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 4 of 17.
“Draft Budget 2026-27 (Universal Breakfast Clubs) 8.”
“Richard Lochhead said in response to my question last week that the ICF projects would receive assurances of funding for the next financial year. Recently, they have received correspondence that instructs them to submit a claim by 20 February. Does the minister recognise that that timescale is problematic, given the notification periods for potential staff redundancies and the like? Therefore, can he give any update or an indication of how long projects will have to wait to hear about transitional funding after 20 February? Ivan McKee: As I have indicated, funding is in place to extend the fund through 2026-27. I will undertake to engage with officials to ensure that that is communicated adequately to the organisations in question so that they have surety about the continuation of the funding.”
“Where sex work happens between consenting adults, I believe that the state should support them, not penalise them for how they choose to live and work. The Deputy Presiding Officer: You need to conclude. Maggie Chapman: We must trust sex workers with their own lives, listen to them and follow their demands. We stand for sex workers’ rights in Scotland—for safety, dignity and freedom. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Before I call the next speaker, could I please discourage members from shouting out from a sedentary position? I understand the frustration if an intervention is not accepted by the speaker, but it is up to the person with the microphone to decide whether to take the intervention. 16:39”
“Full decriminalisation of sex work—of purchase and of running locations where sex work happens—can create the space for collective safety. It allows sex workers to work together, unionise, support one another and access healthcare, housing and social security, and to work in safe spaces without the looming threat of being dragged into criminal justice processes. Scotland for Decrim argues that only by fully removing punitive laws do sex workers gain “the power to choose when and how we work”, which is the power and the dignity of their labour that all workers should have. Sex workers simply ask for that same treatment. As a Scottish Green, I believe deeply in harm reduction, social justice and bodily autonomy.”
“Trafficking people to force them into sex work is reprehensible, but we do not need new law to tackle that, because it already exists. The English Collective of Prostitutes has said: “We have to look at the effectiveness of the law in that regard and the effectiveness of the support for victims of trafficking, but that is completely unconnected to the question of criminalising clients.” The Criminal Justice Committee heard that there is no evidence from Sweden or other countries that laws that criminalise the purchase of sex have an impact on trafficking. Ash Regan: No, that is not true. Maggie Chapman: We can and should crack down on traffickers, but we can do that without harassing people who are just trying to earn a living. There is another way, as sex workers have said.”
“Ash Regan: No, it has not. Maggie Chapman: That is why experts who have experienced the Nordic model support decriminalisation. London School of Economics researchers conducted 210 formal interviews with sex workers, police, social workers and policy makers in Sweden, Norway and Finland. Of those, 96 per cent opposed the sex-buyer laws in those countries. The research found that, even if sex workers are not directly criminalised, they are de facto penalised through the enforcement of intersecting immigration, third-party and fiscal policies. It found that policing still targets sex workers and that the ramifications include evictions and deportations. I want to address the issue of the trafficking of people for sex work.”
“That is even more likely with the bill, because it does not decriminalise brothel keeping, which is defined as situations where more than one sex worker works in the same place. Not permitting sex workers to legally work together indoors has the effect of making sex workers more isolated and more vulnerable to potential violence—in other words, it puts them more at risk of harm. Sex workers will be more unsafe, not only from violent clients but from stigma and its associated harms. The stigma that is associated with prostitution prevents sex workers from getting appropriate healthcare, and criminalisation will stigmatise workers as well as clients. Evidence from around the world has shown a clear link between criminalisation and sex workers’ increased risk of HIV, sexually transmitted infections and poor emotional health.”
“Maggie Chapman: Amnesty International has documented the impact of end-demand legislation on the human rights of sex workers in Norway, Ireland and France, and found that it compromises sex worker safety by involving them in criminalisation as police look for clients, or it criminalises third parties such as landlords. Evidence from other countries shows that making sex work less visible does not eliminate demand. Ash Regan: That is not true. Maggie Chapman: It merely pushes sex workers further underground, increasing their vulnerability to violence and abuse. Workers are forced into more precarious interactions in less safe locations, and with less ability to demand safer working conditions or agree on boundaries. That is not protection—that is punishment.”
“Should folk who are jobseekers have their benefits taken away if they refuse to do it? Maggie Chapman: It is a different kind of work. Lots of types of work are not offered for work experience, to use the example that the member gives. One of the important points about the bill is that many sex workers believe that it would make them less safe. Indeed, as one sex worker told the committee: “I currently fully vet all of my clients with legal ID and bank transfer deposits, the proposed bill will mean this will be unfeasible. I am safe as I know who I am encountering, but criminalising clients mean only those who are willing to break the law will seek out services, and therefore be less compliant with my current safety measures.” Ash Regan: Will the member take an intervention on that point?”
“We cannot and must not ignore the systemic barriers that drive some people into sex work that they would prefer not to do: poverty, disability, caring responsibilities and a lack of viable alternatives. However, we also cannot legislate those issues away by punishing clients and, by extension, workers. Those who coerce or traffic sex workers should feel the full force of the law. However, when it comes to those who do that work, do it freely and get value from it, who are we to make it harder and less safe? We should never make policy without listening to those whom it impacts, and the vast majority of workers are against criminalising the purchase of sex. Ruth Maguire: If prostitution is work like any other work, should we be offering it as work experience for young people?”
“The Scottish Greens support workers— retail workers, hospitality workers, healthcare workers, care workers and, yes, sex workers, because sex work is work. It might not be work that one agrees with. It might not be work that one would ever do. One might never procure the services of a sex worker, but some people do that work. Many of them do it of their own free will. They find it meaningful and fulfilling work. It earns them a good living and puts food on their table. I accept that that is not the case for all. For those who turn to sex work out of sheer desperation, clear supports should be in place to allow them to get out of that work and into a job that they actually want to do.”
“The work that happens in our prisons, although often hidden, is imperative to the safe reintegration and rehabilitation of prisoners. Right now, prison staff need to know that, collectively, we will pull together, do the hard yards and make the hard decisions that they require from us to be supported in their work. That is vital for a front-line service that has a direct bearing on the safety of our communities.”
“In her statement, the cabinet secretary mentioned the changed “composition” of the prison population and, when taken with the increasing prison population, the increased risks that that poses for prison staff as well as for those serving sentences. Can she say a bit more about those risks and the current impact on staff and prisoners, and can she set out why the proposed changes that she has outlined are vital in order to ensure the safety and wellbeing of prison staff, whose work is vital to reducing reoffending? Angela Constance: The Scottish Prison Service—and therefore ministers—has a very clear responsibility to the health, safety and wellbeing of prisoners and staff. We must recognise that prison is not the end of the line.”
“It seeks to prevent future suffering and draw a clear line against cruelty, and it says that, in Scotland, compassion matters more than profit. I urge colleagues across all parties to support Mark Ruskell’s bill at stage 1 this afternoon and to stand on the right side of history and the side of humanity. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate. 16:25”
“Their briefings for this afternoon’s stage 1 debate do not deal in abstractions; they tell the stories of individual dogs who have been left injured and traumatised or discarded. Sometimes, if those dogs are lucky, they are patiently rehabilitated by charities when the industry could no longer profit from them. Those organisations understand something fundamental: that our responsibility to animals does not end when they stop being useful to us. Public support for the bill is strong and consistent across Scotland. People know that the practice belongs in the past. Other nations are moving on, and Scotland, with its proud history of animal welfare leadership, must not be left behind. This is a modest bill with a profound moral purpose.”
“Broken legs, spinal injuries, head trauma and lifelong pain are not rare accidents but are predictable outcomes of an industry that is built on speed, strain and profit, and no amount of tweaking can change that fundamental reality. As the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission has made clear, regulation cannot remove the inherent harms of greyhound racing. I say to Mr Carson that the only way to protect these dogs is to end the practice entirely. I recognise the phenomenal work of the organisations that have brought us to this point. Scotland Against Greyhound Exploitation, OneKind, the Dogs Trust, Blue Cross, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and so many others have worked with compassion, rigour and determination to expose the realities of greyhound racing and advocate for a kinder alternative and a ban.”
“I firmly support animal welfare and I love my dogs as much as anybody else loves theirs, but we are legislators and we are here to legislate. There are currently no dogs that would benefit from the bill. The pressure should be on the Government to bring forward licensing and proper legislation that will protect dogs, whether they are raised in Scotland or in England. The bill would not do that. Maggie Chapman: If Finlay Carson cares about animal welfare as he says he does, maybe he should care about future proofing our legislation as well. The bill may not do everything that we might want it to do, but that does not mean that this step is not an important one.”
“I do not accept that, and I know that many members across the chamber do not accept it, either. Greyhounds are not disposable commodities; they are sensitive social animals that feel pain, fear and distress just as profoundly as any dog that shares our homes, yet the evidence is overwhelming that racing them at speed around oval tracks exposes them to inherent and unavoidable risks of serious injury and death. Broken legs, spinal injuries, head trauma and lifelong pain are not rare accidents. Finlay Carson: Will the member take an intervention? Maggie Chapman: Perhaps Finlay Carson, in his intervention, will explain why none of that is cruel. Finlay Carson: We are at risk of getting into an argument about who supports animal welfare and who does not.”
“I am proud to speak in this debate in whole-hearted and enthusiastic support of Mark Ruskell’s Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill. I pay tribute to Mark for his tireless, compassionate and principled leadership on the issue. For years, he—as well as his beloved Bert— has stood alongside campaigners, charities and members of the public, all of whom have asked a simple question: why does a modern Scotland still permit the suffering of animals for entertainment? The bill gives us a clear and humane answer. At its heart, this debate is not really about regulation or licensing schemes; it is about values. It is about whether we accept the torture, injury and premature death of gentle dogs as an acceptable price for gambling and spectacle—for what some might call fun and entertainment.”
“Should it progress—should it have time to progress in this session—we will work hard to improve it. [Interruption.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you. I think that Ms Harper wanted to intervene, but Ms Grant has concluded her speech. 16:20”
“It seems to me that it is just sending a signal, which is a luxury that we cannot afford when there is so much time pressure on the Parliament. I said that the bill bans only oval greyhound racetracks; it does not ban straight ones, which committee evidence suggested were safer. There is nothing to prevent anyone from opening, say, a figure-of-eight track, which, given the sharper bends, would surely be more dangerous. There are powers in the bill to allow ministers to change the definitions by subordinate legislation, but that would cause a delay, so I am concerned about that as well. That being said, Scottish Labour is committed to improving the welfare of dogs. We need to deal with the complex issues that surround the breeding, selling, theft and mistreatment of all dogs. We will therefore abstain on the bill at stage 1.”
“I do not think that many of us in the chamber would disagree that we need action on things such as puppy farms, illegal breeding and all the things that Rhoda Grant listed. None of those things means that the bill should not go through. I am confused about her logic there. Why can we not do one thing that is positive for animal welfare while keeping up the pressure to do other things that are positive for animal welfare, too? Rhoda Grant: To be fair, all that the bill does is put on pressure. There are no greyhounds being raced in Scotland at the moment, and should the bill pass, that situation will be exactly the same. It does not take into account the welfare of greyhounds that are raced elsewhere.”
“On resources, I whole-heartedly agree with the EIS that reducing restraint depends on investment in staff, specialist support, time for relationships and early intervention. The bill should not be a substitute for that investment, but is a necessary foundation for it. The bill is about rights, transparency and support. It is about keeping children safe and ensuring that the workforce that cares for them is properly guided and protected. The Scottish Greens will support the bill at stage 1, and we look forward to improving it as it progresses. 15:11”
“The bill will not require all teachers to undergo training in physical intervention techniques. What it will require is statutory guidance on training and an up-to-date list of approved providers—things that already exist on a non-statutory basis. Decisions about who needs specialist training will continue to be made, sensibly, by front-line professionals, but with the support of guidance and a strong emphasis on de-escalation and prevention. I understand the EIS’s concerns about workload but, given the seriousness of restraint and seclusion, recording cannot be optional. Evidence to the committee showed that recording and parental communication are currently inconsistent across local authorities, and a proper system of recording is necessary to address that.”
“I want to address directly the concerns raised by the EIS, in good faith, given its commitment to the wellbeing of its members and the young people it teaches and supports. However, I do not accept that a statutory framework inevitably creates a blame culture. On the contrary, inconsistency and unclear expectations are what leave staff exposed. A framework reinforces that restraint is about safety and that staff acting within guidance should be supported. Concerns have also been raised that the definitions could be too broad and inadvertently capture ordinary caring physical interactions, as we have heard this afternoon. I support the refining of the definitions at stage 2 so that restraint is clearly understood as a serious physical intervention.”
“No more must parents and guardians find out about restraint from seeing the bruises on their child, as the committee heard. The bill provides a guarantee that parents must be informed within 24 hours—that is crucial. Many children and young people who are restrained have additional support needs. When those actions prove necessary, it is not because the child or young person is at fault but because their needs have not been met. That is often because we have nowhere near enough support in our schools for children with additional support needs. I was struck particularly by Kate Sanger’s evidence. In many cases, a child’s scream is not aggression but communication. Understanding why a child vocalises the way that they do seems so obvious. Her communication passport should be commonplace.”
“With the United Nations convention on the rights of the child now part of our laws and my Green colleague John Finnie’s bill ending legal physical punishment of children, it is a natural next step to ensure that restraint of children and young people becomes a thing of the past, except in the rarest of circumstances. The strong backing of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland and The Promise Scotland should give Parliament confidence that the bill is both necessary and proportionate. It sets a clear expectation that restraint and seclusion are measures of last resort used only to prevent harm, and never as punishment, for the shortest possible time and within a transparent rights-based framework that protects children and staff.”
“I begin by thanking and congratulating Daniel Johnson on his bill and all the work that he has put into it. I thank the committee for its meticulous scrutiny during stage 1, and I want especially to recognise Beth Morrison. We would not be here without her tireless campaigning to prevent anyone else from going through what she and her son Calum went through. The bill responds to the very real experiences of children and families who have told us time and again that restraint and seclusion can be frightening, humiliating, deeply traumatic and, most importantly, often avoidable. It should be a rare occurrence and a last resort, but it is used in some cases on a daily basis. This Parliament is on a journey towards enshrining and protecting the rights of children and young people.”
“I will close with words from Holocaust survivor Eliezer Wiesel in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech: “I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” 13:17”
“Remembering the Holocaust demands that we reject the idea that some lives matter less than others, whether that is because of religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexuality or disability. Bridging generations also means speaking honestly to young people. They see the world as it is—fractured, violent and unequal—but they also bring clarity and moral courage. They ask why lessons that we claim to have learned are still being ignored. We owe them more than platitudes—we owe them action. Holocaust memorial day is a moment of solemn remembrance, but it is also a call to conscience. To remember is to resist; to remember is to stand against hatred in all its forms; and to remember is to act for peace, justice and a future in which “never again” is not a slogan but a reality for all.”
“Holocaust memorial day calls us to a zero- tolerance approach to antisemitism, and that commitment is absolute. Antisemitism is real, it is rising and it must be confronted wherever it appears. However, that commitment sits alongside—not in opposition to—our responsibility to challenge all forms of racism, Islamophobia, anti-Roma prejudice, homophobia, transphobia, ableism and all dehumanisation and bigotry. Justice is not selective, and human rights are not conditional. As Greens, and as parliamentarians committed to peacemaking, we believe that security comes not from domination or erasure, but from justice, equality and respect for international law.”
“The promise of “never again” was made in the ashes of Europe, yet, in the 81 years since the end of the second world war, genocide and mass atrocities have scarred our world again and again—in Cambodia, in Rwanda, in Bosnia, against the Yazidi people, and today, for all of us to see, in Palestine. To say this is not to diminish the Holocaust; it is to honour its lessons. The dehumanisation that enabled the Holocaust did not vanish in 1945. It reappears whenever whole peoples are reduced to threats, statistics or collateral damage. When civilians are starved, burned, bombed, displaced and denied basic humanity, we must have the courage to name what is happening and to insist on accountability, protection of human life and an end to violence.”
“As survivors age and fewer remain to tell their stories in person, the responsibility to remember does not fade but deepens. Their memory must live on through children, grandchildren, communities and institutions, and through our actions as lawmakers. I have spoken here before about the importance of listening to testimony, to survivors and refugees and to those whose lives have been marked by violence and displacement. Testimony is not passive: when we truly listen, we are changed and are called to act. To bridge generations means to ensure that remembrance does not become a ritual without meaning but is a living commitment to justice, peace and dignity. We cannot honestly remember the Holocaust without acknowledging what followed.”
“I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this members’ debate on Holocaust memorial day, and I thank Kenny Gibson for lodging his motion. On 27 January, we mark the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. The date stands as a symbol both of unimaginable horror and of survival against all odds. We remember the 6 million Jewish men, women and children murdered by the Nazi regime and its collaborators and remember, too, the Roma and Sinti people, the disabled people, the LGBTQIA+ people, the political dissidents and the many others who were persecuted, brutalised and killed because they were deemed unwanted, dangerous or less than human. Holocaust memorial day is not only about remembrance; it is about responsibility, and the 2026 theme of “Bridging Generations” speaks powerfully to that duty.”
“It is not for me to dictate to the council, but I can assure Maggie Chapman of the resources and the support of the Scottish Government to advance on those issues, which will continue. National Health Service Boards (Transparency and Accountability Improvements) 5.”
“Given the recent publication of Shelter’s Dundee housing emergency action plan and the city’s well-rehearsed issues with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete in residential properties, will the First Minister comment on the fact that Dundee is yet to declare a housing emergency, which would allow us to all act together on the challenges that Dundee faces in relation to housing and homelessness? The First Minister: We work very closely with Dundee City Council and with housing associations in the locality that deliver significantly in relation to the affordable housing agenda. A decision about declaring a housing emergency in the city of Dundee is obviously a matter for Dundee City Council.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what action it will take to sustain the projects aiming to tackle poverty and social exclusion in the North East Scotland region, that are currently supported by the Investing in Communities Fund, beyond March 2026. (S6O-05437)”
“The climate crisis that we face means that we must take radical climate action, not just here and there, not just a little bit and not just by some while others are left out. We need nothing less than radical—some might say revolutionary—climate action. To do that, we need a system that ensures that everything that we do makes our future more sustainable and liveable and that ensures that climate and social justice are done now and in the future. The bill is a really good start and could be strengthened, as I outlined in my response to Sarah Boyack. Those who do not support the bill today will have to answer to their younger constituents when they are asked why, given that time is so badly running out, they did not take every opportunity to create a sustainable future for them and for future generations. 14:58”
“There is the capacity to amend the bill as it goes from stage 1 to stages 2 and 3. I am keen to engage with stakeholders between stages 1 and 2 because I think that we could resolve some of those issues. Does the member agree? Maggie Chapman: If the bill progresses, there is ample opportunity to look at exactly how we can use all the levers at our disposal to get ourselves into as strong a position as possible. We must also make clear that the duty to act should be prioritised over all other duties, especially when there is a conflict. For example, Scottish Enterprise is under a duty to promote industrial growth, but such growth without any reference to sustainability and wellbeing is a recipe for climate breakdown and social injustice.”
“The definitions of wellbeing and of sustainable development are entirely anthropocentric, but that must change to reflect the nature emergency faced by the animal, plant and insect life that we share our planet with and by the habitats and ecosystems that sustain all life. Also, as shown by the thousands of tonnes of waste still being exported to low and middle- income countries, we must recognise that the actions that we take here have an impact far beyond Scotland. Further, because we must all take climate action, the duty should be expanded to all public organisations and to any other organisations or businesses that carry out public functions on their behalf. Sarah Boyack: Stakeholders have made some helpful, proportionate and well-crafted comments about the issue of procurement.”
“The duty could be strengthened so that public bodies must, as Oxfam and Stop Climate Chaos have suggested, “promote and deliver sustainable development while protecting the wellbeing of current and future generations”. That comes closer to the definition in the Welsh act, which is now approaching its 10th birthday. Public bodies there are under a duty to carry out sustainable development. We are starting 10 years behind other parts of the United Kingdom, so we should be doing more, faster. I would like the definitions of sustainable development and some other terms that we use to be broadened. No less than radical climate action will do, and in everything, everywhere and by everyone.”
“The wealthy few’s greed for profit in the present was put ahead of the wellbeing of future generations and of the poorest. For too long, politics has been trapped in the short term— the next headline, the next budget line and the next election cycle. Meanwhile, the planet burns, nature collapses and inequality deepens—by design and not by accident. It is no wonder that we have young people going on climate strikes from school, protesting that their futures have been sacrificed and struggling daily with existential dread. The bill is a start, but I believe that we must go further. When climate scientists are saying that we are likely to breach 1.5°C of warming within a few years, we cannot just have regard for sustainable development and the wellbeing of future generations.”
“I am grateful to Sarah Boyack for all the work that she has done on this important bill. The bill makes me wonder where we would be had we not waited until now to formally recognise in law the wellbeing of future generations. If we had not left it so late to think about decarbonising, would we be experiencing the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events that we see now? If planning law had been written with nature in mind, would as many as one in nine of our native species be under threat of extinction? So much destruction was and is done knowingly. As early as 1954, the fossil fuel and car industries had clear evidence that their activities would cause global warming in the future, yet they drilled and burned like there was no tomorrow. Indeed, there might not be a tomorrow if we do not take radical climate action today.”
“I move, That the Parliament agrees that the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill be passed. 20:08”
“Last week, I met with trade union representatives to hear their concerns, and we will have regular dialogue into the next stage. I expect public bodies to do the same. I give a reassurance that services for learners and employers will be maintained throughout the transition period and that there will be no erosion of support as changes are implemented. At its heart, this bill—this journey—to transform Scotland’s education and skills landscape is not simply about processes or structures; it is about people, and the people whom we serve. The technological change that is coming will be profound, and we need to get our systems organised to meet the rapidly approaching challenges of the next quarter of the 21st century. The bill is an important step in that journey, and I ask Parliament to support the motion in my name.”
“Outwith the bill, we have undertaken work to continue the development of graduate apprenticeships, which have been mentioned throughout the stage 3 proceedings. A shift towards a more expansive approach to work-based learning will allow us to enhance all relevant opportunities, from school through to university. We have also made significant progress on fair work, in particular through working with the Scottish Green Party—I am grateful to Ross Greer for all the engagement that we have had on those points. I refer to the changes that we have made in that space. Importantly—I will finish on this, Deputy Presiding Officer—we have also considered the need for all staff involved to be part of the process of implementation, should Parliament pass the bill.”
“The Government has considered what more it can do through the bill, while also being mindful of ONS classification. We have constantly to strike a balance in that regard. I refer the member to the measures that we have taken on governance. I think that they are appropriate at this point, but I would be happy to engage further as we proceed. As I and the previous minister have articulated, the bill is about making the system simpler and more efficient. It aims to provide a better experience for learners, whether they are retraining or are at the beginning of the pathway that they are undertaking, and, through that, reducing poverty and growing the economy. We have included in the bill a number of measures that are important for our apprenticeship system—for example, putting it on a statutory footing to advance parity of esteem.”
“One of the missed opportunities with this bill was the opportunity to fully implement the recommendations from the von Prondzynski review in 2012. Some of us attempted to do that at stage 2, but the minister was of the view that that would challenge the Office for National Statistics classification too much. Can the minister outline how he will continue to keep an eye on the concerns that were expressed at stage 2, by members and by others, about the accountability and scrutiny that is required of the governance of both further and higher education to ensure that our institutions are, as von Prondzynski recommended, actually governed effectively? Ben Macpherson: I thank the member for her intervention and her engagement on these matters, not just at stage 2 but more generally.”
“They are there at the worst moments of our lives: when a family home is ablaze, when a car is twisted around a tree, when floodwater rises, when wildfires rage and when the climate emergency stops being an abstract concept and becomes an immediate terrifying reality.”
“I am grateful to those who supported my motion to allow this debate to go ahead today. I led the Scottish Greens’ first members’ business debate in this session, which was on St Fittick’s park, and I am proud to devote this penultimate Scottish Greens members’ business debate to the fire service. I speak today with immense gratitude to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and say hello to its members who are in the gallery this afternoon. I am grateful to all of the roughly 7,600 firefighters and support staff who, every day, place themselves between danger and the people and places they serve, and support those in need.”