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 3 of 12.
“George Adam was correct to guard against the creation of league tables. We often see that issue in relation to behaviour in schools, with schools and teachers fearful to report and concerned how that might reflect on their practice or their school. However, if we do not have accurate data, whether on behaviour, ASN or the use of restraint, how can any Government target support to where it is needed most? We need far greater transparency in all those matters, less protectionism and far more engagement and support for the teaching profession. I thank Daniel Johnson for bringing the bill before the Parliament. I pay particular tribute again today to Beth Morrison, Kate Sanger and all the other parents, children and young people whose lives have been impacted by these issues.”
“To that end, I very much agree with the committee’s approach to reporting on the same day. Families, staff and children deserve dignity, and much of that has to be about better communication. George Adam spoke of the heartbreaking experiences that the Education, Children and Young People Committee has heard from families, which I know will be familiar to colleagues who sit on the committee. His observations on additional support needs are salient to our recent debates in the chamber and are another reason why the review of initial teacher education provision, which I spoke to earlier this year, is so important. Teachers need support, but we must recognise that needs in our classrooms are changing, and the way in which we support the profession is required to adapt accordingly.”
“I am pleased that the review, which is well under way, will report in March. She was right to talk about commencement dates—a matter on which I have already engaged with Daniel Johnson—and we are in agreement that lessons from the review must inform how the act is delivered in practice in educational settings. Claire Baker was right to talk about inconsistencies in recording practices, which I think Roz McCall touched on, too. We see that issue across our educational landscape, and the bill will have a key role to play in strengthening the quality and consistency of data, which we have already actively started to consider in relation to additional support needs, as colleagues will know from the update that I provided earlier this year. Karen Adam spoke about the need for parents to be treated as partners.”
“Willie Rennie spoke to the need for the guidance to be put on a statutory footing to bring decisiveness and clarity. I note the concerns of my former trade union, the EIS, which has been mentioned in the debate today, about the issue. I have already written to the EIS and I have committed to further engagement with it ahead of stages 2 and 3. I know that the member in charge has engaged with it, too, and I look forward to working with him on that topic. It is worth saying that the teaching trade unions were involved in the development of the Government’s guidance, and we will continue to engage with them in relation to the review and, of course, stages 2 and 3, working with the member in charge. Jackie Dunbar spoke to the interplay between the national guidance and the bill that is before the Parliament.”
“Paul O’Kane spoke to the dreadful things that have happened to families, which highlights the necessity of the debate that we find ourselves having today. As Maggie Chapman rightly reminded the chamber, there has been a tireless campaign, which, I observe, has been largely led by mums—mums whose experience of our education system has not been what it should have been, and mums who have had to fight. There are many parallels between the legislation that is before Parliament today and parental experiences—for example, of local support for additional support needs. In listening to colleagues’ contributions, I reflected on my constituent Niamdh Braid and the fight that her mother and father had to lead against Fife Council to obtain the support that she required as a British Sign Language user in school in Fife.”
“The Government will continue to engage with all those partners, and more substantively with Daniel Johnson, on the bill and its progress at stages 2 and 3. Today, we have heard the will across the Parliament to build on the actions that have already been taken by the Government. Our long- standing position, as is known, is that restraint and seclusion should only ever be used as a last resort, and we are committed to protecting Scotland’s children and young people. I will address some of the comments that were made by colleagues across the chamber this afternoon, although I am aware that time is short. Miles Briggs reminded the chamber of Beth Morrison’s son, Calum, and Douglas Ross said that we would not be here were it not for Beth Morrison and Kate Sanger.”
“We do so in the spirit of constructive engagement, and we will work with the Government and stakeholders to ensure that the legislation is clear, proportionate and effective in practice. Every child in Scotland deserves to feel safe, respected and protected in their school, and every family deserves honesty, transparency and confidence in the system that is meant to support them. 15:43 Jenny Gilruth: I thank members from across the chamber for their contributions to today’s debate, which has been remarkable for the conciliatory tone that we have had across the chamber so close to dissolution and for being on a topic on which we all agree. I also thank our partners in local government; our teaching trade unions; all education staff; and, of course, parents, who, as we heard today, have supported our work in this area.”
“For families, being kept in the dark undermines trust and makes it harder for them to advocate for their child or to work constructively with the schools to put the right support in place. We need clear safeguards, proper recording and meaningful parental involvement. As has been mentioned by Daniel Johnson, Maggie Chapman and Willie Rennie, the bill affords us the opportunity to move support on to a statutory footing, and that is what we are trying to achieve. It recognises that relying on non-statutory guidance has not been enough. It acknowledges the living experiences of children, young people and families who have raised concerns over many years, and it signals a commitment to learn from those experiences and to do better. The Conservatives support the general principles of the bill.”
“There is clear evidence that the use of restraint and seclusion is inconsistent across Scotland’s schools. Practices vary widely between local authorities and between individual schools. It is not acceptable that parents are not informed when serious interventions are used. We have all heard in our casework of circumstances where that has happened. No parent should discover that their child has been restrained or secluded because their child has come home distressed, withdrawn, unable to explain what has happened to them or covered in cuts and bruises or with broken bones. It is that lack of transparency that causes real harm. It can compound trauma in children— particularly those with additional support needs, who may struggle to communicate their experiences or to process the distressing events.”
“The fact is that clarity is required, regardless of how we look at it, and that is what we are trying to achieve. We need clarity, training and robust guidance so that teachers and children are supported proportionately and with confidence in the most challenging of situations. Kate Sanger said to the committee: “The reasons that are given for restraint include non- compliance, children making poor choices, sensory overload, bad language and screaming.” She went on to explain that some children and young people “do not have language skills or verbal skills, and screaming is a way of communicating their needs.”—[Official Report, 24 September 2025; c 2-3.] Imagine being restrained for trying to explain yourself. That is just not acceptable.”
“That was mentioned in the submissions by Miles Briggs and Karen Adam regarding de- escalation, and that has to be the first port of call. Restraint and seclusion should be used only as a last resort in circumstances in which there is an immediate risk of harm to the child and to others, and it should always be used within the framework that prioritises dignity, rights and wellbeing, with relevant staff and support for the child involved. It is consistency that matters here, not only for pupils and families but for staff. Teachers and support staff deserve clarity. Willie Rennie made a good point when he talked about the middle-of- the-road circumstances that do not fit. However, I think that it is the other way round. It is the more extreme circumstances that the guidance does not quite match, and that is where we have the problem.”
“I add my congratulations to Daniel Johnson on doing the wheen of work that goes into bringing a bill to this stage. I also congratulate, as many members have done today, Beth Morrison and Kate Sanger, who have also done a wheen of work. It is important to mention that it is incumbent on all of us in this place to take this forward, to look at where we are now, to progress and to make sure that we make the bill the best that it can be for them. This is not the end of the road—it is just halfway along. This debate has made one thing abundantly clear. Although the majority of our teachers and school staff act professionally and with the utmost care and compassion every single day, the system of restraint and seclusion in Scotland is not working as it should. We must be clear that restraint and seclusion should never be a routine practice.”
“Those issues are being discussed as part of the wider work that I alluded to in my response to Mr Stewart earlier, and I would be more than happy to give Roz McCall a written update on that before dissolution, in which we will address in more detail the issue that she has raised today. Teacher Recruitment (Rural Areas) 3.”
“When it was established in 2002, that scheme was intended to be in addition to the staffing complement that schools received. However, for many years, that has not been the case. It certainly was not my experience when I started teaching in Elgin high school in 2008, when I replaced somebody who had retired. Notwithstanding Roz McCall’s points, it is important that probationers have support and time in school to learn how to become teachers. People do not come out of probation as fully formed teachers—they need to learn, and they need that support and time. It is important that we create the necessary conditions for that. I absolutely agree with Roz McCall’s points about consistency and about pupils’ experience of churn in the system not being good for educational opportunities or attainment more broadly.”
“The NASUWT has described the situation as a “dysfunctional teacher supply system” that is clearly failing teachers, pupils and the taxpayer. It is right, but let us focus on the pupils for a moment. We know how critical a stable teacher-pupil relationship is to children’s learning and wellbeing. Does the cabinet secretary accept that the overreliance on short-term contracts for newly qualified teachers risks undermining educational continuity for pupils? Has the Scottish Government done any assessment of the impact of that on children’s attainment? Jenny Gilruth: Roz McCall raises a hugely important point. I will go back to the probationer scheme, which I attempted to speak on in my response to Mr O’Kane—although I accept that I spoke for far too long, Presiding Officer.”
“Amendment 154 disagreed to. After section 33E The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 13 is on agricultural subsidies. Amendment 155, in the name of Jamie Halcro Johnston, is grouped with amendments 156 to 158 and 169.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted yes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you very much. Your vote will be recorded. For Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 43, Against 64, Abstentions 0.”
“Ministers should be accountable to Parliament for delivering outcomes, and parliamentary scrutiny should not be outsourced. The committee recognised that there is support for the bill’s broad ambitions, but the majority of its members concluded that the bill should not proceed to stage 2. The committee cited doubts about effectiveness, cost, overlap and delivery, which have already been mentioned. I believe that its conclusions were well founded. The bill has undoubtedly promoted valuable discussion about how we think for the long term and how we can improve policy coherence, but discussion alone is not a sufficient justification for legislation. For those reasons, although we respect the intentions behind the bill and the work that has gone into it, the Scottish Conservatives will not support it at stage 1. 14:49”
“I understand the intention behind that, and I do not doubt the sincerity of those who support it. However, the Parliament has already agreed clear criteria for the creation of new commissioners, following the supported bodies landscape review. Those criteria include clarity of remit, complementarity, simplicity and accountability. At stage 1, the committee was not convinced that the criteria had been met, and I share that view. There has been a steady expansion in the number and cost of commissioners over the years, and I am yet to be convinced that such an increase creates an exponential change in outcomes. There is also a constitutional point. Commissioners can unintentionally dilute ministerial responsibility and blur lines of accountability.”
“It means different things to different people at different stages of their lives and in different circumstances. It encompasses physical and mental health, economic security, social connection, environmental quality and personal autonomy. Is it realistic—or even wise—to attempt to fix such a concept in statute in a way that will stand the test of time? The committee heard clear evidence that such definitions could add confusion rather than clarity. Public bodies already operate in a dense landscape of strategies, frameworks, impact assessments and reporting requirements, and the committee was not persuaded that the bill would simplify that landscape—nor am I. There is a risk that it would instead add another layer of process without improving outcomes. That brings me to the proposal to create a future generations commissioner.”
“Those points came through clearly in the evidence that the committee took on the bill. However, agreeing on the problem does not automatically mean that the bill is the right solution. At stage 1, the Scottish Conservatives remain unconvinced that new primary legislation is either necessary or proportionate, and we do not believe that the bill would deliver the system-wide change that is promised. The bill places a new statutory duty on public bodies to have “due regard” for the need to promote wellbeing and sustainable development, and introduces statutory definitions for both concepts. Credit is due to the member for attempting to grapple with undeniably complex ideas, but that complexity is precisely the challenge. Wellbeing is a highly subjective and multifaceted concept.”
“I recognise Sarah Boyack’s long-standing commitment to the issues that sit behind the bill. She has campaigned on questions of sustainable development and long-term thinking for many years, and that dedication is acknowledged by members across the chamber. On a personal level, I have a lot of respect for Ms Boyack, and I greatly admire her passion and determination. I also agree with much of the content that the member in charge of the bill has set out. There is widespread concern that policy making can be approached in a way that is too short term. There is frustration that public bodies are often constrained by annual budgets. There is shared understanding that scarce public resources must be used more efficiently and effectively. There are legitimate questions about how well the national performance framework is working in practice.”
“I sincerely ask the minister to ensure that we do that. I will quote one line from Growing2gether: “Babies are not simply small children.” We only have two years to get it right for them. 13:01”
“Decisions must be made fast because, with every week that goes by, valuable development is lost. I am speaking about that because Growing2gether’s programme aims to improve early identification of risk for babies and infants, strengthening multi-agency working across health, social work, justice and the children’s hearings system. It aims to reduce delay and drift in decision making, particularly in cases involving care and permanence, to ensure that babies’ lived experiences and their development needs are properly understood and represented. That is timely. I cannot argue with a single one of those requests, which are timely because, with the Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill going through Parliament, we have an opportunity to advance on those asks.”
“All that makes sense, but I wonder whether members also know that those children are also less likely to be able to form thoughts and that a child who grows up in a home where they are not spoken to softly is more likely to be unable to learn or to retain knowledge than one who grows up being spoken to in that way. So much of the nurturing that happens in early years is essential for a purposeful and productive life. The reason I mention all of that is that Growing2gether’s programme is rooted in the growing body of evidence that the first 1,000 days of a child’s life are critical to their development and that any delay or inconsistency in decision making during that period can have long-lasting consequences. Those 1,000 days add up to just two years and nine months.”
“Something as simple as holding a baby makes a massive difference. A newborn who is not held enough is more likely to have stunted growth, poor weight gain and a weaker immune system. Touch is essential for emotional and physical development. Touch promotes vital brain connections, growth hormones and the ability to make bonds with other people, so a child who grows up without touch in their early years has a significantly harder life than one who grows up with it. Most newborns are well versed in hearing, because they hear their mother from inside the womb. However, if they are born into an environment in which they are not spoken to, they are more likely to suffer setbacks in language, communication, social and emotional skills and speech delays.”
“As I have stated, anyone who has listened to my speeches over the past four years will know just how important the issue is to me. I am going to go personal. When I adopted my daughters, I was told about the issues surrounding attachment disorder and the necessity of reaching certain milestones in brain development for on- going cognitive growth and physical health throughout life. It was put to me like this: every milestone met is a brick in the wall of life; if you miss one out, every brick laid on top of that gap is unstable and insecure. If members will forgive me, I will go back a step from the work that Growing2gether does. When a baby is born, it is amazing just how important every developmental milestone is. Everything that seems minor and insignificant is essential.”
“I thank Emma Roddick for using her members’ business debate slot to bring this issue to the chamber. I feel very passionately about it, as she will know, and I appreciate her doing so. First, I want to categorically say that we thank Growing2gether for the work that it does to support children to overcome trauma and adversity. The fact that it is working with 15 schools and has paired more than 2,000 young people with more than 2,200 toddlers over the past seven years should be applauded, because that is a monumental amount of work. We have already heard from Emma Roddick what the Growing2gether programme has done for so many young people. This national initiative in Scotland focuses on improving outcomes for babies and infants who are affected by adversity in their earliest years.”
“The childminding workforce in Scotland has declined by 48 per cent since 2016, with an increase in paperwork being cited as the main reason for that decline. Childminders are currently considering whether they can make a decision about their future business model based on that. In light of that situation, what assessment has the Government made of the impact on childcare capacity in Scotland of HMRC’s decision? What urgent representations can be made to the UK Government to try to halt it? The First Minister: I am not familiar with the issue that Roz McCall has raised, so I will take that away and explore it. It is an issue that has been advanced by HMRC, which is a United Kingdom organisation, but it will have implications for Scotland. I will consider those points and write to Roz McCall about any steps that the Government can take.”
“The First Minister will be aware of concerns raised by the Scottish Childminding Association about planned changes by HM Revenue and Customs to making tax digital and the long-standing tax-free wear and tear allowance for childminders. The allowance permitted registered childminders to claim 10 per cent of their income as tax free, given the evident wear and tear that comes from opening their homes to children. The tax changes are due to the introduction in England and Wales of childminding in non- domestic premises, which does not apply in Scotland. The changes will require childminders to claim on a case-by-case basis should damage occur in their properties as a result of the occupation, thereby adding admin and complexity to a burgeoning sector.”
“it has served Scotland’s needs well”, but that we now need “to create a system that” allows users to meet “the opportunities and challenges ahead” and “the scale of the transformation that is facing us”. He said that doing so “may be the most important element of national infrastructure investment that Ministers could make over the next decade.” Let us rise to that call together. Let us do what is necessary for now and get ready for what is ahead. The Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill. Parliamentary Bureau Motion 21:05”
“We are building on strong foundations and on a commitment that began when the Government decided in 2008, due to the financial crisis at the time, to ensure that no young person is denied the opportunity to fulfil their potential in education or in life due to economic disruption. I thank all those who have been involved since that juncture, including those at SDS. As we move forward, we do so on strong ground thanks to them. The work of James Withers on the excellent skills review and report was what set us on this path. He made clear what many people recognised: that improvement to Scotland’s skills landscape was necessary and overdue, which is why we could not delay. He said that “there is much that is good in the current system ...”
“Changing the name in law could have required hundreds of technical amendments to the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005, which would not have been a good use of parliamentary time. However, it is important that we consider a name that reflects what the SFC is known for and what it operates in practice in the future, so that its descriptor fully represents all that it will do. I am open to ideas from members, the business community and people more widely about what that name might be. The bill was introduced to the Parliament almost a year ago, but the work did not start then.”
“I assure the Parliament that I have engaged with the SFC to ensure that those points were probed. I am confident that the SFC will build strong and lasting partnerships with employers. Apprenticeships will continue to reflect the needs of business in the wider economy, and there will be significant input from and in collaboration with businesses. Apprenticeships will be made more accessible to young people who face barriers and those who retrain and upskill. Given all that the SFC is taking on, some members have highlighted that the name “Scottish Funding Council” will no longer reflect the extent of what it does, which is an important point to consider, as Willie Rennie raised today.”
“It is a vote to cut through bureaucracy, improve funding flows and maximise public value. It is a vote for a more efficient, aligned, responsive and collaborative system. It is a vote to take further steps to prevent gender-based violence and to advance fair work. It is a vote to widen access so that more people get the chance to study at college and higher education institutions. Of course, the significant change that the bill makes is to expand the Scottish Funding Council’s role. It will be a fundamental redesign of the tertiary education and skills landscape. The SFC will be expected to evolve its structures, capabilities and culture, and it is ready for that. Throughout the bill process and in today’s debate, members have raised legitimate questions about the SFC’s capacity, culture and accountability.”
“At this late stage—we are debating stage 3 after 9 o’clock on a Tuesday evening—does he know yet what the tipping point would be for future legislation that would threaten such classification? Ben Macpherson: I have said many times that, overall, that is a decision for ONS. Our responsibility, which my officials, ministerial colleagues and I have thoughtfully carried out throughout the process, is to ensure that we do not exert control over universities. Douglas Ross listens very carefully, so he will have heard the way in which I have dealt with the stage 2 proceedings and even the stage 3 proceedings today. A vote for the bill is a vote for significant change. It is a vote for colleges, universities and training providers to work more cohesively to deliver high- quality, future-ready education and training.”
“It will continue to evolve in partnership with the Parliament, the education sector and the business community. It is important to emphasise that many in the business community support the bill. For example, this week, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Food and Drink Federation Scotland emphasised their support. Most importantly, the bill will continue to evolve with the people whom we serve. Of course, staff are working to support learners and innovation every day. That is why I am pleased that Colleges Scotland, Universities Scotland and the Scottish Training Federation, as well as many significant employers—large and small—support the bill. Douglas Ross: The minister just mentioned Universities Scotland. One of the key issues that it has raised throughout the bill process has been Office for National Statistics classification.”
“Part of our responsibility, as we serve in this place, and as we serve all those people, is to ensure continuously that our systems are adapted and ready—for our people and for the future. As the report co-authored by Audrey Cumberford of Edinburgh College, which is in my constituency, stated, the future world of work and skills will be “volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous”. Therefore, we need to adapt. We need a system that is agile; that enables even more of our people to make the most of their natural talents; that meets our collaborative and collective needs and fosters diversity, creativity and collaboration; that is cohesive; and that enables us to remain globally competitive. Once implemented, the bill will deliver a sound and balanced foundation for a simpler, more joined-up tertiary education and training system.”
“While we have been considering stage 3 tonight, there will be—or will have been; I hope that they will be in their beds now—children wondering what they will do when they grow up. We must help to inspire them. There will be teenagers deciding what choices to make at school and on the next step of their pathway, and we must help to guide them. There will be those who are part of generation Z who will be wondering how they will navigate the challenges ahead in an increasingly unsettling world, and we must seek to reassure them. There will also be older folks, some of whom might be anxious or excited about the possibility of retraining or upskilling, and we must seek to support them.”
“The bill does not deliver that. The Presiding Officer: I call the minister to wind up the debate. You have a very generous six minutes, minister. 20:56 Ben Macpherson: I thank members for all their contributions, particularly Ross Greer and others from the Scottish Green Party, and Willie Rennie and others from the Scottish Liberal Democrats, for engaging extremely constructively in this process and for helping to progress this important legislation. I record my thanks to my team of officials, who have worked incredibly hard, proactively and thoughtfully. Together, with care, we have progressed this bill. Nurturing our people, who are the most important part of our society and our greatest resource, is an extremely important responsibility.”
“It is very important to note that, right from the outset, the committee could not find agreement on that issue. The Scottish Conservatives will continue to champion a skills system that is demand led, employer informed and genuinely focused on opportunity, but we cannot support legislation that risks adding complexity at a time when institutions are fragile and learners are already being let down. In the words of Milton Friedman, “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” That applies to politicians and Governments, too. Reform should be about outcomes, not upheaval. This reform should lead to more apprenticeships and more training for people, young and old alike, to enable them to succeed; stronger colleges, clearer pathways; and better value for money.”
“I am glad that he returned to that in his closing remarks, but I would note that function does not need to be under one roof for it to be aligned. As Willie Rennie mentioned, that can be achieved through strong leadership, and through different processes and different bodies. I am a little bit disappointed in Willie Rennie and the Liberal Democrats that they are supporting the bill. They should not be voting through bad legislation. Although I fully understand the point about knocking on doors and meeting the people affected by the decisions that are made in this place, voting through bad law does a disservice to the people we are here to serve. The last point that I want to highlight is the one that was mentioned by Douglas Ross on ONS classification, which the committee could neither support nor oppose at stage 1.”
“Those are not abstract concerns; they go to the heart of how young people access skills and qualifications. Some improvements have been made at stage 2, and we welcome greater transparency and stronger governance provisions. However, the changes do not resolve the core problem: the bill still does not guarantee that money will reach the front line, apprenticeship numbers will increase or technical education will finally be given parity of esteem, as it deserves. I turn to a couple of points that have been made tonight. Daniel Johnson said—as I have done— that effecting reform without clarity and strategy is a flawed approach. If we do not know whether the structure is right, how can it be delivered? I intervened on Ross Greer in his opening speech to make the same point.”
“The Withers review set out a compelling case for reducing fragmentation and bureaucracy, but structures alone do not deliver outcomes, and reforms without clarity create risk. Even at stage 3, uncertainty remains around costs, staffing transfers and pension liabilities. Ministers have revised estimates, but they are still estimates so the Parliament is being asked to approve a substantial change without full confidence in its long-term financial impact. There is genuine concern about delivery. Stakeholders have warned that the proposals could become more complex, more costly and slower to implement than envisaged. Unison has raised concerns about risk to the quality and volumes of apprenticeships and to staff. Education leaders have warned that foundation apprenticeships could be weakened or unintentionally sidelined.”
“However, despite that pressure, the SNP has presided over a situation in which £171 million of the money raised from employers through the apprenticeship levy has not been spent on apprenticeships. Scottish businesses have paid £875 million into the levy since 2020, but only £704 million has been spent on graduate, foundation and modern apprenticeships. That £171 million should have gone directly to training opportunities. Against that backdrop, the bill proposes a major structural reorganisation, transferring responsibility for apprenticeships and national training programmes from Skills Development Scotland to the Scottish Funding Council, which will significantly expand the SFC’s remit, staffing and responsibilities. We agreed with the principle of simplifying the landscape.”
“Student head count is down, enrolments are down and institutions are increasingly fragile. Colleges Scotland has been clear that a number of institutions are already in a precarious position, and the Scottish Funding Council’s capacity to support them is under serious strain even before any major organisational change begins. At the same time, apprenticeship demand continues to far outstrip supply. Employers are crying out for skills. We know that demand is close to 40,000 apprenticeship places a year, yet only around 25,000 are being delivered. Young people compete with 60 to 80 other applicants for every place. That does not illustrate a system that is working.”
“Scotland needs a skills system that values apprenticeships and technical education just as highly as it does academic routes. That should not be a controversial goal, and it is one that the Scottish Conservatives have long supported. The bill was an opportunity to deliver that change. Unfortunately, even as amended, the bill falls short: it does not provide the clarity, funding confidence or delivery plans that learners, employers and providers were promised. For that reason, the Scottish Conservatives will not support it tonight, as has already been said. I will start by looking at the context. Under the SNP, college capacity has collapsed. The number of full-time equivalent places has fallen by more than 8,000 to just over 116,000, which is the lowest level on record.”
“We wrestled with similar challenges during the progress of the Education (Scotland) Act 2025 and the need to replace the Scottish Qualifications Authority. Legislating to change culture is not easy, but we have made a number of amendments to the bill, particularly those dealing with the membership of the council and the apprenticeship committee. It is not perfect and there was a range of views, so we needed to compromise, but I think that we have established an underpinning structure that should allow for the kind of cohesive culture that will, in turn, create the alignment that we all expect to get from the system. 20:24”
“We are also trying to legislate for cultural change because part of the difficulty in getting the whole sector to line up behind that objective comes from the cultural differences between the organisations. Again, I think that will be part of the value of having everything sitting under one roof. It was clear in the Audit Scotland report in particular that the different cultures in the two organisations led to significant barriers to achieving the kind of alignment that Withers and Audit Scotland asked for and which I believe Parliament expects. That is one reason why we support the bill: bringing more parts of the system under one roof should reduce the risk of the sort of culture clash that we saw between the two organisations.”
“This goes beyond signalling ‘economic transformation’ or ‘net zero’ into a specific articulation, aligned to strategic policy intentions, of the sectors and occupations that will be critical to their delivery and their workforce needs.” In essence, he calls for fewer buzzwords and more clear strategic direction, and his point about net zero is one obvious example of that. We need far more people who are trained to install and maintain heat pumps, we must transition the existing workforce who deal with gas boilers, and we need to increase the workforce. However, during my party’s time in government, I saw how hard it was to get the system to line up behind that objective.”