Meghan Gallacher
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“Shirley-Anne Somerville: One example of when cutting people’s benefits does not help involves the suggestion that we take away support from disabled people, which disabled people tell us helps them into employment. We need to bear that in mind.”
“I, too, thank Maggie Chapman for bringing the really important issue of our universities to the chamber. I want to cast members’ minds back to March 2025, when Douglas Ross, as the convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, challenged the former principal and vice-chancellor of the University of Dundee, Professor Iain…”
“As the cabinet secretary mentioned in her statement, the Scottish Government has spent billions of pounds on tackling child poverty, but it remains stubbornly high, with one in five children still living in relative poverty.”
“If we fast forward a year, we see that the University of Dundee has sadly found itself in the headlines for all the wrong reasons again. As Maggie Chapman said, that is not down to the lecturers or the students; it is down to the university’s governance and structures, as well as the financial situation that our universities and colleges…”
“On that latter point, I went to Fife Gingerbread this morning and spoke to families and their support workers about the work that that organisation and others do to ensure that women are supported into employment in a way that encourages their confidence, builds their skills and is sustainable and successful in the long term.”
“The former education secretary and now Deputy First Minister, Jenny Gilruth, said in January this year that teachers would need to relocate to where the jobs are. Mike Corbett from the NASUWT condemned those comments.”
The complete record
Every one of 420 lines we hold for Meghan Gallacher, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 9.
“These acts strike at community identity and the dignity of those who have served. That sense of injustice, particularly among the armed forces and veterans community, led me to introduce the bill. In its current form, the bill seeks to create a specific statutory offence of destroying, damaging or desecrating a war memorial, with enhanced penalties, on the basis that current law does not adequately reflect the seriousness or impact of those crimes. That is because war memorials are not given different consideration and desecrating them is usually considered to be within the same bracket of offence as desecrating a lamp post or a post box. I just do not believe that that is right, given the historical, cultural and social significance of war memorials.”
“I was the local councillor at the time, and I was appalled to see the words “scum of the earth” written beside the names of those who made the ultimate sacrifice. The Spanish civil war memorial, which is situated in the same park, was defaced two years later, in 2021, rightly prompting condemnation across the community. Sadly, those incidents are not isolated. Desecration of war memorials often occurs during periods of heightened political tension, and the harm that is caused extends far beyond the physical damage. I have raised the issue in the Parliament previously, but the work that my office undertook in preparation for the bill found that, since 1966, there have been roughly 66 attacks on war memorials in Scotland. Although that number appears relatively low, almost 70 per cent have occurred since 2014.”
“I begin by thanking everyone who supported the development of my member’s bill, particularly the staff of the non-Government bills unit for their exceptional assistance throughout the process and, of course, my wonderful office team. I also recognise and pay tribute to the members of the friends of Dennistoun war memorial group. Without their tenacity and commitment to changing the law, I would not be here speaking to the bill today. In August 2018, the newly installed war memorial in Alexandra park was petrol bombed just days after its installation and weeks before its unveiling. I understood the anger and distress that that caused because, in 2019, a year later, the Duchess park war memorial in Motherwell was vandalised.”
“I wonder whether Meghan Gallacher will support our budget to deliver that expenditure for housing in”
“Indeed, since 2007, we have helped deliver more than 141,000 affordable homes. That is 45 per cent more per head of population than in England and 69 per cent more than in Wales. We have a strong track record, but more needs to be done. In the immediate sense, we are investing money to tackle void properties, and we have thousands of void properties coming back into use. We are putting money in place to acquire properties from the private sector so that more can be used in the affordable housing sector. The investment programme that the Government is setting out in the budget indicates long-term, stable funding for investment in housing for the years to come, and more homes Scotland will accelerate the pace of delivery. That is what my Government is prepared to do. We are prepared to put the resources and measures in place.”
“I live in hope that the new agency will help to deliver the increase in house building that Scotland desperately needs. However, history tells us that SNP quangos rarely deliver for Scotland. Almost two years ago, this Parliament declared a national housing emergency, and ministers in this chamber promised urgent action. Creating a new housing agency that will not even be operational until 2028 is not decisive action—it is kicking the can down the road. What will the Scottish Government do right now—not in two years’ time—to support the building of more homes by supporting the private sector and to tackle the appalling backlog in social housing? The First Minister: The first thing that I would say to Meghan Gallacher is that Scotland has built more affordable homes per capita than England or Wales has in recent years—substantially more.”
“To ask the Scottish Government how the increase in the international development fund that was announced in the draft 2026-27 Scottish budget will be spent. (S6O-05407)”
“I am concerned that, by lumping apprenticeships into the Scottish Funding Council in this way—that is fundamentally what the bill does—we will lose sight of the issues that he raises. Although we talk about parity of esteem in this Parliament whenever we get the opportunity, that is not how it plays out when it comes to money. We know the pressure that the higher education and further education systems are under in this country. Where does the squeeze come from? That is what worries me, which is why I have lodged amendment 44. You cannot go backwards.”
“On this side of the chamber, we have repeatedly made the case for a demand- led apprenticeship system in which employers who have jobs and roles are given the support that they need to be able to fill them and opportunities are given to young people, people who are changing their careers, underemployed people and unemployed people. Daniel Johnson: I wonder whether one of the more fundamental points to make is that the risk of consolidating skills funding in tertiary education more broadly means that we lose the clear focus and line of sight that we have on numbers and, most critically, on skills funding. That topic will be covered when we discuss further sections, but I wonder whether the loss of that clarity is an issue. Does Stephen Kerr agree that that is one of the risks? Stephen Kerr: I absolutely agree with Daniel Johnson.”
“I apologise, Presiding Officer—I am coming to a conclusion, but all the amendments in the group are my amendments, and I am addressing them all to give members an opportunity to hear the rationale behind them and consider with an open mind whether they support them. Amendment 44 is about accountability. Importantly, it says that apprenticeship numbers should not fall year on year unless ministers come to the Parliament to explain why and secure approval. We have topped out the number of apprenticeships in Scotland because of the centralised and planned way in which we decide how many there are.”
“We should be more imaginative in how we see the workforce and not write off whole demographic groups of people in our society. If we believe in equality of opportunity, that has to apply to people of all ranges of ability and disability. The apprenticeships that I am enthusing about—which I hope is an enthusiasm shared by others—combine degree-level learning with paid employment. They deliver high completion rates, high employer satisfaction and excellent employment outcomes, yet uptake remains limited and patchy. Amendment 43 pushes the system—I think that we should do so—to focus on the areas that matter most: the sectors that underpin productivity and economic growth.”
“I point to the health service, where such an apprenticeship would be most welcome. Pam Duncan-Glancy: The member is quite right to point out the issues around graduate support. Does he agree that, with the gap between the number of disabled people and the number of non-disabled people in graduate-placed jobs growing, there is a need to do something specific for the group of disabled graduates who are in underemployment? Stephen Kerr: I am delighted that Pam Duncan-Glancy intervened to make that point specifically in relation to underemployment. Our economy suffers from underemployment. When the governing party of Scotland is making a political point by boasting that more people who pay tax are earning less than £30,000 a year, I think that we have a serious underemployment problem in our country. I agree with the member.”
“Amendment 42 strengthens that part of the SFC’s role and gives it permanence. Amendment 43 is on graduate apprenticeships, which I strongly believe are one of the most underused assets in our skills system. I have indicated a couple of times that I think that the name often misleads people: you do not have to be a graduate to go on a graduate apprenticeship. The whole point of it is that you are an undergraduate, and one of the positive outcomes of the apprenticeship is that you obtain a degree. Amendment 43 requires the Scottish Funding Council to take steps to expand the range and the number of graduate—or degree—apprenticeship frameworks and to prioritise the sectors that are experiencing skills shortages. If we had more time, I think that members across the chamber would agree that a number of roles are key.”
“I have seen, as have many of my fellow parliamentarians, how beautiful it is when young people—particularly those who have dropped out of school because of their lack of interest or a variety of other reasons—have their imagination ignited by seeing what is available to them, for example, in college. That is why, after the intervention from Brian Whittle, I talked at length about the opportunity that the bill provides to reimagine and reshape the landscape for post- school journeys. The bill has missed that opportunity, but it is being reshaped by amendments. Colleges Scotland has been clear that colleges are central to those pathways, and it already provides wraparound support that improves completion and progression rates. I would like to specifically call attention to the inspiring example that I have seen at Forth Valley College.”
“Amendment 42 focuses on the front-end of the pipeline. It requires the Scottish Funding Council to “promote and support school-to-work pathways, including school-college partnerships, foundation apprenticeships”— those have been renamed— “and work-based learning” in the senior phase. That is not new thinking. The evidence has been around for years that, when schools, colleges and employers work together, transitions improve and drop-out rates fall. However, delivery has been inconsistent and too often has depended on local good will rather than national expectation. Amendment 42 bakes those relationships into the system.”
“This is about the hand up that we should all aspire to see as a common feature of our society—a society based on fairness and a society where we believe in equality of opportunity. It is about giving people the tools that they need to take responsibility for their own futures, rather than parking them on benefits and just hoping that things will change. Work gives people structure, purpose and independence. A system that actively helps people to reskill and re- enter employment is a system that believes in personal agency, not managed dependency. If someone wants to move from a declining sector into a growing one, the system should back that ambition. We should back that ambition. If someone has lost their job and wants to get back into productive work, we should be helping them to do so, not writing them off as yesterday’s workforce.”
“As I said, modern working lives are not linear, and people have to retrain. Industries decline and technology reshapes jobs. We are in the midst of such a reshaping of our economy right now. On average, people will change careers multiple times over the course of their working lives. Amendment 41 seeks to ensure that apprenticeships and work-based learning provision will include pathways that are targeted at unemployed people, people who are seeking to change careers and those who are at risk of labour market exclusion. That matters, and it should be in the bill, because helping someone to retrain is not just an economic intervention; it is also about human dignity and empowering people to have control over their lives. This is not about handouts.”
“The Scottish Parliament information centre analysis ahead of stage 3 highlights long-standing concerns about disengagement among young people who are not in education, employment or training and the uneven availability of apprenticeship opportunities across Scotland. Amendment 39 addresses those issues and that problem directly. If the Parliament will forgive me, I will dwell on amendment 41 for a moment, because it goes to something deeper than skills policy. It recognises that apprenticeships are not just for school leavers, which can be a trap in our thinking. Modern working lives are not linear. Maybe some of us in the chamber had the opportunity, before we entered politics, to work in the same business and the same role or function for our whole careers, but that is very uncommon in the modern economy.”
“Equality of outcomes is a different matter, because ultimately people will rise to whatever level it is that they aspire to rise to in terms of hard work and effort and all the stuff that goes with that. However, creating more equality of opportunity is what we are in business to do. That is exactly why we on this side of the chamber are Conservatives, and my amendment represents a commitment to opportunity. Too many young people—I do not see how other members could disagree with this, because it is a sad reality—fall into the gap between school and work. Too many young people disconnect very early on and never quite reconnect, and once that happens, the costs to the individual and to society rise quickly. My amendment is about keeping doors open and making sure that we have a system that reaches out rather than one that waits passively.”
“Under the current definitions that Government ministers like to use and that the SNP likes to parrot, the duration of the tracking of positive destinations is very limited, and the broadness of the term means that a person can work in a charity shop for a couple of hours a week, and that is considered a positive destination. As someone who has ambition for Scotland and for the people of Scotland, I say that that ought not to be seen as a positive destination. I lodged amendment 39 in order to create an obligation on the Scottish ministers. It would not guarantee placements or create entitlements without effort, but it represents a commitment to opportunities. One of the driving influences in my politics and the politics of many of my colleagues on this side of the chamber is the concept of equality of opportunity.”
“It would require ministers, when funding the system, to “seek to ensure that every person aged 16 to 24 who is not in full time education or employment is offered access to a publicly-funded Scottish apprenticeship or work-based learning opportunity.” Brian Whittle used a phrase that ministers and other representatives of the Government party like to use a lot, which is “positive destinations”. That is such a broad term that it is pretty much meaningless. The reality is that there are far too many 16 to 24-year-olds in our country for whom that phrase almost has the sound of mockery about it. 16:45 Brian Whittle: Does the member agree that some destinations are more positive than others and that we have to make sure that those routes are available to all our pupils? Stephen Kerr: I do.”
“Stephen Kerr: For me, the amendments in this group go to the heart of what the bill could actually mean for people, because they are not about structures. We can debate governance, powers and frameworks all day long, but the real test of such legislation is whether it expands opportunity. What is important are the people who should be at the centre of the bill. The amendments are about raising skill levels and, fundamentally, helping Scotland’s economy to grow and its people to prosper. The amendments are about ensuring that apprenticeships and work-based learning, as the minister has defined it, will do exactly that. I will begin with amendment 39 because it sets the tone.”
“Amendment 38 disagreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I understand that the minister wishes to make a point of order. Ben Macpherson: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I wish to speak in the interest of the Official Report. In my intervention on Brian Whittle, I stated that section 5(2) of the bill, as amended at stage 2, gave a definition of work- based learning. I wish to correct that to say section 5(3). The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, minister. That will be noted on the record. Section 5—Funding for Scottish apprenticeships and work-based learning The Deputy Presiding Officer: We now come to group 9, on funding for Scottish apprenticeships and work-based learning. Amendment 39, in the name of Stephen Kerr, is grouped with amendments 41, 42, 43, 44 and 86.”
“For Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jackie Dunbar] Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 47, Against 71, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment 37 disagreed to. Amendment 38 moved—[Stephen Kerr]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 38 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Meghan Gallacher: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Once again, my app would not connect. I would have voted yes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Gallacher. Your vote will be recorded.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted yes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Gallacher. Your vote will be recorded. For Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jackie Dunbar] Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 46, Against 71, Abstentions 0.”
“Shona Robison: Given the £4.9 billion investment in affordable housing, I do not think that we can be accused of ignoring the housing emergency. Over the course of the spending review, that is a massive investment—and, as we have been clear, £800 million of it will come from the private sector. A lot of work is being done around mid-market rent and build to rent to make sure that the private sector is working in partnership with us to grow that pot to the extent that it can in order to meet the needs of the people of Scotland. That work is going well and I am sure that Meghan Gallacher will want to welcome that.”
“Although an uplift to the housing budget is welcome, the cabinet secretary knows that encouraging private investment is key to solving Scotland’s housing crisis. It is interesting that, in her statement, there was little to no mention of the housing emergency, given that a housing emergency has been declared by the Parliament. The cabinet secretary talks a good game about attracting investment to deliver more homes, but policies such as rent controls and the proposed building safety levy threaten to put additional pressure on the private sector. How will today’s budget support the private house building sector? Will the cabinet secretary commit to eradicating punitive taxes that will make it more difficult for the sector to build the homes that we in Scotland desperately need?”
“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. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I advise members that we have some time in hand. 15:53”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“At a time when supply is already lagging dangerously behind demand and when construction costs are soaring, private investment is fragile and confidence in the pipeline is weak, the levy, if it goes through as it is, will act as a further brake on the delivery of housing supply. I therefore directly ask the minister whether we want to build fewer homes, deliver fewer affordable homes through planning obligations and support fewer jobs in the construction supply chain. That is the gamble that the Scottish Government is taking, and I believe that it is a reckless one. John Mason: In reality, the levy model is very similar to the one that was introduced in the rest of the UK. Does the member accept my argument that it would have been better to share the costs far more widely—for example, by raising corporation tax?”
“Of course it matters, but the real question is whether the levy, in its current form, would be the right mechanism to fund cladding remediation or whether it threatens to compound one failure with another. Homes for Scotland, the Scottish Property Federation and others have been absolutely clear in their evidence that the levy would not simply be absorbed by developers but would hit viability, could stall projects and could, in some cases, stop development entirely. We have been here before. Willie Rennie referred to the problems caused by rent controls, and I fear that the exact same thing will happen again.”
“Improving building safety is not optional. The tragedy at Grenfell tower exposed catastrophic failures in regulation, oversight and accountability, and it is right that Governments should accept responsibility for ensuring that people are safe in their own homes. However, good intentions do not give this Parliament or this Government a free pass. The duty before us as parliamentarians is not only to improve safety but to ensure that the policies that we introduce here are coherent and fair and do not cause further harm, particularly to vital sectors such as house building and construction, which we will need if we are to address a deepening housing emergency. I do not for a second believe that anyone here doubts the importance of building safety.”
“I want the time that people spend in temporary accommodation to be shorter, but, nonetheless, that provision provides a vital safety net. We are taking action, as set out in our housing emergency action plan, not least through the continued delivery of affordable homes. We are also making available £80 million this year for councils to buy homes and make them available for families. Non-domestic Rates Revaluation 3.”
“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? Màiri McAllan: As is quite often the case, Meghan Gallacher’s characterisation of the Government’s approach is incorrect, and she has misrepresented how we are viewed by many of the stakeholders with whom I work. We are taking action on the issue across the board. Temporary accommodation is available as a vital safety net, but let us not forget that most people in temporary accommodation throughout Scotland are in local authority properties while they await a permanent home.”
“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.”
“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— The Deputy Presiding Officer: It is seconds. 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”
“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.”
“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. Ivan McKee: That is the whole point: tax pays for those free things, which people would not get if we did what the Conservative Party wants us to do and reduced tax rates. 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“The findings were clearly leaked to a newspaper before they were given to Parliament. The Presiding Officer: Thank you. I have been in the chamber all afternoon, so I am not aware of the points that Mr Ross raises, but Parliament will be only too well aware of my view that all important announcements should be made to Parliament in the first instance and that that must always be the case. We will conclude that item of business there, because I am aware of the need to protect time for our next item of business. I will allow a momentary pause for members on the front benches to organise themselves. Swimming Pools”
“Those sources made those comments to the newspaper before any members in this chamber—certainly, any Opposition MSPs—had seen the report from the independent advisers, which gives their view that the cabinet secretary had breached the code twice but would not have to resign or be sacked as a result of that. That suggests that party-political sources within the nationalist governing party had access to the independent advisers’ report before others, and that they briefed it out. Given your respect for this Parliament and for its being informed first, will you request of the First Minister that he launches an inquiry as to how that information was leaked into the public domain when, at that point, it should have been with only the First Minister and perhaps a few in his inner circle?”
“An urgent question from Ash Regan on a similar, related matter was very much focused on Police Scotland’s activity to deter and disrupt grooming gang-type activity. Other questions, because of the way that they were drafted, have indeed been for education colleagues to answer. I stress that this work must be not only a cross- Government endeavour but a cross-Parliament endeavour, because the issue of how we best protect our children is a cross-societal endeavour. The Presiding Officer: That concludes the ministerial statement. Douglas Ross: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Earlier today, sources told a newspaper that Angela Constance would not be resigning or sacked as justice secretary.”
“Will the cabinet secretary now do the right thing and step down from her position to ensure that we have a clean slate and that we can move forward with a review on grooming gangs to get the answers for victims who have been impacted? Angela Constance: When I attended the Education, Children and Young People Committee before Christmas, I acknowledged that the urgent question that would rightfully have been for me to answer was the urgent question lodged by Mr Kerr on 19 November, when I was travelling on Government business. I should certainly have written to Mr Kerr at that time to offer to engage on the matter in any way that he saw fit. I have answered urgent questions in this place.”
“The cabinet secretary said that she would rather be held to account, and take the harder road. However, every time an urgent question was brought to the chamber, the cabinet secretary was nowhere to be seen, or if she was in the chamber, the questions were answered by a junior minister rather than by her. In my view, that is dodging accountability and responsibility for her portfolio. It has been mentioned by colleagues that the cabinet secretary has become a distraction. I agree with them—I believe that she has become a distraction not just from the review but from providing the much-needed confidence that victims need to have in the Government.”
“During a radio interview this week, the Cabinet Secretary for Housing appeared to call for refugees and asylum seekers to remain in hotels for longer, to ease Scotland’s housing crisis. Will the minister clarify and confirm whether it is now the Scottish Government’s position that hotels should be a long-term solution for housing asylum seekers and refugees? Will she also ensure that the priority need and local connection loopholes are closed, so that our cities are not disproportionately affected? Kaukab Stewart: I, too, listened to the interview, and I think that that question is a total mischaracterisation of what the cabinet secretary said. Housing Investment (Pension Funds) 4.”