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 4 of 9.
“I ask her to reflect on the impact that that has had on house building.”
“Màiri McAllan: I am very proud of the Government’s record on the delivery of affordable homes, which, as we heard in First Minister’s questions, has resulted in the Government delivering some 141,000 affordable homes, more than 100,000 of which have been for the most affordable social rents. However, there is no doubt that, as reflected in the statistics that were published this week, the past few years have been exceptionally difficult. I urge Meghan Gallacher to reflect on the extent to which the hardest of Brexits, which her party pursued, and the economic carnage that her former Prime Minister Liz Truss ushered in have resulted in those economic pressures, not the least of which is the inflation figure for construction costs reaching 24 per cent in the summer of 2022.”
“As we are talking about house building, let us look at the final house building statistics for 2025, which were published this week. All sector new house building completions are down. Private sector new house building completions are down. Social sector new house building completions are down. Affordable house building approvals, starts and completions are down. How confident is the cabinet secretary of completing 110,000 affordable homes by 2032, or is it the case that the Government has completely given up on that target? By the looks of its statistics, it is not hitting its house building targets.”
“I spoke to South Lanarkshire Council about the issue, which referred me to the Scottish Government, but when I spoke to the Scottish Government about it, I was referred back to the council. What I am trying to figure out—I hope that the minister will be so kind as to provide an explanation in his summing-up remarks—is who is in charge of the BID policy, who can amend that policy and who can make exemptions for businesses that do not benefit from BIDs, if it is the case that that is happening. Enabling such exemptions would be a good way forward. It would show our small businesses that we support them, but that we also recognise that not all initiatives benefit them. 18:22”
“That imbalance raises legitimate questions about equity and whether the BID structures are sufficiently flexible to reflect the diverse nature of our town centre economies. Concerns have also been raised about the transparency of the BID process and the engagement that is undertaken as part of it. Some businesses report that there is limited consultation beyond the initial ballot that takes place, and decisions are perceived to be driven by a narrow range of interests. I hope that that is not the case, but that reflects what businesses have told me. If BIDs are to remain credible, it must be ensured that there is on-going engagement with all levy payers, particularly small businesses, which often feel less heard. There is a point that I want to put directly to the minister.”
“Retail businesses may benefit directly from footfall-driven initiatives, such as marketing campaigns, festivals, street furniture and seasonal events. However, that contrasts with the situation of service-based businesses, such as accountants, mortgage advisers, tradespeople, childcare providers and professional services, which often operate on an appointments basis and rely less on passing trade. For those businesses, there is less of a link between the BID levy that they pay and the benefits that they receive, and it can feel almost as though they are not part of the BID system. They are asked to contribute equally, but their business model means that they are less likely to benefit from initiatives that are designed primarily to promote retail visibility.”
“However, we have to listen very carefully to the voices of businesses that feel that the system is not always fair, is not always representative and is not always delivering value for money for all those who are required to contribute. One of the most consistent concerns raised by businesses is about the fairness of how BIDs are applied. Typically, the levy is based on rateable value, yet the benefits are not always felt equally. Many small businesses tell me—other members are probably told this, too—that they struggle to see a clear return on their contributions, particularly at a time when operating costs remain high and economic pressures persist. We have heard a lot about that in this evening’s debate. There is also a growing perception that BIDs tend to favour shops that sell goods over businesses that provide services.”
“This evening’s debate, secured by Rachael Hamilton, has been really important, and it is an opportunity for all of us to acknowledge the fantastic small businesses that we have in our constituencies and regions. I will take the debate in a different direction, however, and talk about business improvement districts, or BIDs as we know them. I acknowledge the value that they can bring to our towns and city centres, but very real concerns have been raised by businesses right across Scotland about how the programmes operate in practice. Many BIDs have delivered positive outcomes: they have supported local events, improved town centre marketing and enhanced public spaces, and they have helped to create a local sense of pride. Where they work well, they are driven by committed people with a shared vision for town centre regeneration.”
“MiAlgae will start recruiting now, and I was told that the first modules of the plant will be open in April next year. [Interruption.] Sorry, Presiding Officer, but I am hearing noises off. As I said, the plant will be open in April, which is when they will start to produce omega-3. As I set out, those are just the first two of many announcements that we will make as a result of the work that has been done through project willow and the task force that has been run and headed up by Scottish Enterprise. More than 140 bids have come in for project willow work, but they have been whittled down to the ones that are most likely to get to financial close.”
“We had an account from the principal of the college this morning, at the Grangemouth future industry board, in which we heard that 185 individuals have completed retraining and 49 are actively undergoing retraining. As a result of the monitoring that the college has in place on the final destinations of those who come through its training programmes, the principal was able to say that more than 80 of the applicants who responded about their final destination have secured employment. That does not account for the employment of those from Petroineos who have not undergone the training and who have gone straight into jobs following the redundancy that they faced at Petroineos. It is not fair to say that the jobs from the projects that we have announced today will not materialise for five years.”
“We are funding a skills intervention, delivered by Forth Valley College, to retrain and upskill workers who are directly impacted by the refinery closure that was announced by Petroineos. The intervention brings protected skills support investment from the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments of up to £2 million. The skills intervention has been extended to include shared services workers at Ineos Olefins and Polymers Europe, who, unfortunately, are also facing redundancy as a direct result of the cessation of refining at Grangemouth. I am pleased to report that engagement in the process has been very high, with workers using the reskilling to secure employment in in-demand industries, including the renewables sector. More than 300 workers have already accessed the support so far.”
“The Scottish and UK Governments promised retraining opportunities for those who were made redundant at Grangemouth. Will the cabinet secretary confirm that the retraining opportunities will give them the skills that they need for the new roles that have been created? Although the new funding is welcome, the project willow report found that billions of pounds of private investment would be needed to secure the long-term future of Grangemouth. Will the cabinet secretary tell the Parliament how much investment the Scottish Government has managed to secure so far and what plans it has to attract more investment in the future? Gillian Martin: There were quite a lot of questions in there. I will try to deal with them all.”
“I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement. This is a step in the right direction for my constituents in Falkirk, Grangemouth and the wider community. I hope that everyone in the chamber will welcome jobs being created at the Grangemouth site. However, considering that many of those jobs will not be operational for another five years, it falls short of what the workers at Grangemouth refinery deserve. The SNP’s anti-oil and gas rhetoric affects not just the thousands of oil and gas workers in the north-east, but our industrial heartlands at sites such as Grangemouth and Mossmorran. Although I welcome the jobs that have been created, as outlined in the statement, they are ultimately a drop in the ocean compared with what we need.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what progress it has made on increasing the number of overnight beds for parents in neonatal wards. (S6O-05279)”
“Natalie Don-Innes: I have given this response three times now. The Care Inspectorate and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland are leading an independent national review of responses to group-based child sexual abuse. That goes hand in hand with the work of the national child sexual abuse and exploitation group, which is led by Professor”
“The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children advises that the Scottish Government needs to show leadership. The cabinet secretary has responded to questions on grooming gangs in the chamber, but when it comes to any question that involves correspondence between herself and Alexis Jay, she is either nowhere to be seen or not at her post to answer questions. Given that the minister was not able to answer questions that Pauline McNeill put to the Government, I ask again: who is leading on the review into grooming gangs? It is still not clear. Does the minister believe that the behaviours of the cabinet secretary jeopardise the non-inquiry review, even before it gets off the ground? The Presiding Officer: Again, minister, please answer in relation to the substantive question.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Pam Duncan-Glancy, who joins us remotely. 15:26”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: Ms Gallacher is in her final minute. Meghan Gallacher: If the aim is to support family life, effort should go into providing families with practical support at the point at which they need it most. The Scottish Government should not be asking ridiculous questions about which benefits need to be cut; it should be giving people the tools to succeed. Working people are paying more, services are delivering less and the Government that is responsible for this mess wants yet another parliamentary term. It does not deserve it. Scotland cannot afford a Government that spends first and thinks later. It is time to put competence before chaos, honesty before spin and taxpayers before wish lists. Scotland needs a Government that respects the people who fund it, not one that treats them as an afterthought.”
“That raises a fundamental question for the Scottish Parliament: is providing benefits the only way to support families? We have to be honest—it is not. Instead, our focus should be on supporting families, especially when it comes to raising children. One of the biggest challenges that families face today is the affordability of childcare. The Scottish Government has all but forgotten the promise that it made to expand funded childcare for those aged nine months and onwards. If it was truly serious about supporting families with children, it would do so, as it promised, providing affordable and flexible early years provision and supporting working parents with childcare. It would not add open-ended benefit commitments funded by even higher taxes. Shirley-Anne Somerville: Will Meghan Gallacher take an intervention?”
“Audit Scotland could not have been clearer: the Scottish Government is expanding entitlements faster than it can fund them, and it is doing so without transparency or long-term financial planning. Speaking of holding people’s taxes to ransom, I note that the UK Labour Government, under Rachel Reeves, has announced that it will abolish the two-child limit on UK-wide benefits. In the budget, she froze income tax and national insurance thresholds—moves that the independent fiscal watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility, says will push more people into higher tax bands. That is the same chancellor who promised that working people would not pay more in tax, but she now has to admit that ordinary families must contribute more.”
“Middle-income households, teachers, nurseries, police officers and small business owners pay significantly more here than they would pay in other parts of the UK. What do they receive in return? They get a devolved social security system that is overspending by hundreds of millions of pounds a year, with no fiscal strategy or contingency plan in place whatsoever. The Scottish Conservatives believe that individuals with disabilities and those who fall on hard times deserve help through benefits, but that does not absolve any Government if it avoids fiscal responsibility. People expect their taxes to be managed wisely. Instead, they face the possibility of increased taxation or reductions in essential public services while the benefits system runs at its current scale.”
“I am quite concerned by the speech that we have just heard, but there are some members in the chamber who do not believe that the rules of economics are completely optional. Audit Scotland’s 2025 report on adult disability payment should serve as a wake-up call to every member of the Parliament. It sets out in clear and unambiguous terms how unstable devolved social security finances are. The report projects a £2 billion funding gap by 2029-30 across devolved benefits—a gap that the Scottish Government has no credible plan to close. This is not a responsible or sustainable Government and it is certainly not fair to the people of Scotland, who are constantly called on to foot the bill. Working families—the very taxpayers whom the Government claims to champion—are already paying the price.”
“In 50 years’ time, when Cumbernauld marks its 120th anniversary, I want future generations not only to say, “What’s it called?”—I apologise to Jamie Hepburn—but to say, proudly, “That’s a town that kept its culture alive.” 13:04”
“I hope that colleagues across the parties, councils and agencies will recognise the value of this cultural cornerstone. We all need to come together to ensure that Cumbernauld theatre not only survives but thrives. It has to be a place where young people can discover confidence, where older residents can find community and where everyone, regardless of their background, can come together to create something meaningful. As Cumbernauld celebrates its 70th year, this debate allows us to show that the spirit of the new town—the spirit of optimism, innovation and sheer determination—is still alive. Let us commit ourselves to safeguarding the theatre that embodies the spirit of the town.”
“A funding package involving the Scottish Government, Creative Scotland and North Lanarkshire Council hangs in the balance. Without real, practical financial support, the doors of this beloved theatre may close. Shutting Cumbernauld theatre would not be an efficiency; I believe that it would be an amputation within the town. It would silence one of Scotland’s most community-centred cultural venues at the very moment when we should be celebrating its contribution and investing in its future. A town that was built on bold ideas deserves better than to have its creative lifeline cut. Frankly, if a town centre with a confusing landscape can survive for 70 years, surely a theatre full of laughter, creativity and hope can survive a funding shortage.”
“The town’s achievements are far greater than its architectural quirks, and it has produced remarkable people including musicians such as Jon Fratelli, actors, athletes and artists. Jamie Hepburn mentioned a few of the local legends in Cumbernauld—they are, of course, the folk who can find their way out of the town centre on their first attempt. However, Cumbernauld’s greatest strength is not concrete. It is community, and nowhere is that community more alive, vibrant and vital than in Cumbernauld theatre. For decades, the theatre, in both the old and new buildings, has been the cultural heart of the town—a home for local drama, youth arts, live music, pantomimes, poetry and civic pride. It has nurtured talent, inspired generations and kept culture alive in the town, yet today this vital institution faces the threat of closure.”
“I, too, thank Jamie Hepburn for bringing this celebratory event to the chamber. In planning terms, 70 years is practically adolescence, but in Scottish political terms, it is several boundary reviews, a few economic cycles and at least one argument about whether the A80 was finished properly. Cumbernauld was founded in 1955 as a bold experiment—a vision of post-war optimism that was designed to house Glasgow overspill and create a forward-looking, pedestrian-friendly community. Opinions will differ as to whether the town centre looks like a modernist masterpiece or a crash-landed concrete spaceship, but nobody can deny the ambition or the personalities that reside in Cumbernauld.”
“Residents of Bothwell in my region have been left shaken by the spate of targeted firebombing attacks on restaurants in the area. Four premises have been targeted by arson attacks over the past six years, with two taking place in September. People living in Bothwell have expressed fear and frustration, with one individual saying: “it feels like it is becoming a no-go area socially.” There are now empty plots where restaurants once stood; jobs have been lost; and families have been impacted by recent events. Bothwell residents deserve not just answers but reassurance. What reassurance can the First Minister give my constituents that Police Scotland is taking those events seriously? Will he ask the relevant minister to make inquiries to ensure that all information that can be made public is being circulated within the community?”
“It will become a tit-for-tat spiral, and the only losers will be the ordinary, hard-working people who are left to pay the price. I am beyond fed up with the same people being taxed to the hilt to prop up ageing infrastructure and fill gaps in mismanaged budgets. It is not the taxpayers’ job to cover for political incompetence, but that is exactly the pattern that we keep seeing from left-wing Administrations. I am very interested to hear the cabinet secretary’s views on this: does the Government still believe in the abolition of tolls, or is the expansion of new bridge tolls and infrastructure tolls happening quietly by the back door? Will it meet the Scottish National Party administration at Glasgow City Council and tell it bluntly to think again? 13:17”
“I am under no illusion why motorists are fed up, because it is just tax upon tax upon cost upon tax. Going back to the at-city-boundary congestion charge, I think that the most ridiculous aspect is that our public transport network is still not good enough to give people a genuine alternative. That point has been mentioned by Jamie Hepburn, Patrick Harvie and others in the chamber—it is not a genuine alternative. The at-boundary charge just prices people out of owning a car, and provides no workable solution for how they are supposed to get around. Moreover, Jackson Carlaw is 100 per cent right to suggest in his motion that Glasgow City Council’s plans could trigger a domino effect. If one local authority introduces such charges, others might retaliate.”
“If this idea ever becomes a reality, my inbox will be full of motorists angry at being told that they must pay yet another tax just to get to their jobs. We should step back for a second and remember what motorists already fork out for the privilege of owning a car. They have to pay for road tax; insurance; servicing and MOTs; repairs; parking permits; costly paid parking in certain local authority areas; petrol and diesel; and for many people, monthly payments on the car itself. The local SNP Administration wants to slap an additional charge on to what motorists already fork out simply for crossing from one local authority area into another, but to me, that is just not common sense. We should also take into account yesterday’s budget, because the chancellor now wants to tax electric vehicles, too.”
“I congratulate Jackson Carlaw on lodging the motion and securing a debate in the chamber on this important issue. I must be honest: I believe that the proposal is 100 per cent daft. An SNP-led Scottish Government abolished the last remaining bridge toll in 2008, yet here we are in 2025 with an SNP- led council trying to introduce tolls on the Clyde tunnel, alongside an at-city-boundary charge, as many members have mentioned. You could not make it up. I have no idea how the Cabinet Secretary for Transport will try to square the circle, because these charges will have a profound impact on constituents across the central region. South Lanarkshire, North Lanarkshire and even Falkirk are commuter communities, and the thousands of people who choose to live there depend on travelling to Glasgow or Edinburgh for work.”
“Victims do not need a Government that is merely open to an inquiry; they need a Government that is willing to initiate one, to listen to victims, to act and to confront the failures that have allowed those crimes to continue unchecked. Leadership is not about sitting on the fence. Leadership is about stepping up and doing what is right. A grooming gangs inquiry is not optional; it is essential. It is the only way to uncover the scale of the problem, to protect children and to ensure that victims’ voices are finally heard and believed. I take no pleasure whatsoever in raising these issues. However, until this Government stops ducking responsibility, I will continue to speak up for the victims who have been ignored for far too long, even if that means that I need to return to the chamber to raise the issue every sitting day.”
“The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs claimed that the national child sexual abuse and exploitation sub-group addresses grooming gangs, but its 27-page report does not mention grooming gangs once. Therefore, I ask again: who is investigating grooming gangs in Scotland? It is certainly not this Government. The cabinet secretary told me that it is for me and others to present a case for an inquiry. The evidence is already overwhelming. The NSPCC has said that the scale of grooming gang activity is unknown. More victims are coming forward every day with harrowing, life-changing testimony. Families are being torn apart by some of the most appalling crimes imaginable. What more evidence does the cabinet secretary need?”
“Yesterday’s responses to my urgent question on grooming gangs were nothing short of a farce. Once again, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs passed responsibility on to a junior minister to answer questions on her behalf while she sat in the chamber avoiding any scrutiny. At a time when Scotland desperately needs leadership on grooming gangs, this Government offers only evasion and silence. Victims are being failed while ministers sit on their hands. I raise the unprecedented intervention by the NSPCC, which has made it clear that Scotland has no real understanding of the true scale or nature of grooming gangs operating in our country. That is an alarming admission from our leading child protection charity.”
“If members want any proof, they should look at what we have done with regard to”
“To be able to amend procurement law to enable preferential treatment for domestic manufacturers would require the UK to make fundamental changes to its international trade obligations. I was pleased that Meghan Gallacher identified the progress that Scotland has made. Under the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, Scotland has a sustainable procurement duty that requires authorities to consider “economic, social, and environmental wellbeing”. The public procurement strategy for Scotland, which runs from 2023 to 2028, reinforces that requirement, with the aim of embedding community wealth building, fair work and net zero objectives. When discussing such issues, I have always invited members to deal with the facts. I give total reassurance that we are committed to supporting Scottish industry.”
“Kate Forbes: I take issue with Meghan Gallacher’s characterisation of finger pointing. In my statement, I was open about the areas in which the Scottish Government can take action, and the proof of that is that we have taken action. Promises were made by the UK Government, but we have not seen the progress that we would have liked to see. I read the commentary that is given by businesses, including today in relation to Mossmorran, to see their identification of UK Government policies. The bottom line is that procurement law is a devolved matter but it is subject to international obligations, which are reserved. In common with the rest of the UK, we cannot legislate to allow for discrimination in favour of domestic bidders at the expense of bidders from countries with which a relevant international trade agreement applies.”
“However, given that the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 mandates the consideration of social value in procurement, surely the Deputy First Minister must realise that the Scottish Government has failed to create frameworks that recognise the social value of Alexander Dennis and other domestic manufacturers, as well as what they contribute and add to our economy. This question is similar to the one that I put to the minister the last time the issue was raised: does she accept that, without progress on the underlying structural and policy barriers that have left Alexander Dennis—our flagship bus manufacturer—exposed to unfair competition, that situation will keep recurring until the Scottish Government puts measures in place to make sure that we not only bolster our economy but protect the jobs and the skill sets that we need?”
“I thank the Deputy First Minister for providing advance sight of her statement. When previously asked about the procurement rules tilting the field against domestic producers, she has pointed to section 17 of the Subsidy Control Act 2022, which prohibits the giving of subsidies that are contingent on “the use of domestic over imported goods or services”. I also note that, throughout the Deputy First Minister’s statement, a recurring theme was pointing the finger of blame at the UK Government, as opposed to the Scottish Government taking responsibility.”
“That information comes from a UK warm homes plan, on which ministers have, I think, made no less than six representations to successive UK ministers, but clarity has not been forthcoming. However regrettable the pause in bringing forward legislation may be—in the meantime, we have published the draft—it is about giving Government and Parliament the opportunity to make important laws with the full suite of information in front of us.”
“If she had read it, she would have seen that the reason that I am presenting to Parliament today for taking a pause—however regrettable—is that I want to know what the UK Government intends to do with respect to the cost of electricity, so that we can take forward the work to decarbonise in such a way that we have surety that it will not exacerbate fuel poverty and will be manageable for consumers and households. That is exactly why I brought my statement to Parliament today, so I am a bit perplexed by the tenor of the question. In respect of the latter point about costs, all of that has to be worked out. I want Parliament to be able to scrutinise and consider costs in the light of the most up-to-date information.”
“Separately from the bill, the Scottish Government is also pressing ahead with regulations to impose minimum energy efficiency standards on the private rented sector, and that is not to mention the disastrous Housing (Scotland) Act 2025, which will push up costs for landlords and tenants. Is it not about time that the Scottish Government stopped using the private rented sector as guinea pigs in its botched legislative experiments? Will the cabinet secretary tell us by how much the Scottish Government expects the average home owner will be left out of pocket due to these changes? Màiri McAllan: I cannot help but feel that Meghan Gallacher might not have read the content of my statement prior to formulating her questions.”
“I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement. We must be serious about the situation that we are facing. This is a really embarrassing day for the Scottish Government. When Gillian Martin told Parliament that she was going back to the drawing board on the heat in buildings bill, she promised that any revised bill would not make Scottish households poorer, yet we have a draft bill that seems to be on the road to nowhere and still demands expensive energy efficiency upgrades from home owners without giving any detail about the standards that they would have to reach. Given the Scottish Government’s track record on the issue, my main concern is that this is yet another attempt by the SNP to impose significant costs on home owners to reach climate targets that are simply not practical.”
“To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the recent convictions of a grooming gang for sexual exploitation in Dundee, what steps it is taking to prevent similar cases across Scotland, including through the establishment of a national inquiry into grooming gangs. (S6O-05136)”
“The minister also needs to explain how the Government intends to set up a new task force for maternity and neonatal departments while it continues with the removal and downgrading of services. It just does not make sense. Every baby born in Scotland deserves the best start, and every parent deserves to be by their newborn’s side. The minister and the cabinet secretary have a tough job today in defending the indefensible, but we need to remember that the problem is of their creation. The centralisation of maternity and neonatal services must be paused, and an urgent national investigation must be agreed to. This is about outcomes. The Government cannot continue to fail mothers and babies, who deserve our support.”
“Ministers insist that the decision is about saving lives, not saving money, but those are empty words that mean nothing to parents in my region, who face the prospect of their babies being moved to another neonatal department in the future. They will continue to campaign to stop the downgrade, and I will continue to back them every step of the way. The best start plan promised that parents would not be separated from their babies, but, if a baby is moved from Lanarkshire to Aberdeen because of this downgrading exercise, that is exactly what will happen. The Government cannot continue to centralise care at the expense of communities. It needs to pause the plan, listen to families and staff who know the service best and commit to retaining Wishaw’s neonatal unit as a full intensive care facility.”
“From MSPs who represent rural areas, we have heard harrowing stories of mothers giving birth at the side of the road and of mothers experiencing complications while trying to reach services in Inverness. Why should rural mums have to take on additional risks while in labour? Why has the Government failed to provide maternity services closer to home? Downgrading has been the Government’s overall strategy. The decision to downgrade the neonatal intensive care unit at University hospital Wishaw is one of the most alarming examples of the Government’s failure to listen to families and local communities. The unit is nationally recognised and, as we have heard, is an award- winning centre that has saved the lives of some of the sickest and most premature babies in my region.”
“We have just heard from Clare Haughey that, apparently, MSPs in the chamber are saying that departments are closing. They are not closing; they are being downgraded. That is not spreading misinformation; it is a clear fact. That is the case not just for MSPs who represent rural areas but for MSPs in urban settings. Clare Haughey: I have to correct Meghan Gallacher on that point. It has been said that the unit is closing—that misinformation has been spread. I accept that she might not have said that, but that has been reported. Meghan Gallacher: Nobody has said that in the chamber this afternoon. I hope that MSPs understand that, if they say that things are closing when that is not the case, that will continue to spread misinformation, fear and alarm among our communities. That is not acceptable, and we should not tolerate it.”
“I appreciate that the cabinet secretary has confirmed that he will write to me on the issue, and I welcome that approach. However, I hope that the letter that I receive will provide a detailed explanation of how the Scottish Government will make urgent changes to ensure that beds are available for parents who want to stay with their vulnerable and sick babies. If babies are in the neonatal department, their parents will want to be nearby, and they need that support. I will not accept anything less from the Scottish Government. We should all be able to support that. It is not just about overnight accommodation. As we have heard, across NHS Highland, more than 150 pregnant women have had to endure 210-mile round trips because consultant-led maternity services have been downgraded.”