Chamber and committees

The reality is that the registration rate is not just the lowest in the country; it is getting worse. Nearly 3,000 fewer adults are registered than there were at this time last year, so it is pretty clear that the Government’s current approach is simply not working. Does the minister recognise that, had the Government acted on the warnings from NHS Dumfries and Galloway, more than five years ago, that a crisis was looming, my constituents would not have had to go private to get dental healthcare? Given that the actions of the Government are clearly not working, what more does it plan to do, and when will that start to have an impact?

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that nearly 40 per cent of adults in Dumfries and Galloway are not registered with a national health service dentist. (S6O-04811)

When the minister considers the review, will he also commit to considering full cost recovery from licence applicants so that the public no longer subsidise private interests when licences are granted for the killing of protected species?

On a point of order. I could not connect to the system, but I would have voted no.

Presiding Officer,

“Trust is sacred. Our trust was broken as little girls—and now, trust in the system that’s supposed to help us and do right by us has been shattered.”

Those are the words of the Fornethy survivors. Some of those brave women are with us in the public gallery today. Hundreds more have shared their story.

For those who are unfamiliar with that story, those women, along with thousands of others, were sent to Fornethy as vulnerable wee girls between the 1960s and early 1990s. Fornethy was a sprawling 16th-century mansion in the Angus countryside, secluded and surrounded by woodland. It was one of the small number of schools run by Glasgow Corporation, later Strathclyde Regional Council, under its scheme of residential education for disadvantaged children.

Most of those girls stayed for four to eight weeks, sometimes more than once. Some were as young as five years old. They were sent away to somewhere new and exciting—a place to rest and recuperate. One survivor said:

“I remember getting on a bus with a suitcase. I was going on holiday for the first time. I recall the door opening and seeing a huge staircase. I was so happy and excited”.

However, that excitement quickly turned to fear. Rather than rest and recuperation, many of those wee girls were subjected to appalling abuse. My constituent, Marion Reid from Carluke is one of those women. She said:

“I travelled in a black cab to Fornethy from Riddrie, where I lived at the time. I was taken in through the big arch door, and as soon as that door closed, my nightmare began—six weeks of hell I’ve carried with me all of my life.”

Those wee girls’ hell was concealed, covered up and kept from parents. The children were made to write “nice” letters home, copied word for word from a blackboard. One survivor said:

“On leaving that dark place, my older sister was asked to tell my mum what a good girl I’d been. My five-year-old mind could only feel horror that this was how good girls were treated”.

I have listened to these testimonies. Some shared stories that they have never shared with their own families. Today, I wanted to bring those stories to Parliament to give a voice to those brave women, but I recognise that we must respect the on-going criminal and civil proceedings. My focus today will therefore be on the failures of Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Government to show that same respect to those women.

They have been campaigning for five and a half years against those failures, and they are still waiting for a full and meaningful apology. They are still waiting even for a meeting with Glasgow City Council. They are still waiting for access to the redress scheme. They are still waiting for answers about why the abuse at Fornethy went unchecked for so many years.

I thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for the support that he has given to the Fornethy survivors, including on that visit with the women to Fornethy, which was an incredibly humbling and powerful experience. Alex Cole-Hamilton is right that that was part of that closure—however, we now need Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Government to step up to the mat to really give those women closure.

In September, the leader of Glasgow City Council offered what was a half-hearted apology at the end of a meeting, in an item of any other business. The women found out through the media. Senior council officers and the council leader continue to refuse to meet them and continue to refuse to offer a proper meaningful public apology. Instead, they circle the wagons, cover up and prioritise protecting the council over taking responsibility for why their predecessor authority failed to protect those wee girls.

Similarly, the Scottish Government has failed to take responsibility, putting barrier after barrier in the way of those women. In January 2023, the First Minister told the Education, Children and Young People Committee that it was possible for Fornethy survivors to be successful under the redress scheme, but the Government subsequently told the women that their records had been destroyed and that there was no evidence that they were at Fornethy. That was until the redress scheme made it clear that personal testimony is evidence. However, now, the Government says that they still will not qualify for the scheme because their care was short term and involved parents.

Those girls were sent to Fornethy by the state, not their parents. They were abused by staff who were employed by the state, and the state must take responsibility. Is the Government really saying to those women, “Your abuse was short term, so it doesn’t matter”? Are we really going to pit one abuse survivor against another? Is the Parliament really going to ignore the unanimous recommendation of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, which called for the redress scheme to be extended, when we all know that abuse is abuse?

I know that the redress scheme is not the only thing that matters to those women and that many will never apply, but redress represents something—it represents recognition. The Government has chosen the redress scheme to be its formal acknowledgement of wrongdoing, its recognition of the lasting trauma and its acceptance that the state failed the victims of abuse. By denying Fornethy survivors meaningful access to the scheme, the state continues to fail them.

The women want the truth. They want to know why they were sent to Fornethy in the first place. They want to know why no one checked whether it was safe. They want to know why no one stopped the abuse year after year. The on-going public inquiry must get to the bottom of it but, let us be honest, it did not end with Fornethy. Even today, whistleblowers and victims are, too often, still met with silence when they raise serious child protection concerns. There is a culture of cover-up in public bodies, which are more focused on protecting reputations than on protecting children. There is a fundamental power imbalance: public bodies are marking their own homework, and have unlimited legal and financial resources that they unleash against the victims of abuse to defend the state against allegations.

While we consider the Fornethy petition, we should acknowledge another one that is under the consideration of the petitions committee: petition PE1979. Once again, the Government has dismissed it. It dismisses the petition’s call for an independent national whistleblowing office for children and education services, for independent investigations into unresolved allegations and to close the gaps in the child abuse inquiry. Whistleblowers are ignored, victims are ignored and public bodies are protected—that is the reality of child protection in Scotland today.

The tragic human cost of child abuse is incalculable—lost childhoods and lasting trauma. As a society, nothing should be more important than safeguarding our children. However, Fornethy and countless other failures by the state expose the brutal truth that we are failing victims again and again, every single day.

I began with the words of the Fornethy women. Let me end with some more:

“It only takes one event, one day, to change your world view forever—and the lasting trauma that brings. Are we not worthy because we were abused only for a short period?”

I say to the women who are in the public gallery today: you are worthy. You are owed a full and meaningful public apology. You deserve compensation. You deserve the truth. You deserve justice. I say to Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Government that those women are not going anywhere. They are strong and determined. Platitudes and warm words will not cut it any more.

I want the Deputy First Minister to see not just the women who are sitting in the public gallery today but the five-year-olds, six-year-olds, seven-year-olds, eight-year-olds and nine-year-olds—the wee girls who suffered abuse at Fornethy. It is time that we did the right thing. It is time to restore their trust. It is time to show every survivor of child abuse that they are believed, they are valued and they will be heard. If there is no justice, there will be no peace. [Applause.]

I am happy to take an intervention.

Scotland has a proud history of invention and innovation, from the telephone to the television, and from the pneumatic tyre to penicillin. That legacy lives on today in the entrepreneurs and innovators across our country who are working hard to build businesses, generate ideas and create jobs in every community. However, if we are serious about empowering those entrepreneurs—not just celebrating them—we need more than press releases or appointments; we need a plan that delivers.

While I welcome Ana Stewart’s appointment as chief entrepreneur—and I thank Mark Logan for his valuable work—the motion before us paints a picture that simply does not reflect the reality that is experienced by many businesses. As Daniel Johnston highlighted, the rate of innovation-active businesses in Scotland has fallen from 50 per cent to just 32 per cent, putting us behind every English region and Wales. Despite a small improvement in the number of high-growth firms, Scotland ranks 11th out of 12 UK regions on the Government’s own innovation scorecard. Other key indicators are going in the wrong direction: business R and D investment is low, patent grants have dropped sharply and academic income from business collaboration has fallen in real terms.

Entrepreneurs do not need another ambition from Government; they need practical support. They need the investment to scale, the capital to grow and the skills pipeline that meets their needs. On all three fronts, the Government is falling short. Let us be clear: this is not just about tech start-ups in our cities. Innovation must be inclusive; it must reach rural communities, social enterprises and sectors that have often been overlooked. That includes support for more women and minority entrepreneurs—something that Ana Stewart has rightly championed through the pathways work that she co-authored. Good ideas need more than good intentions, however; they need funding, access and consistent support.

On investment, the number of risk capital deals under £10 million fell last year. Larger deals collapsed, with the total value down by 69 per cent. There is a chronic lack of long-term capital, particularly for capital-intensive sectors such as manufacturing and life sciences.

We face a growing digital gap when it comes to skills. As Foysol Choudhury rightly said, we are creating far more digital jobs than we are producing qualified graduates. The number of computer science teachers is falling, and employers are struggling to recruit people with even basic IT skills.

When it comes to in-work training, which is critical for both new entrants and workers who are looking to reskill or upskill, many businesses have told the Economy and Fair Work Committee recently that they are deeply concerned about the funding mechanism changes that the Scottish Government is proposing in the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill. There is a real risk, and a fear, that those changes will undermine the ability of training providers to meet the needs of businesses, just so that, rather than simply funding our colleges better, the Government can shore up its bad decision to cut college funding by 17 per cent since 2021. Our colleges are facing growing demand, with long waiting lists for skills-shortage subjects and falling apprenticeship numbers—all while they are being asked to do more with less.

The Government is doing the same with our enterprise agencies. South of Scotland Enterprise had its budget slashed by more than 25 per cent—£8.7 million has gone from the organisation that is responsible for supporting SMEs, fostering innovation and creating jobs. Nevertheless, SOSE continues to deliver, from the Techscaler hub in Dumfries to support for innovative, sustainable manufacturing businesses such as the Eco Group in Annan. Ambition needs to be backed by resources, however.

The Government claims that it wants to build a world-class entrepreneurial culture—that is a central goal in the national strategy for economic transformation. However, two years on, Audit Scotland has, rightly, questioned the lack of clear investment plans and noted weak transparency in how the NSET is being delivered. The most recent progress report offers generalised updates but little clarity on what is working and what is not, or why.

We cannot afford a strategy that continues to overpromise and underdeliver. We need a different approach—one in which our enterprise agencies pivot, as Lorna Slater said, and are empowered to provide long-term strategic support for entrepreneurship; in which colleges are properly funded to deliver the skills that businesses need; in which in-work training and digital education are seen as national priorities; and in which the Scottish Government uses its influence to bring together industry, academia and communities to drive innovation and to share its rewards. That is why Labour is asking the Parliament to support our amendment. Although early stage support matters, it is scale-ups, skills and sustained investment that will deliver lasting impact.

Scotland has the talent. We have the ideas. However, unless we match ambition with action and get the basics right, innovation will remain concentrated in too few sectors and too few places. Let us deliver a truly inclusive, entrepreneurial Scotland, where innovation thrives in every community, rural and urban, and where those who drive our economy forward are backed every step of the way on that important journey.

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I seek to raise a point of order under rule 13.2 of Parliament’s standing orders, which provides for ministerial statements to be subject to questioning by members. Although that rule ensures the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny, I am concerned that such scrutiny is being undermined by the manner in which the Scottish Government is handling the forthcoming announcement on a possible Galloway and Ayrshire national park.

Specifically, the Government has indicated that there will be a ministerial statement today to set out ministers’ response to a report submitted by NatureScot on the proposal for a Galloway national park. That report was submitted to ministers on 5 May and follows a public consultation process that closed in February 2025. Despite that consultation having closed more than three months ago, neither the NatureScot report nor the consultation responses have been published by the Government or by NatureScot ahead of today’s statement. That is despite the clear impression being given that the NatureScot report would be available and despite the fact that consultation responses could be made available—at no doubt considerable cost to the taxpayer—if subject to a freedom of information request.

Such withholding of information stands in contrast to normal practice, in which consultation responses and an accompanying analysis are typically published in advance of any ministerial response, enabling members to consider the evidence and to engage in informed questioning.

In this case, members will be expected to respond to the cabinet secretary’s announcement without having seen any of the underlying evidence that informed her decision. Such a lack of transparency raises serious questions about compliance with the spirit, if not the letter, of rule 13.2 of standing orders. Without access to the relevant documents, Parliament cannot properly exercise its duty to scrutinise the cabinet secretary’s decision.

Deputy Presiding Officer, will you advise whether it is compatible with standing orders, particularly rule 13.2 on ministerial statements, for a minister to make a statement in Parliament and then take questions when members have been denied access to the key materials on which that statement is based, and which could have been publicly available for some time? Will you raise the matter with the Scottish Government to ensure that future statements, especially those that are made following a formal consultation process, are handled in a way that enables full and meaningful scrutiny by members?

For too long, Galloway has been Scotland’s forgotten corner. Today, the Government made it clear that it wants to tear down the welcome to Dumfries and Galloway signs and put up no entry ones instead. Why is it that every idea that this incompetent, useless Government touches falls apart? Why is its only ambition for Galloway to turn the region into a dumping ground for wind farms, with no local jobs?

The cabinet secretary knows that she could have brought forward plans for Galloway that supported farming and forestry and helped them thrive. She could have built something special and made a change for the better. Instead, she has taken the easy way out and walked away. This do-nothing Government has failed to set out an alternative to its inaction. There is no plan B to fix a local economy that is built on low pay, and there is no action to stop the fastest depopulation in mainland Scotland.

We know that national park status brings more than £10 million a year of direct funding from the Government. Is that money still on the table, or is this just one more betrayal by a Government that has given up on Galloway?