Chamber and committees

Safeguarding loses effectiveness when ideological confusion weakens practical protections across public policy. The catastrophic consequences of diluting sex-based safeguards leave the vulnerable exposed to avoidable risks. Children in care are among Scotland’s most vulnerable to exploitation, yet children in care were sold a promise instead of a plan to protect them. Brave survivors and whistleblowers have been left pleading for decisive action to close those safeguarding gaps, against talk of political legacy from those who walked away from an unkept promise.

Leadership is judged by outcomes, not slogans, and promises are not protection. Frankly, can the lack of delivery of robust safeguarding and the lack of legal consequences for all those who exploit vulnerable children be judged to be anything other than a failure?

To ask the Scottish Government how it measures success in protecting care-experienced children, in light of reports that its flagship policy, the Promise, has failed to keep vulnerable children safe. (S6O-05596)

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of any impact that withdrawing funding for Wave Energy Scotland from March 2026 will have on Scotland’s ability to leverage investment, including through horizon Europe, and on confidence in the marine energy sector. (S6O-05571)

I do not think that we can credibly speak of a just transition while confidence in our existing oil and gas sector is eroded by policy uncertainty and while emerging technologies, including those that are supported by Wave Energy Scotland, are denied the stable investment and the time required for them to become established and scale up.

Withdrawal of the funding might force WES to withdraw from EuropeWave, which would risk project collapse, legal exposure, financial penalties and reputational damage with European Union partners. Does the cabinet secretary accept that the decision to defund WES after 11 years threatens jobs, future investment and Scotland’s international reputation and competitive advantage in marine energy?

::To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of any impact that withdrawing funding for Wave Energy Scotland from March 2026 will have on Scotland’s ability to leverage investment, including through horizon Europe, and on confidence in the marine energy sector. (S6O-05571)

::I do not think that we can credibly speak of a just transition while confidence in our existing oil and gas sector is eroded by policy uncertainty and while emerging technologies, including those that are supported by Wave Energy Scotland, are denied the stable investment and the time required for them to become established and scale up.

Withdrawal of the funding might force WES to withdraw from EuropeWave, which would risk project collapse, legal exposure, financial penalties and reputational damage with European Union partners. Does the cabinet secretary accept that the decision to defund WES after 11 years threatens jobs, future investment and Scotland’s international reputation and competitive advantage in marine energy?

::I do not think that we can credibly speak of a just transition while confidence in our existing oil and gas sector is eroded by policy uncertainty and while emerging technologies, including those that are supported by Wave Energy Scotland, are denied the stable investment and the time required for them to become established and scale up.

Withdrawal of the funding might force WES to withdraw from EuropeWave, which would risk project collapse, legal exposure, financial penalties and reputational damage with European Union partners. Does the cabinet secretary accept that the decision to defund WES after 11 years threatens jobs, future investment and Scotland’s international reputation and competitive advantage in marine energy?

::To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of any impact that withdrawing funding for Wave Energy Scotland from March 2026 will have on Scotland’s ability to leverage investment, including through horizon Europe, and on confidence in the marine energy sector. (S6O-05571)

::Budgets provide an opportunity for the Parliament to scrutinise questions such as whether we are spending public money wisely or funding failure. I will use the few minutes that I have been allocated to talk about public trust and how—or whether—we are getting value for money.

Trust depends on taxpayers seeing effective use of public money and measurable value for their money. There is a question about how ministers can properly assess effectiveness when substantial funding for equality and tackling male violence against women is channelled at arm’s length through bodies such as Inspiring Scotland.

Recently, five Government-funded charities—Engender, LGBT Youth Scotland, the Equality Network and Scottish Trans, LEAP Sports Scotland and Zero Tolerance—have been lobbying hard to create confusion in the aftermath of the For Women Scotland Ltd v the Scottish ministers case, on which the Scottish Government lost yet more public money after being challenged by For Women Scotland.

Clare Adamson wanted us to talk about money that has been squandered, so I hope that she is listening. The For Women Scotland case cost £780,000. There was also the failed Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill and the court case to challenge the use of a section 35 order, which cost £370,000. In total, that comes to £1.2 million that has been wilfully wasted by the Government against public opinion.

Further, we have organisations that are now steeped in controversy, such as LGBT Youth Scotland, that have received significant public funding. That organisation has received more than £13.4 million over the past 10 years, and yet, year on year, we are told that the inequality that it claims to tackle is worsening. Are we continuing to fund failure? What independent evaluation has been undertaken to assess whether such funded interventions are delivering on expected outcomes, or whether those organisations are, in fact, part of the problem rather than the solution?

I will now touch on male violence against women and girls. The cabinet secretary has said that equally safe will receive more money in the budget. The equally safe strategy that underpins the delivering equally safe funding model states that prostitution is violence against women. At a time when Scotland is facing escalating sexual crimes and escalating domestic abuse, the crisis of male violence against women continues. The Government is finding ways and looking for excuses not to act, either by not acting itself or by not supporting members’ bills on those issues. I presented a case showing that, using the Christie commission-type of evaluation, my bill would have saved the country money over time.

Why are some funded organisations notably silent on tackling demand and criminalising perpetrators exploiting women in prostitution? Why are critical front-line services such as Glasgow and Clyde Rape Crisis struggling to survive while demand is increasing, but other lobby groups seem to be thriving financially while failing to deliver any meaningful improvement for those they claim to serve? There is no point in spending more money if it is not being spent well.

I am very concerned about how public money is being allocated. If adherence to following the law is not a core funding condition, it must become one. We cannot afford further wasted public funds and reputational damage from embarrassing revelations such as those that we witnessed in the employment tribunal involving Sandie Peggie and NHS Fife. The costs of that are on-going and were about £400,000 as at December 2025.

The public are not stupid. We have to earn their trust by focusing on their priorities, not on ideological indulgences, and by delivering measurable and accountable outcomes for the people of Scotland. We are not doing that, and the examples that I have given are just a tiny snapshot. I have not even had time to cover the Government’s callous and kamikaze on-going fight to use public money to keep violent males in the female prison estate. My considered view is that we are continuing to fund failure, and we should urgently address that.

Budgets provide an opportunity for the Parliament to scrutinise questions such as whether we are spending public money wisely or funding failure. I will use the few minutes that I have been allocated to talk about public trust and how—or whether—we are getting value for money.

Trust depends on taxpayers seeing effective use of public money and measurable value for their money. There is a question about how ministers can properly assess effectiveness when substantial funding for equality and tackling male violence against women is channelled at arm’s length through bodies such as Inspiring Scotland.

Recently, five Government-funded charities—Engender, LGBT Youth Scotland, the Equality Network and Scottish Trans, LEAP Sports Scotland and Zero Tolerance—have been lobbying hard to create confusion in the aftermath of the For Women Scotland Ltd v the Scottish ministers case, on which the Scottish Government lost yet more public money after being challenged by For Women Scotland.

Clare Adamson wanted us to talk about money that has been squandered, so I hope that she is listening. The For Women Scotland case cost £780,000. There was also the failed Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill and the court case to challenge the use of a section 35 order, which cost £370,000. In total, that comes to £1.2 million that has been wilfully wasted by the Government against public opinion.

Further, we have organisations that are now steeped in controversy, such as LGBT Youth Scotland, that have received significant public funding. That organisation has received more than £13.4 million over the past 10 years, and yet, year on year, we are told that the inequality that it claims to tackle is worsening. Are we continuing to fund failure? What independent evaluation has been undertaken to assess whether such funded interventions are delivering on expected outcomes, or whether those organisations are, in fact, part of the problem rather than the solution?

I will now touch on male violence against women and girls. The cabinet secretary has said that equally safe will receive more money in the budget. The equally safe strategy that underpins the delivering equally safe funding model states that prostitution is violence against women. At a time when Scotland is facing escalating sexual crimes and escalating domestic abuse, the crisis of male violence against women continues. The Government is finding ways and looking for excuses not to act, either by not acting itself or by not supporting members’ bills on those issues. I presented a case showing that, using the Christie commission-type of evaluation, my bill would have saved the country money over time.

Why are some funded organisations notably silent on tackling demand and criminalising perpetrators exploiting women in prostitution? Why are critical front-line services such as Glasgow and Clyde Rape Crisis struggling to survive while demand is increasing, but other lobby groups seem to be thriving financially while failing to deliver any meaningful improvement for those they claim to serve? There is no point in spending more money if it is not being spent well.

I am very concerned about how public money is being allocated. If adherence to following the law is not a core funding condition, it must become one. We cannot afford further wasted public funds and reputational damage from embarrassing revelations such as those that we witnessed in the employment tribunal involving Sandie Peggie and NHS Fife. The costs of that are on-going and were about £400,000 as at December 2025.

The public are not stupid. We have to earn their trust by focusing on their priorities, not on ideological indulgences, and by delivering measurable and accountable outcomes for the people of Scotland. We are not doing that, and the examples that I have given are just a tiny snapshot. I have not even had time to cover the Government’s callous and kamikaze on-going fight to use public money to keep violent males in the female prison estate. My considered view is that we are continuing to fund failure, and we should urgently address that.