judgments as to the conclusion of the public inquiry. That is the distinction that I am seeking to draw. I am not concluding that the hospital is safe purely on the evidence that has come through the public inquiry. That is additional—I am making that conclusion on the basis of Healthcare Improvement Scotland’s work and the confidence that I have in the current leadership of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.”
“I remind members of my declaration of interests. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reported concerns that pupils, parents and teachers may have to wait until 2031 for meaningful reform of the qualifications system, and that Qualifications Scotland will only be a rebrand of the Scottish Qualifications Authority, with many of the same structures and staff remaining in place. (S6T-02879)”
“I seek the Presiding Officer’s guidance on how a member could rectify such an error if it had occurred and set the record straight.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In your guidance on conduct in the chamber, which is underpinned by our standing orders, it says that members, including ministers, have a personal responsibility to be accurate and truthful in their contributions during parliamentary proceedings. I am concerned that the First Minister may have erred at First Minister’s question time today when attributing a quote to counsel to the Scottish hospitals inquiry. The First Minister stated—as a quote—that “there is no evidence of external pressure on NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to open the hospital early or before it was ready to be opened.” However, it appears that no such statement has been made by counsel to the inquiry.”
“It is not a deliberate act to delay issuing the information, because we intend to issue it. We are simply taking the appropriate time to ensure that we comply with the ruling of the commissioner in a way that does not create difficulties for the individuals I have referenced. Business Motion 14:27”
“The minister has talked about this not being a deliberate act, but it must be, because the Government is withholding the information while it scrutinises it. The Government seems to be caught between the risk of a contempt of court and a statute. What advice was given as to which legal obligation it was not going to comply with? Graeme Dey: This is not about not complying with a legal obligation. I do not expect to receive sympathy in the chamber, but the Government is between a rock and a hard place on the issue. On the one hand, the commissioner is threatening contempt of court because we are not complying with the timescale that he would like. On the other hand, if we rushed to do this and made an error, we would fall foul of contempt of court in another regard through the courts.”
“Those might be for assets such as the electronic trade documents dealt with in the Electronic Trade Documents Act 2023, uncertified securities dealt with by existing UK regulations, and financial collateral under the movable transactions regime. All of those are already governed by detailed statutory frameworks, and bringing them within the scope of the bill threatens to create conflict, uncertainty and unintended consequences. The Government should therefore confirm whether it intends to pursue explicit exclusions or statutory instrument powers to clarify the scope of the bill as technology develops. I will have the great pleasure of closing on behalf of Scottish Labour later, when I will revisit the market overt and the question of ownership. I reaffirm that we will be supporting the bill.”
“It would be unfortunate if a device intended to simplify ownership were actually to complicate the situation, particularly, as we have already heard, with regard to insolvency, property doctrines and the existing rules governing incorporeal rights. A more direct approach that links transfer to the intention to transfer ownership and to the transfer of exclusive control might warrant reflection at stage 2. That is not an argument against the bill but a reminder that precision matters, particularly with regard to our private law system. There is a strong case for some specific carve- outs, as has been mentioned by the committee, SPICe and the Law Society of Scotland.”
“The Law Society of Scotland made the important point that the requirement for an “immutable record of transactions” risks being too closely tied to one technological model—the standard block chain, which I think people have a growing understanding of—and that that may inadvertently exclude other systems being developed that allow authorised modifications in order to correct a genuine error, for example. That is why the bill must safeguard technological neutrality as we progress. The bill seeks to offer clarity about ownership, control and transfer, and much of that is welcome. The Law Society of Scotland rightly cautions that treating digital assets as corporeal moveables for the purpose of acquisition could cause future uncertainty.”
“I would say that we have already delved into the undergrowth, but that is perhaps unfair, so I will say that we have circled the roundabout of understanding the characteristics of rivalrous goods and independent existence, grounded in work done by the Law Commission. That is reflected in recent case law from R v Lakeman in the Court of Appeal, which more understandably explains what rivalrous means. In that case, there was a discussion about virtual in-game currency, which was recognised as being an asset because its use by one person necessarily prevented its use by another. That is an essential distinction between mere data—which was referred to by the convener as the PDF—and true digital assets.”
“That also means that we lose the opportunity for timely and considered views on what the answer should be and that we are moving forward at a pace that means we must rely on those who sat on, and guided, the expert reference group if we are to avoid the risk of incoherence in the future. The overarching purpose of the bill is clear: to confirm that certain digital assets are, in Scots law, capable of being owned and to establish the rules governing their recognition, control and transfer. However, if we are to legislate with clarity and foresight, we must also grapple honestly with the conceptual foundations of the bill.”
“It is a privilege to open the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour and to echo the previous speaker—we, too, will support the bill at stage 1. It is right that we address the issue, because the law has not kept pace with the rapid evolution of digital technology, and Scotland now faces a level of legal uncertainty that is neither sustainable nor acceptable for individuals, businesses or the wider economy. The expert reference group has already been mentioned in the debate, as have submissions from those—including the Law Society of Scotland—who have stressed that we cannot rely on the slow, case-by-case development of Scots common law to resolve complex novel questions about digital property.”
“What is deemed to be the location of those assets, and what laws of succession should apply? As we have heard, there are also issues around insolvency that have not been resolved in the bill and will be required to be addressed at some future point. The bill is not the final word when it comes to the legislation on digital assets. It is a useful starting point, and I very much look forward to future bills that we can get into on this important topic. The Scottish Conservatives will be happy to support the bill at stage 1. 16:08”
“We felt that the Scottish Government should keep the issue under review, as it also should the question of a remedy to somebody who has been deprived of their assets unlawfully. The Faculty of Advocates expressed the view that the drafting of the good faith provision is ineffective and that it should be reconsidered. The committee accepted that the bill is limited in its reach and that there are a number of issues that will need to be considered in the future by the Parliament. One of those is private international law, which is where there is an international dimension to the question of ownership and the law of which country should apply to a transaction between individuals based in different jurisdictions is in question. What should happen when a person dies holding digital assets?”
“In theory, the true owner of the property—in this case, the convener—has a claim against me for recovery of his value. However, I am an international cybercriminal hiding behind the world wide web and I am untraceable, so the true owner has been deprived of his asset and there is no effective remedy. The reason why the bill takes the approach that it does was explained by Lord Hodge as being a means to ensure that digital assets can be traded and that there is no undue requirement on the purchaser—in this case, the minister—to conduct due diligence as to the validity of the seller’s title. The committee accepted that argument, but we observed that it is a controversial matter and that the definition of good faith is potentially troublesome.”
“Let us say, for example, that the committee’s convener owns extensive wealth in cryptocurrency—I do not know whether that is the case in actuality—and I am an international cybercriminal who manages to hack into his systems and seize control of his cryptocurrency. I then sell it on to, say, the minister, who acquires the cryptocurrency in good faith and pays me value for it. In that case, the minister is deemed to be the true owner, and he acquires good title to the cryptocurrency. Choosing that approach is not uncontroversial, and some people who gave evidence to the committee feel that that is unfair—in the circumstances of my example, it would be unfair to the committee’s convener, who has been deprived of his asset and done nothing wrong. He has been the victim of a cybercriminal.”
“In a sense, this casts us back to medieval England and the market overt, whereby, if somebody bought during the daytime with everyone watching them, they got the title even if the good was stolen. Does Murdo Fraser consider that this is a throwback that might cause problems? Murdo Fraser: I am fascinated by Mr Whitfield’s reference to medieval England. Sadly, that did not form part of the committee’s evidence, but I am sure that the convener would be happy to reconvene evidence sessions so that we can take evidence from Mr Whitfield on that particular point. It is an interesting illustration. I was going to illustrate this quite important point in a different way.”
“What can be done now, without waiting for future legislation? Which committee in the next session of Parliament will be responsible for delivering the wellbeing and sustainable development goals? How will the SPCB deliver the accountability and oversight that we have, for years, consulted on, supported and campaigned for? We urgently need answers to those questions, because we cannot let Scotland fall behind. I move, That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Wellbeing and Sustainable Development (Scotland) Bill. 14:34”
“As Carnegie UK also stressed, a point was raised in extensive evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee about the need to reform the national performance framework so that it works. Will the Scottish Government commit to that, as well as to the committee’s recommendation that it should set a time period to evaluate the impact of a revised national performance framework on the delivery of wellbeing and sustainable development outcomes? The national performance framework is being reviewed, so we do not have the answers in front of us. I hope that the issues raised in the committee report, which the Scottish Government has not yet given clear commitments to act on, will be reflected in the legacy papers that committees prepare in the final few weeks of the current parliamentary session.”
“The committee also questions the Scottish Government on oversight and the measurement of the implementation of national outcomes. I thought that it was significant that the committee specifically asked the Scottish Government to clarify, if there was not to be a commissioner, who would provide guidance, support and oversight, but there was no clear answer in the minister’s response to the committee. The committee noted the evidence that, in the absence of clear statutory directives linked to a shared long-term national vision, there is no accountability. If the Scottish Government will not back my bill, will it consider strengthening the duties in the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015?”
“When the Scottish Government decided not to proceed with its bill, although I was absolutely delighted that the Deputy First Minister said that she would be prepared to work with me constructively on my bill, I did not anticipate that the minister would say that he was not going to support it. I was deeply disappointed by that. We are here today after the Social Justice and Social Security Committee’s extensive consideration of the proposals in my bill. Notwithstanding my disappointment, there are some incredibly helpful recommendations in its report, and I hope that the Scottish Government will respond to them positively and with clarity. The committee recognises the importance of policy coherence, and my view is that guidance is needed to embed wellbeing and sustainable development in policy making.”
“It also begs the question whether the Scottish Government has been performing that oversight role effectively to date, especially given the failure of the national performance framework to deliver as intended. The sustainable development goals are meant to be delivered by 2030. There is a real danger that short-termism and the lack of the joined-up thinking that is needed to push wellbeing and sustainable development up the agenda will mean that we miss out on the investment that we need to make now to support future generations. We have the experience of Wales, where the legislation was passed a decade ago and which is now being served by its second future generations commissioner. It is inspiring to hear about the success of its work, the culture shift that it has delivered and its five ways of working.”
“I have been absolutely clear from the start that my proposals for a commissioner were not about appointing an advocacy commissioner. In the responses to my consultation and to that of the Scottish Government, there was strong support for having someone who is independent, who can provide guidance to help to implement wellbeing and sustainable development principles and, crucially, who will have the investigatory powers that would be used to hold public sector bodies to account. In the view of many stakeholders, our Parliament needs the capacity to make sure that that happens. The work of our committees is vital, but colleagues need to reflect on the challenge that we face in the capacity of our committees to carry out the work that was called for in the 2021 election.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Sarah Boyack: If it is brief. Will I get the time back? The Deputy Presiding Officer: You will get the time back. Martin Whitfield: The proposals that are contained in Sarah Boyack’s bill are the final frame—I had been going to say “jigsaw piece”— that sits around so many important strategies that are being sought and pursued in Scotland. Indeed, her previous achievement, which she commented on, is reflected in all the new housing that has solar panels on the roof. Sarah Boyack: I thank the member for that acknowledgement. It is definitely a practical way to create jobs, lower bills and deliver on climate ambitions. What I was going to say was that I did not anticipate the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body-appointed commissioners review and the conclusions that it came to.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Section 2—General duty of the Scottish Ministers to support delivery The Presiding Officer: 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: I start by thanking the Parliament’s legislative team for its support—to be quite honest, the team could also do with some 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.”
“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.”
“Yes, the strategy will help, but I believe that it exposes the fundamental flaw in the Government’s approach. Ben Macpherson: 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.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Daniel Johnson: I am happy to do so. Martin Whitfield: 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: 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.”
“As the bureau suggested, the committee is recommending that a temporary rule be in place until the end of 2026.”