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 6 of 12.
“Every headteacher I know who has implemented a ban has worked to provide support to those groups. It is important that headteachers can do that, and the national guidance gives headteachers advice and guidance on how they might do it. We have heard contributions from members across the chamber, so I will comment on some. With his impassioned delivery, Stephen Kerr spoke about the importance of evidence, and I agree with him whole-heartedly on that point. That is why the Scottish Government regularly commissions evidence on behaviour in Scotland’s schools, the last round of which was published two years ago. We should also remember that the findings from the BISSR reflected wider societal changes, which is the point that I think that Patrick Harvie was making.”
“We also recognise more broadly the impact that mobile phone use can have in our classrooms, such as in a class of 30 pupils, each of whom is receiving 18 notifications an hour, which causes significant disruption to learning and teaching. There is also a consensus that, when mobile phones are causing problems, it is entirely appropriate for schools to act to restrict young people’s access to them. However, where we differ—Willie Rennie rightly spoke about this—is in how potential bans should be implemented. Let us remember that the headteacher of Portobello high school took nine months to implement his full ban, and it was not a top-down ban—he was working with the whole school community. Neil Bibby rightly pointed out that some pupils have additional support needs and caring responsibilities.”
“As I said in my opening remarks, there is a lot of consensus around the chamber on the issue. We all recognise the significant harm that mobiles can cause when they are used inappropriately or maliciously. Many of us will have had personal experience of that. This morning, I was listening to a group of pupils at Portobello high school, and one of them spoke eloquently about the impact of the mobile phone ban in Portobello. She said: “When our phones went down, our heads went up.” The comment stayed with me throughout the morning, during our interactions with the international council of education advisers, which is here at the moment.”
“The results in increased learning and attainment among the pupils in those schools are there for all to see. I have previously highlighted the fundamental point that children should be children. There is an innocence that we, as a nation, should nurture rather than destroy. The effects of mobile phones on growing and developing minds are only just beginning to be explored. So far, the isolation and anxiety that come from social media are deeply concerning. The issue is more important than we currently know or are aware of, and I urge the Scottish Government to update its guidance with clear national direction on what is expected, just as the Scottish Conservatives’ amendment suggests. 15:47 Jenny Gilruth: I welcome the contributions made by members this afternoon.”
“Stephen Kerr’s contribution was excellent, highlighting the international results that have come from mobile phone bans. Patrick Harvie made a valid point, but the influence of social media is a different debate . We know that there are algorithms that can spin us off down a rabbit hole, and whether it be far-right or leftist propaganda, we are aware that many of our young people might be seeing harmful ideology on social media. However, that is definitely a different debate. Finally, on Willie Rennie’s point, there needs to be a clear signal to our headteachers so that they know and can believe that we are behind them and that they will be listened to in what they are calling for. We have recently heard many positive accounts from schools that have taken steps to limit or even ban mobile phones in classroom time.”
“Even though some local authorities have availed themselves of the guidance that empowers headteachers to restrict mobile use, there is still uncertainty and there is more room in the guidance. That is why national guidance must be clear about what is expected of our headteachers. I will mention a couple of points that came up in the debate. I listened to Karen Adam’s contribution, but I do not think that it was about what we have been discussing in the debate. Pam Duncan-Glancy and Miles Briggs mentioned the violence in the classroom that is exacerbated by mobile phones, which was also mentioned in the teachers survey. I think that we can all agree that teachers and classroom assistants should have a working environment that is completely free from violence, threats and bullying.”
“Surely we must all agree that it is essential that our classrooms are conducive to inquiring young minds learning, inquiring and growing. That has to happen in a structured atmosphere and without external influences or mechanisms to distract young people from the task that is in front of them. In 2024, a Scottish Secondary Teachers Association survey found that 71 per cent of its members believed that the misuse of mobile phones had a negative impact on behaviour and learning, while more than 90 per cent of their lessons were being interrupted by students having to be asked to put away their mobile phones. Three quarters of teachers said that mobile phones disrupted nearly all their lessons. Those are very stark figures.”
“I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, and I thank Pam Duncan- Glancy and Scottish Labour for again bringing to the chamber an issue of concern that I think we can all see within Scotland’s education system. The use of mobiles in classrooms has been a concern of the Scottish Conservatives for many years. The point was first raised by my colleague Sue Webber back in November 2023. I think that we were discussing violence in schools at the time. We are almost two years on and are still debating the negative influences of mobiles being incorrectly utilised in our schools. The Scottish Conservatives have been aware of the issue for years and have been lobbying to ensure that Scotland’s young people have suitable learning environments in the classroom.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that alcohol-specific deaths in Scotland remain above 1,000 for the 12th year in a row. (S6O-05009)”
“Let us act together to take the bill forward and support our learners and employers to better serve our people and our economy. For all those reasons and more, I ask the Parliament to support the bill. Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill: Financial Resolution 16:59”
“Ross Greer referred to the use of data. I am keen to make progress on that and I am cautiously optimistic that the bill provides an opportunity to make appropriate provision for data sharing. That is another reason to continue to consider legislating in this area. A vote for the bill is a vote for significant change that will put learners at the heart of a system that works for them and, in turn, for employers, the economy and our society. It is a vote for cutting through bureaucracy, improving funding flows and maximising public value, and for a better-joined-up system, with colleges, universities and training providers all playing a vital role in delivering high- quality, future-ready education and training. It is a chance to create a more efficient, more innovative and truly collaborative system.”
“That is one of the strong reasons for progressing with consideration of the bill. It was either Sarah Boyack or Brian Whittle who asked questions—this is relevant to what I said in response to Mr Rennie—about how we provide focus to specific skill areas. That is exactly what bringing all the provision together is intended to enable. Brian Whittle: Will the minister give way? Ben Macpherson: I am sorry—I am pressed for time, otherwise I would do so. To answer a question about SDS staff—I should have done so earlier—should the bill progress, around 150 to 180 people will be expected to move from SDS to the SFC. Pam Duncan-Glancy: Will the minister give way on that point? Ben Macpherson: I am afraid that I need to make progress. The committee highlighted widening access and the use of free school meals data to measure that.”
“It will enable innovation of the right provision for the need—whether that is a short course or an apprenticeship. The bill will provide that breadth of options. Willie Rennie: Will the minister take an intervention? Ben Macpherson: I will, if I have time to do so. Willie Rennie: I understand that point in principle, but we need tangible examples. Everything is theoretical just now; we need something more tangible. Ben Macpherson: I appreciate that that is the call to me. I have tried to give that to the Parliament at a high level today, but I am enthusiastic about following up on that as we progress. Others raised points about SMEs. The FSB has stated its support for the bill. We need to ask ourselves whether SMEs are being catered for properly in the current system.”
“The figures that my predecessor provided in a follow-up to the committee’s report are refined ones. I commit to continuing to engage with the committee through the bill process and to probing the costs further. We need to provide reassurance about implementing IT and pension transfers, because there are two pension schemes in play. I take those points on board. Ross Greer talked about the need to consider the bill as an opportunity for alignment and better value for money. Willie Rennie asked—rightly— what cannot be done in the current situation that the bill will enable to be done. If the bill is passed, the SFC will have oversight of all provision and will be able to flex to employer and business needs— as many have emphasised the need for.”
“The bill aims to build on that strong foundation, and the Government is committed to doing that by transferring apprenticeships and national training programmes to the redesigned funding body in April 2027, if the bill is passed. Others have raised the important question of trade union engagement. I agree that unions must be meaningfully engaged at every stage. They have a pivotal role in shaping the changes that are needed to implement the bill, and we want to ensure that their voices, and those of all staff, are heard. That is why we have established a regular forum with trade unions to discuss implementation. We will continue to engage with the public bodies involved, their staff and the unions at every milestone, should the bill progress and be enacted. The convener and others raised the issue of costings. I appreciate that issue.”
“I have been listening carefully in the chamber, and I will respond to some important points that members raised. The convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee raised the issue of modern apprenticeships. We will work with stakeholders to consider the delivery models for modern apprenticeships, including funding, over the next few years. I am happy to share more detail on that with the committee and with Parliament in due course. The convener rightly emphasised the situation with SDS staff. I will take a moment to acknowledge the significant and valued contribution of those staff and what they have done over the years in building Scotland’s apprenticeship programme, particularly through their leadership on employer engagement, which I have experienced at first hand as a constituency MSP.”
“It is also worth noting that the SFC would not be constituted as it currently is if the bill was to pass—that is worth bearing in mind. The bill will provide a statutory definition of “apprenticeship”, as I said in my opening remarks. Crucially, in my view, that will help to build much better parity of esteem between career paths— which George Adam, Stephen Kerr and Daniel Johnson rightly highlighted as a priority—thereby boosting confidence for employers and learners alike. I emphasise again that the bill is the product of years of listening, gathering evidence and responding to a clear call for change, which has been expressed by members across the chamber today. The Scottish Government has been listening, and I commit to doing so even more, starting from today.”
“For learners, providers and employers, the bill has the potential to make funding simpler and more flexible and transparent so that the system meets Scotland’s growing demand for a variety of skills. The bill will lay the foundation for a stronger future for apprenticeships, as Bill Kidd set out; reform Scotland’s post-school education and skills funding system; and consolidate responsibility and funding for apprenticeships in the SFC. It will thereby strengthen the SFC’s governance powers, too, in order to provide more effective oversight and institutional sustainability. The bill will enable better monitoring of the sector’s financial stability, which John Mason raised. I know that that is of great interest to many members, and I would look to work on that issue ahead of stage 2 to strengthen the system further.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Daniel Johnson. Daniel Johnson: I apologise to Pam Duncan- Glancy. Does the minister recognise that Audit Scotland was clear that the Government does not need to legislate in order to deliver the reforms, which could be done without legislation? To say that we would be voting against legislation may be correct, but it is not correct to say that we would be voting against change. Ben Macpherson: I challenge that. I acknowledge the points that the Audit Scotland report makes. However, a number of points that were made in the debate by Opposition members—including the member to whom I am responding—would require to be addressed by legislative change. I say that in good faith, in that, if the bill passes stage 1 today, I want all members to really engage on it as we move forward together.”
“Taking all that into consideration, with all the constructive criticism respectfully acknowledged, I maintain that the bill could be an important and impactful step towards reforming Scotland’s post- school education and skills funding system, and I believe that Parliament should consider it further by passing the stage 1 motion today. As many members, including Paul McLennan, emphasised, many stakeholders are supportive of the bill. With respect, I say to colleagues in the larger Opposition parties that, by not voting for the bill today, they would in effect be voting against legislating in this area before the end of the current parliamentary session. Daniel Johnson: Will the minister take an intervention on that point? Pam Duncan-Glancy: Will the minister take an intervention on that point? Ben Macpherson: Yes.”
“It risks confusion, cost overruns and lost opportunities. Unless it is significantly strengthened, we will not support it. The Scottish Conservatives will continue to champion the principle of reform, but one that works—a system that is simpler, leaner and built to deliver opportunity. That is what Scotland deserves, and it is what we will fight for. 16:49 Ben Macpherson: First, I emphasise my thanks to all colleagues for their thoughtful and robust contributions and to all those who contributed to the stage 1 evidence and report. I genuinely appreciate the feedback on the bill and, in my concluding remarks, I will respond to as much as possible of what has been said today.”
“Ross Greer pointed out the dysfunctional relationship between the Scottish Funding Council and Skills Development Scotland, saying that the Government should step in to address that. Is legislation the right way to do that? Legislation is about making a fundamental change to structure; perhaps we should be looking at legislation to do that. Stephen Kerr highlighted, quite eloquently, that the whole process should be demand led, and I certainly agree with that. The Withers review gave us a route map to a simpler, fairer and more effective skills system. We should be seizing that opportunity, cutting bureaucracy, reducing duplication and putting money where it matters—into apprenticeships, colleges and places where people will drive forward Scotland’s economy. The bill does not do that.”
“I also welcome the minister’s comments on collaboration with businesses, which we agree is absolutely essential. I have previously mentioned in the chamber that Fife College had to cancel a full year-long social care course due to a lack of care home and business buy-in, based on funding. A lack of joined-up processes is adding to the issues that are before us, and we must address that. Bill Kidd commented that some “polishing” is needed. I could ask him to tell me what it is that he thinks needs polishing, but that might be a bit flippant. Miles Briggs asked a good question about why we are delivering 25,000 places when 40,000 are needed. If we do not answer that question, are we sure that we are fixing the problem?”
“The pension liabilities for staff transfers could run to tens of millions of pounds, yet no figure for them has been offered. The Scottish Funding Council is already overstretched. Doubling its size overnight, with the risk of duplication that doing so would bring, is reckless without clear resources and a path forward. We believe that the principle is right, and the ambition is shared, but the execution has been found wanting. Going back to the contributions made in the debate, I say thank you very much to the minister—I am delighted to hear that there will be collaborative work as the bill progresses. To Mr McLennan, I say that, as the bill progresses, we will be open to working to improve it at its further stages. As Mr Briggs stated, our doors are open.”
“If evidence is needed of the issues that we are facing in our tertiary education system, there it is. If the bill was truly aligned with a vision for Scotland, we would see those levy funds transparently channelled into apprenticeships, bureaucracy stripped away so that more money would go straight to training rather than being swallowed up in overheads, and a system built around learners and employers rather than institutions and ministers. I thank the committee for its work on the report. However, the report states that, collectively, the committee was not able to make a recommendation on the bill at stage 1 and that it reserves its position on the general principles of the bill. The report warns the Government that the committee does not know the full cost of the proposals. That has been well debated today.”
“Data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shows that employers have paid at least £875 million into the apprenticeship levy since 2020. At this time, the Government has spent £704 million on apprenticeships, so there is a missing amount of £171 million. That money could—or should—have gone into training opportunities for young people. Meanwhile, 60 to 80 young people chase every apprenticeship place, and businesses tell us that the demand is closer to 40,000 places each year than the 25,000 that are actually delivered. The point was well made by my colleague Brian Whittle. It is shocking to hear that 831 students, who all wanted jobs in sectors that were crying out for more staff, were prohibited from taking places due to a lack of funding.”
“The argument that money is restricted is well rehearsed in this chamber, and we are often asked to highlight budget cuts that we would make. If we truly want to release funding to help people back into work and to help them into apprenticeships and positive destinations, that is an avenue that Conservative members would strongly support our going down. The bill that the Government has introduced does not live up to that ambition, however, and risks being a missed opportunity. It will create upheaval without offering a clear plan, as was mentioned by Daniel Johnson; it will transfer responsibilities without identifying transparent budgets; and it will leave unanswered questions about costs, pensions and staffing. Let us look at the record.”
“It gives me great pleasure to close this stage 1 debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. I, too, warmly welcome Mr Macpherson to his ministerial post, and I thank Graeme Dey for his work in the role. When James Withers published his independent review of the skills delivery landscape back in 2023, his message was clear: Scotland’s skills system was too fragmented, too bureaucratic and too confusing for learners and employers alike. He called for a single funding body, for simpler pathways and for more money to flow directly to the front line, where it could support apprenticeships, colleges and young people. The Scottish Conservatives agree with that vision. Reducing duplication and slimming down bureaucracy are not just tidy governance but financial prudence.”
“That is why the housing emergency plan that I set out takes action across three pillars: ending the practice of children living in unsuitable accommodation; supporting the housing needs of vulnerable communities; and building our future by investing in new and affordable homes. I hope that that, combined with the actions that we have been taking since May last year, will quickly make a difference. However, much of the situation—not least the social security aspect—is outwith our control, and I take this opportunity to urge the United Kingdom Government to reverse the bedroom tax, for example.”
“When does the cabinet secretary believe that the money and the policies that she continually champions will finally improve the situation for the people of Scotland? Màiri McAllan: I will never claim that the statistics that came out last week are anything other than stark, and they require urgent action. In recent years, we have been dealing with a perfect storm of difficulties, with the prevailing economic situation being stagnant or on a downward trajectory and household finances being put under severe pressure from inflation, the cost of living, the pandemic, Brexit and so on. That has meant that, despite Scotland having some of the most protective anti-homelessness laws in any country, we are in a difficult situation.”
“This week, we have been considering stage 3 of the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which, if passed, will create a gold standard anti-homelessness law in the form of the ask and act duty. Roz McCall: I am glad to hear that the cabinet secretary agrees that there is a problem. There are currently 10,000 children in temporary accommodation, some of whom are spending years in limbo, and the figure is stagnant. We also recently found out from a report in The Herald that there have been “nearly 40,000 violations” of homelessness regulations by Scottish local authorities in the past eight years, with the number almost doubling in the past year alone. We have a housing emergency; there is a homelessness crisis; and nothing seems to be changing.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the latest homelessness in Scotland statistics. (S6O-04978) The Cabinet Secretary for Housing (Màiri McAllan): The statistics demonstrate the scale of the challenge that we face to reduce homelessness. Earlier this month, I delivered my housing emergency action plan, which sets out the direct and immediate measures that we will be taking to prevent homelessness, deliver more affordable homes and make better use of existing stock. That includes up to £4.9 billion of investment over the next four years, to deliver around 36,000 affordable homes; doubling our acquisition funding this year to £80 million, allowing councils to act now to acquire family- sized homes and get children out of temporary accommodation; and a £4 million investment in the expansion of the housing first approach.”
“I have given my commitment that I am more than willing to engage with her and members across the Parliament to ensure that we can get the bill to a deliverable and affordable place. [Interruption.] I am sorry; Roz McCall is saying something to me, but I cannot hear it. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Members should let the minister respond to the questions that have been asked. Natalie Don-Innes: Perhaps we could pick up those conversations after my statement. I want to be as clear to the Parliament as possible that we have produced the financial resolution today and we will be voting for it tomorrow. I will continue to engage with members and others to get the bill to an appropriate place.”
“As much as the statement is welcome news, it is disappointing that the Scottish Government delayed and obfuscated about the financial resolution. The statement highlights that our schools and dedicated school staff are doing their best to ensure that pupils can benefit from such experiences and that progress should be made, to align with and build on existing practices. Given that, what steps will the Government, local authorities and other partners take to ensure that as many children as possible are in a position to access their right to a week’s residential outdoor education? As Pam Duncan-Glancy noted, that needs to include pupils who have complex additional support needs. Natalie Don-Innes: I emphasise again that Liz Smith lodged the bill to introduce a week-long residential trip for children and young people across Scotland.”
“It adds “trauma-informed practice” to the list of matters on which the Court of Session can regulate the practice and procedure for inquiry proceedings. That makes explicit that the court can set rules that are designed to ensure that inquiries into fatal accidents and sudden deaths are conducted in a trauma-informed way. I move amendment 62. Amendment 62 agreed to. Before section 29A The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 7 is on plea agreements and prosecution decisions. Amendment 38, in the name of Russell Findlay, is grouped with amendments 63, 102, 64, 65 and 101.”
“Amendment 31 disagreed to. Section 19—Reports Amendment 32 not moved. Amendment 33 moved—[Angela Constance]— and agreed to. Section 21—Co-operation with Commissioner Amendments 34 and 35 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to. Section 23—Interpretation of Part Amendments 36, 60, 61 and 37 moved— [Angela Constance]—and agreed to. After section 26 The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 6 is on conduct of fatal accident inquiries. Amendment 62, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is the only amendment in the group. Angela Constance: Amendment 62 relates to part 2 of the bill, which already makes provision to ensure that the courts can set rules on trauma- informed practice, for both criminal and civil proceedings. Amendment 62 makes equivalent provision for fatal accident inquiries.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My vote has not registered. I would have voted yes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms McCall. Your vote will be recorded. For Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (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) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra] Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba) 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) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (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) [Proxy vote cast by Willie Rennie] Against Adam, George (Paisley) (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) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (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) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (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) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (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) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (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 51, Against 62, Abstentions 0.”
“They pay more in taxes, have swallowed massive council tax rises and are facing exactly the same next year. They have been promised cheaper, greener fuel bills, but prices continue to rise. Frankly, there is simply too much month at the end of the money for far too many Scots. As politicians, we ignore them at our peril. 15:23”
“We have disparity in the offer across 32 councils. There are councils barring children from outwith their local authority area, which restricts where and when parents work. The Scottish Government is forcing parents to choose between family and work, and that is unacceptable. On reskilling, college places have been drastically underfunded by the SNP Government. People might get a college place, but they will be hindered by a lack of ability to get to college and by the inflexibility around their childcare offering. It is essential that we grow our economy. In that way, we will increase the tax base and reduce the tax burden on the ever-squeezed middle earners, who are more than frustrated. Over the summer, I talked to many people who are, quite simply, hacked off with this Government.”
“Too many people of working age are being let down by the basics of insufficient transport, lack of flexible childcare and restrictions in reskilling. In many cases, those three issues converge, making it completely impossible for people to come off welfare and support themselves. When it comes to transport, bus services are restricted and restrictive. I have previously spoken about the fully subscribed Fife College course that had to be cancelled due to a timetable change by the local bus company. It does not take a genius to work out that, if people cannot get to work or college, they cannot participate. I turn to childcare. I know that the Deputy First Minister shares my frustration on that issue. Childcare in Scotland is meant to ensure that the funding follows the child, but that is simply not true.”
“We have therefore requested measures in our motion. I will speak to the second of those measures, which is “a strategy to cap welfare spending growth, which is currently consuming a significant amount of resource growth, and create jobs by moving more people into work through reskilling and apprenticeships”. In Scotland, we carry too high a number of people who are economically inactive, and not enough is being done to fix that. I return, as I have many times, to parental employment. A paper was produced by the Social Justice and Social Security Committee containing answers to some of the issues that I have mentioned. What issues are preventing people from gaining continuing and meaningful employment?”
“My passion is the outcomes for Scottish children; that is, providing a positive future and ensuring an education that encourages knowledge and allows children to be children. What is essential to achieving such outcomes for our children? I would go as far as stating that, to achieve anything through a state-funded process, the robust health of our economy is essential, as it literally funds everything that we do. The country is forecast to have a £4.7 billion funding gap by 2029-30, as highlighted by the Scottish Fiscal Commission. As our motion states, “the Scottish Government continues to dismiss” that as a reality. However, it is a reality, even if the Government refuses to recognise it. Making changes for the better comes from recognition and acceptance that there is a problem and actively taking steps to eradicate the issue.”
“In recent years—I can give the member the statistics on this if she wants, though I suspect that she will not welcome them—we have seen a real reduction in the number of exclusions and perhaps a reticence from staff to use them as a consequence in order to respond to challenging behaviour. I have been absolutely clear that exclusions exist for a reason—they can and should be used and applied by teachers, and it is in their professional gift to do so. They have my full support to use them in scenarios that merit such a response. The member asked a question in relation to care-experienced young people. Again, I put on the record that I am recused from the Promise, as the member will know. However, I will ask the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise to write to her directly on the important issue that she has raised today.”
“The statement mentions that “Consequences are an essential part of a supportive learning environment.” The cabinet secretary knows that I agree with that. As the next steps include “updating our national guidance on exclusions”, could the cabinet secretary elaborate on the detail? Will the new guidance result in more exclusions? Given the dubiety that the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise displayed in the Education, Children and Young People Committee a few months ago about whether care-experienced children should be excluded, how does the cabinet secretary hope to balance the guidance with commitments that have been made to care-experienced people in the Promise? Jenny Gilruth: We have discussed expectations around exclusion at length in the chamber.”
“I remind the member that ScotRail performs better than most Great Britain operators: in 2024-25, ScotRail cancelled only 2.2 per cent of all trains—around half as many cancellations as the average of 4.1 per cent on the GB rail service, as run by her party at the United Kingdom level. There is a particular issue—”
“Statistics from last year reveal that there were more than 500 full train cancellations at Inverkeithing station alone, with a further thousand train services due to travel via Inverkeithing being more than nine minutes late, of which 615 were 10 to 14 minutes late. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will not be troubled by that in her upcoming visit, but passengers and commuters in Fife have a problem and they have been suffering for too long. I know that the transport secretary believes that the current situation in Fife is unacceptable, but it is also unreliable. Can we have some timeframes from the Government for how quickly we will be able to get this sorted for the people of Fife? Fiona Hyslop: As I referred to in my initial answer, ScotRail has been working on timetable, train crew and fleet resilience.”
“Màiri McAllan: I will respond to that by highlighting the fact that the 2,700 households with children who have been assisted into affordable housing in the year to December 2024 through this Government’s work will not recognise the characterisation that has been put to me, nor will the people who are now living in the 2,066 formerly long-term empty properties that this Government’s investment in the Scottish Empty Homes Partnership has helped to turn into settled homes. I ask the member to reflect on those figures.”
“Scotland has a record high number of children who are growing up in temporary accommodation—there are more than 10,000 of them—which has a huge knock-on effect on their mental health, their education and their life prospects. The statement refers to the provision of an additional £40 million for the acquisitions fund, which brings the total to £120 million so far, but that has not done nearly enough or brought the number below the 10,000 record figure. Therefore, how can the cabinet secretary possibly assure the Parliament that those targeted investments are anywhere close to the radical action that is needed? How will any more investment actively change the lives of Scotland’s children?”
“When vulnerable children are involved, I cannot simply go on assurances—the price is too high. We have a responsibility to protect the integrity of our justice reforms, the clarity of our devolved powers and, above all, the rights of the children we serve. On that basis, we will not fully support the legislative consent motion, but we will not oppose it. 16:25”
“It is my understanding that the LCM is being rushed because the UK Government did not fully appreciate the Scottish implications of the amendments, despite the UK bill being in the House of Lords. I note the minister’s comments and his apology for any delay on the Scottish Government’s side, and that is accepted. However, Parliament is being asked to approve last-minute changes to devolved legislation without full consultation, without detailed impact assessments and without certainty on how those powers would be used. We are being asked to give up scrutiny and to take on trust that it will all work out, and I am afraid that I cannot do that. I was assured that the concerns raised about secure accommodation provisions in the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Act 2024 would not be an issue, but it has come to pass that they are.”