Douglas Ross
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to comments by the Scottish Information Commissioner who stated, in relation to the Government’s handling of information concerning the Salmond files, “I can no longer trust the government to handle this information unsupervised and will explore more intrusive options to ensure complianc…”
“I literally follow sport from the sidelines in my role as a match official but, more than that, as a parent of two boys in Moray, I give credit to the sporting organisations in Moray and across the Highlands that provide so many opportunities for young people—boys and girls— throughout the country.”
“When we are thinking about the bill, which will undoubtedly pass at stage 3 today, I am sure unanimously, we might consider what she said in her email: “Calum can’t advocate for himself due to his complex disability, but he can express this truth: the children aren’t naughty, they are scared.” Children should not be scared in Scotland, an…”
“I rise to make my final speech in the chamber. I chose to speak in this debate, on this subject, for a number of reasons. First, the member in charge proved to be a very conscientious and determined member in getting the bill through.”
“The work that I have done as an individual member, as a party spokesperson, as a party leader and as a convener has been assisted by their tremendous efforts.”
“I am frustrated that we have politicians who cannot speak for four minutes without having the lectern up and reading from a script, daring not to deviate by taking an intervention.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,089 lines we hold for Douglas Ross, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 22.
“They are on councils’ amber and red lists of concern, yet the works are required to restore them are often not being done at the pace or scale that is needed. Councils are doing their best with constrained budgets, but local government funding simply does not stretch to cover the scale of maintenance and renewal that is needed for that critical infrastructure. We have seen similar situations elsewhere. In Aberdeenshire, constituents in Aboyne have been campaigning for repairs to their bridge, which has been closed. Only now is strengthening work being agreed; I am sure that my colleague, Alexander Burnett, will highlight that later. In Keith, another area in Moray, a landslip at Union bridge took more than a year to repair, and that was on the main A96—a critical road for the north of Scotland. That is an unacceptable timetable.”
“It is a real shame that the Labour Government did not continue to agree to that funding, because Moray Council had planned for the project. As Douglas Ross laid out, the community had raised a significant volume of money to enable it to happen. I know that there are no Labour front-bench members in the chamber tonight, but I think that the Labour Government needs to reflect on that. Both of those bridges are local and historic, but they share a much deeper commonality: they show how vital these physical links are to the people who use them every day and how fragile our rural connectivity has become under the strain of age, underinvestment and funding pressures. It is not just a Moray problem. Across rural Scotland, bridges large and small are ageing and falling into disrepair.”
“I was delighted when I secured significant investment from the United Kingdom Government towards the cost of reopening Cloddach bridge. The project was then agreed by Moray Council only after Heldon community council put forward a significant amount of money for further studies into the work needed. Now that the Labour Government has, shamefully, withdrawn that funding, does the member agree that, at the very least, it should pay back Heldon community council? Those funds would be far better spent in the local area rather than being wasted on a project that cannot now go ahead because of the UK Labour Government’s decision. Tim Eagle: I completely agree with that point, and I commend Douglas Ross for putting in a huge amount of work to secure that money from the UK Government at the time.”
“I welcome the opportunity to raise those issues in the chamber today, but I think that, going forward, there might be alternative ways of doing so. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate. I advise members that we have exhausted all the time that we had in hand, so I will have to be pretty strict with the speaking time allocations, which are of four minutes during the open debate. 16:32”
“Our committee took up some of our time today in our budget scrutiny trying to understand a point that the Government thinks is clear when it absolutely is not clear in the budget documents. I was going to say a lot more on colleges and universities, but I will use that one example as a plea to the Government to make the budget clear and readable and absolutely obvious to everyone who looks at it. If SPICe cannot work something out and the Scottish Government is struggling, and if John Mason has a problem, we should all have a problem. If he cannot find a figure in a budget document, it is almost certainly not there. The committee has looked at considerable issues over the past few months and years, and we will continue to look at them over the remaining weeks and months of this parliamentary session.”
“That is important, because individual capital projects are usually included in the net college capital total. At today’s committee, our member who is also on the Finance and Public Administration Committee rigorously questioned the education secretary and officials. Jenny Gilruth acknowledged that the figure of a £70 million increase cannot be found in the published budget and said that the Scottish Government needs to reflect on that and on how it communicates any extra funding that it puts in as a Government. She undertook to write to the committee following her evidence. Earlier, in responding to my intervention, the finance secretary said that it is really important to be clear. It is, because there is a lack of clarity.”
“In relation to Mr Gibson’s point about additional training, be it for MSPs or for Government, I want to highlight—as I think Mr Mason might also do in his remarks—the point that I made in my intervention on the finance secretary. On budget day, the finance secretary announced a 10 per cent increase in funding for colleges, which is equivalent to an extra £70 million in 2026-27. However, that specific figure simply cannot be replicated from any of the published budget figures, which leads to considerable confusion. The Scottish Government provided additional information to SPICe, setting out that the 10 per cent increase is, in fact, based on excluding capital funding for the Dunfermline learning campus—a spend of £30.3 million in 2025-26, falling to £1.1 million in 2026-27.”
“I will begin with colleges—although perhaps I should say that I will end with colleges, because I have taken up my time on other things. Throughout this parliamentary session, the committee has focused to a considerable extent on colleges, and we have repeatedly raised concerns about the extent and impact of the financial challenges that colleges are facing. Many of our colleges are having to deal with immense financial pressures, with a 20 per cent real-terms reduction in funding between 2021-22 and 2025- 26. The SFC said in a 2025 report that, by 2027-28, the sector is expected to face a negative cash balance, with 12 colleges forecasting cash deficits. The report concluded: “These forecasts show that most colleges are not sustainable.” That is a stark warning that the Parliament, this Government and future Governments cannot ignore.”
“Do you feel that that would be beneficial? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Again, please speak through the chair. Douglas Ross: I absolutely do feel that it would be beneficial, and that allows me to get into the points that I am keen to raise on behalf of the committee. For our pre-budget scrutiny, we focused on the long-term sustainability of funding for colleges and universities. The challenges that those sectors face are significant, and it is imperative that we act decisively to secure their future. The budget scrutiny for this year is built on themes that are similar to those that we have raised in previous years. That shows that this is an on-going problem. In fact, for our colleges and universities, the problem is only getting worse and more acute.”
“In Mr Greer and Mr Mason, I have had two members of my committee who were also assiduous members of the Finance and Public Administration Committee—I now have just one, as Mr Greer has left that committee. As convener, I certainly felt that that helped, because we had robust questioning on the finance elements of many of the issues that came forward. Kenneth Gibson: Will the member take an intervention? Douglas Ross: I am two and a half minutes in and I have not even started my prepared speech yet, but I will give way to Mr Gibson. Kenneth Gibson: I will try to be brief. One of the things that the Finance and Public Administration Committee has agreed and got some buy-in from the Parliament on is the idea of having a programme of fiscal literacy, not just for new MSPs but for all MSPs and ministers in the next session of Parliament.”
“I completely agree with the statements that you are making, and I am sure that they will be picked up elsewhere. However, one important consideration is that the Finance and Public Administration Committee has worked very hard to encourage all the other committees to look carefully and closely at finance. We have found that people are almost saying, “It has nothing to do with us.” A case in point is that your committee was not sighted on a very important fiscal report. Of course, I appreciate that that will be up to the clerks, but I would like the member to reflect on that. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Again, always speak through the chair. Douglas Ross: I will reflect on it, but I am in a slightly different position.”
“Is there an opportunity for either the Finance and Public Administration Committee or the Conveners Group to arrange for all the committee conveners to question the finance secretary, as we do with the First Minister and as the committee members will have questioned her? The point is that this process is not working. We are having six-minute speeches from every committee and we are not really having a debate. We have an opening speech from the cabinet secretary and a closing speech from the minister in which, if we are lucky, they might touch on one or two points that we have made. Michelle Thomson: Will the member take an intervention? Douglas Ross: I have not even got to the script that my clerks wrote for me; my point is that, in my personal view, this is not working. Michelle Thomson: I could not agree more.”
“I accept that Mr Gibson and the committee have tried to change the process slightly by having a focus on fiscal sustainability, but I do not honestly think that anyone watching this debate would think that it has been a particularly good use— Craig Hoy: No one is watching. Douglas Ross: Yes—as Mr Hoy says, probably no one is watching. Liz Smith: Would Mr Ross agree that one area where we could improve things would be to have a finance bill process, whereby everybody who wanted to pitch into budget discussions could do so? Douglas Ross: I agree with that suggestion. I also have another alternative, which I was just thinking about as I sat here, not particularly motivated by the debate.”
“I am speaking on behalf of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, and I thank the committee members, the clerks, SPICe and our stakeholders, who all got involved in pre-budget scrutiny. However, what I will say next I say not as convener of the committee, but as someone who is now sitting through a budget debate as a convener for the second time: it does not work. In my humble opinion, this is not a good use of parliamentary time. Ross Greer agreed with that last year—I do not know whether that is the reason why he is not here this year. He said, as a Finance and Public Administration Committee member, that it did not really work.”
“The budget also recognises the vital role of fiscal sustainability in delivering our ambitions and provides greater fiscal certainty through the spending review and the infrastructure delivery pipeline. I am proud that the budget has received positive feedback from stakeholders across all areas of our society, which demonstrates that it is a well- balanced offer for Scotland. I welcome members’ views on the budget and look forward to engaging across the Parliament throughout the remainder of the budget bill process. 15:25”
“I am proud that the budget represents further progress by baselining more than £750 million of level transfers between portfolios, which is a key area of concern for the Finance and Public Administration Committee. The Government is committed to working with Parliament to improve processes so that debates such as today’s enable meaningful cross-chamber engagement and add value. Craig Hoy: Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Shona Robison: In closing—with apologies to Craig Hoy—we believe that the budget responds to calls for clearer prioritisation and better links between spending measures and outcomes by being explicitly driven by the Government’s four priorities.”
“We also recognise our responsibility to enable effective scrutiny, and we will continue to improve the timing, quality and transparency of our fiscal publications. I hope that members recognise the substantial reforms that the Scottish Government has introduced to the fiscal and budgetary information that is available to Parliament and the public, including through the introduction of the medium-term financial strategy, the creation of the Scottish Fiscal Commission and, more recently, the publication of the fiscal sustainability delivery plan, as well as the package of fiscal documents that were shared with Parliament last week. I thank the Finance and Public Administration Committee for recognising our progress, specifically on the level of information that is provided in the latest MTFS.”
“I am aware that, although the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee did not hold a pre-budget evidence session, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands attended the committee today. As I mentioned at the start of my speech, the Government values the pre-budget scrutiny work that is undertaken by all committees, and I recognise calls to remove challenges to parliamentary scrutiny. There have been unavoidable delays to publications in this parliamentary session, including this year’s budget. The compressed timeline has limited the time that is available for scrutiny, and we support the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s call for the UK Government to consider devolved impacts when setting fiscal event dates.”
“I trust that, equally, the Criminal Justice Committee will welcome the additional funding for justice organisations to support their delivery of essential front-line services, with the Scottish spending review supporting long-term planning and flexibility by providing indicative budgets. I share the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee’s positive reflections on the development of the climate change taxonomy, which outlines a record of more than £5 billion of climate-positive spend in 2026-27. Similarly, I welcome the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee’s activities on human rights budgeting. I am pleased that we have continued to strengthen our approach to equality budgeting. On 19 January, we published our first strategic integrated impact assessment.”
“That investment complements the Government’s commitment to ensure that post- school provision is responsive to Scotland’s strategic skills needs, which is something that I know the Economy and Fair Work Committee has been focusing on. The investment and strategic approach to skills will support economic growth and productivity, as well as tackling poverty, all of which supports fiscal sustainability. I hope that the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee will welcome the additional £20 million in 2026-27 for the arts and culture sector through the Creative Scotland multiyear funding programme, with future year funding also committed. That investment strengthens financial stability for cultural organisations across the country, as recommended by the committee.”
“That is a £70 million increase in core college funding available to the Scottish Funding Council to distribute across the sector, made up of £61.4 million of resource funding and an extra £8.2 million of capital. It is important to be clear about that, but Jenny Gilruth will absolutely come back to the committee on the point about the presentation. I hope that members of the Education, Children and Young People Committee will welcome the budget’s support for skills through investing £2.4 billion in Scotland’s colleges, universities and skills system and providing capital investment of more than £480 million in key growth sectors over the spending review period through our enterprise agencies.”
“The cabinet secretary mentioned the Education, Children and Young People Committee, which I convene, and our views on the discussions with Colleges Scotland. Does she accept that the evidence session that we had today raises serious concerns about how her budget presented the £70 million uplift for Scottish colleges, to the extent that the Scottish Parliament information centre cannot find the figures in the budget document? Today, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills acknowledged that that was not good enough and said that she will go away and look at it. Shona Robison: I acknowledge that Jenny Gilruth has today committed to clarifying the £70 million calculation, but let me be clear, as I am sure that Jenny Gilruth was, that the college sector got £694 million in last year’s budget and this year, it gets £764 million.”
“I think that that is a disgrace. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Ross, that is not a point of order. I have responded to the substantive point that you made. It is now time to start portfolio question time.”
“I understand that you were encouraged to press your button during First Minister’s questions tomorrow. On that basis, there is not more that I can add to what you have already been told. Douglas Ross: On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. If the argument is that I can ask one question to the First Minister, who repeatedly refused to answer questions from his own back benchers and from Labour and Conservative MSPs last week at FMQs, why not have the urgent question, so that multiple questions on the same subject can be put over a 10-to-20-minute period? Now, we are going to get maybe 30 seconds to question the First Minister tomorrow, when ministers should be put under the cosh on this. They should be challenged, repeatedly, by MSPs across the chamber. That is what our urgent questions are for, and this is not allowing it.”
“You may have thought very carefully about the words that you would use, but I think that you have gone ahead and still used them in ways that go beyond challenging the chair. You have made your point. I urge you to be sensible in the language that you use. You can resume your point of order. Douglas Ross: I would be sensible in the language that I choose to use if we had sensible rulings from the Presiding Officer. It is a nonsensical ruling for the Presiding Officer to make. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Ross, resume your seat. You have made your point, which is not a point of order. As you know well, the selection of urgent questions is up to the Presiding Officer. As has been intimated to you, there will be opportunities during the course of this week for you to make those points.”
“Douglas Ross: The Presiding Officer, in making her decision, asked officials to tell me this: “The question is not sufficiently urgent to meet the criteria for an urgent question today”. What is more urgent than the Government saying that male prisoners should be in the female prison estate or the bizarre arguments that it published yesterday? Surely, that is urgent enough to hear from ministers about today. Again, I thought very carefully about how I phrase this: it just looks like we have a Presiding Officer who is shielding Scottish National Party ministers and preventing them from being brought to the chamber to answer questions. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Ross, please resume your seat.”
“The question that I wanted to ask was whether the Scottish Government would update Parliament on the written case for Scottish ministers and the Lord Advocate in the judicial review of the Scottish Prison Service’s policy for the management of transgender people in custody, including how many times women’s rights are mentioned. I say this choosing my words very carefully. Disgracefully, the Presiding Officer has not accepted that urgent question. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Ross, I ask you to resume your seat for a second. I understand the strength of feeling that there is around the decision, but I urge you, Mr Ross, not to challenge the chair. You can resume your point of order.”
“On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. Yesterday, the Presiding Officer, Alison Johnstone, refused to suspend standing orders to allow me to lodge an urgent question on the document that the Scottish Government produced in its case against For Women Scotland to allow it to continue to house male prisoners in the female prison estate. In response, Alison Johnstone told me that she would not suspend standing orders yesterday because there would be further opportunities this week to try to question ministers. To me, it was very clear that one of those options was an urgent question that was submitted on time, which I did first thing this morning.”
“We had serious concerns, and the committee took the very unusual step of not recommending to Parliament that we should or should not support the general principles of the bill. It is important that we get that on the record. I will give way to”
“Far be it from me to use my limited time to stand up and defend the Labour Party, but I have to take exception to what Jackie Dunbar said. She commented that, in her two years on the Education, Children and Young People Committee, she cannot remember the Labour Party supporting a bill at stage 1. It has done. It supported Daniel Johnson’s recent member’s bill and it also—when Pam Duncan-Glancy was the Labour member on the committee—supported the Education (Scotland) Bill, which was a Government bill that Labour said needed to be heavily amended. Interestingly, however, the SNP members on the committee, along with every other member of the committee, could not support the general principles of the bill that we are considering today in our committee report.”
“Through the engagement that I had and the reassurance that I was given, I came to the firm view that this is a necessary piece of legislation. We must get ready for what is coming, we must continue to progress, and we must build on the expert evidence that is presented to us, and which was presented to us in the Withers review. The bill offers a sound and balanced foundation for a simpler, more joined-up tertiary education and training system—one that can continue to evolve in partnership with this Parliament, the education sector, the business community, the people whom we serve, and, of course, the staff who work to support learners and innovation every day.”
“The minister has said that he has thought about the bill a lot. I ask him to put on the record whether, at any point since he became minister, he gave any consideration to dropping the bill at this stage and potentially coming back—if he is still in post or if his party is still in government— with a new bill in a new Parliament. That is what a number of people were calling for. There was an opportunity to press the pause button and look at the bill afresh in a new Parliament. Ben Macpherson: I was educated in our system in Scotland to believe in the importance of critical thinking, and that will be crucial in the period ahead. Indeed, I apply it to all my decisions as a minister and as an MSP. It was, of course, prudent for me to consider the bill with a fresh perspective.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was in the chamber when the vote was called. A number of members ran in after the vote was called. Presumably they were having a cup of tea and were watching proceedings. Is there an obligation on you, Presiding Officer, to ensure that only those in the chamber at the time register their vote, so that we do not all have to wait for those who are finishing their cup of tea to register their votes? [Interruption.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Members! Further to Mr Ross’s contribution, my understanding is that members were indeed logged into the system.”
“As I said to the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans, the information came out in a Government press release at 9.46 am. There was no Government-initiated question to alert every MSP to it, and to the best of my knowledge, there was no offer from the Government for a minister to make a statement. Therefore, our only recourse, as Opposition parties and back-bench MSPs, is through an urgent question. I fully accept that, when I lodged my urgent question, it was beyond the time limit, but there are compelling reasons for the issue to be debated today in the Parliament, through ministers answering questions. Therefore, I seek your guidance on how I can move a motion under rule 17.2.1(a) to suspend rule 13.8.1 to allow an urgent question to be considered today.”
“Two weeks ago, you rightly said during First Minister’s questions that the Parliament should not be “a library”—I agree with that—but the Parliament should also be a Parliament. Surely, on an issue of importance such as this, on which there have been cross-party questions to the Government, we should act as a Parliament and hear from ministers on the same day that the information is made public. I also note that, in response to my asking a question on this topic last week, the First Minister said: “The Government is trying to make information available to ensure that members of the public ... can follow the case in a well-informed way.”—[Official Report, 15 January 2026; c 20.] We will be able to follow the case in a well- informed way by questioning ministers.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek a ruling from you on standing orders rule 17.2.1(a), on suspending rule 13.8.1. Rule 13.8.1 relates to the lodging of urgent questions and states that they must be lodged by 10 am on the day that they are to be taken. If we can agree to suspend standing orders to vary the time—the time only—in rule 13.8.1, I can resubmit my urgent question for you to consider on whether ministers should be brought to the Parliament today to speak about the Scottish Government’s written case that has now been presented in the judicial review petitioned for by For Women Scotland on the Scottish Prison Service’s transgender prisoner policy.”
“To save me from having to make a point of order to ask for a suspension of standing orders, would the minister consider an addition to the business motion to allow a statement from Government ministers on the issue, given that it was of considerable cross-party importance at First Minister’s question time last week, when John Swinney himself said that it was right that all the information was in the public domain? Surely, therefore, it is also right for ministers to raise the issue. I hope that the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans could perhaps consider that we should have a ministerial statement on the issue today. 14:06”
“I wonder whether the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans will genuinely consider the point that I am about to make. I submitted an urgent question to the Presiding Officer outwith the time limit. I will raise this in a point of order after topical questions if I have to, but we are being asked to agree a change of business today. My urgent question was to ask Government ministers to present to Parliament the written case that they have now presented to court about the transgender prisoner policy. We became aware of that at 9.46 am, when the Government issued a press release. That left 14 minutes for members of the Scottish Parliament to know about the press release, read the press release, read the written submission and get an urgent question in. I do not think that it is physically possible to do that.”
“However, there are broader challenges that sit without the ASN category. It is important that we have a budget settlement that delivers on that, which is why I was so pleased that, in this year’s draft budget, we were able to protect the additional funding for teacher numbers and”
“How does the cabinet secretary respond to teachers who tell me that it is increasingly impossible to get it right for every child? Jenny Gilruth: Mr Ross’s question is quite broad, so I imagine that he is not speaking only about additional support needs. There are other challenges in our schools post-pandemic. The situation in our schools is increasingly challenging post-pandemic, but there are also financial challenges in them. Schools are filling a gap where other services previously existed. The advent of the Scottish attainment challenge was part of the Government’s response, but we need to reflect on the fact that a decade-plus of austerity has not been good for Scotland’s education system and the children and families whom our teachers support every day. We will look at how we can better strengthen our support for ASN.”
“To ask the First Minister for what reason the Scottish Government is going to court to continue to allow it to house male prisoners in the female prison estate, in light of any projections it has made of the cost to taxpayers in Scotland of challenging the Supreme Court ruling in this way. (S6F-04578)”
“However, you called me early, so I can put match officials right at the top of the debate, because I doubt that many other members will mention them, although we have had a passing reference to VAR. For some people who love football as our national game, and who may have an interest in clubs but want to be involved in football, refereeing is a route for them. It has brought me great enjoyment—I continue to enjoy football—and more and more people are going down that route. I am thankful for that, because referees—love us or loathe us—are an integral part of the game, and refereeing is now seen as an opportunity for many people to get involved, to get fit and stay fit and to get to an extremely high level in the game, both domestic and international.”
“I should begin by declaring an interest as a match official for the Scottish Football Association. I have to say that I do not enjoy every day in the Parliament, and sometimes I make that obvious, but today has been one of the good days. I started off at the Education, Children and Young People Committee with Mr Adam, where I was able to speak about milking cows, and I am ending the day with a debate from Mr Adam about football, which is another interest of mine. I thought that I might be speaking later on in the debate, Deputy Presiding Officer—I was going to say that it is a shame that we have such long debates in the chamber about football and no one mentions refereeing.”
“However, it is clear that the bill will need significant amendments to ensure that the provisions can be properly resourced and to secure the very best outcomes for care-experienced children, young people and adults across Scotland, which we all want to see. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The time that we had available over the course of the afternoon has been exhausted, so members will now need to stick to their speaking time allocations. 15:56”
“Post-referral discussions were seen as problematic, too, with many stakeholders observing that a meeting with the principal reporter, focused on grounds, was a very different proposal from the familiarisation meeting with the chair of a hearing, as envisaged by the hearings system working group. That risks unintended consequences, should a child or young person not understand the purpose of the post-referral discussion or how the information that was gleaned from it would be used. I understand that there are other speakers, so I will restrict my remarks, although I could say much more on the bill. The bill has the potential to take an important step forward towards fulfilling the Promise, and the committee has recommended to Parliament that we support the bill at stage 1.”
“However, Sheriff Mackie, who is the chair of the hearings system working group, suggested that the bill’s provisions relating to grounds hearings show “a disappointing lack of ambition and resolve.” Stakeholders told the committee that those provisions are significantly more complex than what is in place at present, with the potential to cause issues not only for the people who are tasked with delivering them but for children, young people and the people who support them. The committee was clear that the Scottish Government should revisit those provisions in light of the evidence that it heard.”
“The committee sought clarity on the eligibility criteria for lifelong advocacy and it explored how consistent and high-quality advocacy provision could be delivered across Scotland. The bill proposes significant changes to the children’s hearings system. The committee heard support from stakeholders for some of the bill’s proposals, including the introduction of paid chairs and the use of single-member panels in limited circumstances.”
“In the committee’s stage 1 report, we called on the Scottish Government to provide clear guidance to local authorities on how eligibility for aftercare will be determined and to ensure that the process of proving care experience is straightforward and non-stigmatising. I move to advocacy, which is essential in ensuring that care-experienced children, young people and adults have their voices heard and their rights upheld. The bill will introduce lifelong advocacy for care-experienced individuals for the first time. The committee heard strong support for that measure, with stakeholders emphasising the importance of relationships-based and trauma- informed advocacy. The committee also called for a clear definition of independent advocacy to be included in the bill.”
“I will speak about some other areas of the bill— particularly the provisions to extend aftercare eligibility to a wider group of care-experienced children and young people. The committee welcomed those provisions and recognised that they will address a long-standing inequality in the system whereby those who left care before their 16th birthday are excluded from accessing aftercare support. However, the committee heard concerns about how those new provisions will operate in practice and whether sufficient resources have been allocated to them. The committee therefore welcomes the minister’s undertaking to work with Social Work Scotland and COSLA to improve our understanding of the financial implications of the bill, with a view to revisiting the modelled costs.”
“Fiona Whitelock of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities said: “We offered support around the financial memorandum and working out some of the costings, but our offer was not taken up.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 8 October 2025; c 39, 45] The committee recognises that the minister holds a different view about the engagement that took place on the bill, but we heard that point time and again. Given the scope of what is being proposed and the resourcing implications that arise from it, the committee would have expected stakeholders to have been much more involved at an earlier stage. However, we welcome the minister’s commitment to exploring how such engagement could be improved in the future.”