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 4 of 12.
“I apologise if the member has moved on from the subject but, if we do not have a clear strategy, how will we know that the outcomes will be met? Ross Greer: In part, ministers will have a far greater ability to direct the strategy when more of the objectives and purposes are sitting under one roof. There is a need for greater ministerial direction, and some of the amendments that we have made to the bill should also aid that greater strategic alignment. I will quote from paragraph 417 of the report by James Withers, where he says that “there must be a clear articulation of the areas that are a national priority.”
“Part of that work is the short, sharp review that the Opposition has asked for, which we are delivering, but it is also about data identification and using that data to better support children and young people. I will come back to Ms McCall on the final part of her question, but I hope that that gives her reassurance, because I share her concern about having a strategic approach.”
“Jenny Gilruth: I did not quite catch the end of Ms McCall’s question on ADHD and autism, but I will catch up with her following this question-and- answer session to make sure that I have given her an answer on that point. Ms McCall makes a hugely important point about CAMHS and the interaction that we have between health and education. I am mindful that some such matters sit with health ministers, but we need a much more consistent and strategic approach to supporting children and young people in our schools. We have to reflect that, post- pandemic, the cohort of pupils in our schools has fundamentally changed and, as a Government, we need to update and respond to that change.”
“I welcome the cabinet secretary’s statement. It is so important that each individual child gets the relevant support that they need to succeed, and we will know that only if the data is collected and collated correctly. In every answer so far, the cabinet secretary has mentioned the new national programme to improve ASL data, but I am concerned that issues in child and adolescent mental health services and a lack of a coherent mental health diagnosis framework mean that we are not fully aware of all the children who need additional support. How will the cabinet secretary ensure that the data collection and the proposals that come from the review include all relevant children? Will she agree to review the pathways for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism?”
“It states that “to keep the promise, the Bill must include an extension to the offer of advocacy beyond the entry point to the Children’s Hearings System to children where voluntary measures are in place and provide clarity about the definition of ‘independence’”. That is paramount. We need to know what the definition of “independent advocacy” is. The briefing from Barnardo’s tells us that uptake of its own form of advocacy support, when the offer is made directly to the child or young person, is over 90 per cent and that advocacy needs to be offered at different stages of the process.”
“There must be specific and focussed attention given to meeting the needs of babies and very young children as without amendment to this Bill in a number of crucial areas, the rights of some of Scotland’s most vulnerable children will ... go unmet.” We know that if brain development is properly nurtured in the earliest years, that will greatly enhance a person’s chances and prospects in later life, and that any delay to that is acutely detrimental. The independent care review recommended a right to independent advocacy for care- experienced people, and access to independent advocacy in the children’s hearing system must be strengthened. That is essential. The Promise Scotland would like to see earlier access to advocacy for children.”
“In its briefing for today, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children provided the most sobering of statistics. It stated that, of the 503 children with child protection order referrals received by the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration in 2024/25, a quarter were under the age of 20 days—less than a month—at the date of receipt, 37.6 per cent were aged under one and 44.5 per cent were aged under two. Working with babies is profoundly different from making decisions about adolescents with agency—indeed, babies are uniquely vulnerable. The NSPCC further stated that “the Bill as it stands does not account for the unique and specific needs and rights of babies and very young children.”
“I am sure that members know that we on these benches will support the bill at this stage and will vote for it in principle at decision time. However, we have some concerns, which we have already spoken to the minister about. I put it on the record that I thank the minister for the welcome engagement that she has had with us in that regard. The bill needs strengthening as it goes through the stages—and certainly at stage 2—otherwise we will again miss an opportunity to take us towards that 2030 deadline. The Promise says: “There must be an approach to care and support that is based on early intervention and prevention”. I fully believe that, which is why I am concerned that the proposals in the bill are not sufficient for the very youngest in the process.”
“I make no apology in saying that, as much as the bill is a step in the right direction, I cannot help but see the potential that was omitted from it, which unfortunately hides its good intentions. We all know that the next Parliament will need to introduce another bill to make good on our agreed cross-party position to make the necessary changes to keep the Promise by 2030. As I said, however, the bill is a step in the right direction. Before I speak on the bill in depth, I thank the Education, Children and Young People Committee for all the work that it has done to produce the stage 1 report. I give thanks, too, to the clerks and other staff and to everyone who came to give evidence. It is a comprehensive report that stands us in good stead for the next stages as the bill progresses.”
“I am pleased to speak in the stage 1 debate on the Children (Care, Care Experience and Service Planning) (Scotland) Bill—or the triple C ESP bill, as it was described to me the other day. As much as the bill is a welcome addition to the plethora of just-in-time bills that are being introduced in the final weeks before we break up for the election, it would be remiss of me not to say that, although it first held so much promise, it is unfortunately not what we hoped for. Collectively, we were hoping for a Promise bill that made all the legislative changes required to fulfil the actual Promise, but alas, the bill in front of us is a little lacklustre with regard to that initial goal.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the request from the Scottish Retail Consortium, Go Forth Stirling BID, and other business improvement districts for Scotland to follow England and introduce a permanent business rate discount for all retail, hospitality and leisure premises. (S6O-05368)”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reported concerns from businesses across Scotland that have recently received letters confirming a revaluation of their non-domestic rate liability. (S6O-05341)”
“Running a business in Scotland is hard enough without these draconian revaluations, and we must stand together in the Parliament to support our high streets. 16:31”
“The police were often called to secure the properties or halt people trespassing in the dangerous buildings, or even to move on young people who found breaking windows to be an enjoyable form of target practice. As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, inaction is not an option. If the Scottish Government does not use its position to intervene on the revaluations by reviewing and setting different guidance, creating a pause and changing the rules for the independent assessors, then more businesses will close, there will be more unemployment and more buildings will fall into dilapidation. Further interventions from police and local authorities will be needed. Another fiscal catastrophe is looming.”
“They are not only a worry for the local infrastructure but a literal blot on the landscape, bringing down the look of this stunning rural town. This is the problem that we must recognise: forcing high street businesses into liquidation due to punitive rates increases will only result in more hotel, retail and hospitality businesses closing, while the buildings that they occupy will likely end up having a detrimental effect on the public purse. That is exactly what happened in Crieff. The situation became an issue for the local authority, with Perth and Kinross Council having to step in to spend millions of pounds to ensure public safety, support community buyouts and financially back town regeneration, which put additional strain on already stretched public funding.”
“They were unable to be bought by someone new as the business model would not secure a return. The major investment that was needed would be an instant loss, and any chance of providing local employment was a pipe dream. As investments for development, the properties were hindered by listed building status or local authority regulations. Again, the financial cost of regenerating the properties was prohibitive. For years, those buildings, although they were privately owned, could not be repaired, sold, utilised or regenerated, and they therefore became dilapidated. Slowly eroding, the buildings became a breeding ground for broken glass and buddleia—a vandal’s playground and a hazard for police and the local community.”
“Inaction cannot be a position of the Scottish Government. We can bandy around percentages, facts and figures, but I want to talk about how the issue affects real people in real communities. I will highlight a situation that is affecting Crieff in my region. It is in no way an isolated case; the same situation exists in towns, cities and high streets all across Scotland. Crieff is an amazing rural town with many fantastic attributes, and it is a wonderful place to live. However, for many decades, Crieff has had a trifecta of dilapidated buildings. Three once- beautiful hotel and hospitality establishments were left to decay and rot. Those pubs and hotels were no longer viable. The cost of running the businesses simply outweighed the return, and they were closed. As businesses, they were no longer a going concern.”
“I rise to speak on the motion because I fully agree with my colleague and friend Murdo Fraser that the matter is, indeed, urgent. The Scottish Government must act before we see many Scottish businesses fail and close, which would further add to the demise of our high streets. The non-domestic rates issue is not only a double-edged sword; I would go so far as to say that it is a quadruple-edged sword, if that is even a thing. It has not only a detrimental impact on the businesses themselves, but a negative impact on the long-term tax revenue, on the visual in our high streets, on the economy and local jobs, and on the finances of our local authorities. This is such an important issue that I would go so far as to state that the consequences of inaction will have a dire effect right across the country.”
“I recognise the minister’s willingness to lodge amendments on retention at stage 2, and I welcome her collaborative approach on that issue and to the bill in general. It is welcome that this bill has finally come to pass, and I sincerely hope that stages 2 and 3 are equally congenial. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms McCall—I am grateful to you for not using all six of your four minutes. 13:33”
“If I had to find anything that might be a small negative in regard to the bill, it would be that it has been a long time coming. The Scottish Law Commission has been looking at issues related to contract law since it was established in 1965, and the bill follows recommendations that the Law Commission made in 2018. It has been seven years in the making, which is perhaps a little disappointing. I highlight the committee’s findings regarding retention. The Law Commission’s report stated that the law of retention did not need statutory reform, but that was not an accepted position when the Scottish Government consulted on the report back in 2024. Stakeholders have advised that the law of retention is now less clear than it was when the Law Commission published its report and that the law would benefit from clarification.”
“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.] Lawyers are in agreement. The Law Society of Scotland supports the proposed reforms, stating: “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.” Who are we to disagree? In layman’s terms, the bill makes it easier to understand the legalities around contracts, the implications of them and, if needed, the ability to contract out.”
“They said: “Considering the landscape of contemporary litigation in Scotland, it is increasingly evident that reform is needed— particularly due to the limited body of case law and a discernible hesitancy within the Scottish judiciary to articulate general principles beyond the specific factual matrix of individual cases.” Business is in agreement. The Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland supports the bill’s overall aims, with Colin Borland stating: “It is quite sensible to have the bill to provide clear backstops where they have not been agreed in other terms by the parties. That makes perfect sense.”
“I take the opportunity to thank the Scottish Law Commission and everyone who participated in the evidence sessions. Additional thanks go to the clerks and staff on the committee for all their hard work. As has been stated, the bill makes provision regarding the formation of contracts and the remedies for breach of contract. Many stakeholders have found the legal framework around contract law to be difficult to navigate. The Scottish Law Commission’s work leading up to the bill’s introduction concluded that some parts of contract law were unclear, difficult to find and in need of modernisation, and the bill rectifies those issues. Academics are in agreement. Professor Stephen Bogle and Professor Tom Johnson from the University of Glasgow support the proposed reforms.”
“It gives me pleasure to speak in the stage 1 debate on the Contract (Formation and Remedies) (Scotland) Bill. I inform members—whoever is left in the chamber—that I do not intend to take my full six minutes, but please do not in any way take that as a comment about the importance of the bill. In my short career as a member of the Scottish Parliament, I have not had the pleasure of working on a bill that has been supported by pretty much everyone who gave evidence. Only one respondent, Dr Jonathan Brown from the University of Strathclyde, was against the proposals. Although I understand his passion for the continued support of Scottish common law, clarification in the area of contract law has been needed for some time and, as has been mentioned, the bill is universally supported by stakeholders.”
“The early removal of a clot reduces the amount of the brain that is damaged, and many patients fully recover to lead full and productive lives. It is estimated that each patient treated by thrombectomy saves the national health service around £47,000 per patient in on-going support. However, if someone has a stroke at 5.30 on a Friday afternoon, their chances of recovering fully are drastically reduced. In my closing remarks, I say to the minister that, as much as I join other members today in recognising aphasia, I believe that a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week national thrombectomy service would go a long way to reducing not only the numbers of stroke victims and what they have to put up with, but the numbers of those with aphasia. I urge the Government to stand by its 2023 commitment for them all. 18:19”
“There are currently around 150,000 people in Scotland who are living with the effects of stroke, and 50,000 people are living with aphasia as a result. We know that 10,000 strokes occur in Scotland annually; that Scotland has the highest stroke incidence in the United Kingdom; that outcomes are poorer here than in the other UK nations; and that stroke is the leading cause of adult disability. Those are shocking statistics, so we must end the cycle through affirmative action. I have spoken many times in the chamber about the need for a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week national thrombectomy service in Scotland. It was in the Government’s “Stroke Improvement Plan 2023”, but we are no further forward in seeing that being implemented on the ground.”
“I ask members to imagine what that must be like: you know what you want to say, but you cannot say it. You are literally trapped inside your own head, and basic communication with loved ones or friends is challenging at best. You are, in effect, locked in. I cannot comprehend how that must feel. That is why CHSS’s course on “Living well with aphasia”, as the motion says, “focuses on giving stroke survivors the information, skills and resources to live well with the condition”. That is vital, and I applaud CHSS’s support in that regard. I also call on the Government to improve access to supported self-management and rehabilitation services for people who are living with aphasia. What is most concerning is that all that comes from damage to the brain, possibly from a head injury but more commonly derived from stroke.”
“I believe that, in order to do that, we have to take one step back and look at the main causes of aphasia and at what we can do to prevent it from happening in the first place. The phrase “prevention is better than cure” has never applied more, and we must move towards preventative medicine wherever possible. As Ms Mackay mentioned in her opening remarks, aphasia is a language and speech disorder that happens when the language centres of the brain are damaged. Aphasia does not affect a person’s intelligence, but people have difficulty finding and saying what they want to say, and they have trouble understanding other people. There are challenges with reading, writing and numbers, and everyday tasks such as using the telephone, asking for directions and socialising become particularly frustrating.”
“I thank Rona Mackay for securing this members’ business debate today, more so because it is the first time that aphasia has been debated as a stand-alone issue in the Scottish Parliament. I welcome one of my constituents, Nancy Bannon, who is in the gallery with other members of Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland’s aphasia reference group. I also thank Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland and the Stroke Association for their briefings for the debate. The recognition of this issue within the Scottish Parliament has been called an “historic event” by the reference group, as Rona Mackay referred to, but I feel that recognition is a long time coming. We, in this place, must stop procrastinating, and we must use this debate as a stepping stone to do more to combat the condition of aphasia and to support people who suffer from it.”
“To ask the Scottish Government when it will publish further details of the estimated true cost of its net zero policies for households in Scotland. (S6O-05285)”
“When will the cabinet secretary finally address that issue so that the early years funding model can actually guarantee that no child is left behind? Jenny Gilruth: It is imperative that we focus on primary 1 pupils—the Covid babies as I called them in my statement—and intensify progress in that regard. Natalie Don-Innes and I are looking at a programme of work across Government to intensify some of that progress—Ms Don-Innes leads on early learning and childcare as the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise. The member will have seen a dip in the uptake of early learning and childcare among our eligible two-year-olds in the statistics today. Again, we need to work with local authority partners on that, and I will meet them in the coming days to talk about how we might be able to intensify progress on that.”
“I, too, welcome Paul O’Kane to his new role. I noted the reference to early years funding in the statement and the subsequent request for advice from the primary headteachers national panel about the decrease in attainment at primary 1 level. I also welcome the request that, when the new chief inspector is appointed, they should look at that specific issue, and note that the Government remains determined to leave no child behind. However, the Government has not addressed the funding model that is causing disparity in provision, resulting in a postcode lottery that means that some parents are being prevented from accessing childcare that is most suitable to their needs and to the needs of their child.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I confirm to members that we have exhausted all the time that we had in hand. I call Jackie Dunbar to wind up the debate on behalf of the Education, Children and Young People Committee. 16:52”
“It will also enable Skills Development Scotland to fully emphasise careers advice and to bring together funding for apprenticeships and for higher and further education in order to create greater agility and efficiency, making us more responsive to the needs of the 21st century. I will meet the commissioner for fair access in the days ahead. I look forward to hearing more from him and the committee about the important issues that have been raised, so that we can continue to work together towards meeting the 2030 target to create greater access to higher education for those for whom it is the right opportunity. If we achieve the 2030 target, create those opportunities and allow people to succeed in the way that is best for them, that will benefit us all in terms of fairness and economic activity.”
“Ministers will consider the asks that have been made, recognising the important contribution that colleges make and their collective determination to continue adapting to meet the modern needs of our communities and economy. Bill Kidd made some specific requests that I do not have time to go through. I give him the assurance that I will write to him on the points that he raised, and I will share that information with the committee. In conclusion, I emphasise the importance of the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill. Members are being unfairly and unhelpfully dismissive of the impact that the legislation can make in the medium to longer term.”
“However, it is also important to consider colleges as a destination in their own right. If we want to achieve parity of esteem, we must respect colleges and appreciate their role. Almost one third—32.5 per cent—of new entrants to university in 2023-24 progressed from higher education courses at colleges, which emphasises the importance of our college sector. The UK Government’s budget was not generous; indeed, it was extremely disappointing in many ways. However, although the financial circumstances are still very tight, now that the Scottish Government knows what resources it has been allocated by the UK Government, we are in a position to consider the situation that is facing our colleges.”
“She emphasised the challenges in her North East Scotland region. That is a good example of why the amendment at stage 2 of the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill that we discussed yesterday is so important. We have a good opportunity in that primary legislation to make a change that will allow us to share data better in order to provide more opportunities for widening access. That will make a difference for individuals and for our country in relation to what Willie Rennie rightly emphasised about boosting economic activity. That data sharing will be important. What members have emphasised on college funding is also important. We recognise the situation with our colleges and their huge contribution to providing opportunities for individuals to move on to universities, if that is what they wish to do.”
“What we do not know is what his Government will do to continue that progress, if he believes that there has been progress, or to improve progress, because others have said that it has stalled. What is the Government going to do to address the concerns and the recommendations in our report? That is what we need to hear from the Government. Ben Macpherson: I appreciate that fair challenge from the convener and from other members. I was getting on to that, and I will try to address some of it now, although I did address some matters in my opening remarks. It is unfair to say that I did not address anything—of course I did. I will turn to other points that were raised. Maggie Chapman rightly emphasised that SIMD is not a sufficient data pool for achieving the impact that we need to and want to.”
“Retention rates are also in a more positive place than has been stated. Retention rates for full-time first-degree students returning for a second year in 2023-24 increased among Scotland-domiciled students at Scottish universities, reaching 89.5 per cent. Rates also rose for students from deprived areas, to 86.1 per cent, and for care-experienced students, to 84.9 per cent. Douglas Ross: In his intervention on the minister’s opening speech, Willie Rennie suggested that the minister had taken four minutes of an eight-minute speech to tell us things that were not necessarily the focus of the debate. The minister has taken three minutes of a six-minute closing speech to tell us figures that we know— they are available publicly.”
“That also signifies that we cannot deliver alone as a Government—we need to work with partners. We are setting clear expectations on the sector and are confident that we will meet the 2030 target. The latest figures for 2023-24 show that 16.7 per cent of full-time first degree entrants to Scottish universities came from our nation’s 20 per cent most deprived areas. That marks an increase from 16.3 per cent in the previous year. The figures also show an increase in the number of Scotland-domiciled students at Scottish universities to slightly under 174,000, as well as a rise in full-time Scottish first-degree entrants. I put those figures on the record, along with the fact that the proportion of care-experienced students at universities has increased every year since 2016- 17, to counter Opposition members’ comments that suggest otherwise.”
“First, I want to highlight the contribution of George Adam, who, while being fairly critical and asking for more progress to be made, rightly reminded us that we need to consider the progress that has been made. I must say that some of the stats put forward by Opposition members, particularly by the Labour Party, do not necessarily correspond with the situation as I see it or with the stats that the Government holds. As I have emphasised, in 2023-24, the number of Scots from deprived areas entering university on full-time first degree courses was up by 37 per cent in comparison with the number when the Government established the commission on widening access. We should all welcome that significant progress. That is exemplified by George Adam’s comments regarding the University of the West of Scotland and the Open University.”
“Widening access is not a trophy to polish; it is a responsibility to Scotland’s young people, our institutions and our future. The Scottish Government must stop congratulating itself—we have had that in speeches today—and start delivering a credible funded plan that gives every young person a fair chance to get in, stay in and succeed. Our young people deserve nothing less. 16:45 Ben Macpherson: This has been a good debate on our shared collective responsibility for widening access and building on the significant progress that has been made to date. Several excellent speeches have been made, and there has been constructive engagement.”
“If we do not recognise that it has stalled, we cannot fix it. Stephen Kerr and Brian Whittle highlighted the fact that careers advice in our schools is not doing the job that it needs to do. Careers advice is the gateway to firing the imagination of our young people to be anything that they want to be. I am sure that my nephew will be thrilled when I tell people that, when he was five, he wanted to be a giraffe, but that is what we are talking about—the imagination that can fire from young people. We should be doing more on that. Miles Briggs and Willie Rennie mentioned work- based learning. I attended Glasgow’s Central College of Commerce on day release, because I went through a management training scheme at House of Fraser stores. We must do more to encourage work-based placement.”
“They reflect intensive evidence, the sector’s concerns and what students themselves are telling us. I want to highlight a couple of points from members’ contributions. The unique learning number has been mentioned by Douglas Ross, Willie Rennie, Brian Whittle, Martin Whitfield and Stephen Kerr. For me, it is the data retention from that number that is important. How on earth will we know whether the approach is working if we do not have the data? The people who are being let down are the children who need it the most. Ben Macpherson and Jamie Hepburn, and George Adam, in a very positive speech, highlighted what progress has been made. We on these benches have spoken strongly about what more needs to be done. I am willing to accept that there has been progress but, as Willie Rennie and Stephen Kerr mentioned, that progress has stalled.”
“It is those human elements that matter, because behind every statistic is a young person who just wants a fair chance: the student who might be the first in their family to consider university; the college learner hoping to articulate into year 2 but finding fewer and fewer pathways available; the care-experienced young person determined to break cycles but still not getting consistent guidance; or the student from a rural or island community who feels forgotten because SIMD alone does not reflect their reality. If widening access is to mean anything, it must mean fairness for all of them. I will not rehearse every recommendation in the committee’s report, but I will say clearly that the Scottish Government should heed those recommendations.”
“As Miles Briggs mentioned, we do not have the data on how many follow through to the degree instead of just entering further education, which is why we must do more. Widening access is also about wellbeing. When a young person spends every day worrying about money, housing, caring responsibilities or travel costs, how can we possibly expect them to focus on their studies? How can we ask them to achieve their potential while ignoring the reality of their daily lives?”
“It means addressing the rising deficits across the sector, where, without the surpluses of two large universities, the rest of Scotland’s institutions would be collectively in the red. It means listening to organisations that have told us clearly that very few of the previous recommendations on disabled students have been implemented. Young people with disabilities are being let down, and so are care-experienced students, who face inconsistencies across institutions at the very moment when stability is the most important thing to them. Those are young people for whom widening access is supposed to matter most. I have spoken many times about the issues that surround the care-experienced community. It is well documented that change for that community is met with fear and anxiety. That is simply not good enough.”
“Professor John McKendrick, our commissioner for fair access, reminded us that, even in a free education system, students must be able to live, travel and support themselves. Those are costs that bursaries do not cover. Those are not the voices of political opponents; they are the voices of experts, practitioners and advocates. They are the people who work directly with our young people every day, and they are all saying the same thing: the system is not working as it should. Widening access should not be about getting students through the door; rather, it must be about ensuring that they thrive once they are there. It means proper funding for colleges, universities and the support services that students rely on.”
“The committee heard, and we have heard again today, that the current system is not delivering on its promises. As Willie Rennie and others mentioned, progress for students from the most deprived communities has stalled. For two years, the proportion of SIMD 20 school leavers entering higher education has been stuck at 26.8 per cent and the interim target for 2026 is slipping out of reach. Those are not just numbers; they are young people who deserve better. Universities Scotland told the committee that public investment in each Scottish student has fallen by £3,000 in real terms since 2014-15. Colleges Scotland warned that colleges simply do not have the resources to provide students, especially those with additional support needs, with the experience and support that they require.”
“It gives me pleasure to wind up on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. I am grateful for the contributions that have been made from across the chamber. As others have done, I thank the committee, the clerks, the staff and all the contributors for their hard work in producing the report. At the heart of the debate is a simple truth: widening access to higher education must be about real opportunity—not headlines or political self-congratulation but real opportunity for the young people in our communities who dare to dream bigger than the circumstances that they were born into. Too many talented young people in Scotland are still being held back by their background, postcode or personal circumstances and, every time that happens, Scotland loses out not just socially but economically, culturally and morally.”