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 5 of 17.
“To ask the Scottish Government how it will support young people to engage with the consultation on updating the School Premises (General Requirements and Standards) (Scotland) Regulations 1967. (S6O-05348)”
“It also means investing in nature- based solutions, such as restoring wetlands, reconnecting flood plains, tree planting, protecting soils and practising sustainable land management, alongside engineered defences. Fundamentally, this is about justice. Flood defence policy must be joined up, locally informed and rooted in the simple principle that everyone deserves to live a safe life in their own community, now and in the future. 17:53”
“Flood defences must focus on prevention as well as on protection, and on people as much as on infrastructure. That means connecting land use, land management, planning policy and flood defence decisions. It also means genuine community engagement from the start: listening to local knowledge, supporting community networks and ensuring that, when disaster strikes, people have accessible facilities, clear information and trusted local support. People in Brechin, Inverurie and Stonehaven want to be partners in shaping the resilience strategies that affect their futures. We must deliver that partnership in every community that is at risk.”
“One Inverurie resident said: “The river doesn’t just flood houses, it takes away paths, parks and farmland. It changes how the whole town works.” That loss of shared spaces matters, especially when they are essential for health, for food production and for community connection. Aberdeen has a long history of flood risk. Although recent protection works have brought some relief, we must ensure that flooding infrastructure is fit for the climate era that we are now in. This is about people’s everyday lives— their wellbeing and their ability to work, sleep safely in their homes and plan for their future. The climate crisis will only make flooding events more frequent and intense. Doing nothing—or doing the same things again—is not an option.”
“When upstream land management, river engineering, housing development and emergency planning are treated separately and siloed, the result is repeated flooding, rising insurance costs and people feeling abandoned. In Brechin, where homes have been inundated and defences breached, as Tess White mentioned earlier, a resident said: “It’s not just the damage, it’s the stress. Insurance is harder to get, premiums go up, and some neighbours just feel trapped”. That is not a fair price for people to pay simply for living in their communities. They need action, not just sympathy. The same pattern is evident in Aberdeenshire. In Stonehaven, Inverurie and elsewhere, communities live with the memory and risk of flooding that damages homes and businesses, erodes lands and threatens vital services.”
“That is patently clear in the north-east, particularly in Angus and in Aberdeenshire, where repeated flooding has exposed the consequences of having flood defences that are not future proofed and policies that are not properly joined up. In Angus, the experiences of residents in Brechin and at Castleton cottages are a stark warning. One Castleton resident said: “We’ve done everything we were told to do, but the water keeps coming in. You can’t relax when it rains—you’re always waiting for the next flood”. That constant anxiety takes a serious toll on people’s mental wellbeing, on their family life and on their sense of safety in their homes. The floods were not inevitable. A failure to properly connect land use, land management, planning decisions and flood defences has left communities exposed.”
“I thank Craig Hoy for securing the debate. At a time when extreme weather is very much on our minds, it is right that we consider how we build resilience in the face of growing uncertainty for many communities. The debate is about safety, justice and community resilience. It is about how we ensure that people can live free from the fear and devastation that flooding causes. For too many communities, flooding is not an abstract or future risk but a lived reality that affects how people sleep, work, insure their homes and plan their futures. As we have heard, extreme weather events are no longer rare—they are the new normal. Such events are more frequent and severe, driven by the climate crisis that is already here.”
“I have urged the regulator to ensure that regional representation in news coverage is safeguarded and that the public service broadcaster’s service commitments to invest in news to help to tackle misinformation, which issue Maggie Chapman also raised, are upheld. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I now make the same plea for answers, too. Artists and Creatives (Support) 3.”
“Angus Robertson: I have already raised our support for the creation of the Scottish public interest journalism working group, which covers the general point that Maggie Chapman raises. In relation to STV, the timely recognition of the regional impact of developments—which is clearly an issue in the north-east at the moment, given the weather situation there—underlines how important it is that we have public service journalism covering such situations. I give Maggie Chapman an assurance that the Scottish Government continues to meet Ofcom regarding a range of broadcasting matters, including STV’s proposals for regional news provision. I wrote to Ofcom regarding that matter, and I have met the chief executive to raise the Scottish Government’s concerns.”
“I send my solidarity to all the STV workers who are on strike today. I hope that those on the picket line in the snow in Aberdeen have managed to keep warm. STV’s failure to rule out compulsory redundancies has provoked today’s strike action. Its plans will reduce the broadcasting of local news. The current major weather incident in the north-east highlights the need for local information that serves local communities in ways that national coverage just cannot, and that is just one of the obvious impacts on local communities. How will the plans affect democracy in the north-east, particularly in the age of disinformation? What more can the Government do to support quality journalism across Scotland, and not just national coverage? The Deputy Presiding Officer: We will need briefer questions.”
“Recognising the value of swimming pools means backing that belief with practical support, targeted financial relief, national leadership and long-term planning that treats pools as part of our health and wellbeing infrastructure. The petition gives us the opportunity to do exactly that—to say clearly that keeping pools open matters, that accessibility matters, that community matters and that prevention, dignity and wellbeing are worth investing in. I urge the Scottish Government to take the petition seriously, to act on the committee’s findings and to work with communities and local authorities to ensure that swimming pools everywhere remain open, accessible and valued for generations to come. 17:23”
“In Aberdeen, Bucksburn pool was saved from closure because local people refused to accept that losing their pool was inevitable. They organised and made the case for the pool’s social value, and they were right. That pool is now recognised not just as a building but as a cornerstone of community wellbeing. Such stories tell us something important. Decisions about pools should not be made on narrow financial spreadsheets alone. They must account for social value, preventative health benefits and the voices of the people who rely on pools most. Scottish Greens believe in strong, universal public services that are delivered as locally as possible and funded fairly. We believe that public infrastructure should serve the common good and not be quietly dismantled when budgets tighten.”
“As we have heard from many members, swimming is also about safety. In a country with so much coastline and so many rivers and lochs, the ability to swim can be the difference between life and death. Closing pools undermines our collective responsibility to keep people safe. We see the real-world impact of such decisions very clearly in the north-east of Scotland. In Dundee, current proposals to close swimming pools have caused deep concern among parents and communities, who understand that, once such facilities are lost, they are unlikely to return. The closure of the Gardyne campus swimming pool has already removed a vital resource that was used not just by students but by local residents, older people and disability groups. However, we see what is possible when communities are listened to and supported.”
“The evidence that the committee heard was clear: pools are under severe financial pressure due to rising energy costs, ageing buildings and chronic underinvestment. Local authorities are being forced into impossible choices and, too often, the result is closure. However, the cost of closing swimming pools is simply pushed elsewhere—into our national health service, into social care and into the deepening health inequalities that the Parliament has repeatedly committed to tackle. Movement is fundamental to physical and mental wellbeing, and swimming is uniquely accessible. It is low impact, adaptable and inclusive of people who might not be able to participate in other forms of exercise. For many, the local pool is the only affordable and safe place to be active. Removing that option does not save money in the long run; it stores up harm.”
“I thank Helen Plank and all who gave life to PE2018, as well as members of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee for the serious and thoughtful work that they have done on it. The petition speaks to something deeply human: our shared need for spaces that support health, dignity, safety and connection. As we have heard, swimming pools are not luxuries but essential public services. They are places where children learn a life-saving skill, where older people maintain mobility and independence, where disabled people can move freely and without pain, and where communities come together across generations and backgrounds. When we talk about valuing swimming pools, in many ways, we are talking about valuing people.”
“Police Scotland has a pivotal role in detecting and disrupting criminality. It has always been the case that Police Scotland co-operates with other police forces across the United Kingdom, particularly the National Crime Agency, which is a UK-wide organisation. When it is in Scotland, the National Crime Agency always makes the effort to engage directly with me. The important point is about multi-agency collaboration, because Police Scotland will work on the national review collaboratively, whether that is with the Care Inspectorate, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland, the Inspectorate of Education or Health Improvement Scotland. I have to stress that the issue requires a cross-Government, cross-society response.”
“In the cabinet secretary’s statement, she expressed hope that we can now focus on how to address and prevent the horrific and insidious criminality that is involved in the exploitation of children and on supporting victims. Can the cabinet secretary tell us more about the Police Scotland review of historic child sexual abuse cases? What is it intended to achieve? Is it about how investigations were handled? Is it about identifying patterns? Is it about exploring other avenues of inquiry? How will that work integrate with that of the National Crime Agency? The Presiding Officer: I remind members of the issues that are raised in the statement. Cabinet secretary, can you respond with that in mind? Angela Constance: I will be delighted to follow up with Ms Chapman with more detail in writing.”
“We have cross-party recognition of the need for change, and we have cross-party awareness that change is long overdue. The Scottish Government must deliver that reform. As a Parliament, we must hold the Government’s feet to the fire, because justice delayed is justice denied. The Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on civil legal assistance in Scotland, on behalf of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. Ministerial Statement”
“We also need innovation to ensure that Scotland’s geography is not an excuse for a lack of provision. Those improvements are not optional; they are the minimum required to prevent further erosion of people’s ability to enforce their rights. If we want Scotland to be a country where human rights are real, enforceable and equal, civil legal assistance must be treated as core public infrastructure. Delay has consequences, and those consequences are already being borne by the people with the least power. The committee’s message to the Government is clear: the evidence is overwhelming, the consensus is broad and the need for action is urgent. As deputy convener of the committee, I thank everyone for their contributions this afternoon, and I thank all those who supported or contributed to the committee’s inquiry. Now we need action.”
“Dedicated practitioners are leaving not because the work does not matter, but because the system no longer allows them to do it with dignity or financial viability. At the same time, excessive bureaucracy, inconsistent abatements and complex application processes actively undermine trauma-informed, person- centred practice. A justice system that exhausts both those who seek help and those who provide it is not one that is working. Therefore, we need urgent, tangible reform—as Martin Whitfield stated—a significant increase in fees, a fair and transparent mechanism for regular review, and meaningful simplification of administrative processes. We must rebuild capacity for the future through sustained investment in training and through a system that young lawyers want to enter, as Paul McLennan and Pam Duncan-Glancy stressed.”
“These are not abstract gaps on a map; they are structural barriers that fall hardest on those who are already marginalised by poverty, disability, racism, gender-based violence, insecure immigration status, homelessness, rural isolation and other factors. People’s access to justice should not depend on their postcode. Rural and island representatives know that only too well. It should also not depend on whether their income is just above an arbitrary threshold or on whether there happens to be a solicitor nearby who is still able to keep their doors open. There is also a direct link between unsustainable fee rates and the collapse in the availability of civil legal aid, as Marie McNair and Sharon Dowey outlined.”
“Civil legal assistance is not an add-on to our justice system; it is fundamental to ensuring that people can realise their human rights in practice. When someone cannot challenge an unlawful eviction, secure safety for themselves or their children or enforce their rights at work, justice feels not simply distant but unreachable. Our inquiry heard clearly and consistently that this is now the lived reality for far too many people in Scotland. Katy Clark, Marie McNair and Tess White laid bare the scale of the problem, as did our inquiry. Years of underresourcing and delay have hollowed out provision, creating legal aid deserts across the country and across whole areas of law.”
“However, we remain strongly of the view that there would be significant benefits and efficiencies as a result of revisiting regulation 15 more broadly. Although SLAB has pointed to cases in which civil legal assistance has been granted, those remain isolated cases. We welcome the improved guidance that SLAB has issued, but we ask SLAB and the Scottish Government to look again at regulation 15 with a view to allowing more collective action, reducing the burden on the individual and broadening the côterie of people who benefit from proceedings in a more efficient way. Turning to themes arising from today’s debate, I am heartened that Ariane Burgess, Pam Duncan- Glancy and Liam McArthur, in their contributions, have grounded us in first principles.”
“I know that the minister has just addressed that, but I think that it is worth setting the situation out clearly on the record. Regulation 15 of the Civil Legal Aid (Scotland) Regulations 2002 was seen as the key barrier. The regulation applies where several people have a “joint interest” in legal action. In those circumstances, SLAB cannot grant civil legal aid where the applicant “would not be seriously prejudiced” —in other words, if their rights were not significantly impacted—by the situation or where another person “with ... the same interest” could be expected to take the matter forward. We welcome the fact that the minister and SLAB are revisiting regulation 15 in so far as environmental cases are concerned.”
“Ultimately, however, those regulations were never laid, as stakeholders were concerned that they might further restrict the availability of civil legal assistance to some of the most vulnerable people in society. On the one hand, therefore, it is good to see that the Scottish Government has listened to stakeholder concerns. On the other hand, it is disappointing that it was only at that juncture that the Government recognised that the impact of the proposed regulations would be to further restrict access to justice. Before I turn to some of the themes that have emerged from the debate this afternoon, I will highlight one of the recommendations that the convener was unable to cover in the time available. Specifically, the committee looked at public interest litigation and group proceedings and the barriers to those being pursued.”
“This debate has been valuable, as it has emphasised just how critical it is that reforms are made—urgently—to civil legal assistance in Scotland. It is not tenable for us to carry on as we are. We must translate the positive narrative from the Scottish Government, and its recognition of the need for reform in its response to the committee’s report, into real, tangible action, because warm words and working groups alone will not result in the change that we need. That tangible action must be driven by working closely with key stakeholders. Perhaps the first tangible action that we have seen since the publication of the committee’s report was the bringing forward of regulations on adults with incapacity.”
“The report does not offer easy answers, but it does offer clarity. Cybercrime is not just a policing issue; it is an issue of social justice, equality, workers’ rights and public services, and our response must be as interconnected as the systems on which our society now depends. I look forward to hearing the rest of the speeches in the debate and then to working together to ensure that Scotland’s response to cybercrime is one that protects people, upholds rights and puts justice, not fear, at its core. 16:06”
“We must seriously consider whether our legal frameworks adequately reflect the harm that is caused by the theft and trafficking of data, and whether corporations and platforms are doing enough to design systems that are secure by default. Audrey Nicoll: One issue that emerged during the committee’s scrutiny that has not yet been touched on, and which relates to resilience, is insurance. Businesses are perhaps more able to absorb the cost of insurance, which is an important part of a business’s overall resilience to an attack. Maggie Chapman: Absolutely. Not everybody will be able to afford insurance, nor will everybody even think that it is something that they need to have. The fact that its affordability will put insurance out of reach of individuals or organisations needs to be part of our thinking about resilience and accountability.”
“It means recognising that shame and fear are powerful silencers and that we must design systems that actively counter that. Resilience means having sustained investment in public sector digital infrastructure, not piecemeal fixes. It means supporting small and medium-sized enterprises and the voluntary sector with practical help, and not just advice that they cannot afford to implement. It means recognising cybersecurity as essential public infrastructure and not as an optional add-on. Accountability means asking difficult questions of those who profit from insecure systems. As the committee heard, stolen data can be traded again and again with devastating consequences, while responsibility is too often pushed back on to victims.”
“That means that, although we support properly resourced, skilled and specialist policing to tackle cybercrime, we will always scrutinise proposals that risk widening surveillance without clear necessity, proportionality and democratic oversight. Cybercrime is borderless and complex, but that cannot become an excuse for undermining civil liberties or treating everyone as a suspect by default. Instead, the report points us towards a more effective and more just approach. Prevention, resilience and accountability must sit at the heart of our response. Prevention means investing in digital literacy and public awareness, particularly for older people and other groups that are most at risk. It means ensuring that reporting mechanisms are accessible, trusted and trauma informed.”
“Small businesses, charities and third sector organisations simply do not have that capacity, nor do many public bodies that are forced to maintain ageing legacy systems while trying to meet growing digital demands. That imbalance matters. Cyber criminals need to succeed only once, and that one-time success can be devastating for people. Everybody else’s protections need to work all the time. The approach of the Scottish Greens to the issue comes from a clear set of principles. We believe in safety and justice for all, but we also believe that how we pursue safety matters. We reject the false choice between security and rights. We do not believe that expanding mass surveillance, eroding privacy or normalising intrusive state powers will necessarily keep people safer in the long run. In fact, history tells us the opposite.”
“I thank all those who gave evidence to the committee, and particularly those from organisations such as Age Scotland, who reminded the committee that many victims do not report cybercrime because they do not know where to turn, they fear that they will not be believed or they assume that nothing can be done. That is not a failure of those individuals; it is a failure of our systems. If people do not feel supported, trusted and protected, our response to cybercrime is already falling short. The report also highlights a stark imbalance of power and resources. Large institutions such as banks are able to invest millions in cyber defence, employing hundreds of staff to monitor and block attacks, although even then, as the committee heard and as we have heard this afternoon, they are subjected to tens of millions of attacks every month.”
“Behind those statistics are people: older people who are targeted by increasingly sophisticated scams, often powered by AI and deepfake technology; workers whose personal data is stolen and traded repeatedly long after the original breach; staff in businesses and public services who are dealing with the stress, fear and disruption that is caused by ransomware attacks; island communities left without access to food because a supply chain was digitally attacked; and people in local authorities who are unable to deliver essential services because their systems have been compromised. The report rightly centres those human impacts.”
“Cybercrime now accounts for at least 5 per cent of all recorded crime in Scotland and for more than a quarter of sexual crimes. Nearly all crimes involving threat and extortion are now cyber enabled. Fraud, in particular, has been transformed by the digital environment, with estimates suggesting that almost half of all fraud now involves cyber methods.”
“I am grateful to the Criminal Justice Committee and all who contributed to the inquiry that resulted in the timely and important report that we are discussing today. Cybercrime and cybersecurity are often discussed as abstract, technical or even distant issues. However, the report makes it unmistakably clear that they are none of those things. Cybercrime is not virtual harm—it is real harm. It is harm that lands on kitchen tables, in bank accounts, in workplaces and in the lives of people who are all too often already carrying the heaviest burdens. The evidence that the committee gathered is sobering. Although there has been a recent decrease in estimated cybercrime compared with the previous year, levels remain far above those that were seen before the pandemic.”
“We are mindful of the factors that Maggie Chapman has noted. I am broadly supportive of what she has set out regarding human rights considerations, but we must also be mindful that we do not have a reliable data set at the current time, and that is required in order to make a decision on whether we will have further inquiries. Mandatory reporting is a key part of our response as a Government in that regard, but I take on board the issues that Maggie Chapman has raised in that respect.”
“I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests: I worked for a rape crisis centre before being elected. The Government has indicated its support in principle for mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse. Given concerns that survivors’ organisations have raised about unintended consequences, such as children being deterred from seeking help or trust being undermined in support services, will the cabinet secretary consider a full human rights and child rights impact assessment before introducing proposals? Will she also ensure that any model that is adopted strengthens, rather than weakens, early intervention and survivor trust? Jenny Gilruth: I think that it is fair to say that there are a range of views on the issue. Ministers’ views have been informed by the points that Liam Kerr made about data and underreporting.”
“However, as we approach the end of the debate, I will close by thanking committee members once again for their dedicated work on the inquiry and for everybody’s contributions and attention this afternoon. The Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee’s inquiry on the British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015. Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education and Amendment of UNCRC Compatibility Duty) (Scotland) Bill: Financial Resolution 16:52”
“That is a profound human rights issue that we must treat with the seriousness that it deserves. As we come to the end of what has been a very positive debate, I also want to reflect on the positivity of the Deputy First Minister’s appearance before the committee earlier this week, in which she responded to the committee’s report. However, that positivity must be matched by action. We will be strongly recommending that our successor committee follows up on our inquiry and ensures that that positive narrative is more than just a narrative and turns into genuine action. There is so much more that I could say, given the wide range of policy areas covered by our report and by this debate.”
“Scotland can and must be a country where BSL users can realise their rights and their full potential and live without the obstacles that too many still face today. Perhaps giving BSL parity of esteem with Gaelic and creating a national board, rather than just a network, will help with that. As we reflect on this inquiry and this afternoon’s debate, I want to return to the fundamental human rights principles that underpinned the 2015 act. The evidence that our committee heard was powerful and often deeply moving. It reaffirmed that BSL is not simply a method of communication; it is a culture, a community and, for many deaf people, their only language. When people are denied access to their own language, they are denied far more than words; they are denied opportunity, wellbeing and the possibility of participating fully in society.”
“As I have said, that engagement and partnership working must include deafblind people—not as an afterthought, but as an integral part of national and local planning. I am grateful to Martin Whitfield and others for recognising the importance of the post-legislative scrutiny that the inquiry included. My thanks also go to our committee convener—and my friend— Karen Adam, for her leadership on the inquiry. Our inquiry has shown that the ambitions of the 2015 act are still absolutely the right ones, but that ambition alone will not break down structural barriers; we must match those ambitions with political will, sustained resourcing, and a human rights approach that centres the lived experience of deaf and deafblind people.”
“Those failings amount to breaches of the basic human rights of deaf and deafblind people. As Carol Mochan and Miles Briggs indicated, there is concern that although the intent behind the second national plan is welcome, the plan itself is disappointing, with commitments being diluted or removed entirely. Ms Mochan stressed the importance of enforceability and ambition, and that local plans must be key to ensuring that those concerns are addressed effectively so as to avoid deaf and deafblind people facing a postcode lottery. Paul McLennan spoke of the importance of partnership working and the need to ensure that deaf people themselves are always at the heart of all discussions about strategies that affect them or services that they will use.”
“Emma Roddick, Alexander Stewart and others clearly articulated the complexities that BSL users must navigate just to access basic healthcare. The knock-on consequences of that are detrimental to many other aspects of their lives and the lives of those who love them and try to support them. Separately to this inquiry, our committee has done work on rural inequalities, and there is clearly overlap between that and this inquiry. As Pam Gosal and Emma Roddick highlighted, geography is too often a barrier to participation in society or to accessing vital services such as healthcare. The barriers that have been discussed this afternoon arise not from individual failings but from structures, systems and choices that leave deaf and deafblind people feeling overlooked and undervalued.”
“Because of failures in our education system, some deaf people do not have a clear understanding of consent and of their human rights, especially around domestic abuse, or that support might be available to them if they face domestic abuse, which, as we have heard, a disproportionate number of them experience. Miles Briggs, Alexander Stewart and others summarised the many issues that BSL users face in education—from not having access to their own, and only, language throughout nursery and school, to the lack of support at moments of transition and the lack of structured pathways for deaf people to become BSL teachers, classroom assistants, social workers and many other types of professional. Why should deaf people not have access to as wide a range of skills, training and employment opportunities as hearing people do?”
“A decade after the 2015 act was passed, far too many BSL users still face daily obstacles in accessing healthcare, education, justice services, employment and much more. Marie McNair, Pam Gosal and Emma Roddick spoke about the importance of ensuring that BSL users have access to justice. They highlighted the specific evidence that we heard of how our criminal justice system does not serve deaf survivors of domestic abuse well at all. Emergency responders are not equipped to support deaf people effectively, interpreters are not available when needed and the systems do not recognise the specific and particular needs of BSL users.”
“We have heard from several members something that the committee heard very clearly: the 2015 act has brought welcome improvements for deaf people in Scotland, including increased visibility of BSL, stronger recognition of their rights and better access to certain public services. The creation of Contact Scotland BSL, as the Deputy First Minister highlighted, is rightly seen as a major step forward, and many local authorities and health boards are working constructively and collaboratively with deaf communities. As the DFM stressed, that engagement was crucial to the ambition of the first national action plan. As Marie McNair said, deaf people must be at the heart of any plans that affect their lives. Those positives sit alongside some stark and unacceptable gaps.”
“Given the level of focus on the educational needs and priorities of deaf people, it is fitting that this debate is taking place only a stone’s throw away from the site of the first school for deaf children in Britain, which opened its doors more than 250 years ago in the area now known as Dumbiedykes. Its founder, Thomas Braidwood, was also a pioneer of the development of standardised hand gestures, which evolved over time into the language used today. I pay tribute to all those who have contributed to the development and promotion of the language since then. I will turn to contributions made by members.”
“I am very pleased to have the opportunity to close the debate on behalf of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. Like the convener, I pay tribute to the work of my colleagues and of our clerks, researchers and engagement professionals, and especially to all those who gave evidence to our committee, either formally or informally. One of the key strengths of the inquiry was the consensual way in which the committee conducted our work, and it is pleasing to see that positive spirit in the chamber again this afternoon. Although there are clearly some differences in approach and focus, I welcome today’s broad consensus on the need to make Scotland the best place in the world for BSL users to live, work, visit and learn.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what measures it is taking to address the reported legal aid crisis, to ensure that people in the North East Scotland region are able to access support. (S6O- 05277)”
“The motion is evidence, as if any more were needed, that the party learned nothing from its mistakes—not from those who took their own lives out of despair because of benefit sanctions and losing disability support, and not from the increase by thousands of per cent in the number of food parcels that are given out because social security does not meet people’s basic daily needs. The Conservatives have not learned that, if we want a society that is prosperous, fair and equal, a social security system for all is vital. 15:09”