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 13 of 17.
“That is one of the reasons why the Scottish Government is committed to initiatives around the environment within communities. The point that has been made about planning for skills is clearly important, too. In the programme for government for 2025-26, the First Minister reaffirmed that point, committing to “Introducing a new Scottish Government-led approach to national skills planning, and strengthen regional skills planning, to ensure that post school provision” is aligned with and “responsive to Scotland’s strategic skills needs” in this area.”
“Last month’s Just Transition Commission briefing report on “A Just Transition for Aberdeen and the North East” is pretty scathing. It states: “There is still no transition plan for oil and gas workers” and no clear training plan to retain skills. It notes that accelerating “offshore clean energy is essential” and it states that regional planning with genuine community participation is vital. The minister did not mention communities once in his statement. Can he say how communities can expect to benefit from the collective commons that are our renewables as we harness them for our future, and how communities will be involved in the planning that must happen now with urgency? Alasdair Allan: The member is right to say that communities must be involved in the planning of those matters.”
“Clearly, there are a number of properties to be addressed, but that work is on-going and the information is becoming available. We are content to engage with local authorities and, importantly, with affected residents. As I already indicated, my colleague the Minister for Housing met affected residents to discuss the issue, and we will continue to do that to ensure that their perspectives are properly heard.”
“More than 1,400 homes in the north- east—many of which are council owned—are affected by RAAC. However, councils still do not have accurate numbers of all affected properties because, despite requests from residents, the surveys that are required to confirm the presence of RAAC are not always being undertaken. What assurances can the minister give to residents that councils will undertake those required surveys in a systematic way, and how can he ensure that communities are included in discussions about financially viable and family and community- appropriate solutions? Ivan McKee: Councils have a responsibility to assess such properties, and we are working with them to ensure that that happens as rapidly as possible.”
“As has been mentioned, we need the overall strategy and partnership working. Without reforming how councils are funded and how education is planned nationally, we will keep repeating the cycle of failed delivery over and over again. Teachers and young people are suffering, as Willie Rennie highlighted so clearly in his opening speech. Compromise is possible, however, and we can all see a way forward, but everyone has to be willing to work together in good faith to get to that place, where we have the right teachers in the right place, supporting all our young people as we know they can. 15:15”
“The conflict in education that we constantly battle with is the premise that education is a national issue on which the Government is judged, when local authorities are the ones that are tasked with delivering that education. There is a clear need for dialogue on funding in schools. There is a need for the Government and COSLA to show good will to each other and to act in good faith. Yes, it is valid for the Government to be frustrated at local authorities for spending hundreds of millions of pounds with no clear outcome. As much as I have sympathy for the Government on this, COSLA is also right to argue that teacher numbers, the national care service and the council tax freeze—to name just a few examples—are things that should be discussed outside the budget process, because they do not involve just budgetary decisions.”
“Of course, there are things that the Scottish Government can and should do now. The most obvious is a council tax revaluation. In principle, that appears to have the Parliament’s support, but in practice it does not. Councils having far more autonomy over their finances and the power to raise revenue would enable them to make longer- term decisions that should reduce the reliance on Government top-up to prop them up when it comes to workforce planning. We come back regularly to workforce planning in the Parliament, as Pam Duncan-Glancy highlighted. In many ways, it is an easy issue to bash the Government over the head with, but that approach has not got us anywhere. Something in the tension between the Government and COSLA has to give.”
“The same amount of money will not recruit the same number of teachers as it once would have done. Something clearly went wrong, given that the original £145 million to increase teacher numbers was there, yet we had fewer teachers at the end of the first financial year. Of course, that is not all down to the Scottish Government. Many councils did not even touch their funding allocation for that purpose. The reasons behind that situation are entirely understandable and boil down to three points: the Government wants teacher numbers to increase, councils want to avoid making cuts in departments other than education and the money to do both just is not there—or it is not there in the volume that is needed. That funding question needs to be resolved in the medium to long term, which is why this issue, as so many do, boils down to finance.”
“The figure of £145 million—now £186.5 million—should be enough to move every teacher who is on a temporary contract into a permanent role and to recruit hundreds more into permanent teaching posts on top of that. That sum of money was one of the more significant budgetary requests that the Greens made as part of the Bute house agreement. Our intent was clear—it was to grow Scotland’s teaching workforce. However, for several years, teacher numbers have not increased as planned. Several factors have contributed to that outcome, including inflation eroding the value of the budget, and the teacher pay deal, which, despite being absolutely necessary, further constrained spending flexibility. The same amount of cash from three or four years ago does not go as far as it used to, especially in education.”
“I will give serious consideration to Maggie Chapman’s amendments to the bill, but she will know that we will be undertaking a review of compulsory purchase orders, which involves a complex piece of legislation. Regardless of whether we want to go further on that, local authorities could be doing a lot more with the powers that they have at the moment.”
“We have perhaps agreed on some areas more than others, but the conversations have certainly always been useful. The challenge that Maggie Chapman, rightly, mentions about the use of empty homes is an important one. In my statement, I said that work is being undertaken by empty homes officers across Scotland with Scottish Government funding support. The work that the Scottish Government has undertaken to analyse what is happening in different local authorities in relation to use of the powers that they have at the moment demonstrates that some local authorities are using their current powers much more than others. That is one of the areas where we hope to demonstrate to local authorities that are perhaps not going as far as they could that they should do so.”
“Scottish Government data shows that there are more long-term empty homes than there were homelessness applications last year. I have lodged amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Bill that would see vacant or derelict properties being brought back into use for residential purposes through compulsory sale or lease orders. Those are just some of the measures that we need to implement to ensure that homes are for living in and to help us to prevent homelessness. Does the cabinet secretary support those proposals to increase the number of existing homes that are actually lived in? Will she ensure a renewed focus, beyond the empty homes partnership, on bringing empty and derelict homes back into use? Shirley-Anne Somerville: I thank Maggie Chapman for the conversations that she and I have been having about the Housing (Scotland) Bill.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the justice secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding the reported findings from a survey by the Fire Brigades Union that there is support and a need for 52 weeks of full pay for firefighters on maternity leave. (S6O- 04689)”
“The human rights bill that we campaigned so passionately for would have opened up a route to remedy for violations of fundamental human rights of dignity, equality and respect. At a time when those rights for disabled people, transgender people and people who are seeking asylum and home are under unprecedented threat, access to justice matters desperately. I welcome the bill, and we will vote for it at decision time this evening. I am grateful to all who have got us here, but we still have so much work to do. I urge us all to remember that, as we vote on the bill this evening, we are talking not only about law but about justice. 17:47”
“It also includes dimensions of justice that are not addressed by the bill but are of urgent importance. One of those is simply access to legal services. For many people across Scotland, legal advice and representation on matters of the utmost gravity, such as their homes, livelihoods, children, safety and liberty, are simply not available, because of either cost barriers or geographical distance. Legal aid reform is long, long overdue. Another is access to appropriate courts and remedies. An environmental court with specialist expertise and a problem-solving approach would save resources of all kinds—time and money, as well as biodiversity, precious green space and the wellbeing of our communities.”
“If, in addition, the system that is supposed to address complaints and redress wrongs does not work efficiently, those difficulties are multiplied. If the system is slow, complex and mysterious, if it uses language that is alienating and even insulting, and if it does not seem to listen, the legacy of legal experience can be bitter indeed. The bill sets out to reform and improve those systems, enabling them not only to intervene swiftly and fairly when things have already gone wrong but to act proactively to prevent the spread of bad practice and bad experience. What people want so much and so often is to know that the same thing will not happen to someone else. Access not just to law but to justice is a key foundation of what we Greens believe in. That includes access to good legal services and to redress when they are not received.”
“People typically need those legal services at some of the most stressful times in their lives—when they are moving home, setting up a business, dealing with bereavement or negotiating separation or divorce, or following accidents, work difficulties or involvement with the criminal justice system. Legal professionals who are skilled and sensitive, conscientious and good at communicating can make a huge difference to people’s lives by lifting burdens, solving problems and providing real support and representation when they are most needed. Of course, the converse is also the case at times. When legal professionals are slow, careless, incompetent, extortionate or absent, transactions become problems, problems become crises and crises become catastrophes.”
“On behalf of the Scottish Greens, I welcome the bill and thank all those who helped to bring it—at last—to stage 3. I thank my committee colleagues, the clerks and all those who gave evidence, provided briefings and shared helpful conversations. This has not always been an easy bill to navigate, but the progress that has been made and the co-operation that has been achieved between stakeholders, Government and Opposition represent a source of encouragement for the future. The bill is, in many ways, a compromise, falling short of the radical reform that was called for in Esther Roberton’s report. It is nonetheless valuable and necessary for legal professionals and for those whose interests we, as Scottish Greens, are most concerned about—the people without wealth, power or privilege, for whom good legal services are too often out of reach.”
“I reserve the right to press the amendments, however: I believe that the issue is important with regard to the functioning and capabilities of regulatory processes and, consequently, our public interest. I move amendment 116.”
“I note that the minister has said that she is aware of the issues and that she is happy to continue to engage on the matter with the Law Society and other stakeholders, as would be necessary. I wonder whether she would be willing to make a further commitment on the record on that today, as well as outline the potential steps that she believes are open to the Government to act on the issue in the future, if that is needed and if an agreed position can be found. If she can provide some of those assurances on further remedies in this area, I might not be minded to press or move my amendments—and I am cognisant of Maggie Chapman’s point as well.”
“I am keen to hear what the Minister for Victims and Community Safety has to say about those issues. I want to be clear that my amendments in this group should not restrict the ability to raise a conduct complaint about other matters that would fall outside the exercise or discharge of regulatory functions. Additionally, solicitors who are engaged in the delivery of regulatory and disciplinary work for a legal services regulator should not and would not be immune from criticism or accountability. Indeed, parties on either side of a regulatory matter are entitled to express their disagreement with the substance and manner of the arguments that are made by solicitors who work on regulatory matters.”
“I would be interested to hear what Paul O’Kane has to say in response to the position of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission on amendments 129 and 141 in particular. One of the points made by the SLCC is that it is uncomfortable in applying standards and processes to others that it would not apply to itself. I would be interested to hear how Paul O’Kane answers that critique of those two amendments. Paul O’Kane: I appreciate that there are competing views and issues in this space. That position has perhaps been counterbalanced by the view of the Law Society of Scotland and others on what needs to be done so as not to place that onerous burden on to regulators, as I have outlined. I recognise what Maggie Chapman is saying, and I take it on board.”
“Homes are not just bricks and mortar—they are the foundation of health, dignity, community and hope. We owe it to every family who is still waiting, every child who is still in temporary accommodation and every village that is watching its future slip away to act with urgency and compassion. Housing is a human right, not a commodity. It must never be a plaything for the rich—a bolthole for the few while the many go without. Homes should be real homes—places of belonging, community and care, not investments or profit generators, and certainly not just weekend retreats for those who can afford multiple properties. Homes are for living in, not for hoarding or speculating in, or for escaping to. Homes are for people. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call the minister, Paul McLennan, to respond to the debate. 13:23”
“Now, entire towns and villages are becoming ghost towns in the off season, and their school shops and services are under threat because their communities are hollowed out. We must change course. The recent increase in the additional dwelling supplement and the ability for councils to raise council tax on second homes is welcome, and it is making a difference. In 2024, 2,455 fewer second homes were bought than in the previous year, and the additional revenue—more than a quarter of a billion pounds—can be redirected to affordable housing. However, that must be just the start: we need bolder, braver and more compassionate action. We must consider reforms such as Norway’s boplikt law, which requires that homes be lived in year round. We need to rebalance ownership in favour of those who actually live and work in our communities.”
“From Aberdeenshire to Angus and from the Highlands to Dundee, homes are being taken out of the hands of people who need them and turned into playthings for the wealthy, and that has just been allowed to happen. The long shadow of right to buy still looms, and housing has been treated as a market, not a human right, which is fuelling inequality and driving up child poverty. I say in response to some of Craig Hoy’s comments that the housing market is broken, and that is why the local family whom he mentioned would not be able to buy a home in East Lothian. It is not because of anything but the broken housing market, to which his party has contributed. Craig Hoy: Will the member give way? Maggie Chapman: I am not going to take an intervention.”
“More than 16,000 households are in temporary accommodation, including—as we have heard—more than 10,000 children. Behind each of those numbers is a human being: those are families who are split between relatives’ sofas; children who are growing up without a permanent address; and people who are being pushed to the edges of communities that should be theirs. Those families, and others, worry constantly about where they will sleep tonight, next week and in the future. Yet, across our country, homes are being bought not to house people, but to house profits—to sit empty for most of the year in order to cater for short-term stays that hollow out communities. It cannot be right that, in some places, more than half of all homes are second homes or holiday lets. That is not just unsustainable—it is unjust. It is clearly a systemic issue.”
“I thank Ross Greer for securing the debate, and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak this afternoon. I believe that every single person deserves a safe, secure and stable place to call home—not a commodity or an investment, or a holiday retreat, but a home. We are facing a housing emergency in Scotland. That crisis is the result of decades of political choices that have privileged private wealth over public good; property rights over the right to a home; and profit over people. Nowhere is that clearer than in the spread of second homes across Scotland—homes that stand empty for most of the year while local people are pushed out or priced out. More than 1.5 million people are living in overcrowded, dangerous, unstable or unaffordable housing.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Craig Hoy: I am afraid that I do not have time. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Hoy is about to conclude. Craig Hoy: Ultimately, the issue is that those who cannot afford to retain a second home are forced to sell up and they often sell to wealthy second home owners who are prepared to cough up. If we are to maintain the taxes, I urge the minister to look at them again. They are indiscriminate and they are catching people who I believe should not be caught by them. I hope that the minister will think again when the Government reforms both ADS and council tax. 13:19”
“I respect the views of many who oppose the bill. They make important points about structural ableism, the effects of poverty and exclusion, and the need for much more comprehensive and accessible palliative and social care. Those are critical issues.”
“By contrast, where the blanket ban on assisted dying has been lifted, people experience assurance, peace of mind and courage to face the weeks and months ahead. For many people, simply knowing that the end is within their control is enough. They do not, in the end, need to take that assistance. It is time—indeed long past time—to do this now. As it stands, the law is long outdated, both in terms of medical realities and our understanding of human dignity. Most of us believe that people have the right to choose what happens to their bodies. We do not beat children. We do not make people endure forced childbirth. We do not believe that unrelieved pain is a source of moral improvement. We do not want to see those whom we love robbed of all that makes them the person they are when they recognise that their life is complete.”
“They do their best to make the right choices, but what they cannot do under the law as it stands is what the patient so often wants and begs for, knowing that the time is right for them. That law is cruel, as it condemns people not only to pain but often to bitterness, loss of faith and a sense of betrayal. At best, perhaps, they undergo a sedation so deep that the boundary between life and death is shrouded in mist. Anticipation of that end leads many to horrors— lonely and furtive attempts to take their own lives and traumatic discoveries by those who love them. For those who can afford it, the best solution is a bleak journey to a foreign clinic, perhaps months or even years before they are really ready or want to go.”
“They do not want it because the media tells them so or because their church supports it—in some cases, it is quite the opposite. They want it because of their own experiences—because they have seen people whom they love denied a good death, peace of mind and the chance to say goodbye. This is not about choosing between life and death. As Alyson Thomson testified before the committee, “that choice has already been taken away”.—[Official Report, Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, 21 January 2025; c 16.] For most, it is not even the choice between an assisted death and what can be called a natural death. End-of-life decisions about sedation, pain relief, sustenance and treatment are made by health professionals every day.”
“It is an honour to stand and speak in support of the bill, which aligns not only with the values of the Scottish Greens but with my personal and long-standing belief that it represents an important part of a compassionate society. I commend Liam McArthur for his meticulous and conscientious work, and I thank all those who have brought us to this afternoon’s proceedings. As human beings, we have agency and the capacity to exercise moral choice about our lives. As human beings, we also share vulnerability and needs, including the need for compassion and care. The bill, and the issue that it brings up for our consideration, helps us to exercise our humanity in relation to all those aspects. In many ways, we are here because the bill is, overwhelmingly, what the people of Scotland want.”
“I do not think that the programme for government adequately addresses the inability for women, disabled people, care-experienced people and so many other minoritised individuals and communities to realise their basic human rights every day. That is why we will keep pushing not for policy tweaks but for a different kind of politics: one that listens, empowers and tells the truth, which is that we cannot have a healthy society in a dirty economy; we cannot live well on a dying planet; and we cannot save that planet without justice for all who live on it. This is a moment not just to protect what we love but to reimagine what is possible. That is what we in the Scottish Greens are determined to do, for people and planet. 16:37”
“That redistribution of wealth and power is essential if we are to maintain and improve the public services that we all rely on and to empower communities where they are. Finally, the lack of action on equalities and human rights is a real concern. The broken promises on both the proposed misogyny bill and legislation to end conversion practices will not be forgotten soon. There is also little in the way of action on investment in care infrastructure, which was identified by the UK’s Women’s Budget Group as being essential for a more equal society, or on the systemic undervaluation of women’s work. We know that child poverty is often women’s poverty. The Scottish Government has been urged, repeatedly, to have equality and human rights analyses at the core of all its policy development.”
“Pam Duncan- Glancy and Jamie Greene highlighted statistics on the inequality that many of those groups face, which should shame us all. Although the policies that are in the PFG to address inequality are welcome, and we would like to go further by increasing the Scottish child payment to £40 by the end of the parliamentary session and by introducing rent controls that make rents cheaper, we know that we do not have all the levers that are needed to properly challenge the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few. However, the programme for government is silent on some of the things that we can do, such as taxing wealth or unearned income and democratising our land use and economic planning.”
“Scottish Greens believe, instead, that we need to challenge the economic system that underpins the climate crisis and social inequalities that are all too apparent in our society today. There is also no meaningful move towards public or community ownership of key sectors such as energy, housing or land. Rhoda Grant spoke about the desperate need for land reform. Incremental and technocratic approaches lack the urgency that is needed to confront ecological breakdown and systematic inequality. We cannot achieve a better society without uplifting those who have been pushed to the margins for too long—disabled people, racialised communities, LGBTQIA+ people, asylum seekers, refugees and care-experienced young people.”
“Just this morning, those of us who attended the Scottish Parliament information centre breakfast discussion heard about how the climate crisis is a public health issue—the biggest public health issue that we face. The failure to act will lead to the worsening of the physical and mental health of us all, and it will put additional pressures on our public services—not only our NHS, but all of them. We cannot let our wellbeing, never mind the planet’s survival, be left to market forces and corporate pledges. The reliance on private sector investment and market mechanisms reflects a belief that just tweaking around the edges of the systems that we already have will deliver the results that we need.”
“We have so much more work to do. Rather than just tweak around the edges or manage decline, we must transform our economy and society, because we cannot allow net zero to mean zero hope for communities that are already struggling. Lorna Slater, and even Maurice Golden, spoke about the need to phase out fossil fuels and tackle the climate crisis. We know from bitter experience that we cannot rely on voluntary corporate co- operation or vague timeframes, given the urgent action that is required. We need a planned, state- led transition away from oil and gas, with guarantees for workers and their communities, and their voices at its heart.”
“We cannot deliver a just transition for our climate without justice for workers—not only those in the North Sea but those in care homes and in our communities. We cannot claim to restore nature if the communities who live closest to it are locked out of land ownership and democratic power. This programme for government takes some important steps forward, and we have heard a lot about that over the past couple of days, but it could have done so much more. Where is the courage to confront fossil fuel interests head on? Where is the urgency to democratise our economy and bring energy, housing and land into public hands, where they belong? Where is the ambition to redistribute wealth so that those who have profited from crisis pay their fair share for recovery and so that our public services are resourced appropriately?”
“We stand today at a crossroads. In the face of accelerating climate breakdown, deepening economic inequality and relentless attacks on the rights of the most marginalised, the choices that we make now will define our future. Our constituents, our communities and our country need us to choose hope, justice and radical action to transform the structures and systems that drive social inequality and environmental degradation. We need bold, urgent action towards a very different model of economy and society in which people and planet are valued and supported, and social justice, environmental justice and economic justice are seen as one and the same. We cannot build a green future on a foundation of poverty wages and insecure housing.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Aberdeenshire Council regarding the reported financial pressures that it is experiencing. (S6O-04585)”
“With countless lives hanging in the balance, now is the time to fight for dignity and to stand with disabled people and carers. We cannot let them fall. 15:29”
“nae money to do anything anyway.” When we talk about welfare, we must remember what that word means: the wellbeing of people. It is not fiscal manipulation or political point scoring but real human wellbeing. The UK Government’s reforms offer none of that. It does not see the person behind the form. It sees only numbers to be reduced and lines on a balance sheet to be erased. We see differently. We see people. We see families. We see communities. We see the truth: the cuts will devastate lives. That is why I and the Greens will oppose them with everything that we can. This debate is not just about benefits; it is about what kind of country we want to be. Will we let the most vulnerable pay the price for political cowardice and economic misdirection, or will we rise in solidarity to say, “Enough”? Now is the time to choose justice.”
“The Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that the reforms could push an additional 400,000 people into poverty, including at least 50,000 children. Let us not forget the wider context: disabled people are already overrepresented among those in poverty, with 63 per cent of people experiencing destitution reporting a disability or long-term health condition. The reforms will only deepen those disparities. This is not just about policy. It is about human dignity. It is about the lived reality of people such as the disabled Glasgow Disability Alliance member who said: “Every day is a battle ... from the moment I wake up I am continuously faced with these awful decisions … I’m hungry but I’ve nothing much there ... Can’t really get out anywhere ...”
“The Scottish Government has rooted its approach to social security in dignity and respect, and programmes such as the adult disability payment reflect a commitment to compassion. It is not the panacea that we need, but even that progressive framework is under threat. As Scotland’s funding for ADP is tied to eligibility rates for PIP in England and Wales, any reduction in the number of claimants there will mean massive funding shortfalls here, which are estimated to be more than half a billion pounds. Unless the Scottish Government follows suit with equally harsh eligibility cuts, it might not be allowed to use ADP as a passporting benefit for universal credit. That would leave thousands of disabled Scots unable to access much-needed financial support.”
“There is no evidence— none at all—that the cuts will achieve the UK Government’s stated goal of getting people into work. Even the Office for Budget Responsibility could not estimate any employment gain from the reforms. In fact, previous benefit cuts of similar scope led to only a 3 per cent rise in employment among disabled people. The proposals also disproportionately impact carers, the vast majority of whom are women. Up to 150,000 carers stand to lose carers allowance or the carers element of universal credit. That is not just bad policy; it is gendered injustice, stripping away the financial independence of those who already shoulder an immense burden of unpaid labour. Scotland, with its devolved powers, has tried to chart a different course.”
“Imagine telling someone who needs help to eat or shower that they no longer qualify for support because they did not score four points in a specific bureaucratic box. That is cruelty by spreadsheet. The devastating consequences ripple further. Under the reforms, only those who qualify for the PIP daily living component will be eligible for the health element of universal credit. In one cruel stroke, more than 1.4 million disabled people will be denied both forms of support. Those individuals face losing upwards of £8,500 a year. That is not a policy adjustment; it is an engineered descent into poverty. In Scotland, we talk about leaving no one behind, but the proposals flip that on its head. They punish those who are too unwell to work, often stripping them of the minimal support that allows them to survive.”
“The UK Government’s “Pathways to Work: Reforming Benefits and Support to Get Britain Working Green Paper” outlines sweeping changes to disability benefits that would result in the most brutal package of cuts since George Osborne’s austerity years. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, the reforms aim to cut nearly £7 billion annually from benefits paid to disabled people and carers. Savings for the Treasury mean staggering losses for real people. Nearly half of all recipients of personal independence payment—1.3 million disabled people—stand to lose their daily living component. That is not a minor policy tweak; it is a mass removal of essential support from people who, for example, cannot dress, wash or feed themselves or use the toilet unaided.”
“This afternoon’s debate is a call to conscience. The Scottish Green Party believes in building a society in which everyone can live with dignity; in which compassion, equality and social justice are embedded in every aspect of public policy; and in which we stand up in solidarity with those who are marginalised and minoritised by various intersecting systems of oppression. The UK Government’s latest welfare reform proposals betray that vision. The reforms are not only technically flawed but morally indefensible. If implemented, they will devastate the lives of millions, particularly those of disabled people, carers and young people who are already teetering on the brink of—if they are not already in—poverty. Let us be clear about what is on the table.”