Maggie Chapman
Scottish Green Party · Scotland
“Our prison system is not working. Like so many other institutions, including our national health service and our schools, prisons reflect the society that they serve. That society is deeply unfair and profoundly unequal. Schools struggle to help young people to learn and thrive, as too many children arrive in the classroom hungry.”
“Overall levels of crime are about half what they were in 1991. However, we have left prisons, just like our schools and NHS, to pick up the pieces of failures elsewhere in society.”
“Far too often, we take people who have already been failed by society and place them in institutions that fail them again—institutions that are increasingly unable to guarantee basic standards of welfare, dignity and human rights.”
“For those who have committed less serious crimes and are serving shorter sentences, it makes no sense at all to spend, as the motion states, £52,000 per year on prison, given that we know that, in many cases, prison will not help them to stop reoffending.”
“With greater use of effective alternatives to custody, and sentencing that follows the evidence, we will need fewer but better resourced prisons that can genuinely support rehabilitation and reintegration. That approach is working right now in other countries.”
“It is no surprise, then, that prisons often perform worse than alternatives when it comes to reducing reoffending and preventing future harm. Short sentences for non-violent crimes, in particular, for which there are the clearest alternatives, result in some of the highest rates of prisoners leaving prison and coming into conflict with th…”
The complete record
Every one of 814 lines we hold for Maggie Chapman, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 17.
“New year’s day 1989 was a day of celebration for some—but, for many, it was the first of almost 40 years of runaway rip-off rents. Margaret Thatcher’s Housing Act 1988 swept away rent controls, and working people have paid the price ever since. Since 2010, rents for a two-bedroom flat have increased by 104 per cent in Lothian and by 82 per cent in Glasgow, but renters’ wages have not gone up by anything like those amounts. So, what has happened? Exactly what that Maggie intended: a massive transfer of wealth from the poorest to those lucky enough to own property. However, owning an asset is not an occupation. A basic human right to live in a warm, safe home has become a platform for profiteering. Today, Scotland rejoins the ranks of the many countries around the world that use rent controls to support affordable living.”
“I believe that that will help to ensure that we stay on track to implement in full those crucial recommendations that the Scottish Government has already accepted. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Meghan Gallacher to speak to amendment 111 and the other amendments in the group.”
“The “working group report” that the amendment refers to made a wide range of recommendations that were accepted by the Scottish Government. Some of them have already made their way into the bill; others, as the cabinet secretary has said, are in train. However, the report was wide ranging and made 27 recommendations, and we still have a way to go to see many of those being implemented in full. There is more work to be done on housing first strategies for victims and survivors, on ensuring that homelessness policies are designed and implemented with a gendered lens, and on improving how homelessness that results from domestic abuse appears in statistics. That is the premise behind my amendment 17. That is why I recommend inserting a simple monitoring process into the bill, whereby we check annually on progress on those recommendations.”
“Màiri McAllan: I understand entirely the point that Maggie Chapman puts to me, but I am afraid that I cannot commit today to putting that into primary legislation, because the functions of the Scottish Legal Aid Board do not currently accord with what is asked of in the report to which I referred. With time in mind, I will round off my remarks there. I ask members to support my amendments and Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 111. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Maggie Chapman to speak to amendment 327 and other amendments in the group. Maggie Chapman: I am grateful for the work that I know the cabinet secretary has done with Scottish Women’s Aid. Because of that work, I will not move amendment 327. I have worked with Scottish Women’s Aid on the issue that amendment 17 deals with.”
“Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Màiri McAllan: Yes, I will. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Please be brief. Maggie Chapman: I understand what the cabinet secretary is saying, but given that, as we have discussed in relation to other legislation, including legislation that we passed not even two weeks ago, there is clearly a desire to ensure that people who are victim survivors of domestic abuse and other such crimes get that legal advice for free. It is so important from the point of view of access to justice that they do so outwith their ability to pay.”
“We have worked to build cohesive communities, which have been hard fought for and hard won, and this Government will do everything that it can to protect our cohesive communities and reject any kind of negative narrative. Communities are our allies. Working in partnership with our delivery partners and communities is core to the approach that we have already taken, and it will underpin how we will use the additional money to support work among all our communities, so that they can come together and be connected. Our approach to cohesion is built on that solid foundation of equality, inclusion and human rights.”
“I thank the minister for her statement. I called for the statement during the recess, after we saw vile hate and outright fascism on our streets. Whipping up anti-migrant fear, whether in blocking family reunions or tearing families apart because of changes to indefinite leave to remain, is sold as the answer to poverty, inequality and an economic system that fails too many. However, it is another false solution, just like austerity and Brexit. It is pushed by politicians and the media and left unchallenged by a weak UK Government that is drifting to the right. Can the minister be more specific about how we can ensure that asylum seekers who are being accommodated in Scotland feel welcomed and supported despite the demonisation that they face by the UK Government and too many others? Kaukab Stewart: I am hopeful.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on any discussions that it has had with Police Scotland about the policing of protests outside hotels and other accommodation for people seeking asylum. (S6O-04982)”
“Of those, more than a third paid rent on two properties for more than two weeks. That is not to mention the costs of cleaning or having the property cleaned, or of hiring vehicles to move renters’ furniture and other items. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Ms Chapman, I ask you to bring your remarks to a close. Maggie Chapman: I will do so very quickly. When up-front costs are so high, we need those protections. It is a modest measure. I support a number of other amendments in the group, but I do not have time to speak to them. I will leave it there.”
“It would empower, but not require, ministers to establish a system whereby those who are evicted on no-fault grounds, such as for the sale of a property, could be compensated. That would recognise the significant costs that tenants incur when being evicted—when, let us be clear, they are being made homeless. Polling on that issue that was carried out by Survation for Generation Rent shows how much money tenants lose. Some 52 per cent of the tenants reported that they took more than four days to pack, clean and move at the end of a tenancy, often requiring time off work, which can be costly for those who do not have leave available. Due to overlapping tenancies, 40 per cent of the private tenants reported that they paid rent on more than one property at a time when moving home.”
“As we all know from sliding down the Royal Mile to the Parliament in the ice and snow, Scotland is reliably cold in the last and first few months of the year. The Scottish Government’s approach simply asks for inconsistency across the piece. The bill says that tribunals “may” consider delaying an eviction due to a “seasonal factor”, but they may not, and they may also differ on the interpretation of what a “seasonal factor” is. If the cabinet secretary does not intend to support that proposal, I have a simple question. When the Scottish Government included both my party and that of the cabinet secretary, it brought in an evictions pause through the Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Act 2022. If that was the right thing to do then, why is it not now? Amendment 284 would give effect to a long- standing ask from Generation Rent.”
“In a country that can be as cold as ours, I do not think that I need to press the point too strongly that we should not be moving people out of their homes and into temporary accommodation that is often poorly insulated and, where the new arrangements do not work out, on to our freezing streets. There are, of course, appropriate exemptions and exceptions, but the ban would apply to most of the common grounds for eviction. I understand that the Scottish Government’s approach to flexing evictions prizes that flexibility. That is appropriate when ensuring that evictions do not coincide with things such as exams being taken by a member of the household, which can happen at any time of the year. However, the situation is totally different for winter evictions.”
“Let us be clear that, if those amendments are not supported today, renters in Scotland will be less strongly protected than those south of the border. If the Government still cannot support those amendments, which have such wide support, I ask it to at least support amendment 33, which would ensure that eviction protections are kept under review compared with those in the rest of the UK. Amendment 44 would provide a ban on winter evictions, specifically between November and March. Disallowing evictions in the winter period is not at all experimental. We recently had a substantial evictions pause in Scotland, and measures that are almost the same as what I am proposing have been in force in France for 70 years.”
“Should Maggie Chapman’s amendment also refer to the tenant, not just the landlord, not being able to end a tenancy within the first 12 months? That would seem to be equitable and fair. Does Maggie Chapman have a view on that? Maggie Chapman: Tenants and landlords are not equal in this situation. The landlord owns the asset, whereas the tenant is at risk of losing their home. Those are two very different situations. The Liberal Democrats also supported the Renters’ Rights Bill at its third reading in the Commons. It contains the same provisions, so I trust that they will be consistent and support amendments 197 and 198. If not, their constituents may well ask why Lib Dem MPs voted to give better protections to English renters but Lib Dem MSPs did not vote for the same protections for those who rent in Scotland.”
“Amendment 197 would provide a 12-month protection from eviction—the same protection that the Renters’ Rights Bill will shortly give to tenants in England. That would ensure that people were guaranteed a minimum of one year of stability in their home and that protections in Scotland did not fall behind those in other parts of the United Kingdom. Both of those amendments have the support of Living Rent, Crisis and Shelter. I welcome that and thank them for their support. They are the experts in supporting renters and they are not troubled by the concerns that the Conservatives have raised. I note that similar provisions were part of the Conservative Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill, so I encourage them to consider their position. Edward Mountain: It would be interesting if a tenancy was not allowed to be ended within the first 12 months.”
“To be clear, I will not move amendments 7, 8 and 25 in this group. A warm and safe home that we can call our own is central to our wellbeing. That being the case, forcing someone out of their home should be done only in the most rare and unavoidable circumstances. At the moment, eviction notice periods work differently depending on how long someone has been in the property, and I struggle to see the justification for that. Someone being forced from their home against their will and being made homeless will have an impact regardless of how long they have been there. That being the case, my amendment 198 would provide a four- month notice period for everyone, so all tenants would be treated equally. It also has the virtue of simplifying the system.”
“My amendments 220 and 222 are both the result of direct asks from the National Union of Students Scotland and others, and address a different set of issues. International students who come to Scotland to study are crucial to our higher education sector, and are important and valued members of our communities, yet they are often the targets of unfair practices. Those may include the demand for a deposit of several months’ rent in advance or the requirement for a guarantor, which, given that many international students will not have a network of support or family in Scotland, places many suitable properties way beyond their reach.”
“My amendments 150, 220 and 222 in this group are all about enabling better support for students. Amendment 150 would give ministers the power to subject student residential accommodation to rent controls. It does not mandate such controls, nor does it define their terms or constrain the Government in terms of timescale; it simply sets out the important principle that students deserve the same protections as anyone else who is renting a roof over their heads. That is important, because we know that the purpose-built student accommodation sector is getting out of control. Students in Vita Fountainbridge in Edinburgh, for example, are being charged £554—not per month, but per week. That just lines the pockets of private developers and property owners at the expense of students, at a time when we know that student homelessness is on the rise.”
“We have the chance to make living more affordable, healthier and happier for renters; to make renting safe and secure for those who choose to rent as well as those who have to rent; and to ensure that renting is a viable, non-stigmatising and genuinely valued part of our housing system. It is for those renters that the bill exists. It aims to tackle the unchecked soaring rents to which they have been subjected for far too long; to give them the rights that will make their home really feel like their home; to provide protections against homelessness; and to give specific groups of tenants protections against rip-off rents and make housing fairer for them. It is with those renters in mind that I speak to the amendments that I have lodged at stage 3.”
“I will just take a wee moment to thank everyone on the legislation team for all their meticulous work, over many, many months, on this bill. I thank the cabinet secretary and her predecessors for their engagement on various issues. Most of all, I thank the organisations, the campaigners and activists who have got us to this point. At various points over the past four years, it has felt like this day would never come. However, we are here discussing the final amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced by Patrick Harvie as part of the Scottish Greens’ commitment to a new deal for tenants. That is the point of the legislation: to shift the balance of power away from a system that is rigged against renters to one that sees homes as places for living in, not for profiteering from.”
“The corporate body welcomes the recommendation relating to a hub-and-spoke model and will work with office- holders to implement it as opportunities to do so arise. In related work, the corporate body recently established an accommodation audit in relation to office-holders and, through that process, is looking at the use of the wider public sector estate. As such, we welcome the recommendation in that area. I conclude by thanking all the office-holders again for their dedicated work, and I thank the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee, too, for its report.”
“I highlight the on-going review of the public audit model by the Auditor General and the Accounts Commission, and I note that the corporate body will engage with that review. I also highlight the corporate body’s agreement with the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee’s view that “medium to long-term financial planning is not hindered by an annual budget and funding cycle”. I move on to the recommendations that relate to shared services. The corporate body welcomes the acknowledgement of the improvements in that area. Five office-holders are now co-located at Bridgeside house, with the Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland having taken up post on 1 September. That co-location has resulted in further accommodation savings.”
“If the recommendation at paragraph 161 is endorsed, we will commit to exploring how to improve operational oversight of office-holders in the context of the session 7 committee structure. I will comment briefly on the amendment, but only to say that, as ever, the SPCB will seek to implement the will of Parliament. Parliament should be clear that, if the amendment is agreed to, there will not be a basis for the SPCB to take the steps that I have outlined above. I repeat that it is for Parliament to take the decision, but it is important that Parliament is clear on the implications of that decision. Before I move on to the subject of shared services, I will briefly comment on the budget and audit recommendations.”
“Should the recommendation at paragraph 160 be endorsed by the Parliament, the SPCB will commit to collaborating on whether the delegation or transfer of SPCB functions would be desirable within the framework and, if so, how that can be achieved. As the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee acknowledges, that will require legislative change, given that various acts mention the corporate body specifically in relation to a range of functions. We will therefore ask officials to undertake a mapping exercise prior to session 7 to clearly set out functions for each body, the statutory basis for those functions and what the options for change would look like.”
“To be clear, I note that the establishment of committees and their remits is not a matter for the corporate body. Furthermore, the SPCB is aware of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s inquiry into committee effectiveness, which includes consideration of the changes that can be made to strengthen the ability of committees to undertake scrutiny work across a range of policy areas. The corporate body is conscious that there are several pressures in the system and that a new committee structure for session 7 will need to balance those demands alongside capacity constraints, including in member and Scottish parliamentary service resources. The corporate body is also mindful that its statutory functions, duties and responsibilities are set out within the broader constitutional landscape.”
“To ensure that we undertake our role properly, we have put a number of governance arrangements in place, but we note the deficiencies that have been identified by both the Finance and Public Administration Committee and the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee in the governance and accountability of corporate body-supported bodies. Additional work in that area would require the SPCB’s approach to all its work to be reviewed to ensure that we have fulfilled all our responsibilities, but we will, of course, always give effect to the will of the Parliament. I want to speak directly to the recommendations at paragraphs 158 to 161, on giving a parliamentary committee “the specific responsibility for the accountability and scrutiny of SPCB supported bodies”.”
“The corporate body is very supportive of the set of criteria and the strong message that it sends on shared services. Should the Parliament endorse that recommendation and the recommendations relating to the inclusion of the criteria in parliamentary guidance on bills and a standing order determination, officials will be asked to bring forward proposals on how the recommendations can be implemented. The corporate body notes the recommendations relating to existing SPCB-supported bodies. Again, should those recommendations be endorsed by the Parliament, we will work with relevant office- holders and the Scottish Government, as appropriate, to implement them. As the committee acknowledges, those proposals will require additional resources, which will be an important consideration, given the wider public finance context.”
“Ben Macpherson: As a point of clarity, it is worth emphasising that the committee’s recommendation was not necessarily that a new committee be established. That was a potential option, but an existing committee could take on the task of assessing SPCB-supported bodies. It is important to acknowledge that. Maggie Chapman: Yes, that is understood, and that is why I couched my comments in such a way as to refer to what would happen should that committee be established. However, even if it is not established and the responsibilities lie elsewhere, the corporate body will obviously work with the relevant committee to ensure that the process works as smoothly as it can. I turn to specific recommendations in the committee’s report, starting with the new set of criteria that the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee developed.”
“The role of the SPCB extends far beyond agreeing annual funding for the office- holders, and additional office-holders would affect our workload, our overall budget and the workload of the officials in office-holder services. Martin Whitfield: Is the SPCB concerned that, if a new committee is created to, in effect, apply the two tests for a new commissioner, the SPCB would be required to give evidence to that committee as to the impact? Is the SPCB comfortable with doing that? Maggie Chapman: I will come on to say more about the potential new committee in a moment. The corporate body wants to ensure that the office-holder landscape is coherent and strategic. At the moment, we are clear that it is not. If the new committee establishes that coherence and a strategic approach, we would be very willing to work with it.”
“That is rightly for the Parliament to determine. The SPCB has a statutory duty to support independent office-holders. That duty has become increasingly time consuming since 2003, during which time the number of office-holders has increased from two to eight. The mention of proposals for up to six additional new office- holders has, understandably, caused the corporate body concern, which we have raised with the Scottish ministers and the Finance and Public Administration Committee. The corporate body therefore welcomes the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee’s work and the overall approach to create a clear strategic framework. We welcome the acknowledgement that additional office-holders would have an impact on the corporate body and other parliamentary resources.”
“Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am speaking today as a member of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. I begin by thanking the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee for undertaking the inquiry. That work, alongside the inquiry that was undertaken by the Finance and Public Administration Committee have, understandably, been unsettling for the current office-holders, and the SPCB appreciates the acknowledgement of that in the report. We also welcome the recognition in the report that the bodies that are currently supported by the SPCB carry out vital functions. The corporate body notes the committee’s conclusions relating to advocacy-type SPCB- supported bodies. I have mentioned this in a previous debate, but I want to be clear that the SPCB does not take a view on whether a new office-holder should be established.”
“To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to protect renters in the private sector from homelessness. (S6F- 04300)”
“She said: “I haven’t been to a toilet outside of the house since because now I am scared, is this my future?” She said that she does not want her three-year-old to be exposed to harassment because of who she is. Those are not abstract fears; they are daily, lived realities. The ruling has emboldened those who wish to exclude, harass and intimidate. It has left people considering emigration, facing panic attacks and, heartbreakingly, openly discussing suicidal thoughts. Let us be clear: the ruling does nothing to protect women. On the contrary, it places all women under greater scrutiny. As one cis woman explained, “Since this ruling I find myself terrified”—”
“In doing so, it has stripped away rights that many trans people had relied upon and, crucially, it has made life harder, not safer, for all women—cis and trans alike. Since the ruling, hundreds of testimonies have poured in from people across Scotland and the UK. “A Community Living in Fear”, a report that has been published by TransActual, captures the scale of the crisis. People are terrified. One trans woman described the ruling as “profoundly dehumanising”, saying: “It not only invalidates the lived realities of trans women like myself but sends a broader message that we are to be excluded—further fuelling discrimination, isolation, and abuse that many of us already face daily.” Another trans mother of a young son spoke about how she now feels that she cannot even take her child to the toilet in public.”
“It does not give me any pleasure to speak in this afternoon’s debate, but I am doing it because it is important that those who do not welcome the Supreme Court’s judgment and who have had their lives made considerably worse by it are represented in our Parliament today. This debate frames women’s rights as if they are in conflict with trans rights. That is simply not true. Women’s rights and trans rights are not in competition; they are deeply interwoven. Our struggle is a shared one against patriarchal structures that seek to police our bodies, define us narrowly and limit our freedom. The Supreme Court’s ruling has, in effect, rewritten the Equality Act 2010 to reduce the definitions of “woman” and “sex” to so-called biological terms.”
“I say support the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and stand with Scottish CND and our communities, because we can choose a future built not on fear but on trust. We can reject weapons of mass destruction and we can invest in safety, our people and a peace that is real. That is the Scotland that I believe in. The Deputy Presiding Officer: In calling Alasdair Allan, I hope that he will take the opportunity to apologise for being late for the start of the debate. 17:07”
“To constituents in Glasgow Anniesland, in Argyll and Bute and across the west of Scotland, I say that it is your waters, your air and your homes that are at risk. We owe you truth, transparency and accountability, not secrecy. We owe you change. I therefore call on the UK Government and the Ministry of Defence to do the only honest thing, which is to begin the process of disarmament, remove all nuclear weapons from Scottish soil, decommission Trident, stop the dangerous proximity of category A incidents, halt the contamination and end the threat. I call on this Parliament to demand that both of our Governments—Scottish and UK—act. We must use every democratic lever, including parliamentary pressure, environmental regulation and civil society partnerships.”
“Scottish Greens, along with the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the wider peace movement, have repeatedly called for the removal of Trident from our waters, the abolition of nuclear weapons and, instead, investment in life-affirming public services. Let us consider the alternatives. If the billions of pounds that are invested in Trident were instead spent on healthcare, social care, climate justice and lifting people out of poverty, Scotland— indeed, the UK—would be far stronger and far more secure in the ways that matter. The arms race, the nuclear deterrent posture and the infrastructure of creeping decay are all signs of moral and political failure. They undermine our democracy, impair our environment and gamble with our lives.”
“Those incidents threaten our environment, our health and our trust in the institutions that are meant to protect us. To say “no harm to the public” or “no radiological impact” is cold comfort, given that latent risks multiply over time and near misses can become disasters, especially if nuclear weapons and radioactive materials are involved. The magnitude of the potential harm demands far more than assurances—it demands action. As a Scottish Green, I believe deeply in peace, environmental justice and the power of the democratic will. The Scottish Green Party’s position is of long standing: these weapons do nothing to make us safer—they do not protect us from climate change, pandemics, inequality, cyberattacks or the rise of racism on our streets. They are a moral abomination.”
“I am grateful to Bill Kidd for lodging the motion, and I speak this evening to call loudly and clearly, as he and others have done, for the end of Trident for the safety of our communities, our children, our climate and our conscience. We cannot ignore what has been reported: category A incidents at the Faslane naval base— the most serious classification, indicating an actual or high potential for the release of radioactive material. We read of old, decrepit pipework and of bursts of contaminated water flowing into Loch Long, a place that is beloved by the community, by swimmers, by fishers and by so many others. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency confirms serious maintenance failures, assets past their design life and delays in remedying known risks. Those are not abstractions.”
“Let us choose compassion, dignity and justice for survivors. 15:49”
“A trauma-informed duty for judges must be matched by training, by court scheduling that avoids last-minute cancellations and by proper facilities in every sheriffdom. We must remain ambitious. Lady Dorrian’s work showed us that specialist sexual offences courts are possible and necessary, but we must also ensure that they are resourced, staffed with trained judiciary and rolled out with urgency. Reforming our justice system is not optional. Survivors have waited too long for change. The bill is a start, but we must not pretend that it is the end of the journey. The Scottish Greens support the bill, and we will continue to push for a justice system that is preventative, trauma informed and truly centred on those who have been harmed. Let us all commit today to legislation that makes a real difference.”
“That means providing properly resourced referral pathways, so that survivors know what support they can access, whether that is rape crisis or victim support services, legal advice or something else. It means embedding consistency across the country, so that a survivor in Shetland is offered the same level of support as someone in Glasgow. That support must be provided throughout the legal process and beyond. That is why I lodged amendments at stage 2 to extend the availability of advocacy, legal advice and legal representation. We also need to be honest about resources. Legal reform without investment in specialist services risks leaving survivors with rights on paper but not in practice.”
“I welcome many of the bill’s provisions, including the statutory duty to act in a trauma- informed way, the stronger protections for complainers’ anonymity, the reforms to the victim notification scheme, the right to independent legal representation to oppose intrusive questioning on sexual history, the establishment of a sexual offences court and the abolition of the not proven verdict. Those are practical, evidence-based steps that reflect the principle that survivors must be treated with dignity. However, let me be clear: the Scottish Greens believe that the bill should have gone further. Survivors need support from the moment that they report, not weeks later.”
“Rape Crisis Scotland has reminded us that survivors experience the justice system not just as discrete hearings but as one long ordeal. Victim Support Scotland has said that the bill represents a landmark chance to embed trauma-informed practice and transparency. They and others have told us that the bill must shorten that ordeal, reduce retraumatisation and make support an active offer at every stage. I am very grateful for the contributions of all those organisations.”
“It involves moving from a system that is centred on procedure to one that is centred on people—on those who have been harmed, on those who are asked to give evidence and on those who need the system to work fairly for them. The foundations of the bill are the recommendations of Lady Dorrian’s review. That work was clear in showing that sexual offences cases are failing survivors, failing to protect dignity and failing to deliver consistent justice. The provisions on specialist courts, on trauma- informed judicial duties and on measures to reduce delay and retraumatisation all stem from Lady Dorrian’s recommendations. The Lord Advocate, too, has been clear that reform is necessary if prosecution is to be both effective and fair. Third sector organisations have been vital in shaping the bill.”
“I remind colleagues of my entry in the register of members’ interests: I used to work for a rape crisis centre. We are here today to debate legislation that has the potential to transform how Scotland’s justice system treats those who have been harmed—in particular, survivors of rape, sexual assault and other serious offences. For too long, survivors have been asked to carry the heaviest burden: to repeat and relive their trauma in a system that was not designed with them in mind. The Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill gives us a chance to shift that balance, which is not simply a matter of making small adjustments.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on any discussions it has had with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service about role expansion for firefighters. (S6O-04944)”
“Amendment 63 disagreed to. Amendment 102 moved—[Russell Findlay]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 102 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is now closed.”
“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) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) 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) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) 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) [Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra] Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (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) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) [Proxy vote cast by Willie Rennie] 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) 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) 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) 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) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) 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) 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) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (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) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 50, Against 64, Abstentions 0.”