Roz McCall
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“That restraint and seclusion have been used inconsistently and without parents being told is worrying, and that is exactly what the bill hopes to address. When parents find out what has happened to their child only because of bruises, distress and changes in behaviour, that is not just a failure to communicate; it is a failure of trust.”
“Beth Morrison and Kate Sanger have been mentioned by absolutely everyone who has contributed to the debate, which shows just how much work they have done to contact every single one of us, to lobby us and to highlight how important the legislation is.”
“Further discussion is not needed—decisive action is. The recommendations in the “Strengthening the Safety Net” report talk about having a national adoption practice model, improved training, mandatory data collection, enhanced crisis intervention and a more flexible adoption allowance.”
“Other areas of concern include the robust transfer of post-adoption support from a specialist adoption team to generic children and families services after three years. In theory, that might seem to be administratively tidy, but in practice it fails to reflect the complexity and longevity of adoptive family life.”
“I thank Fulton MacGregor for bringing the motion to the chamber and for continuing to highlight the importance of strengthening adoption support for families across Scotland.”
“My very first debate on this issue when I became an MSP was a members’ business debate on Scotland’s forgotten children, focusing on adoption in Scotland and the urgent need to improve post- adoption support.”
The complete record
Every one of 585 lines we hold for Roz McCall, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 12.
“Further discussion is not needed—decisive action is. The recommendations in the “Strengthening the Safety Net” report talk about having a national adoption practice model, improved training, mandatory data collection, enhanced crisis intervention and a more flexible adoption allowance. Those are not new recommendations—they just need to be implemented. As an MSP and an adoptive parent, I know how much is at stake. The stability of adoptive placements, the wellbeing of children who have already experienced significant adversity and the confidence of prospective adopters all depend on the strength and support of the system that surrounds them. This Parliament and the Scottish Government must stop discussing reform and take action now. Adoptive families have waited too long, and they need a system that supports them fully. 19:14”
“Other areas of concern include the robust transfer of post-adoption support from a specialist adoption team to generic children and families services after three years. In theory, that might seem to be administratively tidy, but in practice it fails to reflect the complexity and longevity of adoptive family life. The impact of trauma does not diminish after an arbitrary timeframe. It re- emerges at every area of transition, all the way into adulthood and beyond. Although I support the aims of the motion, I cannot ignore the fact that we have been here before. We have had debates, reports and cross- party working groups, yet adoptive families across my region of Mid Scotland and Fife—and in Coatbridge and Chryston, which has been mentioned, and throughout Scotland—continue to report that there are gaps in support.”
“The Adoption UK barometer 2025 highlights that 78 per cent of adopted families in Scotland report facing significant challenges, with 40 per cent describing those challenges as severe, as Fulton MacGregor mentioned. Those are not abstract figures. They represent children struggling with the lasting effects of early trauma and parents doing their best to support them. The motion rightly highlights that official figures on adoption breakdown are likely to underestimate the true scale of distress due to the inconsistent definitions and the gaps in data collection. Without robust, transparent data, we underestimate the scale of the problem, and families go without the support that they need.”
“I am the proud mother of two adopted daughters and, through our family experience, I have seen first hand the realities that lie behind the statistics and policy papers. Adoption is not a single event that ends with a court order. It is a lifelong journey. At every milestone—starting school, moving into adolescence and navigating friendships, identity and independence—a new challenge emerges. As a parent, I have had to repeatedly learn, adapt and advocate to ensure that our daughters receive the understanding and support that they need. That lived experience has given me a profound appreciation for the resilience of adopted children and the pressures that adopted families face.”
“My very first debate on this issue when I became an MSP was a members’ business debate on Scotland’s forgotten children, focusing on adoption in Scotland and the urgent need to improve post- adoption support. I spoke about fragmented services, inconsistent access to support for families and a feeling of being left to cope alone once the legal process has concluded. This issue has bookended the session for me, but we are four years on and are still discussing many of the same problems, with little meaningful progress, so I am very glad that there has been some movement with the Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill. As everyone knows, my interest in the issue is both professional and personal.”
“I thank Fulton MacGregor for bringing the motion to the chamber and for continuing to highlight the importance of strengthening adoption support for families across Scotland. The issues that are raised in the motion and in the report “Strengthening the Safety Net: A Framework for Adoption Support in Scotland” are serious, long standing and deserving of the Parliament’s full attention. Unfortunately, we are not at that stage. Before I speak to the motion, I wish the minister all the best for the future. We may come from differing sides of the separatist debate, but her drive and determination to see more done to support our young people and the care- experienced community is obvious. I welcome her collaborative approach, and it has truly been a pleasure working with her.”
“He is a strong voice for the people of the region that he represents and, as Miles Briggs said in his contribution, he has a side that many people do not see when he is in in the political arena. I know that Douglas feels deeply and passionately about the need for change for young people in Scotland and it does not at all surprise me that he wanted to speak about this bill.”
“Beth Morrison and Kate Sanger have been mentioned by absolutely everyone who has contributed to the debate, which shows just how much work they have done to contact every single one of us, to lobby us and to highlight how important the legislation is. I greatly appreciate all the work that Daniel Johnson has done with them on the bill, and I highlight that the cabinet secretary has spoken about the collaborative work that has been done to get us to this point. I echo those sentiments: there has been seriousness and compassion as the bill has gone through the process. In the little bit of time before I conclude, I will highlight the work of Douglas Ross and apologise that I am doing so by reading from speaking notes on my lectern—I will try to ad lib a little. As a friend and colleague, Douglas Ross is a force to be reckoned with.”
“That restraint and seclusion have been used inconsistently and without parents being told is worrying, and that is exactly what the bill hopes to address. When parents find out what has happened to their child only because of bruises, distress and changes in behaviour, that is not just a failure to communicate; it is a failure of trust. Children are being harmed, which puts extra pressure on families, who should be treated as partners in their child’s education, not as an afterthought. During our discussion of the bill, members on all sides have agreed that relying on the current process does not give children and families the consistency or protection that they need. Scotland now needs a national legal framework to ensure that restraint and seclusion are used only as a last resort and only when there is an immediate risk of harm.”
“First, I congratulate Daniel Johnson, the non- Government bills unit and everyone involved in getting this important bill to this stage. I am deeply impressed by all the members who have managed to navigate the maze of the legislative process. We have had some excellent bills to discuss and scrutinise in the past few months of this session, and this one is certainly right up there in terms of importance. We have had an essential debate about a sobering issue. Throughout the bill process, and for many years before that—we have heard mention of 11 years—we have listened to powerful stories from families, campaigners and professionals about what too many children and young people have been facing in our schools.”
“The Scottish Conservatives will vote in favour of the bill not because it is sufficient, but because the children that it is meant to serve cannot afford for us to stand still. However, our support is not a green light for complacency. It is a demand for delivery. If we are to stand here in 2030 and say with our hands on our hearts that we have kept the Promise, today must not be the finish line but the moment when the Scottish Government’s accountability begins. 17:59”
“The 2030 deadline that was set by the Promise is not a comfort but a countdown, and with the warnings that we have heard from Social Work Scotland, COSLA and the Law Society, the clock is ticking louder than ever. Further reform, sustained investment and an unrelenting focus on outcomes are not optional extras; they are what the Promise requires. For care-experienced young people and families, what matters is not what we pass in the chamber but what it changes in their lives. Too many of them have lived in the gap between policy and reality, and between what the system promised and what is actually delivered. The bill on its own does not guarantee change. It does, however, create an obligation, and we intend to hold the Scottish Government to that.”
“Without those things, the bill will not keep the Promise. It will become another layer of complexity in a system that is already struggling under the weight of good intentions that were never properly implemented. A vote for the bill today will be a vote for the Promise only if the Scottish Government treats what comes next with the seriousness that those warnings demand. Implementation, resourcing and accountability must not be afterthoughts; they are the whole point. This Parliament must not simply pass the bill and consider its work done. Scrutiny does not end at stage 3. We will be watching and asking the hard questions about whether the investment is real, whether the workforce is supported and whether the children that the bill is meant to protect are actually better off.”
“We should not pass legislation that legal professionals tell us falls short of the human rights standards that we are obligated to uphold. COSLA has been unambiguous that local authorities are already under immense pressure and that imposing new duties on them without adequate funding will not help care-experienced children but, instead, risks making the system worse for them. The Scottish Government must not pass the bill and then walk away from the funding question. That would not be progress—it would be pressure dressed up as policy. We will support the bill at decision time because we believe in what it could achieve, but the Scottish Government must understand that passing legislation is not the same as delivering change. The workforce must be resourced, the funding must be real and the legal clarity must be provided.”
“Social Work Scotland, which sees the consequences of the system every day, has reluctantly taken the extraordinary step of urging Parliament to reject the bill. It has done so with what it describes as “deep regret and disappointment.” It reminds us of something we should all reflect on: the care system is already “cluttered, complex and does not provide a clear frame to support children, families, decision makers and service providers.” We must not take those words lightly, and supporting the bill does not mean that we can dismiss them. The Law Society of Scotland has warned that the bill “does not fully meet recognised human rights standards or provide the legal clarity and consistency that are required in Scotland’s child and family law landscape.” That is not a minor technical critique—it is a fundamental warning.”
“The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has been clear that local authorities are already under immense pressure and that giving them new duties without adequate funding risks stretching services even further. The Law Society of Scotland has raised serious questions about the legal clarity and practical application of key provisions. Those are not fringe voices. They are the very organisations that we rely on to deliver change, and those are the people who will be asked to implement every provision and resource every new duty in the bill. When they tell us that the foundations are not strong enough, we have a duty to listen, and the Scottish Government has a duty to respond with action.”
“Scotland made a collective vow to its care- experienced children and Parliament has a responsibility to ensure that that vow is kept. Make no mistake: the bill is not the Promise and does not come close but, on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, I can confirm that we will vote in favour of it at decision time. I also want to be honest with members about what that support means and what it demands. Right from the initial evidence sessions I asked about the deliverability of the bill. Throughout stage 1, stage 2 and, now, stage 3, concerns have consistently and credibly been raised by those on the front line. Social Work Scotland has warned that the bill’s ambitions simply cannot be realised without meaningful investment in workforce capacity.”
“I begin by thanking the minister, not only for her willingness to work across the chamber, and directly with me, throughout the passage of the bill, but for the speech that she has just given. Her speeches are best when they come from the heart. That constructive engagement has been genuinely appreciated and reflects the spirit in which the legislation should be taken forward. There can be no question of my belief in the Promise. Like many here, I supported it because it represents something rare in public policy: a clear and shared commitment to fundamentally change the lives of children who have too often been failed by the systems that are designed to protect them. It was ambitious, necessary, bold and, above all, urgent.”
“I put on record my thanks to the minister for the work that she has done with me and the rest of us on the amendments. I am going to speak only to my amendment in the group. I am proud to have lodged amendment 92, which would allow local authorities to provide financial support for education, training or employment to a young person aged between 16 and 25 years of age who is no longer looked after. It would also promote a person-centred approach by enabling local authorities to continue that vital support to the young person beyond the age of 26 when that is clearly needed. I think that it is an amendment that we can all get behind, and I am glad that the minister is supporting it. I ask members to support amendment 92 in my name.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the impact of its budget 2026-27 on the ability of local authorities, including Perth and Kinross Council, to meet rising demand for services. (S6O-05657)”
“That is a key responsibility of parliamentarians, which she failed to deliver on.”
“A number of local authorities, both urban and rural, wish to take part in the fairer futures partnerships, for example. In Edinburgh today, the First Minister and I saw yet another example of a local authority using Scottish Government funding and its own innovation to deliver whole family support. We will continue to make sure, through the oversight that comes with my responsibility for tackling child poverty, that whole family support is delivered. I will be generous and acknowledge the fact that Roz McCall thinks that I listened to her advice. However, the minor detail is that she did not follow that up and vote for the funding in the budget. Here we go once again—Roz McCall is claiming some success because, at some point, I have listened to her wise words, but she actually forgot to vote for the budget to deliver it.”
“I welcome the focus on parental employment. As the cabinet secretary will know, I have been asking for that focus for the past four years, so I am happy to see that the cabinet secretary has finally taken my advice. The statement highlights that today’s announcements build on approaches that include the whole family wellbeing fund and whole family support. The cabinet secretary will be aware that there is fragmented funding across Scotland when it comes to the whole family wellbeing fund, so what steps is the Government taking to ensure that money that is already allocated is making a difference for families across the whole of Scotland and not just those in certain pockets and in the central belt? Shirley-Anne Somerville: To be clear, the money does not just go to the central belt.”
“From what I have been told directly by the health board, I am assured of the gravity with which it treats the requirements and recommendations in the joint report and that it will work at pace to ensure that they are implemented. Notwithstanding that, my officials will continue to engage closely and monitor those matters. I have been very clear with the health board that I expect regular updates and demonstrations of progress.”
“I place on record my acknowledgement of the fight of young people and families to get us to this point. They deserve so much better. The statement says that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is accountable for care and treatment at Skye House, but it seems to me that other than expecting the board to be laser focused, there are no consequences for that lack of accountability. My question is very simple: how will the Scottish Government hold NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to account? Tom Arthur: I have set out very clearly in my statement, as I have set out directly to the chief executive, my expectations of the health board. I understand that it fully appreciates my perspective on the matter and the perspective of families on what is required. It is important to note that there has been significant change in the health board recently.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what further support it will provide to local authorities to protect access to public libraries in rural areas. (S6O- 05618)”
“I hope to be a member of the next Parliament that ensures that the opportunity for meaningful improvement and constructive debate is not missed. Scottish education and Scotland’s children deserve better. 15:47”
“I am mindful of the time. In closing what I expect to be the final debate on education during Opposition time in this parliamentary session, I will return to the words that I used in a debate on the national discussion on Scottish education nearly three years ago. At that time, the facilitators of the national discussion noted “an optimism for the future of Scottish education”, and I said that there was “an overwhelming appetite for change in Scottish education.”—[Official Report, 31 May 2023; c 31.] I am a bit heart-sore, but not surprised, that we have not heard much of that optimism for the future of Scottish education this afternoon, because things are getting better in our schools following Covid, and things will need to change if we are to intensify that progress.”
“The latest Universities and Colleges Admissions Service data shows that record numbers of 18-year-olds have secured a university place, including a record number of 18-year-olds from deprived backgrounds. None of that progress would have been possible without the hard work of Scotland’s dedicated teaching workforce, so I am pleased that we were again able to offer an uplift in teacher pay at the end of last year. That means that Scotland’s teachers continue to be the best paid in the United Kingdom, with classroom teachers at the top of the scale now being paid just over £52,000 per year. That is significant investment. In fact, since 2021, the Government has invested more than £800 million in increasing teacher wages. We have done that because we value our teachers, and when we value our teachers, they deliver results.”
“It is also worth recording that the Qualifications Scotland statistics that were published showed that, last year, there was the highest level of attainment in such qualifications since 2019. However, on readiness for work, we need to do more to support young people who struggle during the transition from school to work or, indeed, higher education. Paul McLennan talked about the Scottish Government’s record and mentioned the achievements in our schools. He talked about pass rates for national 5s and highers having increased since 2019, which is important, and the attainment gap in primary schools having narrowed to a record low level, as I mentioned.”
“Like me, she is a former teacher, and we have engaged in many debates and sat together on education committees over the years. I am sorry that she will not be contributing as an MSP in the future, but I am sure that she will continue to make a contribution and will watch closely to see the impact of her Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Act 2026. One of the major shifts in recent years has been the increase in the number of technical and vocational qualification awards. Last year alone, more than 116,000 such qualifications were awarded. As Liz Smith knows, the skills for life qualifications cover topics such as teamwork and personal finance more broadly. Therefore, the curriculum provides broader opportunities to address some of her points about readiness for work.”
“Among S3 pupils, the proportion of pupils who achieve third level or better in literacy and numeracy is also at its highest ever level, and the poverty-related attainment gap for primary pupils in literacy narrowed in 2024-25 to its lowest ever level. Those are the outcomes for our children and young people. Let us be careful about how we characterise the schools in which they learn. We heard from Karen Adam about the importance of leadership, culture and the wider system, as well as the need to change. Things have been difficult in our schools since the pandemic, the effect of which we must not diminish because it continues to affect attainment, attendance and engagement in the broader life of the school. I was struck by Liz Smith’s comments on readiness for work. I am very sorry that she will be leaving the Parliament at the election.”
“I reflect, though, having listened to contributions from colleagues— Roz McCall: Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Jenny Gilruth: I am happy to do so. Roz McCall: Does the cabinet secretary at least accept that this debate is not about our schools, but about the promises that the Government made to the people of Scotland and the changes that it intended to deliver but did not? Jenny Gilruth: I accept that the debate is about the Government’s record on education. I listened to some of Roz McCall’s points on outcomes, but it is important to record that the recent statistics on outcomes for our primary pupils show that the proportion of pupils who achieve expected curriculum for excellence levels in literacy has increased to the highest level to date.”
“If everything is framed through a negative lens, all that it does is risk demoralising parents, pupils and teachers. Karen Adam was absolutely right about that. We need to be mindful of how we characterise Scotland’s schools. For example, the behaviour in Scottish schools research—which involved surveying 4,000 staff who work in our schools every day—showed that most of Scotland’s young people are well behaved. We lose nuance when we focus overtly on extremes. I am particularly worried about that in relation to debates on behaviour, because we risk demonising a generation when we characterise Scotland’s schools in such a way. To return to some of the comments that I made at the beginning of the debate, this is the generation that lived through a global pandemic, so their experience of our education system will be different.”
“We believe that children should be children; that classrooms are places of safety and equality; that actions should have consequences; that funding should be well targeted and carefully monitored; that children should be taught literacy and numeracy from the outset; and that people should be held truly accountable for results. Those principles are all common sense. Closing the attainment gap should not have been just an election slogan, like so many of the elections slogans that we hear now, or a piecrust promise to be easily made and easily broken. It should have been a real promise to Scotland’s children, and in that regard this SNP Government has been found wanting. 15:42 Jenny Gilruth: In this debate, I was keen to praise the positive behaviour of children.”
“Not only should teachers not be forced to work in such conditions, hard-working and diligent pupils also suffer from the disruption. The worst effect of that is on children from deprived areas and the toughest backgrounds, who rely most on school for stability because their home life is not as secure. This Government is letting them down. Even respected experts now admit the truth. Professor John McKendrick has said that the Scottish Government cannot claim significant progress in closing the gap. Nicola Sturgeon herself has called the failure to close the gap one of her biggest regrets. The Scottish Conservatives believe that every child, no matter their background, deserves a chance to succeed.”
“Over the past 19 years, none of the SNP Government’s budgeted spend has shifted the dial. In recent years, more than 73,000 pupils have had attendance rates below 50 per cent. In other words, 73,000 pupils have checked out of Scottish education and the hope that comes with it. Those are not just numbers; they are children. Scotland’s programme for international student assessment scores in maths and science are at record lows. Violent incidents in classrooms have led thousands of teachers to seek medical treatment, yet there is little in the way of discipline for pupils’ actions, so many teachers face worse behaviour every day. When teachers are attacked and assaulted in our classrooms, learning and consistency suffer and discipline is forgotten.”
“We must realise that our schools have to teach everybody, and that everybody needs the same standard of education, but they are not getting that from the Government. It is important that I return to the point that behind every percentage point is lost potential—a child who has been told, directly or indirectly, that their future is limited by where they live or by the circumstances in which they grow up. That is an appalling situation. I have listened today—and, indeed, every day— to the Scottish Government’s education team focusing, as even the Government’s amendment to the motion does, on the various sums of money that the Government has invested in Scotland’s schools rather than on the outcomes of that investment. Throwing money at a problem only works for so long. It is fundamental that we address the roots of the issues head on.”
“Among those getting A to C grades for national 5, the gap is more than 16 percentage points and, for highers, it is more than 17 percentage points. Among pupils getting As in national 5, the difference is a striking 27.5 percentage points, which is almost the same as it was before the pandemic. That is not progress; it is generational injustice. Karen Adam: Does the member agree that the two-child benefit cap and a restriction in public service spending would affect the poverty-related attainment gap? Roz McCall: That is something that comes up regularly. Although I understand the Government’s position on that, we are talking about educational attainment and the situation in our schools.”
“However, I state categorically that we are not talking about that; we are talking about the Government’s failure to deliver on educational promises, which is a different thing. Let me be clear that that is not a reflection on any of our teachers, staff, schools or pupils. We can all agree that, when we speak of such issues, we are aware that our teachers and staff are doing a fantastic job. The failure lies solely at the feet of the SNP Government and is due to a failure to meet those promises. Recent curriculum for excellence data shows that, in primary schools, the gap between the most and least deprived pupils when it comes to meeting expected levels is still wide, at 19 percentage points in literacy and 17 percentage points in numeracy. In secondary schools, the divide is just as worrying.”
“We all remember the “judge me” pledge that was made in 2015 by the then First Minister, and it has already been referenced today. Nicola Sturgeon asked to be judged on her ability to reduce the attainment gap between rich and poor students. That was her promise and the standard that she set. However, in the 10 years since that definitive statement and the 19 years of the SNP leading our education system, Scotland’s once-proud reputation of educational excellence has taken a hit, and the poverty-related attainment gap remains deeply rooted for Scotland’s children. By any fair measure, the SNP has failed. I noted in Karen Adam’s personal and passionate contribution the ASN issues that she highlighted. She also commented that we are discussing educational failure.”
“In certain cases, might is not always right. Given the red tape surrounding business today and the many difficulties that businesses have to cope with in order to survive, anything that we can do in this place to minimise bureaucracy has to be a good thing. I do not have too much to add in the time remaining. If I had to note any small negative in relation to the bill, it is the time that it has taken it to come before us. I mentioned that in the stage 1 debate and I am mentioning it again, as the issue has not really been highlighted. The Scottish Law Commission had been looking at issues related to contract law since its inception in 1965, and it made its recommendations in 2018. We are now in 2026. Before the bill becomes an act, I must ask, especially as it was such a non-contentious bill, why the heck did it take so long? 15:52”
“Professor Stephen Bogle and Professor Tom Johnson from the University of Glasgow supported the proposed reforms. They said: “Considering the landscape of contemporary litigation in Scotland, it is increasingly evident that reform is needed”. Furthermore, lawyers want it. The Law Society of Scotland supported the proposed reforms when it stated: “it is clear that a new statutory regime has the potential to offer benefits to certain parties by offering users a means to form agreements without a detailed understanding of case law or wider academic and institutional writings.” In layman’s terms, the bill makes it easier to understand the legalities of contracts and their implications and, if needed, provides the ability to contract out. Too many times, there is an inequality in contracts, in which one party is favoured over the other.”
“Many stakeholders have found the legal framework around contract law difficult to navigate, and the Scottish Law Commission’s work leading up to the introduction of the bill concluded that some parts of contract law are unclear, difficult to find and in need of modernisation. The bill rectifies that. As I said, the bill is universally supported. Business wants it. The Federation of Small Businesses supported the bill’s overall aims, with Colin Borland stating, “As a general principle, anything that is done to codify, simplify or clarify the law and to make it easier for us as laypeople to understand has to be a good thing”.—[Official Report, Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, 25 November 2025; c 7.] We cannot argue with that, surely. Academics want it.”
“As I mentioned in the stage 1 debate on the bill, I have not previously had the pleasure of working on a bill that was supported by pretty much everybody who gave evidence. I again take the opportunity to thank everyone who participated in the evidence sessions, and my additional thanks go to the clerks and staff for their hard work. It has been a pleasure to work on the bill with the minister, who has been, as she stated, constructive and accommodating all the way through the process. It has been a joy. As we have already heard from the minister, the bill will make provision regarding the formation of contracts and remedies for breach of contract.”
“It gives me pleasure to speak in the Parliament for stage 3 of the Contract (Formation and Remedies) (Scotland) Bill on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. We will be supporting the bill at decision time. I often wonder if we truly take advantage of the powers that we have in this Parliament to make substantive law that actually takes steps toward helping the people that the legislation is meant to help. We have a vast range of powers in the Scottish Parliament and I am not always sure that we produce good law. However, in this instance, I can whole-heartedly state that this Scottish Law Commission bill will do exactly what it says on the tin for the people who will need it most.”
“The motion asks simply that we recognise both the economic and social importance of childcare, acknowledge the concerns raised by parents and commit to doing something about it. 15:03”
“Has it delivered consistency across the regions and communities? I would say that it has not. The Parliament should have the opportunity to scrutinise that important review before the end of the current parliamentary session. That is not about scoring points; it is about accountability and improvement. If childcare support is to fulfil its dual role to support the family unit and strengthen Scotland’s economy, we must ensure that policy is grounded in evidence and open to examination. Families in Mid Scotland and Fife, and across Scotland, deserve a childcare system that works for modern working lives. They deserve transparency about the impact of public investment and a Parliament that is willing to engage seriously with the data.”
“They will provide updated evidence on whether families think that progress has been made or whether pressures persist. At the same time, the Scottish Government’s early learning and childcare expansion programme evaluation strategy has been assessing the impact of expanded provision, covering the period from 2018 to 2025. We are still waiting for the findings from that—I believe that they are coming out in early 2026, but we are rapidly running out of time. That evaluation represents a significant opportunity. The expansion of early learning and childcare has been one of the most substantial public policy commitments in recent years, and it is right that we examine the outcome carefully. Has it reduced the cost burden on families? Has it improved flexibility? Has it supported workforce participation as intended?”
“It is pointless to offer state-paid childcare if parents cannot access it at the hours that work for them. Being told by the local authority that the hours offered are, to all intents and purposes, a take-it-or-leave-it situation makes it completely unmanageable. That is why we propose to change the payment delivery system to ensure that money actually follows the child. Our system would ensure that parents can directly select the childcare offering in their area that best suits their needs, timings and availability. That might be a private nursery or a childminder but, in many cases, it could still be the local authority nursery. That would allow real choice for parents. The motion notes that Pregnant Then Screwed’s 2026 survey has just concluded, with its findings to be published. Those findings are important.”