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 16 of 17.
“As the WASPI campaigners, including those in the public gallery this afternoon, have reiterated, the issue is not with the equalisation of pension age but with the lack of notice given and the failure to consider or to care about the effect on lives, livelihoods, relationships and futures. That lack of notice has, of course, affected partners, families and communities—all those who rely on the availability of retired women to give care, to carry out voluntary work and to give emotional and practical support and energy. Most of all, however, it has affected the lives of the women themselves. As Linda Carmichael and others have pointed out, many of the WASPI women began work before equalities legislation, when marriage alone could end a career and maternity leave was a thing of the future.”
“Iain Duncan Smith, as Secretary of State, refused to engage with the 1950s women adversely affected and I was instructed not to speak to them. I was told the women would go away sooner or later.” She spoke, too, of the lifelong inequalities that the WASPI women have faced and how they had been given a particularly raw deal in pensions across their lives. She went on to say: “Even in 2015, when women’s pension age had already risen to 62, some pages on the Government’s website said women would start their state pension at ... 60. Yet the (mostly male) ministers did not appreciate many women’s lives are not the same as men. Without private pensions to fall back on, these short-notice changes to state pension age are likely to cause hardship for many.” Of course, they have caused hardship for many.”
“Across the North East Scotland region, the total number of women affected— WASPI women—is estimated at 43,730. Each of those women has been affected in a different way, with different impacts and challenges depending on their individual circumstances, but all of them have two things in common: their gender and their age. Those two factors have made successive Governments relaxed and comfortable with decisions, and failures to make decisions, that have caused immense hardship, heartache and loss. Baroness Ros Altmann saw at first hand how the interests of the WASPI women were dismissed and disregarded, with information absent or misleading. In 2018, she said: “As Pensions Minister, I kept trying to find a way to alleviate the unfairness of these short-notice changes. Unfortunately, there was no sympathy for these women.”
“I welcome all the WASPI women campaigners who are in the public gallery, although I share the cabinet secretary’s anger and frustration, which I am sure pale into insignificance in comparison with what the 1950s-born women feel. Although it is always good to have a catch-up with Linda Carmichael from Aberdeen, none of us should have to be here again. Many of us were here just last week, discussing the same issue in Kenneth Gibson’s members’ business debate, but we make no apology for returning to it so soon. This scandal—and it is a scandal—represents a major injustice to women across the United Kingdom. According to Scottish Parliament information centre estimates, the women affected include more than 11,000 women in Aberdeen city, more than 16,500 in Aberdeenshire and nearly 8,000 each in Angus and Dundee.”
“WASPI women have waited long enough—they deserve an apology, they deserve recognition and they deserve compensation. To the WASPI women of Scotland and across the UK I say, “We hear you. We, in the Scottish Greens, stand with you and we will not stop fighting for your rights”—because justice for WASPI women is justice for us all. 18:28”
“The women are not asking for charity—they are demanding justice and just what they are owed after a lifetime of hard work, contribution and sacrifice. The current UK Government’s refusal to acknowledge its failure and to provide fair compensation to those women is a shameful abdication of responsibility. It is a question not of affordability, but of priorities. If there is money for tax breaks for the wealthy, and if there is money— billions of pounds—for corporate bailouts, there is money to right this wrong and provide WASPI women with fair compensation. We do not have powers in the Scottish Parliament to enable us to resolve the issue directly, but we have a responsibility to stand in solidarity with WASPI women, and to amplify their voices and demand that the UK Government act now, because justice delayed is justice denied.”
“WASPI women in the North East Scotland region and elsewhere have shared their pain and frustration about being forced to rely on food banks, and about being unable to heat their homes or having to continue in jobs that are physically or emotionally exhausting. Some have had to take on care-giving responsibilities while simultaneously trying to earn a living, at a time in their lives when they should have been enjoying well-earned rest. We must not ignore the gendered nature of this injustice: women already face economic disadvantage throughout their lives through the gender pay gap, inequality in caring responsibilities and working in undervalued and underpaid sectors. The mishandling of state pension age changes has only compounded those inequalities. That is why compensation is not just necessary, but a moral imperative.”
“The PHSO has made clear that there was “maladministration”, and many women were given little or no warning that their state pension age would increase. For some, that has meant having to work for up to six years longer than they had planned or prepared for. Women who had worked for decades, often in low-paid and insecure jobs, suddenly found themselves facing financial uncertainty, unable to retire when they had expected and unable to plan for the future. The UK Government failed to fulfil its duty to inform those women, to consult them or to allow them time to adjust to such significant changes in their lives. As a result, millions of women have been left out of pocket, struggling to make ends meet, while their retirement dreams have been shattered. The stories of those women are heart- wrenching.”
“I thank Kenny Gibson for securing the debate, and say hello to the WASPI women in the public gallery: you are welcome. I speak this evening for justice—justice for the WASPI women, born in the 1950s, who have been so unfairly treated and betrayed by various UK Governments. Those women, who have contributed so much to our society—who have worked hard, raised families and built communities—deserve far better than the injustice that they have endured. As other members have said, the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign is not about rejecting the equalisation of pension ages between men and women: it is about fairness, and about recognising the unacceptable manner in which the changes to the state pension age were implemented—abruptly, unfairly and without adequate notice.”
“Not only misogyny but racism and other forms of discrimination are embedded deep in institutional cultures, attitudes and processes. That fact has been acknowledged at the highest levels. That is why I end by remembering Sheku Bayoh and reiterating my sorrow, sympathy and solidarity with his family as they endure their own long wait for answers and accountability. The work that we do here, this afternoon, can bear fruit only if it is part of a wider endeavour of transforming our systems, challenging our institutions and making genuine, open and accessible justice a reality for us all. 17:04”
“Sarah Everard was a young woman of 33 who was raped and murdered by an elite Metropolitan Police officer in an act of premeditated and deliberate femicide. She was murdered because she was a woman, because he was a misogynist predator, and because the recruitment, vetting and management processes that should have recognised his utter unsuitability for any position of power were broken or non- existent. As Stephanie Bonner has been, Sarah Everard’s relatives have been heroic and selfless in their determination to bring about change—to shine a light on that culture of misogyny, those institutional failures and that lack of attention, foresight and care. Those failures are perhaps especially evident in the Metropolitan Police, but no force, including Police Scotland, is entirely free of them.”
“Others, including Magdalene Robertson and Bill Johnstone, have generously shared their own terrible experiences to help develop and scrutinise the work of the bill. We stand in gratitude, admiration and respect. Our society, and the legislation that has been passed in this and other places, gives an extraordinary range and depth of power to its police officers. That power can be misused in the most horrific ways. The bill that is before us was instigated by the work of Lady Elish Angiolini. It represents one strand of response to the recommendations of her report on the police complaints system, which was published in 2020. Between that report and the introduction of the bill, she was called on to chair another inquiry, which was into a crime that prompted grief and rage across the United Kingdom and the rest of the world.”
“However, the pain of his death was multiplied by the failure of Police Scotland to investigate it properly, the betrayal through the lies that she was told, the way in which her simplest questions were met with what she has described as a “wall of silence”, and the four years that it took just to get through the complaints process. Nothing that we do today can redress those wrongs. Her questions have never been answered. She does not even know where to lay her flowers. What we can do, though, is to honour Rhys’s memory and Stephanie’s courage and compassion, for she does what few would be prepared to do: she speaks for not only herself but all who have experienced the pain and betrayal of police failures and the obstruction and intimidation that are used to defend the indefensible.”
“I am pleased to open the stage 3 debate on behalf of the Scottish Greens and to support the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill. I thank everyone who has worked on the bill, including the committee members, clerks and researchers, those who have given valuable evidence, and the successive cabinet secretaries with whom I have had positive and fruitful conversations. I thank all the organisations and groups that have sent in briefings or with which I have had very helpful conversations over the course of the bill’s passage. Most of all, I thank those people who have shared their personal stories so bravely and generously. Stephanie Bonner lost her first-born child—her son, Rhys—when he was only 19. That is more than enough grief for anyone to bear.”
“I assure members that the regulations will be developed in consultation with staff associations and that fairness for all will be at the heart of the process.”
“Victim Support Scotland also urges members not to back the amendments. It has stated its support for periodic revetting and has talked about the role that the bill’s vetting provisions will play in the public continuing to have trust in Police Scotland. I turn to other amendments in the group. I will refer to some together, because they would achieve the same effect in respect of the vetting code of practice, which will apply to police officers and police staff, and the regulations, which will apply only to police officers. I appreciate that the amendments might be intended to prevent abuse of the vetting procedures, but the proper way to prevent that is through a robust appeals process, rather than by inserting various provisions in primary legislation that could trigger unintended consequences.”
“Notwithstanding Ms McNeill’s comments, I am deeply concerned that proposals to remove the vetting provisions have been made at this stage, without any consultation with HMICS or Police Scotland and without any supporting evidence. If we do not use the bill to introduce statutory provision for vetting and dismissal, it is likely that any meaningful vetting changes—which most of us want and which are in the public interest—will be delayed until the next parliamentary session at the very earliest. Following the lodging of those amendments, Craig Naylor, His Majesty’s chief inspector of constabulary, and Deputy Chief Constable Speirs wrote to the Criminal Justice Committee to highlight their concerns about Ms McNeill’s proposals and the case for a statutory framework for vetting.”
“The police appeals tribunal is made up of three independent lawyers, who are chosen by the Lord President of the Court of Session. Martin Whitfield: I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for clarifying her view on regulations with respect to appeals that relate to the employment contract and appeals that relate to vetting errors. In principle, does she agree that, if there was an error in the vetting process, an appeal should be possible, which could be dealt with in regulations? Angela Constance: The place for dealing with such an issue is in regulations, not in primary legislation, for the reasons that I mentioned a few moments ago. I will address some of the specific issues with the amendments. Amendments 24 to 27 would entirely remove the vetting provisions from the bill.”
“Angela Constance: The purpose of regulations is to get into far more detail than would be appropriate in primary legislation. Members will appreciate that, when dealing with matters that are specific to a particular individual or circumstance, trying to cover each and every eventual possibility in primary legislation would lead to inflexibility that might be disproportionate and might disadvantage different officers. As I will touch on when I get into the detail of the amendments, Police Scotland is clear that the provisions for recruitment vetting need to be different from those for in-role vetting. The provisions should recognise welfare issues, people’s service and the need for proportionality. I will provide some further information.”
“However, when people are demoted or dismissed, they have the right of appeal to the police appeals tribunal, which hears appeals against police disciplinary actions. In future, the police appeals tribunal will cover vetting actions. Pauline McNeill: Does the existing statutory appeals provision apply when an officer has already been dismissed and appeals the dismissal? In my amendments, I am trying to get at the fact that people should at least have a right to rectify any information that might be wrong and has led to their failing their vetting and their possible dismissal. The cabinet secretary referred to the regulations. Would there be scope to ensure that the regulations included something that an officer could use to correct misinformation in relation to vetting?”
“Is the cabinet secretary of the view that, if the amendments that she agrees to pass and those that she does not agree to do not pass, the bill will allay the concerns that have been expressed? Angela Constance: It is important for me to remind people of what is in the bill and what the stage 2 amendments provide for. The stage 2 amendments provide for provisions to be made on vetting. Once the bill passes and becomes legislation, as we hope that it will, work will need to be done to produce a code of practice and new and updated regulations. There must be consultation on those matters with the statutory and non-statutory staff associations. Vetting is an area in which judgments will be made on the facts and circumstances of each case.”
“The amendments from Pauline McNeill in group 2 relate to the vetting of police constables and police staff. I urge members to oppose all the amendments in the group apart from amendments 16 and 17, which I can support. I will set out my reasoning, but first I state, for the record, that we had a substantial and good debate on the issues at stage 2, and that, prior to and since stage 2, my officials have continued to engage with the statutory staff associations, through, for example, the Scottish police consultative forum. Maggie Chapman: I have a question about concerns that were raised by the Scottish Police Federation—particularly about the ability of someone who fails vetting to appeal or to get support to make amends, if that is appropriate.”
“15:15 That was against the backdrop of Lady Elish Angiolini’s report into the murder of Sarah Everard by serving Metropolitan Police officer Wayne Couzens, which was commissioned by the then United Kingdom Home Secretary in November 2021 and published in February 2024. In it, she expressed concerns about a lack of periodic revetting in England and Wales, and, although the recommendations are for English and Welsh police forces, they are relevant to Police Scotland. I therefore lodged substantial and meaningful amendments that responded to that report. The basis for placing vetting on a statutory footing is clear, and it will provide the appropriate levels of protection for the public by ensuring that all officers and staff meet and sustain the required standards and that the public are served by a workforce that they can trust.”
“I very much hope to provide the appropriate assurances to her and other members this afternoon. By way of background information, as I set out at stage 1, I intended to introduce provisions for the vetting of police constables and police staff, following a recommendation that His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland made after the bill was introduced, to ensure that there is a requirement for all constables and staff to obtain and to maintain vetting, as well as a power to dismiss, should they be unable to maintain vetting. The Criminal Justice Committee also made a clear recommendation that I should lodge an amendment to provide the chief constable with the power to dismiss anyone who is unable to maintain vetting.”
“That said, it is of paramount importance that officers who do not meet the standards that are expected of them are weeded out, and a more rigorous system of vetting may help to achieve that, as would updating misconduct policies and practices. Although I still have reservations about the wording of sections 3A and 3B, enhanced vetting may, in principle, improve public trust in the police, which is the entire point of the bill. Angela Constance: Before I give a detailed response to each amendment in the group, I will just say that I listened carefully to Pauline McNeill’s remarks and, if I understood her correctly, I understand that her motivation is to be confident that the measures that have been introduced will prevent the abuse of vetting procedures.”
“When officers fail vetting, many are not given clear explanations as to why, with many not being afforded the opportunity to appeal the decision. David Kennedy has also highlighted concerns that vetting would be used as a substitute for misconduct proceedings. The federation is therefore understandably concerned about moving to a system of continuous vetting when those issues have not been rectified. Although many of Pauline McNeill’s amendments seek to rectify the issues that I have just mentioned, the way in which sections 3A and 3B were tacked on at stage 2 without being scrutinised by the committee was wholly inappropriate.”
“I apologise to members for the length of those comments but, given that the provisions were introduced at stage 2, I wanted to be quite thorough in trying to flush out some of the issues that we might all agree on and what might be fair and reasonable so that, if we sign up to this—if we vote for the bill at decision time tonight—the measures will at least have had some debate at stage 3. I move amendment 12. Sharon Dowey: My Scottish Conservative colleagues and I remain significantly concerned about the inclusion of vetting in the bill. Vetting was not included in the bill as initially drafted, so no evidence was taken on the vetting process at stage 1. The Scottish Police Federation has highlighted several issues with the current vetting process.”
“Amendment 21 provides that vetting may not be triggered by the conclusion of misconduct proceedings. Amendment 22 would add to the definition of vetting to include that, in sections 3A and 3B, vetting is “separate to any assessment required as part of the recruitment process”. Amendment 23 would do the same as amendment 13 would do in section 3A. It says: “For the avoidance of doubt, vetting is not a substitute for or alternative to misconduct processes where there are concerns around the standard of behaviour … of a constable”. Amendment 25 would leave out section 3B. As I have said, I do not intend to move that, and the same applies to amendment 26. Amendment 27 relates to the long title.”
“Amendment 18 would add wording to the definition of vetting in the relevant section to specify that it is separate from any assessment that is required as part of the recruitment process. The amendment provides that information that has previously been disclosed may not be used later as a reason to demote someone. If information has already been considered and accepted, it should not be used again. I accept that what is proposed is a belt-and- braces approach. Amendment 24 would make a deletion. Amendment 19 would make the same change in section 3B that amendment 14 would make in section 3A, because there are two sections to be considered. Amendment 20 is a consequential amendment that is linked to amendment 19. It would remove the provision on appeals in proposed new section 50A(1)(b) of the 2012 act.”
“behaviour or performance was not” below the expected standard. Amendment 16 would provide for the vetting code of practice to include a need for evidence. That evidence would be required to demonstrate that a person is not suitable to be a police officer. Amendment 17 would require the code of practice to “include provision for ... reasons to be provided” if vetting leads to the vetted person being required to comply with conditions, redeployed, demoted or dismissed. I turn to amendment 18. The vetting of a serving police officer cannot be the same as recruitment vetting. There should be different criteria. There are currently police officers who have been convicted of small offences such as speeding offences, and they may fail their vetting. They might have failed it if they had just joined, but they might now have 15 years’ service.”
“I will now address the specifics of the amendments in the group. Amendment 13 would insert a new subsection following the definition of vetting to clarify that it should not be an alternative to or substitute for misconduct proceedings. Amendment 14 provides for an appeal if someone is dismissed or demoted as a result of a vetting outcome. Amendment 15 makes a key distinction between misconduct and vetting. In a misconduct hearing, there is a process, and the person has the right to defend themselves against allegations, whereas in the vetting process there is not much scope for that. I want to ensure that there is a clear distinction between the two. The amendment provides that “vetting cannot be triggered by the conclusion of misconduct proceedings where it was determined that ...”
“To put it simply, if the existing misconduct regulations and/or performance and capability regulations are not used correctly or are viewed as requiring more effort or creating a slower route to deliberation of an outcome, the failure or withdrawal of an officer’s vetting status could be misused as an easy shortcut for dismissal. We might think that that would never happen but, when we are looking at legislation as parliamentarians, we have to account for all scenarios. The Parliament has not been able to examine the new vetting provisions or issues such as whether there should be an appeals process, yet many officers do not know why they failed their vetting. It could be due to a third-party association or it could be the result of wrongful information that they are unable to correct.”
“HMICS looked at 250 cases over a four-year period to review where vetting clearances were approved and where the applicant had previous convictions. It is unclear whether the new vetting procedures will have an impact on those cases. It is not a question of whether we think that that is right or wrong; the point is that we do not know whether the new vetting procedures will have an impact on those officers. Although the bill does not specify the interval for new vetting, I think that HMICS has suggested that it would be every 10 years. The Association of Scottish Police Superintendents said that it is concerned that the proposals on vetting could be open to misuse through the service or authority seeking to create a fast-track or alternative method to dismiss police officers without notice.”
“Officers who fail vetting are often left in the dark about the specific reasons for their failure, with data protection cited as a justification for withholding that critical information.” It says that the “application of recruitment vetting standards” would be problematic if a serving officer with a moderately long career was held to the same vetting criteria as new recruits, and it adds: “Scotland currently refuses to disclose detailed reasons for vetting failures to serving officers ... This lack of transparency breeds mistrust and prevents them from understanding or addressing the concerns raised.” To ensure fairness and accountability, I believe that the service must look to disclose vetting issues where it can.”
“In some cases, officers who have faced formal misconduct proceedings and received outcomes such as final written warnings could subsequently be dismissed through vetting processes. That would circumvent the principles of due process and undermine the outcomes of the misconduct system. The Scottish Police Federation says: “transparency in vetting decisions presents a major issue.”
“However, I reassure her that I whole- heartedly agree with her point that we need strong standards of ethics and vetting. The Scottish Police Federation has said that it had a general discussion with the Government and officials regarding the vetting provisions, but that there was no consultation. The former Scottish Police Federation general secretary Calum Steele says in his column in The Herald today that the vetting intervention has led to one of the most flagrant abuses of parliamentary processes in recent years. He makes the point that “no worker should be in a position where they can be sacked on the whim of their employer and never be told why.” That is why I hope that Maggie Chapman and others will consider the detail of my amendments. A key concern is about the use of vetting as a substitute for misconduct regulations.”
“I am seeking to highlight that, in my view, there must have been some co-ordination between HMICS, which was conducting a review of vetting, and the Scottish Government. Whether that is the case or not, however, the Criminal Justice Committee got only a few days’ notice of the specifics of the vetting provisions and we could not take any evidence on them. We could not ask the staff unions or the Scottish Police Federation whether they thought that the provisions were fair and reasonable. It is a matter of principle for me that we should not approach legislation in a way that could impact on those groups of staff. I am sure that Maggie Chapman understands that parliamentary procedures would not allow me to make that point unless I lodged amendments at stage 3.”
“Will the member take a brief intervention? Pauline McNeill: Sure—of course I will. Maggie Chapman: Pauline McNeill has a range of amendments in the group. How else would we seek to act in a timely way on the HMICS review’s recommendation that vetting is important and it should be put on a statutory footing, given that the bill is the most appropriate legislative vehicle for that? I am really concerned that some of Pauline McNeill’s amendments seek to remove all provisions on vetting from the bill, because it is so important to every aspect of our justice system. Pauline McNeill: I agree with Maggie Chapman that the vetting provisions are very important. However, as I said only a minute ago, I am not seeking to delete the vetting provisions from the bill.”
“To ask the Scottish Government how its draft budget 2025-26 will support local authorities to better serve rural communities, such as those in Aberdeenshire and Angus Council areas in the North East Scotland region. (S6O-04198)”
“Let us recognise culture for what it truly is—a lifeline, a compass and a mirror. Let us protect it, nurture it and share it widely, because culture is not just what we do: it is who we are. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We have a little time in hand but any interventions must be brief. 15:33”
“Artists struggle to make a living, museums and galleries fight for survival and working-class, young or diverse voices are too often drowned out or ignored. We welcome the Scottish Government’s additional investment in culture, but multiyear funding is essential and really cannot wait. I hope that the cabinet secretary will address that in his closing remarks. Sustained investment now would lead to long-term benefits for our communities, our economy and our climate. Such investment is not an act of charity but an act of justice. When we fund culture, we fund creativity, connection, and community. When we champion heritage, we honour those who came before us and inspire those who come after us. When we celebrate art and music, we celebrate the infinite potential of the human spirit.”
“It is a hub of learning, inspiration and connection that reminds us of the vital role that cultural institutions play in enriching our lives and strengthening our communities. That is why the Scottish Greens are committed to championing culture not as an optional extra, but—as I said—as an essential part of a fairer and greener society. Culture creates jobs and enriches our economy. We believe that the culture sector and creative industries can be the backbone of a wellbeing economy, but culture’s value is far deeper than its monetary worth. Culture nurtures wellbeing, fosters understanding and builds resilience. In a world where divisions are growing and crises abound, culture reminds us of our shared humanity and our capacity for empathy and compassion. However, culture is too often underfunded, undervalued, and overlooked.”
“Does she share my desire for the cabinet secretary to take proactive steps to inform himself about that and to help Aberdeen Performing Arts, as we hope he will help the Belmont tomorrow? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can give you the time back, Ms Chapman. Maggie Chapman: I am absolutely concerned about that, too. It points to the broader issue of how culture is often seen only as an add-on and not as something that we must all take seriously as being intrinsic to who we are as human beings. Dundee Contemporary Arts—DCA—is a beacon of creativity and innovation for Scotland. It provides not just a platform for world-class exhibitions but a space where people of all ages can explore their creativity through printmaking, film and digital art.”
“Its doors are currently closed and I commend the passion and work of Belmont Community Cinema Ltd, which is a group of ordinary folk with steely determination to bring the Belmont back to life not only as a building and cinema, but as a space for the community, by the community—one where people can come together, share ideas, learn different skills and celebrate the power of storytelling. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for his engagement with the Belmont and hope that we will continue to see positive progress on that. Liam Kerr: I entirely associate myself with Maggie Chapman’s comments about the Belmont. Is she as concerned as I am that Aberdeen Performing Arts last week reported a £900,000 drop in revenue last year, alongside rising costs?”
“The Big Noise Torry project brings children together through music, and gives them not just instruments to play but opportunities to grow in confidence, find their voice and build friendships. Similarly, Big Noise Douglas empowers young people through the joy of creating music and shows them that they can shape their own futures. Those projects are shining examples of how culture can heal, uplift and inspire, and they do so across Scotland for just over £2.5 million a year of Scottish Government money. The Belmont cinema in Aberdeen is another powerful example of community-driven culture. For years, it was a gathering place to share experience of the magic of film, to connect with stories from around the world and from people’s own streets, to meet friends and strangers, and to escape the everyday and find alternative realities.”
“It offers us a means to counter the pervasive nature of capitalist realism and to envision alternatives to the oppressive pressure of the productivist economy. Culture must never—as it is considered by some of us—be the preserve of just the privileged and the elite: it belongs to us all. It thrives in the local ceilidh as much as it does in the grand concert hall. It is alive in the grass-roots theatre productions, the community choirs and the graffiti art on our city walls. Take Sistema Scotland’s Big Noise programme, for example. Its incredible projects are transforming lives in communities such as Torry in Aberdeen and Douglas in Dundee—communities that often feel forgotten and neglected.”
“Art, music, dance, theatre, storytelling and heritage are not ornaments on the edges of our lives, but are woven into the fabric of what it means to be human. Culture is how we make sense of the world around us, how we connect with one another and how we dare to dream of better futures. Hamish Henderson said that it is the “carrying stream”, connecting us to the past and the future. It is through culture that we express sorrow, joy, resistance and hope, and it is how we remember our histories and imagine our tomorrows. Our rich cultural heritage in Scotland—rooted in the songs of the north-east, the tales of the Borders and the murals of our cities—shows us just how deeply culture runs through our veins. Culture exposes the dynamics of power, class and production.”
“I am pleased to open the debate for the Scottish Greens. My dad, who is a professional musician, instilled in his two daughters not just a deep love for a wide range of music, but a profound appreciation for the power of creativity and artistic expression, and how it shapes us as individuals and enriches our communities. I grew up playing lots of different instruments, including some indigenous Zimbabwean ones—not always very well, I have to say. I am sorry that, now, I do not get to make music as often as I would like to or probably should. Culture is not a luxury and it should never be an afterthought. It is the beating heart of who we are, the rhythm of our communities, the melody of our shared stories and the brushstroke of our identities.”
“I am sure that she and her colleagues in the Scottish Greens are also taking part in budgetary discussions with the Scottish Government as we move forward with our budget process. If she wishes that suggestion to be looked at as a priority by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government and by my colleague Gillian Martin in her role as the Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy, we will be happy to take that under consideration in our budgetary discussions.”
“This payment in Scotland is undoubtedly welcome, but should we not be looking beyond mitigation at what we can do to ensure that everyone lives in comfortably warm homes, whatever the weather, whatever the season and whatever their income? Too many homes are poorly insulated and drafty. A warmth audit of all domestic properties, perhaps starting with the properties of those in receipt of winter heating payment, might be a more transformative approach if that audit was then responded to systematically. Is that something that the cabinet secretary would consider? Shirley-Anne Somerville: I thank Maggie Chapman for that suggestion. That points to the ways in which statements can lead to potential solutions to the challenges that we share.”