Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 23 January 2026
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1140 contributions

|

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Portfolio Question Time

Meeting date: 8 January 2026

Meghan Gallacher

Data shows that, since 2019-20, more than 73,000 pupils have missed at least half of their schooling, with more than 6,000 not attending school at all. Persistent absence not only impacts on children’s educational experience; it risks long-term harm to their education and wellbeing. Will the cabinet secretary accept that urgent national action is required and that the Scottish National Party Government has failed to act with urgency on the issue?

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 8 January 2026

Meghan Gallacher

Will the minister take an intervention?

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 8 January 2026

Meghan Gallacher

In my earlier contribution, I raised the issue of letters that I received from two residents of the same building who received two different responses from the Government, one of which was fully supportive of funding cladding remediation, while the other was lukewarm at best. I need to know from the Government when the cladding remediation directorate changed the content of its letter of support to residents, who approved that letter, whether it was seen by Scottish Government ministers and how many people have been sent different types of letter. The inconsistency means that there will be different levels of support, which is, frankly, wrong.

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 8 January 2026

Meghan Gallacher

We have had exchanges in the chamber up to this point, but the Scottish Government cannot tell us how much money it has already spent out of the £97.3 million for cladding remediation. We do not know what the levy is for or why people are paying into the fund, because we do not know how much money the Government has already spent on remediation. I would rather focus on that first and look at other alternatives thereafter.

I turn to what I consider to be the most damning aspect of the debate, which is the Scottish Government’s handling of cladding remediation. It is now nearly eight and a half years since Grenfell and there is still no comprehensive, consistent or fully funded remediation plan in place. Instead, we have seen confusion, contradiction and chaos, and the only people who are paying the price are home owners.

I have brought with me today some letters that expose the failings of the Scottish Government quite starkly. A constituent contacted me when they had tried to sell their flat, only to be told by the Scottish Government cladding remediation directorate that issues that they had with cladding would render the property effectively unsaleable. In a letter from the Scottish Government dated October 2025, they were informed that funding would be dependent on the findings of a single building assessment and that some works that were identified could be deemed the home owners’ responsibility, including those that were not considered a live fire safety risk.

That is where it gets interesting, because my constituent’s neighbour in the same building had received a letter the year before, in November 2024, that stated something entirely different. That letter said that, where the developer could not be identified or was no longer operating, the Scottish Government would use public funds to undertake assessments and carry out works that were needed to eliminate or mitigate any risk to human life associated with the external wall cladding system.

Which is it? Those two neighbours in the same building had different outcomes and received two entirely different messages about liability, funding and responsibility. That is not a minor administrative error; it is a complete failure of governance by the SNP. I ask the minister why the Scottish Government changed the content of the letters that it sends out to home owners who are impacted. How many people have potentially been misled about the support that they should expect, given that their properties have been impacted by cladding?

Residents in general, not excluding my constituents, are still living in fear and anxiety because properties remain unsaleable and costs continue to be pushed on to home owners who did absolutely nothing wrong—and, even now, the Government cannot provide consistent answers to people whose lives have been put on hold. It is simply not credible for ministers to argue that developers today should be made to pay for historical regulatory failures, particularly when the Government has had almost a decade to act and has failed to do so.

I know that I am running out of time, Deputy Presiding Officer. Until ministers can demonstrate competence, consistency and fairness in how cladding remediation should be handled, they have no moral authority, in my view, to impose new levies that could further damage our housing market and supply. The approach is failing home owners, it is failing builders and it is failing Scotland, and until it is fixed, I will not play any part in it.

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 8 January 2026

Meghan Gallacher

John Mason is talking about exemptions. We have been here before with rent controls. As soon as we start adding exemptions, would it not be more sensible and practical to realise that what we are bringing forward is just not right and that we need to go back to the drawing board?

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Portfolio Question Time

Meeting date: 8 January 2026

Meghan Gallacher

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to improve pupil attendance in schools. (S6O-05350)

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

General Question Time

Meeting date: 8 January 2026

Meghan Gallacher

I am afraid that the annual report exposes the Scottish National Party’s continued failure to get a grip of Scotland’s housing emergency. Record numbers of households remain stuck in temporary accommodation, and the number of people who are rough sleeping continues to rise. I hope that the cabinet secretary shares my view that it is disgraceful that, while we are in the chamber today, 10,000 children are growing up without the security of a permanent home. All the while, councils are left struggling as a result of the savage cuts that the SNP Government has made to council budgets.

Prevention is key, but we also know that, in order to end homelessness, we need to ensure that the supply of homes meets the demand. I have asked the cabinet secretary this question before, and I will ask it again: if the Government is hellbent on dismantling the housing sector brick by brick, how does she believe that the Government will reach its target of providing 110,000 affordable homes by 2032?

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Income Tax

Meeting date: 7 January 2026

Meghan Gallacher

Well, they are not free then, are they?

That is the approach of the SNP and other political parties to taxation in this country. Their policy is, “If it moves, we’re going to tax it,” but they must know that that punishes ambition and penalises progression. It hits hardest those who are trying to move up the career ladder, take on extra responsibility or secure a better future for their family. The SNP tells us to wait for the budget for clarity, but, as colleagues have conveyed, nothing prevents the SNP from putting out those messages before the budget. A different approach to the taxation system would be welcomed.

For working parents, the situation is even more stark. Too many families are forced to make impossible choices when it comes to childcare in this country—they have to reduce hours, turn down promotions or leave the workforce altogether. They have to choose what they can do, because they do not have the additional money in their pocket to be able to make those decisions of their own free will. For many younger people in this country, the dream of becoming a home owner or parent is made more difficult because of the choices that are made in this chamber.

I know that I am in my last couple of minutes—

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Income Tax

Meeting date: 7 January 2026

Meghan Gallacher

Sorry. In my last couple of seconds, I want to say that it is time for a different approach—one that backs working people, that recognises the real pressures that they face and that puts fairness, growth and opportunity back at the heart of Scotland’s tax system.

15:31  

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Income Tax

Meeting date: 7 January 2026

Meghan Gallacher

The Parliament is designed to stand up for working people in Scotland. However, since the SNP took office, working people have been told—not asked, but told—to pay more, work harder and accept less in return. That is not fairness; it is failure.

Our motion is simple. We are calling on the Scottish Government

“to reduce income tax on working people”,

to uprate

“income tax thresholds in line with inflation in the forthcoming Scottish budget and in future Scottish Budgets”,

and to simplify a system that has become punitive, confusing and deeply unfair. We also believe that the Scottish basic rate and intermediate rate of income tax should be replaced with a

“single Scottish income tax rate of 19 pence on income up to the higher rate threshold”.

I do not think that those are radical demands. They are measures that are designed to put more money back into the pockets of everyday, ordinary, working Scots, to reduce the growing tax gap between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom and to begin repairing the damage that has been done by years of SNP income tax policy.

Middle earners—the nurses who care for us, the police officers who keep our communities safe and the teachers who are shaping our children’s futures—are all paying more in tax than they would pay anywhere else in the rest of the UK. What do they receive in return? They get fewer services, longer waiting times, crumbling infrastructure and a childcare system that still presents a huge financial barrier for many families.

We have heard from Jamie Hepburn, the minister and others today about all the free policies that are offered in Scotland, but, of course, they did not mention that those free policies are paid for by taxpayers up and down the country. That is the SNP’s record: higher taxes, lower value and broken promises.