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 11 of 17.
“Russell Findlay: We will do what we are doing right now and what we have done for the past couple of years, which is to try to improve the bill, which is a massive missed opportunity, and we will look at it tomorrow. However, I am not encouraged by the cabinet secretary’s refusal to back what are commonsense amendments. That is not a good sign. Amendment 38 agreed to. Amendment 63 moved—[Russell Findlay]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 63 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“It has no meaningful definition whatsoever, unless the cabinet secretary will enlighten me with— Jamie Greene: Russell Findlay will also know that, in the briefing that was sent to MSPs, Victim Support Scotland—for which I have a lot of time and respect and which works daily in its offices to support victims—supports the amendments in this group; therefore, so should we all. Russell Findlay: Absolutely. Victim Support Scotland supports my three amendments, and Scottish Women’s Aid supports one of them. Angela Constance: I will be brief. Given that Victim Support Scotland is encouraging MSPs to back the bill tomorrow, will Russell Findlay confirm whether his party will do so?”
“I find some of the cabinet secretary’s reasoning to be slightly bizarre. I have never met a victim who has argued that they do not want to know any more about their case, or who campaigns strongly for even less transparency in a justice system that already lacks it. Another fallback that the Government increasingly seems to use is talk of trauma- informed practice, which appears to be a catch-all, get-out-of-jail-free card for opposing anything that the Government does not like.”
“That is why the bill will also establish a victims commissioner and a victims charter, and it will improve the provision of information about support through the amendment on referrals that we will shortly debate. I consider that those processes represent a more effective approach than duplicating existing rights or creating mandatory processes in a piecemeal fashion at very specific points in the criminal process. The focus should remain on improving the quality, consistency and personalisation of victim engagement through the existing statutory framework and on-going reforms. I therefore urge members to support amendment 38 and reject the other amendments in the group. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Russell Findlay to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 38. Russell Findlay: I will press amendment 38.”
“From an operational perspective, requiring blanket notifications would also introduce significant resourcing pressures, both financial and in staff hours, due to the necessary increase in issuing correspondence and managing follow-up contact, questions and expectations from victims, some of whom, as I said, might have already chosen not to engage further with the justice process. That would risk diverting resources from having a more tailored, trauma-informed approach. Victims have a broad range of rights under the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014. I acknowledge that more can and should be done to ensure that victims are informed about how best they can exercise choice over their rights.”
“I appreciate that you have been very generous in taking a lot of interventions and that there are a lot of issues to go through, but I ask you to consider winding up your remarks. We will then go to Mr Findlay. Thank you. Angela Constance: I take your guidance, Presiding Officer. On amendments 64 and 101, I advise that there are concerns about legislative competence, in the sense that their provisions might impinge on the Lord Advocate’s powers without allowing scope for prosecutorial discretion to withhold information. That could be outwith the legislative competence of the Parliament.”
“If further information comes up at a later date that means that they will then prosecute, they should go and update the victim again and say that they are now going to take further action. It is best practice to keep the victim up to date so that they know what is happening with any proceedings. Angela Constance: I make the point again that I do not dispute the need for thorough and regular communication. My point about the amendments that Ms Dowey and Mr Greene lodged is that they would force information on victims whether they wanted it or not. We all have to accept that victims and survivors are not a homogeneous group. Personal choice, empowerment and agency are important. That does not— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Cabinet secretary, may I interrupt?”
“The fundamental point that I am trying to make here is that, although we are all endeavouring to take advantage of this large piece of landmark legislation to enhance our approach and make progress on such issues, we have to be mindful that taking a more piecemeal approach could add further confusion and complexity. Actually, what victims are crying out for, among many things, are coherence and consistency in the system. Sharon Dowey: I have been listening to the points that the cabinet secretary has made. However, the committee heard lots of evidence from victims, and their main issue was that they were not being kept up to date with anything that was going on in the system. Surely, if the prosecutor knows that they are not going to take any further action, they should notify the victim.”
“Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Jamie Greene: Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Angela Constance: I will take an intervention from Ms Chapman. Maggie Chapman: Can the cabinet secretary give us an indication of how many cases that have been marked “no action” have been taken up at a later date? As Jamie Greene and others have said, there are victims and survivors who do not know what is happening or whether there is any possibility of future action being taken. That is part of the unknown here. Angela Constance: Unfortunately, I do not have to hand the specific information that Ms Chapman refers to, but she makes the point that richer dialogue and better communication are required throughout the system, as is consistency of approach.”
“The answers do not lie in violent racism or in scapegoating those who seek safety. They lie in solidarity, in dismantling inequality and in building a society where everyone belongs and where everyone can flourish. I say to the Conservatives that they should stop scapegoating the marginalised, stop using asylum seekers as a distraction from their failures and stop peddling the dangerous lie that migration is a threat. Scotland has a proud tradition of offering a welcome. Let us honour that tradition—not just in words, but in action—by treating asylum seekers with the dignity and respect that every human being deserves, by ensuring that they can live safely, securely and proudly as part of our communities, and by rejecting hate and choosing hope and love. 16:23”
“Scotland must choose another path. International law places on us a legal obligation to provide sanctuary. Beyond that, there is a deeper moral duty: the duty to treat people with dignity, compassion and humanity. That means giving them the right to work, the right to contribute and the right to live in communities. They should not be warehoused in ghettos or trapped in hostile conditions. Asylum seekers are not a burden; they are our neighbours, our future colleagues and our friends. Let us be honest about the real issues. Small boats are not the problem. Refugees are not the problem. The problem is a grotesquely unequal economic system that privileges the wealthy elite, while ordinary people—whether they were born here or have newly arrived—struggle to make ends meet.”
“The decision to house asylum seekers in hotels was not about care or compassion; it was about lining the pockets of Tory donors during the Covid pandemic while simultaneously stoking public resentment. The plan backfired—the Conservatives lost in a landslide—but, instead of learning, they have doubled down on exploiting the most marginalised people to divide our society even further. We see the consequences. In Falkirk, a brick was hurled through the window of a hotel that housed asylum seekers. That was not mindless vandalism; it was intimidation and racism that had been fuelled by the lies and hatred that are peddled in politics and the press. I have seen some of that toxicity at first hand, at anti-migrant protests in Aberdeen and Westhill. Anti-migrant protests are not about safety. They are about hate, and hate kills.”
“The Conservatives come here with their hate-filled rhetoric, but it was they who closed the routes for people to come to this country safely. They are the proud party of empire, but empire has consequences. We cannot invade more than 170 countries and subjugate millions to colonial rule, but then feign outrage when people seek safety, family and community in Britain. Our history matters. The illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 destabilised an entire region. Without our greed for oil, many people would never have been forced to flee in the first place. We bombed Libya and left it as a failed state. British foreign policy continues to create the very displacement that the Conservatives now cynically exploit for political gain. The cynicism runs deep.”
“We are here today to debate asylum and migration, but let us be clear that this debate has been framed by dog whistles, distortions and dangerous rhetoric from the Conservatives and others. I will not stand by while human beings are dehumanised, scapegoated and treated as though they are less than others. No one person can be considered illegal. What is illegal—what is shameful—is the stripping away of rights, the deliberate spreading of misinformation and the whipping up of hatred by politicians and parts of the media. They are fuelling the fire of racism and fascism in our communities. This situation has been created by design—not by those seeking safety but by those who would rather manufacture enemies than face up to the real problems. The threat to our country arrives not in small boats but in private yachts and jets.”
“I am certainly open to interest from other parts of the country, particularly from those with such high death rates as”
“The development and delivery of safer drug consumption facilities must be done by local communities and local integration authorities, in conjunction with the communities and to the guidelines that the Lord Advocate has set. Thus far, I am not aware of a proposal coming from Dundee, but given its statistics, I am very open to hearing from it. I know that Edinburgh is developing proposals for such a facility; it has been looking at a couple of locations close to where there have been a high number of drug deaths in the past few years, and it seems that it might have found the right locations. However, it has work to do with the communities who live in those areas, and it has work to do to meet the Lord Advocate’s guidelines.”
“I associate myself with comments that have already been made. Every drug death is a preventable tragedy, and I extend my sympathies to everyone affected by such a death. It is right that prevention is a priority, with poverty, inequality, deprivation, trauma and alienation being tackled, but there is an urgent need to expand life-saving services such as the Thistle that support people with addictions and help them towards recovery. Can the minister provide timelines for the expansion of safe consumption rooms? Will she join me in calling for the next such service to be located in Dundee? Maree Todd: I recognise the member’s interest in the issue.”
“She searches instead only for the bodies of her children. That is the scale of this horror—that is what our silence, our complicity, sustains. That is why people gather in Aberdeen and Dundee, and in villages, towns and cities around the world. They gather in protest—not out of hate, but out of love: love for justice, love for peace and love for life itself. We are here for accountability, for integrity, for justice and for peace. We are here for Palestine. I call on this Parliament not only to recognise the state of Palestine, but to stand where history demands that we stand—against apartheid, against genocide and with the global movement of boycott, divestment and sanctions— because, if we fail to act, all our words and all our debates will be nothing more than whispers over graves. 16:55”
“George Adam said earlier today that “silence in the face of injustice is never an option.” That is absolutely true, but that truth, and the truth that Tutu and Carter spoke, demands action—not only recognition of the state of Palestine, though that is a necessary and urgent step, but real solidarity. That means not normalising a genocidal state. It means boycott, divestment and sanctions—the very tools that helped to topple apartheid South Africa and that can, once again, be the instruments of justice. Recognition without action is hollow, and words without consequences are just another betrayal. I ask colleagues to think of one family—or what used to be a family—in Gaza. A mother is walking back through the ruins after a temporary ceasefire. She does not search for her home—it is gone, as is her husband.”
“We must also recognise the decades of injustice that the Palestinians have faced. The recent famine that Paul McLennan highlighted is only the latest atrocity inflicted on a people by the Israeli state. The Palestinians have suffered illegal settlements, the silencing of their politicians and journalists and the constraint of their rights for four decades, as we have heard this afternoon. Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who knew apartheid in its most despicable forms, told us plainly that those who continue to do business with Israel “are contributing to the perpetuation of a profoundly unjust status quo.” Jimmy Carter told us, nearly 20 years ago, that apartheid exists in Palestine in its most despicable form. They were not afraid to speak the truth and nor should we be.”
“Not a single one of them has failed the so-called human rights due diligence test—that is a damning indictment of a system that pretends to neutrality while enabling atrocity. Let us be clear: we cannot wash our hands of this. Every £1 of public money that supports those firms is £1 of complicity in the death of a child in Gaza. Every political equivocation, and every refusal to name apartheid and genocide for what they are, is complicity. I therefore welcome the First Minister’s statement earlier today, but we must go further. The Parliament must find the courage that too many Governments across the global north have lacked. We must not avert our eyes. We must not let the words catch in our throats—apartheid, genocide. Those are not rhetorical flourishes; they are legal and moral realities.”
“This debate has not simply been a question of foreign policy; its purpose is to confront a question of humanity. In Gaza, tens of thousands of children, women and men have been murdered, whole families have been erased and hospitals, schools and places of worship have been reduced to rubble. A people have been systematically starved, displaced, blockaded, bombarded and subjected to collective punishment. That is not an accident of war or a tragic misfortune—it is the deliberate machinery of genocide, and Scotland, whether we wish it or not, is entangled in that machinery. At least £8 million of public money has gone from Scottish Enterprise into the hands of arms manufacturers such as Leonardo, Raytheon and others: merchants of death who have supplied weapons and equipment that is used in Israel’s assault on Gaza.”
“Jackson Carlaw talks about the right of the Israeli state to act. Does he agree that, given that it is an occupying force, it has responsibilities under international law to allow food, aid and other support and to allow daily life to go on in the occupied territories, which it has systematically failed to do, not just for two years but for decades? Jackson Carlaw: I agree with the substance of Ms Chapman’s point and I will return to it.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what support it can provide to local authorities to help ensure that all residents across the north-east can access local council services, including help when things go wrong, in person as well as online. (S6O-04878)”
“I close with the message that Scotland stands— and will always stand—for dignity, fairness and respect and will remain a place of refuge for those fleeing persecution and conflict. Product Regulation and Metrology Bill”
“In an interconnected world, challenges such as migration, climate change and global security demand co-operation and not isolation. By working across Governments, we respond more effectively to shared crises. We recognise the serious challenges in the current system, but the bill must come with a commitment to improving access to safe and legal routes for those who seek protection. Without such measures, we risk perpetuating the very vulnerabilities that the bill seeks to resolve. I say on the record that I have much sympathy with Maggie Chapman’s contribution on section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. Of course, that matter is wholly reserved and today we are talking about the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill.”
“We welcome many of the intended benefits of the provisions of the bill, especially through the repeal of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and the repeal of parts of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 that removed the duty on Scottish ministers to protect trafficking victims. That is a necessary step towards addressing the legacy of fear, uncertainty and hostility that was left in the wake of those deeply concerning measures, which were initiated by the UK Conservative Government. The provisions on which we seek consent— particularly those concerning data sharing, enforcement, co-operation and safeguarding— demand our active engagement. Through that active engagement, we can ensure that they are implemented in a way that respects devolved responsibilities and upholds fundamental human rights.”
“I am proud to be in a party that believes that we should welcome refugees and asylum seekers and that we should offer them the dignity of safety and sanctuary. That is our duty. 15:26 Kaukab Stewart: I thank colleagues for their thoughtful and considered contributions to the debate, although the speeches have been varied and possibly a little polarised, which is not unexpected. I ask the chamber to support the Scottish Government’s motion to grant legislative consent to the relevant provisions of the UK Government’s Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. I emphasise again that this is not a blanket endorsement of the UK Government’s immigration and asylum policy; indeed, just the other week, I stood here and expressed serious concerns about its approach to migration.”
“I note that Stephen Kerr seems not to like the fact that the right to seek asylum is enshrined in article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and elaborated on in the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees—it is clear that his party does not like human rights for many people at all. However, there are few, if any, so- called legal routes to get to the UK for refugees and asylum seekers from parts of the world that continue to suffer the consequences of imperialism, uneven development and climate breakdown. I wonder how some people justify the differential treatment that the UK has shown to Ukrainians compared to Yemenis or Palestinians. If people really want to stop the boats, let us arrange safe and secure routes and crossings for asylum seekers, as we should do under our international and moral obligations.”
“Section 29 of the 2023 act makes it more difficult for such victims to come forward and seek help, which could force them further underground, where they could continue to be exploited, could be re-trafficked or worse. We know that, when trafficked victims are removed from the UK, they face a high risk of being re-trafficked and could end up in exactly the same situation. I am grateful to the Scottish Refugee Council for its meticulous work on the ramifications of the bill. I really wish that we could repeal the entire Illegal Migration Act 2023—one day soon, I hope that we will.”
“Duc Nguyen was trafficked from Vietnam and forced to work in conditions of slavery on a cannabis farm, which was then raided. He was jailed for six months and then was liberated and claimed asylum. Nonetheless, he was detained arbitrarily and faced deportation until there were interventions across parties to secure his release. That is a particular case that we can relate to, and it is important that we address that issue. Maggie Chapman: Absolutely. I thank Paul Sweeney for raising that. Let us remember that many trafficked victims are forced into criminal activity and, by virtue of being trafficked, they are much more likely to have a criminal record.”
“It focuses on disqualifying protections for individuals who are identified as potential victims of modern slavery or trafficking if they are deemed, according to the act, to be “a threat to public order or ... have claimed to be victims in bad faith”. Some might say that that is fair, but a key provision of the 2023 act is the expansion of the definition of a “threat to public order” to include anyone who is convicted of a crime and given a prison sentence and those who are liable for deportation under the Immigration Act 1971. That means that victims of trafficking could still be detained and face removal rather than receiving support, and it applies even if they were coerced or forced into entering the UK irregularly by their traffickers. Paul Sweeney: That is a really important point, as is shown by a case in my constituency in 2018.”
“The Scottish Greens will support the LCM at decision time. However, I want to get the following comments, which relate to clause 38 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, on the record. As it stands, clause 38 of the bill will repeal certain provisions of the Illegal Migration Act 2023— specifically sections 24 and 28, which disapplied specific powers and duties of the Scottish ministers that are in the Human Traffic and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015. Neither of those sections has been fully brought into force. We support the repeal of those sections and would like to see the whole Illegal Migration Act 2023 repealed. It is disappointing that the UK Government saw fit not to repeal section 29 of the 2023 act as well.”
“In response to the other points that she made, I say that we expect amendments relating to overpayment recovery to be made at the report stage in the House of Lords, but we do not have a public date for that yet. I will ensure that the committee is kept up to date with any information that we have, and I thank members for their time this evening. Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill”
“It is important to point out how those will be used—or indeed, for some of them, not used—in Scotland and I appreciate the UK Government’s continued discussions in that regard. Those discussions have been difficult and complex, given the fact that the Scottish Government did not see the full provisions before the bill was introduced. That makes it challenging for this Government and this Parliament to be able to discuss and debate the issues, in particular where they are of such a technical nature. Collette Stevenson, the convener of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, pointed out that the Government will require to lodge a supplementary LCM for the bill.”
“Maggie Chapman is quite right to point out that only a very, very small minority of people abuse the social security system, and we must always appreciate and understand that context. However, it is important that, for those who abuse, or even think about abusing, the system that we hold most dear, we take a zero-tolerance approach to fraud, as long as we ensure that, in taking that approach, the system has dignity, fairness and respect at its heart. We can do both—we can have a system with dignity, fairness and respect, but we must also ensure that we tackle fraud and error as we do so. I appreciate the remarks that members have made about specific technical aspects of the powers under the bill.”
“In short, the bill removes financial privacy from the poor, the old, the sick and the disabled. It is discriminatory. It turns on its head our normal presumption that people are innocent until proven guilty, and it makes a mockery of our equality and human rights laws. As such, we in the Greens cannot support this LCM this evening. The Presiding Officer: I call the cabinet secretary to wind up the debate. 21:12 Shirley-Anne Somerville: I thank the committee for its deliberations when we initially discussed the matter some weeks ago, and I thank the members who have taken part in the debate. Several members have pointed out that the bill is about the prevention and deterrence of fraud and error, and that is a very important part of any social security system.”
“How would they challenge that, given the widespread and on-going issues with lack of access to legal aid? While the legislation initially allows for snooping on recipients of universal credit, recipients of pension credit and others, it is likely to be extended to recipients of other benefits, even if they are not specifically devolved and under the control of Social Security Scotland. All of that is to tackle fraud, which we know accounts for only around a couple of per cent of annual welfare spending. Powers to snoop on all claimants on the basis of that tiny rate cannot be justified. The DWP already has powers to compel information holders to share data on individuals who are suspected of fraud, so, like Lord Sikka, I question whether the powers in the bill are necessary.”
“No court order would be needed for that unrestrained surveillance and individuals would not be told that they were being surveilled. There would be no right of appeal by those who were affected, and it is not clear what information would actually be identified by the surveillance or how fraud would be determined on the basis of that information. Because individuals would not even know that the surveillance was happening, they would have no chance to provide any explanation of their situation. What if the algorithm that is used to identify that information makes a mistake? The Post Office scandal has surely taught us that computer systems are not infallible. Even a 1 per cent error rate could result in more than 1,000 people losing universal credit. How would they be compensated?”
“The Scottish Greens cannot agree to this LCM this evening. Part 2 of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill “assumes that all recipients of benefits have criminal tendencies and must therefore be denied financial privacy.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 May 2025; c 2372.] Those are not my words, but the words of Labour’s Lord Sikka, speaking in the House of Lords about the bill just last month. The Scottish Greens reject the bill’s assumption outright and so cannot support the LCM. In addition, we cannot agree to any legislation that gives snooping rights to banks and other companies in the way that is enabled by the bill, even if not all those powers would be explicitly allowed in Scotland.”
“That is what the Government will do. Maggie Chapman raised the issue of other public institutions. The Government is responsible for some of those institutions, so it should be interpreted that my apology has been given on their behalf. However, I hope that other bodies that are not directly under my control will listen with care to what I have said to the Parliament today and act accordingly. I cannot direct them, but I hope that other bodies will take their lead from my acknowledgment of the importance of addressing the wrong that was inflicted on the Gypsy Traveller community. The process of righting it starts with apologising for the error in the first place.”
“For now, how can we ensure that the Government’s apology—it is long overdue, but it is here now—will be the catalyst for other public bodies that had a role in the tinker experiments to properly examine their complicity, apologise to communities and provide to those communities the proper services, from housing and healthcare to education and cultural recognition, that deliver dignity, respect and justice? The First Minister: I readily acknowledge Maggie Chapman’s points about the community’s determination and tenacity. We would not be here today had it not been for the community’s determination to ensure that those wrongs were addressed. We now need to move on and build on the actions that are already under way through the action plan in order to provide better lives and outcomes for Gypsy Traveller community members.”
“I thank the First Minister for his statement. On behalf of the Scottish Greens, I welcome Gypsy Traveller community members to the Parliament. I am glad that you can be here to witness this. I recognise community members Dr Lynne Tammi-Connolly, Roseanna and Shamus McPhee and Davie Donaldson, whose determination is why we are here today. The apology is important and I hope that it signifies a new direction for how we in Scotland’s Parliament engage with, support and treat members of Gypsy Traveller communities across Scotland. I will continue the conversations that I have been having with the Scottish Government on next steps, because we must discuss reparations and redress.”
“Professor Seaton was the university’s choice for interim principal, and any dialogue with the Scottish Funding Council on that decision was about the process, in order to ensure that the university was following its governance processes; I think that that gets to the essence of the question that I have been asked. My understanding is that processes have been followed appropriately, but I am more than happy to engage with the member and the trade unions on the substance of her point.”
“What more can the Government be doing to ensure that the culture change that is needed starts now and that discussions about the future are inclusive, open and transparent? Jenny Gilruth: The member has set out a range of factors that I am not familiar with. The important point to take from my statement today is that we all must come together to work to support a viable future for the university. I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to comment on the specific minutiae that the member has set out in relation to the role of the university court. However, I understand that the deputy chair of court was appointed by the court of Dundee university by correspondence last week, on 16 June. The appointment was for the court and was made by the court.”
“The cabinet secretary highlights the Gillies report’s call for openness and transparency, but already the interim leadership team is showing little sign of change. I have heard concerning reports that the democratically elected student representative on the court is being asked by the interim chair to not attend handover court meetings where the report is being discussed. There has been no attempt yet to include new voices from unions, Dundee University Students Association or the incoming rector in the development of the action plan, which is due later this summer. Does the cabinet secretary agree that there is no justification for excluding court members from court discussions when there is no conflict of interest?”
“The council produced 21 recommendations, with on-going, sensitive and meticulous work about how those recommendations can become real. The Scottish Government has, to its credit, accepted them all. If fully implemented, they would transform Scotland for the benefit of everyone— perhaps most of all for the children in poverty to whom our attention continually returns. In my closing speech, I will address some of the ways in which we are moving towards those goals and that gender policy coherence, and some of the ways in which we can do much better. Meanwhile, on behalf of the Scottish Greens, I welcome the report and the motion, and I whole- heartedly reject the culture-war games that, I fear, we might get into later this afternoon. 15:37”
“It was created as a catalyst for change. That change is not always comfortable, and it is certainly not always easy, but I think that we recognise today, from bitter experience, that it is more urgently needed than ever. Gender equality is not a zero-sum game. It is not about dividing the cake differently but about baking an entirely different kind of cake—one that benefits men, boys and non-binary people as well as women and girls. It provides radical, sustainable and compassionate alternatives to misogyny, exploitation, injustice and violence— violence in our homes, schools and streets; in the homes, schools and streets of Gaza and elsewhere; in the bleak destruction of climate change; and in the plans and profits of a resurgent war machine.”
“Once again, our few opportunities to talk about the real structural barriers to the wellbeing of women and girls, of families and communities and of living generations and those to come—our tiny slivers of time for conversation and progress—are to be dominated by the discourse of transmisogyny. Let us be clear: of the social and economic oppressions, institutional and structural injustices and participatory and intersectional shortfalls that women and girls experience, absolutely none is inflicted by transgender or non- binary people. On the contrary, the poisonous rhetoric of prosperous so-called gender-critical activism damages all women and girls, trans and cisgendered. I go back to the advisory council and its practical, trans-inclusive, intersectionally aware, robust and transformational feminism.”
“One of the council’s recommendations was that Scottish ministers should deliver an annual statement on gender policy coherence, followed by a debate in the Scottish Parliament. It might have taken some time to get here, but we have that statement in the form of a report, and we have this debate, and I am grateful for both of those. It is commendable that, in its motion for this debate, the Government has sought not to boast about achievements or make excuses about shortcomings but simply to note the statement and let us talk about it. With the same dignity and respect, most Opposition parties have refrained from lodging amendments to make political points and set the debate on a path of division and conflict—most, but not all.”