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 2 of 17.
“That means fair pay across councils and private providers. It means workforce planning and investment in training, particularly around additional support needs. It means collective bargaining that puts power in the hands of workers to negotiate better terms and conditions. It means recognising childcare not as a cost to be minimised but as a public good worthy of investment— because investment in childcare delivers enormous social and economic returns. The evidence is clear: childcare investment creates jobs, supports women into employment, reduces child poverty and boosts economic participation. Care jobs are also low-carbon jobs. Investment in care creates more jobs and less pollution than equivalent investment in traditional infrastructure.”
“Secondly, by providing access to funded hours immediately after a child’s relevant birthday, rather than forcing families in some council areas to wait months for support, costing them thousands of pounds. Thirdly, our amendment recognises something that is too often ignored: expansion will work only if we properly value the workforce. Care work is work. Childcare workers are not volunteers propping up a broken system through goodwill and exhaustion; they are skilled professionals carrying enormous responsibility for children’s wellbeing and development. The childcare workforce, which remains overwhelmingly female—95 per cent—is underpaid and undervalued, and poor pay and conditions are driving problems in recruitment and retention. If we want a world-class childcare system, we need world-class terms and conditions.”
“Universal provision matters, because cliff edges punish families and means testing leaves people behind, whereas universal services create dignity, certainty and fairness. Flexibility matters, because families’ lives are not neatly lived between 9 and 5. Too many people—shift workers, rural families, parents of disabled children, single parents and parents working irregular hours—are locked out of the current system because it was not designed around the reality of modern life. That is why our amendment calls for immediate, practical changes. First, by making available cross-border placements across Scotland, so that funding follows the child rather than stopping at arbitrary council boundaries.”
“Behind every statistic is a person, a family or a mother who is trying to hold everything together. One mum in Aberdeen said: “I have two children 20 months apart and pay over £2000 a month for childcare that isn’t even full time. There is no support. It’s exhausting, terrifying." Another mum, from Angus, said: “Recently, I found out that I am pregnant with my second child and the joy I should be feeling is dampened by already worrying about childcare costs when it’s time to return to work.” No parent should describe raising children in Scotland as terrifying. The joy of a new baby should not be marred by anxiety about childcare costs. However, that is the reality for many families in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. That is why the Scottish Greens are clear that childcare must be universal, flexible and genuinely accessible.”
“I welcome her to her new role and confirm that the Greens will work with her to deliver the best for our children and young people and those who care for them. We have much work to do. For too long, childcare has been treated as a private burden that is carried disproportionately by women rather than as the essential social infrastructure that it is. The reality that faces families across Scotland is stark. Research from Pregnant Then Screwed found that two thirds of mothers in Scotland say that their childcare costs are the same as, or more than, their income. Half of mothers said that, after paying for childcare, it simply does not make sense for them to work. More than a third said that they regularly face a choice between paying for childcare and paying for household essentials. Those figures should shame us all.”
“Every child deserves the best possible start in life. Every parent deserves the chance to work, study, rest or simply breathe without the crushing anxiety of impossible childcare costs. Every childcare worker deserves dignity, fair pay and recognition for the profoundly valuable work that they do. That is why the Scottish Greens were proud to stand in the recent election on a pledge to introduce the biggest expansion of childcare in a generation. We see today’s motion as the start of the changes that need to happen, and our amendment pushes the Scottish Government to go further and faster. Expanding childcare is not simply a matter of economic policy; it is about equality, justice and human dignity. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for her letter last night, which stressed the importance of working together on this vital work.”
“I go back to the £926 million this year for the affordable housing supply programme to support people in the social rented sector, in the mid-market rent sector and in low-cost home ownership.”
“It is important that the Government is there to support people across Scotland in all tenures. I deeply value the importance of the social rented sector, and I welcome the role of councils and housing associations in supporting people in the social rented sector. The private rented sector is also important to people in Scotland, as is private owner occupation. I do not put one above another. As I have said to other members in relation to the cost of living crisis, it is important that we are there to support people regardless of the tenure that they are in and the tenure that they wish to be in. As I said in my statement, providing support for first-time buyers is one area that the Government is working on, but as I also alluded to, there are other strands of the Scottish Government’s work that will support affordable housing in general.”
“I thank the cabinet secretary for her statement, and I welcome her to her newish role. A scheme of £100 million would mean approximately £20 million per year. Ending homelessness together, the Government’s flagship fund for tackling homelessness, provides just more than half of that—£11.5 million of funding this financial year. That £100 million could also build more than 500 social homes. What does the cabinet secretary have to say to people who are waiting years and years for a social home or, indeed, to those who have no home at all? Why is the Government prioritising people who can already afford a home and people who want to buy a home over those without somewhere safe to live? Shirley-Anne Somerville: That is quite an unfair assessment, if I may say so. However, I thank Maggie Chapman for welcoming me to my nearly new role.”
“I affirm the sovereignty of the people of Scotland and hereby declare and pledge that, in all my actions and deliberations, their interests shall be paramount. I, Maggie Chapman, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. Ini, Maggie Chapman, ndinotsidza nomwoyo wangu wose kuti ndichave mutsigiri anovimbika uye akatendeka wa Mambo Charles, na nevanji wavo, navose vachatonga mushure mavo, ndichiita zvose izvi pamutemo.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of any excess deaths associated with long waiting times in A and E departments, including the action it is taking to reduce preventable mortality. (S6O-05707)”
“However, as we move into a new session, we recognise that we still have much further to go to ensure that the rights of all children are respected, defended and promoted. 15:24”
“We have nowhere near enough support in our schools for children with additional support needs, and those children are disproportionately affected. As Kate Sanger told us at stage 1, a child’s shout is often not aggression requiring restraint but distressed communication requiring love and understanding. Her communication passport, which helps staff to understand how and why a pupil behaves in the way that they do, should be in all schools. I ask the cabinet secretary to address that proposal in her closing speech. As this session of Parliament draws to a close, there has been some good progress on children’s rights. The bill is a testament to that, and the Scottish Greens are proud to support it.”
“We must know when, how often and where restraint and seclusion are happening, because only then can we drive down their inappropriate use. I share trade union concerns about workload, but the answer to that is to ensure that staff are given time and support, and I ask the cabinet secretary to give assurances on that point. Within the scope of the bill, Daniel Johnson has done well to draft legislation that addresses those concerns. However, inappropriate use of restraint and seclusion stems from broader failures in our education system. There is a failure to understand and cater to the additional support needs of the children or young people involved; a failure to recognise that every child and young person has rights; and a failure to properly fund additional support needs in all our schools.”
“We should be outlining best practice and alternatives that prevent or minimise the use of restraint and seclusion. The current inconsistency and unclear expectations leave staff exposed. The requirement to notify parents, carers and guardians of the use of restraint and seclusion is the key provision in the bill. Those people have a right to know that those methods have been used within 24 hours of that happening. They should not find out by finding bruises on their child or through children coming home from school in tears. Along with the requirement to keep records, that will bring much-needed transparency. The Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland’s report “No Safe Place: Restraint and Seclusion in Scotland’s Schools” found that only 18 of 32 councils recorded all incidents.”
“The bill is a natural next step on the journey towards protecting children’s rights by ensuring that seclusion and restraint are used only as a last resort and when there are genuine health and safety reasons for doing so. The UNCRC is clear that protection from punishment and detention is crucial. It enshrines the idea that children should be isolated only as a last resort and for the shortest time possible. However, restraint and seclusion are sometimes used as frequent responses to behaviour that is perceived to be challenging. Pupils find that traumatic, not just at the time but for years afterwards. The bill has been drafted well to respond to exactly those concerns. The bill is right to support staff, too, by making clear in law what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate restraint.”
“I am grateful to Daniel Johnson for his work on the bill, and I pay tribute to him for that, but we should reflect on why it took a member’s bill to get us to this point. Why have successive Governments not acted on this most important issue for 27 years? Parliament has acted for children before. After some delay, we incorporated the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child into our laws. Prior to that, we agreed to John Finnie’s plans to end exemptions that allowed parents to physically punish their child. Our getting it right for every child—GIRFEC—strategy aims to keep children and young people safe and protected from abuse, neglect or harm at home, at school and in the community.”
“Siobhian Brown: We do not have a definite date for the service delivery review but, as I said to Pauline McNeill, the SFRS is taking its time to go through the consultation responses. It is not a short-term plan; it will be implemented over the next five years.”
“Across Scotland, people will share the FBU’s concern for the service, given the fire in Glasgow. They will have noted the skilled and dedicated work of the firefighters who attended that awful scene. We must have a well-resourced fire service that can respond to ever-changing urban and rural environments. However, there is uncertainty about the future of many fire stations, including the one at Balmossie, in my region. Workers and communities have waited too long to hear what will happen to their local station and staff. When will that uncertainty end? When will firefighters and the communities that they work to keep safe know what their future will be in terms of firefighting safety?”
“When the low-emission zone was due to come in, Christine was not sure whether her car would be admissible to the parliamentary car park, and she talked about coming in on horseback, so we got her a pass for her horse. That is a perfect example of what Christine’s wit and humour could elicit in us all. Presiding Officer, I know that I have gone over my time. Christine Grahame means so much to this place, as a founding figure of the Parliament and a character in the best sense—independent, principled and never afraid to speak her mind. She has helped to shape this place in not only legislation but culture, and it is right that we reflect on that in today’s debate. Christine, I thank you for everything that you have given to this Parliament and for everything that you have done for those who are unable to speak for themselves. 11:22”
“A mutual friend said to Eleanor, “Well, it’s fine—Maggie’s there.” Of course—why would I not be friends with somebody who is as remarkable as Christine and who is so passionate about animal welfare? I share that passion. Jackson Carlaw mentioned Christine’s membership of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, which is where I got to know her and where she was always sharp, determined, principled, chaotic, warm, funny and utterly herself. My personal memories will include not only helping her with her information technology and the campaign that we both ran—and lost—for a Parliament cat, but primarily, in one of my finest moments in this place, getting a security pass for Christine’s horse.”
“Before I move on to some personal reflections of my five years with Christine, I pay tribute to Rona Mackay for her principled and measured contributions to so many debates in this place— some of which were quite heated. She has always brought calm and clarity in her contributions. I have learned a lot from her, and I am very grateful to have served in this place with her. I thank her very much. I have personal reflections of Christine Grahame as not only a colleague but, I hope, a friend. Eleanor Scott, a former Green MSP, said that, when a lot of people retired at the end of the last session, people asked how Christine would get on, as a lot of her friends had retired.”
“She has been a tireless campaigner and a convener of the cross-party group on animal welfare, as Rona Mackay and others have mentioned. The CPG has brought together so many different voices and has focused on so many different topics over the time that I have been a member of that group, and I thank Christine for her tireless charting of such a strong and coherent course as convener. It has been a great group to be part of and to learn from, and it has been great to take part in those discussions. Christine does not just speak about animal welfare and change the law. Everything that she has done has raised standards, shifted attitudes and made Scotland a leader in that area. The debate and the motion are a continuation of that legacy.”
“We desperately need clearer sentencing guidelines, better use of the existing powers that we have, stronger monitoring of disqualification orders, and serious consideration of a national animal offenders register, because we know that animal cruelty often does not stop there—it moves into other forms of cruelty, too. If we take animal welfare seriously, as the motion pleads with us to do, sentencing must reflect the severity of harm caused. The motion is about justice, it is about prevention and it is about public protection. I want to speak, too, of Christine Grahame’s legacy on animal welfare, as others have already done. Christine has been relentless in her advocacy for improving animal welfare. She has delivered changes in the law through the legislation on which she has led in Parliament.”
“I thank Christine Grahame for lodging the motion and securing the debate; it is a privilege to be able to speak in it. Yes, it is about animal welfare, but is also about marking the extraordinary contribution of Christine Grahame to this place. I know that I am not alone in saying that Parliament will feel very different without her. The motion in front of us is one that I whole- heartedly support. I strongly agree with the statement that animal cruelty causes serious harm to animals and to society. How we treat those who are helpless in themselves, such as our animals, is a reflection of the kind of society that we are. We know that, as the motion points out, sentencing is inconsistent and often feels insufficient— particularly when cases are handled, as they are, under summary procedure, with limited penalties.”
“To ask the Scottish Government, in light of Audit Scotland’s recent statement that local authorities will face a budget gap of nearly £1 billion by 2027, what action it is taking to provide additional support to third sector organisations that prevent and respond to rent and council tax arrears. (S6O-05659)”
“Right now, the absence of a legal framework does not mean the absence of assisted dying. It means inequality. It means that some people— those with means—travel abroad, while others take matters into their own hands, often in horrific, traumatic and lonely circumstances. That is not a compassionate status quo. I come back to the people at the heart of this debate—those facing the end of their lives, who are asking not for the impossible, but for dignity, agency and peace. We cannot remove death, but we can shape how people meet it. I am very grateful to Liam McArthur for giving us the opportunity to shape our own deaths. Let us choose compassion. Let us choose dignity. 20:02”
“Clinicians have told us that predicting life expectancy can be deeply uncertain. By setting an arbitrary limit, we risk excluding people who are suffering unbearably but do not fit neatly into that timeframe. I believe that eligibility should be based on suffering and autonomy, not on a rigid estimate of time remaining. In our deliberations, we have heard personal testimonies—a wealth of evidence on the lived realities of those at the end of life. We have also heard fears about coercion, vulnerability, the lack of decent palliative care and the message that the bill sends to disabled people. I take those concerns seriously, but I believe that the answer to them is not to deny choice altogether; it is to design care and safeguards that are strong, transparent and rooted in trust.”
“They argue that everyone should have the right to plan and to control their own death, supported by robust safeguards and high-quality care. I agree. We must invest in palliative care—absolutely—but we must also recognise that even the best palliative care cannot relieve all suffering. I have also listened carefully to people of faith. Quaker voices, in particular, speak powerfully of conscience, compassion and the importance of accompanying people with love at the end of life. Although there is not unanimity, many people of faith emphasise that moral agency and care must go hand in hand and that we must not turn away from suffering but respond to it with humanity and respect. I have concerns about aspects of the bill, particularly the six-month prognosis requirement that was agreed last week. Prognostication is not an exact science.”
“Liam McArthur’s bill asks us a simple but profound question: do we trust people in the most difficult moments of their lives to make decisions about their own bodies, their own suffering and their own death? For me, the answer is resolutely yes. People across Scotland have been talking about this question for years. Many are asking for honesty, for autonomy and for compassion. The majority of our constituents agree with the Humanist Society Scotland that “This bill is about compassion, dignity, and the fundamental right to choose.” We should be clear that the bill is not about abandoning care. Organisations such as Dignity in Dying remind us that good end-of-life care and assisted dying are not opposites but partners.”
“I believe that life is precious. I believe that life is a gift. I believe deeply that all life has inherent worth. That worth does not diminish with illness, with disability or with proximity to death. However, valuing life is not the same as insisting that life must be prolonged at all costs, in all circumstances, regardless of the suffering and regardless of the wishes of the person living it. I believe in bodily autonomy. I believe in choice. I believe in the compassionate principle of being able to choose a good death. This debate has never been abstract for me. It is about family members, friends and constituents facing the end of their lives—in pain, in fear and, far too often, without the control, dignity or peace that they deserve.”
“Although it raised some challenges and recommendations for the Scottish Government—and, indeed, the next Scottish Government—in relation to first steps on that, it also highlighted the fact that, in the current devolutionary set-up, we do not have the powers to have a minimum income guarantee in Scotland. However, in this plan we have looked not only at social security and income through social security—for example, through the premium for under-ones—but at the root causes of poverty, which is why there has been such a focus on additional investment in employability and on the barriers that might prevent someone from getting into, or staying in, employment. On the issue of deep poverty, I point to the fact that Scottish Government policies are estimated to keep 70,000 children out of deep poverty in 2026- 27.”
“The Poverty and Inequality Commission has told us that we will not meet the 2030 targets without additional social security support. Scottish Parliament information centre analysis shows that, on its own, the Scottish child payment does not really tackle the increasing deep poverty that children and families face. The minimum income guarantee was a big idea for tackling poverty, and the minimum income guarantee expert group provided proposals last year showing how we could provide a top-up benefit to guarantee everyone a minimum dignified income. However, the minimum income guarantee appears nowhere in either the statement or the plan. Has the Scottish Government given up on its minimum income guarantee idea? Shirley-Anne Somerville: I was very grateful for the work that the expert group undertook to look at a minimum income guarantee.”
“However, we all know that, because of the short time that was left in the parliamentary session after last year’s Supreme Court judgment, there was simply insufficient time to progress a misogyny bill in this session, given the complexities in providing for gendered law. A misogyny bill would have been the first example of gendered law, which is why so many people had rallied around it.”
“However, I accept that it is most certainly not the only approach that can be taken to the protection of women and girls. I assure Ms Chapman that I very much respect, appreciate and value the work that was undertaken by Baroness Kennedy and the working group that she led. I very much understand why many consider primary legislation on misogyny to be necessary, and there is no reason why legislation on misogynistic harassment cannot be introduced in the next parliamentary session. It is clear that there is still merit in Parliament giving further consideration to bespoke new protections that would be separate from the hate crime framework.”
“It is important to remember that there are existing protections under the 2021 act for transgender identity and variations in sex characteristics, and it is really important to stress that those remain in place. We have endeavoured to ensure that there is no significant overlap. I wish to explain that the SSI defines sex for the purposes of the 2021 act. We have taken the approach of defining the characteristic of sex as relating to biological sex, which means sex at birth, in the light of the need for our criminal law to be clear and unambiguous. That approach has no wider read-across to other laws, and it reflects the current operation of the 2021 act. The hate crime model is a proven way of addressing crimes that have been aggravated by malice or ill will on the basis of protected characteristics.”
“Can the cabinet secretary say why the Government has, in effect, replicated the definition of biological sex that was used by the United Kingdom Supreme Court in relation to the Equality Act 2010, when the court was explicit that its interpretation applied only to the 2010 act? There are several protected characteristics in the 2021 act that are defined differently from how they are defined in the Equality Act 2010. Why has the Government chosen to import the definition in the 2010 act into Scots law, given the serious concerns about its impact on trans people? There is no requirement to do so and it risks trans people having to out themselves in order to get support. Angela Constance: There are three important points that I should address to Ms Chapman and the rest of the members in the chamber.”
“The Scottish Greens strongly oppose the SSI. Helena Kennedy and the misogyny working group were clear that misogyny should not be addressed by adding sex to the hate crime framework and instead recommended dedicated misogyny legislation. Given that advice, can the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs explain why the Government is choosing to proceed through amending the 2021 act rather than bringing forward comprehensive misogyny legislation as has been recommended? Scottish Greens also strongly oppose the trans- exclusionary language that is used in the proposed definition of sex in the regulations.”
“The idea of reasonableness is a concept that we use and invoke across all manner of legislation. Is that a threshold? It is not. I am saying that there are other thresholds in this legislation that deal with capacity, age or someone’s ability to take the substance themselves. We have many other thresholds and we must acknowledge that we have them.”
“I acknowledge those problems. The member asks why six months. That is simply the best way of capturing the important intent that assisted dying should be available to someone in the final stages of their life. It is also a measure that we see being used across many similar pieces of legislation in other jurisdictions. Maggie Chapman: In response to my question, Daniel Johnson said that we need some sort of cut-off point. He used the word “threshold” although he had said earlier that the six months is not a “threshold” but simply a “yardstick”. I am therefore a little confused about how definitive the member thinks the six-month yardstick, threshold or prognosis actually is. Daniel Johnson: The way in which amendment 2 is drafted is certainly not definitive, because it talks about a reasonable expectation of six months.”
“I have two questions for Daniel Johnson. Why does his amendment call for a period of six months and not 12? Also, what would happen if someone has multiple conditions? For example, they might have a terminal illness alongside something such as dementia that might mean that, within that six-month period, they might no longer have the capacity to make a decision, and so would want to make that decision while they still can, which would be outwith the six-month period. Daniel Johnson: The member makes a fair and important point, because we are dealing with complexities. We may all need to wrestle with, and accept, the fact that the decision may not be available to all people, because of its serious nature. All members will have to understand that we must have thresholds and standards, which might well mean that we exclude some people.”
“To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the forthcoming international women’s day, what action it is taking to ensure that Scotland’s economy provides women with equitable access to economic opportunity, including how it supports them to live free from poverty and financial inequality. (S6O-05601)”
“A review of freight charges is needed, and I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for confirming today that that review will happen later this year. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate. 16:21”
“The review must aim to apply a fair, pro rata charge for vehicles; remove the punitive costs that currently apply to commercial traffic; consider the impact on housing delivery so that we confront the 30 per cent premium that makes island house building unnecessarily difficult; and reform pricing structures to reflect social need—just as passenger fares have been reformed—and examine the equality impacts on island communities. Scotland’s island communities are not peripheral—they are central to who we are. We will not retain vibrant, equitable communities if we allow freight charges to price out affordable housing and small businesses, and widen inequality year after year. That is just one element of ferries infrastructure and strategy that we need to change and get right.”
“It concentrates disadvantage. We cannot seriously address depopulation or the housing emergency in Scotland’s islands while those freight charges remain unreformed. High freight charges ripple through the cost of every staple good: food, healthcare supplies and energy. Island residents are paying more than their mainland counterparts, and people with disabilities face particular hardship when medical equipment, mobility aids or care supplies are subject to inflated freight costs. There is, in effect, a postcode lottery for basic human needs, and that should be unacceptable in 21st century Scotland. So, what do we want? Scottish Greens have been calling on the Scottish Government to commit to a review of commercial freight charges.”
“That is not just a logistical or accounting problem but an equalities issue, and it is fuelling depopulation across our islands. Scotland faces a housing emergency, and island communities are in no way exempt. In many ways, they bear its full weight. When the cost of building materials is inflated simply because of freight charges, affordable housing becomes almost impossible. Councils, community housing enablers and housing associations cannot deliver at the scale that communities need. The result is that people are living in unsuitable homes, waiting lists are growing and homelessness is rising. That disproportionately affects women, people on low incomes and young people who are trying to stay in the communities that they grew up in, as Rhoda Grant has already alluded to. The ferry freight system is not neutral.”
“Yesterday, in the chamber, my colleague Ariane Burgess highlighted the stark disparity in pricing. Large motorhomes can cross by ferry at about the quarter of the cost of a truck that brings building materials, food or other essential goods that communities depend on. Across the network, commercial fares are far higher than those for motorhomes. However, the disparity is inconsistent. On the Oban to Craignure and Lochaline to Fishnish routes to Mull, commercial fares are three times higher than those for motorhomes. For Tiree, they are 22 per cent higher; for Barra, 27 per cent higher. Why is the fare for a heavy goods vehicle that is heading to Mull three times the price of that for a motorhome, while to Arran—a similar distance—it is only twice as expensive? That makes no sense, and it is not fair.”
“I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats for bringing this important debate to the chamber, because Scotland’s island and coastal communities deserve much better. I will focus on a specific injustice that often goes unmentioned: the cost of freight. I acknowledge and appreciate the comments that the cabinet secretary made in her opening remarks. We often talk about passenger fares, and rightly so. However, for our island and coastal communities, the real inequality bites with the cost of transporting freight on Scotland’s ferries—and that is when those ferries run at all. Put simply, the cost of ferry freight adds roughly 30 per cent to the cost of building a home on our islands; that is not a rounding error but a structural injustice that is baked into island life.”
“I place on record my thanks for the work of the Prison Officers Association on this important issue and for its briefing for the debate. I am grateful, too, for the information that Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems provided. The committee’s report shines a light on a crisis that has been hidden for too long. The real test now is political will. Will we treat substance use as the health issue that it is? Will we invest upstream rather than paying downstream? Will we choose restoration over retribution? The Scottish Greens will continue to push for a justice system that is rooted in compassion, accountability and care— one that understands that healing communities requires healing people—because, if we want safer communities, we must build healthier and more equal ones. 16:30”
“We should also be bold on harm reduction through universal access to medication-assisted treatment; consideration of supervised consumption models in custodial settings; naloxone provision that is opt-out rather than opt- in; and peer-led recovery communities that are embedded in every establishment. Incarceration should not be a barrier to healthcare, whether that is medical or psychological support that is needed and then provided. Above all, we must guarantee that liberation from prison does not mean abandonment by the state. No one should leave custody to homelessness. No one should leave without healthcare continuity. As Mark Griffin and others have highlighted, no one should leave without a plan. Justice that ends at the prison gate is not justice—it is abdication.”