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 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 1 July 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 498 contributions

|

Meeting of the Parliament

Urgent Question

Meeting date: 22 May 2024

Meghan Gallacher

I am still concerned about the nature of the way in which the details have emerged. However, the truth has now been exposed, and tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money has potentially been lost. Given that the chief executive, Iain Munro, appears to have deliberately misled Parliament, MSPs and, of course, the boss of the Scottish National Party quango, does the cabinet secretary agree that his position is now untenable? If he agrees with me, why has he not sacked him already?

Meeting of the Parliament

Urgent Question

Meeting date: 22 May 2024

Meghan Gallacher

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that Creative Scotland was aware that the project, Rein, which received £76,196 of funding from the organisation, had scenes that were of a sexually explicit nature before awarding it funding.

Meeting of the Parliament

Urgent Question

Meeting date: 22 May 2024

Meghan Gallacher

Creative Scotland knew back in March 2023 from Rein’s application that its project would include

“a sex scene with genital contact”

involving three members of its cast. In his letter of 16 April to the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, the chief executive, Iain Munro, stated:

“as became clear in March 2024 when the project team developed new content for their website and publicised that as part of a call-out for participants, one new and significant difference emerged which took the project into unacceptable territory. That was the intention to include real sex, as opposed to performance depicting simulated sex, in the work.”

A freedom of information response that was released yesterday shows that that was completely untrue and that Rein was clear in its application in 2023 about what its theatre performance would contain. Can the culture secretary confirm unequivocally that he knew only yesterday that Creative Scotland lied to Parliament?

Meeting of the Parliament

Portfolio Question Time

Meeting date: 15 May 2024

Meghan Gallacher

I am due to meet with the cabinet secretary shortly, but I want to bring his attention to the closure of Motherwell concert hall in my region, because it is a well-loved facility that has entertained many in Lanarkshire for decades. I want to emphasise the detrimental impact on local economies and the restriction of the growth of talent who rely on smaller venues to get their big break. How will the cabinet secretary work with local councils to save these much-loved music venues, which are of substantial cultural importance and represent a substantial cultural heritage, given the announcement of investment in the sector?

Meeting of the Parliament

Minister and Junior Minister

Meeting date: 9 May 2024

Meghan Gallacher

We were promised fresh leadership by John Swinney, but all that we got from his much-talked-up Cabinet reshuffle was Humza Yousaf’s Cabinet with a different figurehead. They could not even be bothered to shuffle around the portfolios in any major way.

We were promised that there would be a streamlined Cabinet with fewer people in it. Instead, the Cabinet is even larger than it was under John Swinney’s predecessor, which will cost taxpayers tens of thousands of pounds more. The First Minister promised us that he would reach out to other parties and deliver a new style of politics. However, as we saw at First Minister’s question time, the Scottish National Party Government will continue to deflect and obfuscate instead of being up front and honest. For all that John Swinney talks about leading a new or revitalised Government, the past couple of days have shown that it remains the same old SNP Government that Scotland has suffered under for the past 17 years.

Although the Government has remained the same, the Parliament has changed. The SNP no longer commands a majority in the Parliament. It has ended its deal with the Greens. Although we welcomed the ending of the Bute house agreement, that has consequences for the Government. The SNP must now change its approach and reach out. It must build consensus and collaborate, otherwise it will be blocked from taking forward its agenda. That is why we will not support the Government’s appointments today. That we will not do so is not a personal criticism of any of the individuals who are up for approval today. Instead, we are putting down a marker that the Government must change its approach.

The Scottish Conservatives will take every opportunity to oppose the SNP Government and its obsession with independence. However, that does not mean that we are above working with other parties in the Parliament to deliver on the real priorities of the Scottish people. It is now a Parliament of minorities, and the SNP must recognise that.

14:14  

Meeting of the Parliament

Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People (Cass Review)

Meeting date: 8 May 2024

Meghan Gallacher

I move,

That the Parliament welcomes the report submitted by Dr Hilary Cass on gender identity services for children and young people; recognises the report as a valid scientific document, and calls on the Scottish Government to implement the recommendations of the report that are applicable to NHS services in Scotland.

15:22  

Meeting of the Parliament

Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People (Cass Review)

Meeting date: 8 May 2024

Meghan Gallacher

Absolutely. This is an opportunity to reset, refocus and actually prioritise young people who need the Government’s support.

The Cass review is a four-year-long, near-400-page report on the care that we give to some of our country’s most vulnerable children. The fact that we have been failing them for so long is bad enough, and we should all reflect on that. However, to ignore the scientific evidence-based report for the sake of dogma and ideology would be unforgivable. This is about the health, safety and wellbeing of our young people. There are no other national health service services that we would allow to continue unchanged after such a report had been brought forward and had shown that they were failing, and this service should be no different.

Next week, I will hold an event in Parliament with Marion Scott from the Sunday Post. That will be an opportunity for MSPs, ministers and cabinet secretaries to speak with families who are affected by gender care and to hear how they have been failed by the processes that are in place in Scotland. I urge all MSPs, regardless of their persuasion or political party, to speak to the families who have bravely stepped forward to tell their stories.

It is clear that we need to implement all 32 recommendations of the Cass review, as our motion says. That is simple, but it will show that we in this Parliament care about young people who are experiencing gender distress. The message that I have for MSPs is that, if they do not back our motion today to implement the full recommendations of the Cass review, they will need to explain to the families why they have not done so, because those families are the ones who have been impacted by the Scottish Government’s lack of decision making and action.

Meeting of the Parliament

Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People (Cass Review)

Meeting date: 8 May 2024

Meghan Gallacher

Yesterday, I attended the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee’s meeting to hear directly from Dr Hilary Cass following her review of gender care services for children and young people. I had hoped to ask a question but, despite emailing the committee on Friday, I was told that time had run out. Unfortunately, that was just the latest in a series of questions that I have raised on the topic that have been rejected or denied. The fact of the matter is that children, young people, parents and campaign groups deserve answers, which is why my party has brought a debate on the issue to the Parliament.

Talking about gender in Scotland has become toxic, but we need to be clear that the Cass review is not about ideology. It is a scientific evidence-based review of the medical care that we have been giving to vulnerable young children. It is a monumental and fearless piece of work. I say “fearless” because, even amid the toxicity of the gender debate, the crucial report did not shy away from its difficult findings—namely, that we have been letting down a generation of vulnerable and distressed children.

One would think that the publication of a damning report on the medical care of children would jump straight to the top of any Government’s in-tray and that politicians of all stripes would be united in wanting to ensure that mistakes and poor practices were stopped immediately and that the required improvements were put in place. However, the response from the Scottish National Party Government could not have been more lacklustre.

From the moment that the Cass review was commissioned four years ago, the SNP Government sought to dismiss it as being irrelevant to Scotland, even though the medical approaches that were being reviewed were almost identical to those that were being used here. The Government disregarded the interim report, which cast doubt on the safety of puberty blockers for children, and, when the final report was published last month, it dithered, delayed and obfuscated until clinicians took the decision out of its hands by announcing that NHS Scotland would pause the use of puberty blockers for under-18s.

Although the use of puberty blockers is undoubtedly one of the key aspects of the Cass review, the nearly 400-page document makes a total of 32 recommendations to improve gender care for young people in Scotland. The recommendations include offering children fertility counselling before they proceed down a medical pathway; assigning a child a medical practitioner to take charge of their care and ensure that they get the personalised help that they need; support for parents, carers or siblings if needed; and a requirement to keep a national data set on gender services in order to continually update best practices.

The SNP has continued to be deafeningly silent on those and a host of other reasonable, commonsense recommendations. I made a promise to families who have been failed by gender care services in Scotland, and I intend to keep raising the issue until the Scottish Government implements all 32 recommendations of the Cass review without delay.

The Cass report should fundamentally change how we look at gender care in Scotland. It should be approached with caution and care, and it should be given holistically, viewing a child as a rounded individual and tailoring the approach to their unique needs. Yes, the report concludes that there is little evidence to support use of puberty-suppressing hormones, but it also details that children and young people might not be offered the right psychological support and assessments when experiencing gender distress. Medical intervention is not always required, but that has been common practice for many individuals. Meanwhile, children’s mental health has been left to deteriorate.

Although the Sandyford clinic has finally paused its use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for those who are under the age of 18, gender care services need a complete overhaul. The Scottish Government needs to make that a priority because, as things stand, the waiting times for children and young people to see a clinician at a gender clinic can be over four years. Child and adolescent mental health services waiting times are through the roof, and the SNP has remodelled the funding of gender care services, which has resulted in a cut to the budget of those services.

I say to members, regardless of their opinion on the Cass review or on gender care services, that the Scottish Government is failing young people.

Meeting of the Parliament

Women’s State Pensions (Compensation)

Meeting date: 1 May 2024

Meghan Gallacher

As Douglas Ross explained in his intervention on Maggie Chapman, our amendment is about getting consensus in Parliament today. We could certainly return to such issues. I think that our request is reasonable. We are seeking to unite Parliament, as was made clear earlier, and I hope that we can all rise to that challenge today, especially now that we have different circumstances and we are working in Parliament with a minority Government.

This debate is the first test, and it gives us the best opportunity to unite behind the WASPI women. It should not be about party lines; politicians of every party have raised the issues of the WASPI campaign. We can come back to the issue of compensation at a later date. We can have another debate on WASPI women and the WASPI campaign. It is a really important issue, so there would be no issue with our coming back and having discussions again.

I will reflect on Beatrice Wishart’s speech, to which I really enjoyed listening. She spoke about the rise of feminism in this country and how some of the women who were behind the rise of feminism have been impacted. They fought for equality and equal rights. By standing up for rights through really difficult times, they tried to make the lives of future generations better. They are the stalwarts who have passed the baton on to younger women so that they can continue that fight to achieve equality.

I echo Douglas Ross’s calls and ask the Government to support our amendment. We are trying to reach beyond the political divide to send a unified message to the UK Government that the PHSO’s recommendations be implemented in full and that the women who have been impacted receive the compensation that they deserve.

16:54  

Meeting of the Parliament

Women’s State Pensions (Compensation)

Meeting date: 1 May 2024

Meghan Gallacher

The Parliament was not scheduled to hold a debate on WASPI women today; the original debate for this afternoon was on positive masculinity. I was looking forward to talking about men’s sheds and how they are helping men to open up about their mental health and creating generations of role models who will help and support younger men so that they can become role models in their family and among their friends, especially when it comes to relationships with women. Considering that the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee is looking at suicide prevention, and that suicide is the biggest killer among men under the age of 35, I hope that the debate can be rescheduled. I am pleased that Paul O’Kane also called for that debate to take place at another point.

I turn to the crux of today’s debate. My party leader, Douglas Ross, set out the Scottish Conservatives’ position on the WASPI campaign. I echo his remarks and those of others in congratulating the women who have been relentless in their efforts to obtain compensation for the changes to their state pension. That view has been echoed by many members during their contributions today.

Since being elected in 2021, I have often stood up in the chamber and fought for women’s issues. I recognise how painful the campaign has been and I do not think that any Government would ever intentionally try to cause hurt and anger. However, I see the reason for creating more parity and equality for men and women who are in receipt of the state pension.

The WASPI women recognise that it was never about the decisions, but about how the decisions were carried out. That is why it is right for the UK Government to consider carefully the ombudsman’s findings before updating MPs at Westminster.

Some MSPs have reflected this afternoon on the WASPI campaign and the journeys of particular women. We have heard that women have been negatively impacted financially and emotionally by decisions that have been taken. The First Minister rightly mentioned that all political party leaders have pledged their support for the WASPI campaign.

Colleagues have given a long list of women who have never given up, who have kept going and who have made sure that their voices have been heard. It is right to pay tribute to Sheila, Linda, Lorraine and every woman who has written a letter, attended an elected member’s surgery or given evidence about how they have been affected by the changes in state pension age.

Some of our MP colleagues have also been mentioned—Carolyn Harris, Tim Loughton and Peter Aldous have all taken the issue to Westminster to fight on behalf of women.

This afternoon, MSPs have referred to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s report. It is fair to say that the outcome of that report has been the subject of a lot of today’s speeches. The process has taken five long years, and the issue has been raised consistently by Roz McCall and others.

Even though the report concluded that timely and accurate information was available about changes to the number of qualifying years that were needed in order to receive a full state pension, it recognised that there have been significant issues. Many women did not understand the situation as regards their own personal circumstances and how the new state pension would impact on them, and the DWP did not adequately use feedback and research to improve its service and performance. Jeremy Balfour and others referred to unintended consequences.

The report also concluded that the maladministration of the DWP’s complaints handling had caused unnecessary distress and anxiety, and that women had lost the opportunity to make informed decisions about personal autonomy and financial control. Most importantly, the report recommended that those who have suffered injustice should be compensated financially. I do not think that anybody who has spoken in the debate has argued otherwise.

That is why the Scottish Conservatives’ amendment

“calls on the UK Government to respond in full to the substantial report ... and recommendations contained within it as quickly as possible, including the recommendation to pay compensation”.

Douglas Ross gave a passionate speech that aimed to unite Parliament; our amendment is also one of consensus. Earlier, MSPs were asked to rise to the challenge—