Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

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 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 17 February 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 433 contributions

|

Meeting of the Parliament

Business Motions

Meeting date: 17 April 2024

Meghan Gallacher

The SNP cannot bring itself—[Interruption.]—to put a pause on puberty blockers until a final decision is made on the future of gender care in Scotland, but it needs to understand that caution must be used when we look at this issue. Children and young people cannot wait weeks or months for the Government to get its act together. We have heard every excuse, despite the issue of puberty blockers and gender care having been raised by MSPs in the chamber for years. I will continue to raise the issue not just because I am deeply concerned about the lack of evidence to protect our children, but because the Government cannot be allowed to bury its head in the sand any longer.

I will finish by repeating what I said yesterday, which is that

“Parents, carers, young people and those who have been failed by gender-affirming care in Scotland”—[Official Report, 16 April 2024; c 4.]

need and “deserve answers”. The Scottish Government is failing them by refusing to respond.

Therefore, I move amendment S6M-12867.1, after

“followed by Financial Resolution: Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill”

to insert—

“Ministerial Statement: Scottish Government Response to the Cass Review”.

Meeting of the Parliament

Portfolio Question Time

Meeting date: 17 April 2024

Meghan Gallacher

The minister will be aware of my efforts to secure a ministerial statement on the Cass review, as a portfolio questions session is not enough time in which to scrutinise a near-400-page report. The Scottish Government may not wish to talk about the issue, but parents, campaigners and young people deserve answers. I ask the minister a simple yes or no question: will the Scottish Government adopt the recommendations of the Cass review, including limiting the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones?

Meeting of the Parliament

Scotland’s International Culture Strategy

Meeting date: 16 April 2024

Meghan Gallacher

Keith Brown really needs to look at his own Government’s spending and the amount of money that has been squandered over the years by this SNP Government. That money could easily have been diverted into areas and sectors that need it most—including, by the way, our culture sector, which we are debating this afternoon.

If the Government is being completely transparent with the public, work should have been done on that. However, I have yet to see anything that shows the reality of what the SNP’s overall aim is.

That brings me to the case study that has been used, which is Quebec. Using another pro-separation movement as a benchmark for the paper is, in my view, not the right thing to do. It is not credible, and it certainly does not give the full picture of what the overall policy aims are. That was highlighted by National Galleries Scotland during the consultation stage for the strategy, when it said:

“We believe that a light-touch approach to furthering cultural relations that builds on the existing strengths of Scotland’s cultural sector will likely bring more benefits than a heavy-handed ‘top-down’ approach from Government that links culture too closely with explicit foreign policy aims.”

The Government motion is typical of the SNP. It does not address the priorities of the sector here but is in favour of promoting the SNP and its priorities elsewhere. In my view, that is definitely and absolutely the wrong way round. It will not help anyone in the sector in the long term.

In launching the document, Angus Robertson said:

“Our festivals, vibrant music scene and rich cultural heritage bring people from across the world to Scotland.”

That is true, of course, but, as I raised in my exchange with the cabinet secretary, there are concerns about the future of the Edinburgh fringe. Not only I but others say that, and it has been reported in the press. Gail Porter is an example of a big name who is being priced out of attending the festival in her home city due to overpriced accommodation.

That raises another problem for Scotland’s culture sector. Laws and policies that have been brought in by the Government, such as those on short-term lets, are having a detrimental impact on our culture sector. When it comes to suggestions and being helpful, I hope that the cabinet secretary understands the concerns that are being raised. If the fringe is reduced from its current capacity, a huge part of our culture will go with it, including platforms for new talent and the huge local economic advantages that it brings. It would be a travesty if anything should happen to the fringe, and the Scottish Government would have something to do with that, through bringing in incompatible legislation.

I do not have too much time left, but I will quickly summarise the points that I have made. The culture sector needs a Government that is focused on fixing the issues that have been created domestically by the SNP-Green coalition. It needs a Government that is working on an international strategy, not rehashing independence documents and pretending that it has all the priorities right. It also needs a light-touch approach from the Government, not a heavy-handed policy vehicle that links culture too closely with its own foreign policy aims.

I move amendment S6M-12845.2, to leave out from “welcomes” to end and insert:

“believes that Scotland’s culture is among the most vibrant in the world and should be promoted internationally; recognises that some of the points in the International Culture Strategy can help to promote Scotland’s culture overseas, but that the document provides another forum for the Scottish Government to promote independence and grievance-mongering; further recognises that local tourism and cultural services have not reopened or are being forced to close, and compels the Scottish Government to dedicate more time to restoring Scotland’s cultural sector.”

15:32  

Meeting of the Parliament

Scotland’s International Culture Strategy

Meeting date: 16 April 2024

Meghan Gallacher

On the point about enhancing culture in Scotland, is the cabinet secretary concerned about the comments that were made recently about the Edinburgh fringe, and does he agree that urgent action is needed to ensure that we do not lose one of the biggest events that people come to Scotland to see?

Meeting of the Parliament

Scotland’s International Culture Strategy

Meeting date: 16 April 2024

Meghan Gallacher

The point that I was trying to make in my contribution was that there is not enough emphasis on what we need to do domestically, here in Scotland. Support from the Government is exactly what our culture sector needs. The cabinet secretary has heard that right across the speeches in the debate. What will he do to make improvements here instead of focusing outwards?

Meeting of the Parliament

Scotland’s International Culture Strategy

Meeting date: 16 April 2024

Meghan Gallacher

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I apologise for being guilty of not doing that.

I associate myself with the remarks that the cabinet secretary made about Scott Williamson, the New Zealand honorary consul to Scotland.

There are many areas in which Angus Robertson and I will disagree when it comes to the constitution and how best to expand Scotland’s international culture. However, I begin with a point of consensus that is often overlooked when we partake in debates in the chamber, which is that we are all passionate about Scotland. Being elected to the Scottish Parliament comes with a responsibility to do everything that we can to make Scotland the best possible place to live, work and invest in, and to visit. We have some of the most breathtakingly beautiful landscapes in the world, and we have a deep-rooted history that makes us who we are today as Scots. We want Scotland to be the best that it can be, and we want to make sure that our heritage and our culture are protected. That is who we are as a nation. We are fiercely proud.

Scotland’s culture is among the most vibrant in the world and it should, of course, be promoted internationally. However, to grow our culture sector internationally, we must first ensure that it is thriving here in Scotland. To do that, the Scottish Government must focus on the domestic challenges that our culture sector is facing. We must harness the power of our culture sector before it is too late.

Our culture sector has been through the mill in recent times—of that there can be no doubt. A successful business model needs strong foundations in order to grow. If the domestic flagship model is not working, it is impossible to expand our global reach. Covid-19 certainly had an impact on the sector, but we are now two years on and we still need a long-term plan—not just an international plan—to restore and grow our culture sector. Many local tourism and culture services have not reopened their doors, and, too frequently, we see reports that many are being forced to close their doors for good. Recently, we heard that VisitScotland is closing its centres. They are the most recent casualties in a long line of tourism businesses that have suffered from savage Scottish Government cuts.

The Scottish Government needs to address those domestic challenges. Otherwise, we will not have the heritage, historical and cultural landmarks to promote internationally. Our creative industries are very important to us. They contribute more than £5 billion to our economy each year and they provide some 90,000 jobs. When Scotland’s artists fear for the future of Scottish culture, we should stop and listen. That is not just my opinion; it is shared by writers and film makers after the closure of a film project, a book festival and an art magazine in Glasgow. That is the aftermath of the Government’s decision to cut 10 per cent of Creative Scotland’s funding, especially when Scotland’s average culture spend is one of the lowest in Europe.

Creative Scotland’s chief executive, Iain Munro, has warned the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee that parts of the creative sector will collapse if funding is not increased. I agreed with Clare Adamson when she said in November last year that the Scottish Government needs

“to restore the confidence of Scotland’s culture sector”,

but I am afraid that the strategy does not do that. It appears to be no more than a rehash of the independence white paper on culture that was published in February. The similarities are quite something. As with any white paper that is published by the Government, it glosses over any responsibility that is held by the Scottish National Party and deflects directly on to others. The Scottish Government needs to be honest with itself. Has it assessed the economic damage that would be done to our culture sector should Scotland ever leave the United Kingdom?

Meeting of the Parliament

Business Motion

Meeting date: 16 April 2024

Meghan Gallacher

The Cass review, which was published last week, raises serious concerns about gender-affirming care for children in Scotland.

Not only does the report conclude that there is a lack of evidence to support the use of puberty-suppressing hormones, but it details how children and young people might not be being offered the right psychological support and assessment when they experience gender distress. That should worry us all. It certainly worries me, as a parent who would never wish any harm to come to any child, especially to children who need support when they are going through difficult times.

The truth is that we do not know what harms are caused by gender care, because we need more research, here in Scotland. I have repeatedly warned the Government about the Sandyford clinic. I have asked for a review, similar to the Cass review, of gender-related services for children and young people, and I have warned about the lack of evidence regarding puberty blockers. Those calls have been ignored time and again. I do not raise these issues to cause problems; I do so because I want to ensure that children receive the right safeguards when they embark on a course of medication that could have life-altering consequences.

We now have a report that suggests that we should approach gender care with caution, but the Scottish Government is burying its head in the sand and refusing to give any indication of whether it will accept any of the report’s 32 recommendations or will, at the very least, pause the use of puberty blockers until we have more evidence that they are safe. The Scottish Government must implement those 32 recommendations now—or explain why it will not do so, if that is the case.

It is not as if this Government or Parliament has been starved of opportunities for scrutiny. I have requested ministerial statements, written to the First Minister, submitted a question for First Minister’s question time, submitted a topical question and have submitted today an urgent question—all about the Cass review. All were either not taken, refused or ignored by this Government. What more must an elected member do to try to get answers?

Our Parliament’s principles are openness, accountability, the sharing of power and equality of opportunity, yet we have a Government that is in hiding and is unwilling to address a serious issue in the chamber.

I stand here today for countless parents, carers and young people and for those who have been failed by gender-affirming care in Scotland who want, and deserve, answers. That is all that they want. They want confirmation of what this Government will do, now that the Cass report has been published in full. The Scottish National Party Government has had two years since publication of the interim report to think about that, but I believe that it has done nothing, in hope that the issue will go away and that no one will dare to challenge it.

Scottish Conservatives seek to amend today’s business motion. If the SNP Government stands for the principles of this Parliament, it should allow a ministerial statement on the Cass review. Otherwise, it will confirm my suspicion that it is trying to dodge any scrutiny and is therefore letting down vulnerable children and young people right across Scotland.

I move amendment S6M-12864.1, to insert after “followed by Ministerial Statement: Climate Change Committee Scotland Report: Next Steps”:

“followed by Ministerial Statement: Scottish Government Response to the Cass Review

delete

5.00 pm Decision Time

and insert

5.30 pm Decision Time”.

14:08  

Meeting of the Parliament

Scotland’s International Culture Strategy

Meeting date: 16 April 2024

Meghan Gallacher

Will the member accept an intervention?

Meeting of the Parliament

Scotland’s International Culture Strategy

Meeting date: 16 April 2024

Meghan Gallacher

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Meeting of the Parliament

Gender Representation on Public Boards (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 26 March 2024

Meghan Gallacher

Today’s stage 1 debate will be relatively brief. The cabinet secretary and the convener have said that the amendment is a technical one.

The one question that many women across Scotland will have is this: how did we end up here in the first place? The Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 set out the objective for public boards to ensure that at least half of their non-executive members were women. That included the definition of the word “women” to include trans women. For Women Scotland brought a judicial review of the 2018 act, and, on 18 February 2022, the inner house of the Court of Session ruled that it was outwith the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence as it amended the definitions of the protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010.

The Court of Session declared that incorporating some of those with the protected characteristics of gender reassignment, whether or not they hold a gender recognition certificate, into the definition of women unlawfully

“conflates and confuses two separate and distinct protected characteristics”.

An exception in the Equality Act 2010 allowing provision for women excludes biological males. The Scottish National Party Government has therefore introduced the amendment bill to align with that ruling.

Women have fought for hundreds of years to achieve equality and to ensure that their rights are protected, but those rights have been eroded by a Government that is hell-bent on bringing in laws and legislation that put women’s rights at risk. From attempting to bring in legislation that would allow 16-year-olds to change their gender without a medical diagnosis, to moving the goalposts on who can obtain a gender recognition certificate, which would have meant that, if the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill had been enshrined into law, predatory men would have been allowed to take advantage of the system, to allowing a convicted rapist to be sent to a women’s prison, it is clear that women’s groups have had enough of laws that create a hierarchy of protected characteristics. It is divisive; it creates more division in our society.

Women’s groups will continue to challenge the Government when it attempts to bring in legislation that will have a detrimental impact on women, their rights and safeguarding. The Scottish Conservatives will support the amendment bill today, but I ask that the Scottish Government begins to work with women’s groups and not against them.

15:32