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 6 of 17.
“I agree with the cabinet secretary about the need to have a social security system that is there for us all in case we need it, but disabled people are struggling now. When I raised that last week, the Minister for Equalities did not answer my question about what changes, if any, have been made in Social Security Scotland to lead to the change in the figures. I hope that the cabinet secretary can tell us why so many of the stats are going in the wrong direction: there are more rejections, more appeals and fewer people getting the highest rates that they deserve. The Conservatives ran the social security system across the UK for 14 years.”
“Unbelievably, a conversation is going on from a sedentary position between two members of front- bench teams, which is extremely discourteous to Ms Chapman and the chamber. Maggie Chapman: Of those who have applied for ADP in the past year, 63 per cent have been rejected, which is worse than for PIP—the independent Scottish Fiscal Commission and the Resolution Foundation agree on that—and we know that many people do not get the right decision the first time. During the ADP’s short history, 60,000 people have asked for a second opinion. Some have had to go all the way to court to get what they are owed. That shows that we need more money in those kinds of social security payments, not less, as the Scottish Conservatives seem to be arguing.”
“In Alexander Stewart’s region, Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy would regain £2.5 million, and Russell Findlay’s constituents in Paisley and Renfrewshire North and South would together get £4 million back. Next time that they knock on doors, they will need to look their poorer constituents in the eye and explain why they do not want that money to be put back into their pockets and their communities. As if the disaster of PIP was not enough, perhaps they want to take the money from the adult disability payment. However, the truth is that, as with so many payments, ADP is helping too few people and not too many. [Interruption.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Please resume your seat for a second, Ms Chapman.”
“Craig Hoy: Does Maggie Chapman accept that the interplay between universal credit and the Scottish child payment is resulting in some people choosing not to work additional hours, and that they would be willing to do so had that mechanism not been put in place? Maggie Chapman: Quite frankly, I think that that has more to do with problems with universal credit than anything else—the restrictions that are placed on people who want to work a few additional hours instead of full time. Social security should be seen as an investment in our economy as well as our people. We know that money that is paid out in social security circulates in local economies and is spent in local businesses. The End Child Poverty coalition estimates that local economies would benefit by as much as £19 million annually per constituency by lifting the cap.”
“Our social security system embodies the duty that we have to one another. It provides a best start grant when a new Scot is born and the Scottish child payment as the child grows. When the young person enters work for the first time, they might be able to claim their job start grant and, when they die—much later in life, I hope—the funeral support payment ensures that they will be laid to rest with dignity. I ask the Conservatives: what do they want to cut? Clearly, they would prefer to keep the two-child limit and rape clause in place, despite the overwhelming evidence that they have caused significant increases in child poverty. The estimated 20,000 children who have been brought out of poverty through lifting the cap would go straight back into it if the Tories had their way.”
“Finally, we must not forget postgraduate study. Access cannot end at undergraduate level if employers increasingly expect applicants to have masters degrees and more. Education should not be for sale at any level. Widening access is a moral imperative. It is about dignity, justice and the belief that every person deserves the chance to discover their potential. The committee’s report challenges us to do better; institutions such as RGU show us what is possible. Let us honour both by committing to systemic change that puts compassion, equality and human flourishing at the heart of Scotland’s higher education system. 15:42”
“We must act on the committee’s call for a unique learner number, which was recommended a decade ago. RGU is right in saying that it would transform our ability to understand learner journeys, evaluate what works and intervene early. Widening access also means facing the financial realities that students deal with. Tuition may be free for some, but rent, food, transport, books and equipment are not. Private developers are extracting millions of pounds from students who simply need somewhere safe and affordable to live. When the Government removed student rent controls from the Housing (Scotland) Act 2025, it removed one of the most effective tools that we could have had to tackle the biggest financial barriers that students face. Students deserve protection from predatory landlords just as much as any other tenant.”
“As we have already heard, widening access has to be about retention and success. Getting students into education settings is not enough; keeping them and supporting them to flourish is what real fairness looks like. Currently, 12 per cent of students do not progress to year 2, and the rate is worse for disadvantaged learners. I have spent years working in universities—I refer colleagues to my entry in the register of members’ interests, as I am the rector of the University of Dundee—and I know where there are gaps. Staff are expected to support students with little or no information about who has come through different routes or who faces particular barriers. They are left to guess or to ask students to disclose personal information again and again, which is not dignified, effective or fair.”
“They work because academic and support staff give their time and share their expertise and enthusiasm, often in the evenings, and I am grateful to them for that. RGU’s experience also reminds us that widening access is about so much more than SIMD; it is about understanding disadvantage in all its forms. The free school meal pilot shows the value of individual-level data, capturing individual disadvantage far better than any postcode data can. It also shows the data-sharing barriers that hold us back and that we urgently need to address. The same is true of rurality. SIMD is simply too blunt a tool to capture rural disadvantage. University participation is lower in remote communities. The Greens believe that opportunity should never depend on geography, so we need to look beyond SIMD.”
“Its schools hub model embeds staff in all 28 secondary schools across the city and shire, fortnightly or monthly, building long-term relationships with pupils, teachers and careers advisers. Its access to programme has grown from 70 pupils in 2019 to more than 1,000 this year, offering 11 subject-specific courses and free transport and food to remove the hidden costs that so often quietly lock out too many young people. Its northern lights programme reaches secondary 1 and secondary 2 pupils, providing early imaginative interventions that genuinely widen horizons. Those are the kinds of interventions that we should celebrate—those that are embedded in communities, grounded in relationships and tailored to need.”
“Robert Gordon University has already been spoken about in the debate. It is one of our institutions that is most committed to widening access, in a region where structural barriers are very real, and it has valuable experience to share. RGU, like the University of Aberdeen and North East Scotland College, faces a distinctive challenge. The city and shire have very few SIMD 20 postcodes. Only 8 or 9 per cent of households in the city and 3 or 4 per cent in the shire fall into that category, yet three major tertiary institutions draw from that small pool. RGU’s SIMD 20 entrant figure of 7.2 per cent reflects demography, not a lack of commitment. RGU has responded not by shrugging and giving up, but by building one of Scotland’s most sustained evidence-based approaches to widening access.”
“We are, as we have heard, now at 16 per cent, with five years to go. Progress has stalled and, without renewed action and without political courage, we will miss that target. That figure hides further injustice. Disabled students may now be proportionately represented, but the committee heard that that masks significant persistent barriers, assessment delays, inaccessible learning environments and a review of support that took four years to deliver and is already out of date. That is indefensible. Disabled students deserve to be welcomed, supported and valued, not left in limbo. It is not just disabled students who are left out in the cold. We must do better and do it systematically, not superficially. That means widening access not only through traditional routes, but through flexible pathways that respect people’s lives and communities.”
“I thank the committee members, the clerks and everyone who gave evidence to the inquiry, because this report matters. Free, universal and equitable access to higher education is not just an aspiration but the cornerstone of a fair, compassionate and confident Scotland. It is about our culture, our wellbeing, our democracy and our shared future. I am proud that Scotland chose to abolish tuition fees for some students. We rejected the corrosive market logic that sees education—something that should nourish human potential—as a commodity to be bought and sold. However, we must confront a hard truth. For too many people, the right—not the privilege—to a higher education remains a dream unrealised. The Scottish Government aims for 20 per cent of full-time first-degree entrants to be from the 20 per cent most deprived backgrounds.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the impact on adult English (ESOL) classes that are held on school premises of the reported far-right protests that have taken place outside the schools in opposition to these. (S6O-05258)”
“We must do better at prevention, protection, data collection, transparency and ensuring that our institutions are equipped to act, but we must do so without providing ammunition to those who would use the issue to stoke hatred and fear. Our task is clear: to protect children, to confront exploitation wherever it exists and to build a Scotland where abuse is not hidden, minimised or weaponised but eradicated. 16:22”
“Once all that evidence is analysed, the Scottish Government must clarify as soon as possible whether an independent inquiry will take place. That is an important question, but it must be extremely carefully handled and discussed. Child exploitation by anyone in any context is abhorrent. However, debates around grooming gangs have too often been distorted by racism, religious prejudice and xenophobia. We have seen unfounded and prejudiced claims—even claims that have been disowned by those who initially made them—repeatedly invoked, and they continue to circulate, fuelling division and hatred. Such words have very real consequences for migrant communities, people seeking safety and MSPs and for the cohesion and trust that we need to keep all our communities safe.”
“They call for independent oversight of the current Police Scotland review, which is important not because we doubt the professionalism or integrity of individuals in the police, but because transparency strengthens trust. Police Scotland’s work with the National Crime Agency and its participation in the national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group are crucial parts of that effort. Those partnerships allow Scotland to share intelligence, respond to cross-border offending and build a clearer national picture of the risks that children face now and what they have faced in the past. The data gathered through the strategic group is essential in order to determine what next steps, including a potential inquiry, are needed.”
“Yet, as the Centre for Excellence for Children’s Care and Protection at the University of Strathclyde has shown, disability and other protected characteristics are underrecorded in child protection data. We cannot tackle what we do not fully understand, so improving reporting and data collection must be a priority. That brings me directly to the motion before us. Transparency in how we investigate and understand group-based child sexual exploitation is essential. I welcome the motion and the Scottish Government’s amendment. Taken together, they recognise the independence of Police Scotland, which has clear statutory responsibilities under the Police and Fire Service Reform (Scotland) Act 2012.”
“It also means that, where sexual exploitation of anyone is identified, whether by individuals or groups, our justice system must respond robustly and consistently. There must be no doubt that we do not tolerate such abuse. However, those important measures come mostly after abuse has already begun. If we are serious about eliminating child sexual exploitation, we must also confront its root causes—gender inequalities, power imbalances, social and economic inequalities and a failure to listen properly to children whose voices have been dismissed or ignored. Disabled children, care-experienced children, migrant children and other marginalised young people face disproportionately high risks.”
“As the cabinet secretary said, the issue that we are debating—the sexual exploitation and abuse of children and young people—is not only an historic issue; it is happening now, in our communities and in ways that we often fail to recognise. Because it is happening now, our responsibility is immediate, urgent and profound. We must do better to recognise the signs of abuse in children and young people. That means ensuring that our teachers, social workers, health and social care staff and all other professionals who work with children are properly supported and confident in spotting, reporting and acting on concerns. It means doing more to support children and young people to stay safe, both online and offline, through our wider children’s rights works, to ensure that they know how to respond when they feel unsafe.”
“Having a social care package, receiving money from the independent living fund or having a blue badge could all confer automatic eligibility. That approach is not just theoretical. After a trial by Transport Scotland, blue badges are now subject to a streamlined process for those with motor neurone disease, using a sign-off from an MND nurse, so it can be done. Data also shows that ADP uptake among black and minority ethnic communities is lower than average. Why is that, and what do we need to do to change it to make the system genuinely fair for everyone? When the Scottish Government responds to the review, I hope that it grasps the opportunity to right the wrongs that are faced by too many disabled people in this country. I hope that next year, when we again recognise this important day, we will have a better story to tell. 17:32”
“Looking across the statistics, almost every measure is going in the wrong direction. There are more rejections, more appeals and fewer people getting the highest rates. What is going on? If there has been a deliberate shift in assessment practice, we need to know, and the Scottish Government must be held accountable. I ask the minister to address those concerns in closing, if she can. The independent review of ADP has now reported, making a range of helpful recommendations, such as scrapping the 20m rule that it inherited from PIP, which deliberately makes it harder for people with mobility needs to get support. The review also suggested a more automated system, in which people with particular conditions can access benefits without making a full application.”
“In ADP’s short history, almost 60,000 people have asked for a second opinion on their decision. It is positive that, in about half of those cases, Social Security Scotland has admitted that it was wrong and has changed the decision—that is a higher rate of changes than elsewhere. However, some people have to go to court to get what they are owed. More than half of all claimants who go through the stress of appealing to the tribunal win their cases, having already gone through an internal review and been rejected for a second time. Too often, Social Security Scotland is not getting it right the first time or the second time. Instead, it is being forced by the courts to do the right thing and pay up. That is not dignified for disabled people, nor is it fair or respectful.”
“Respect is especially important—it is part of Social Security’s Scotland strapline, “dignity, fairness and respect”. However, three years into the new system, I am not sure that we are fully delivering on that promise. After a promising start, we have seen huge falls in the success rates of those applying for adult disability payment. A total of 54 per cent—more than half—of those who have applied for ADP have been rejected, with the figure for the most recent financial year rising to 63 per cent. The rejection rate is now worse than it was for the personal independence payment. That is not just my analysis—the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Scottish Fiscal Commission and the independent review of ADP all say the same. What about the ambition to get decisions right first time?”
“I am grateful to Pam Duncan-Glancy for securing the debate. It is only right that we recognise in our Parliament the international day of persons with disabilities. I will focus on social security, as it has the power to foster an inclusive society, or to marginalise and exclude. The devolution of powers over disability benefits promised one of the most important developments in the rights of disabled people in the history of the Parliament. After years of cuts and austerity, years of successive UK Governments stigmatising disabled people who require support, and years of policies being forced through despite disabled people’s concerns, the Parliament finally had the opportunity to do things differently and to show compassion, care and respect to disabled people.”
“Let us name the problem: the patriarchy—structural sexist violence. Let us commit to real change. 15:26”
“All that is part of the same structure of gendered oppression. If we want to end violence, we have to dismantle the patriarchy. That requires primary prevention— the deep structural work that Engender and others rightly demand. It requires women’s equality to be embedded in every policy area, including housing, transport, education, planning and social security. It requires toxic masculinity and harmful gender norms to be challenged, and it requires political courage. Survivors are tired of our caution. As one woman said: “I kept waiting for someone to be brave enough to say the real problem is men’s violence and to deal with it. I am still waiting.” If we are serious about eliminating gender-based violence, those kinds of comments cannot go unacted upon. Let us be brave today.”
“When fellow parliamentarians share or encourage posts that identify women MSPs who vote in certain ways on sensitive topics, they effectively create targeted lists. They are actively making us less safe. Calling that “accountability” is a grotesque distortion. It is intimidation, and the parliamentarians who have done that should be ashamed of themselves. Such behaviour must end. Neither can we ignore those who are most at risk. Trans women and non-binary people experience even higher levels of violence. Sex workers who are pushed underground by criminalisation are made less safe by our laws. Migrant women with no recourse to public funds remain trapped with abusers because our system denies them the means to survive with dignity and independently. Disabled women face disproportionate levels of coercive control. Racism compounds misogyny.”
“We must be absolutely clear that the far right does not protect women. It harms women, and it uses our safety as a weapon to justify racism, transphobia and attacks on migrants. Many who shout loudest about protecting our women are perpetrators of abuse. Last year’s riot arrests plainly tell us that, as does what I have witnessed personally on the streets of Aberdeen and Dundee. Misogyny is the gateway drug of extremist politics. However, misogyny is not only out there; it is here, too, in this political environment, in our work communities and in this building. Women MSPs, along with women of colour, disabled women and trans women, know that our everyday online spaces are filled with misogynistic threats. We know that some of that hostility is fuelled— directly or recklessly, deliberately or not—by political actors.”
“One survivor recently recalled: “He didn’t need to hit me in the street. He could reach me on every device I owned. I felt like there was nowhere in the world that he couldn’t get to.” Another said: “I stopped reporting because nothing changed. Except the threats got worse.” Another survivor said: “I reported every threat he made online. Screenshots, timestamps, everything. They told me it was ‘just words’. Two weeks later he was at my door.” Those are not isolated stories; they are the reality for thousands of women across Scotland. Digital violence is not separate from real-world violence. It is the same violence but delivered through new tools—tools that are designed, owned and regulated overwhelmingly by men, and used by the far right to radicalise, recruit and spread hatred.”
“Further, 71 per cent believe that current legislation is ineffective, and 11 per cent of women who experienced online violence say that it progressed to offline violence. The survey also found that online anonymity, the ease of getting away with it and misogyny are the most commonly perceived reasons why people—mostly men—commit online violence against women and girls. The survey reported that nearly a third of those who experienced online violence were more likely to seek support from friends than the police. More than three quarters of those who reported online violence were not satisfied with the outcome, and 85 per cent said that it affected them, with six in 10 reporting that it had a negative impact on their mental health and wellbeing. Those numbers are horrific, but behind them are real stories that are worse.”
“It is produced and reproduced by the patriarchy, by inequality and by systems and structures that place men’s comfort above women’s safety every day. As the saying goes, to those who are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression. Engender’s briefing for MSPs lays it bare: violence is endemic. In 2023-24, Police Scotland recorded nearly 64,000 domestic abuse incidents. Sexual violence is rising and online abuse is growing, with one in six women in Scotland having experienced digital violence. Young men are being radicalised into misogynistic extremism at alarming rates. As Katy Clark outlined, the Open University’s 2023 survey found that 17 per cent of women have experienced online violence. The figure is much higher for younger women, with more than a third having witnessed online violence.”
“I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests: I worked for a rape crisis centre before I was elected. Deputy Presiding Officer, “You deserve to be punched. And then some.” “That’s surely a bloke.” “You need dealt with.” “Go to Palestine then, and see how they treat women there.” “You’re an it.” “Why don’t you f-off back to Rhodesia.” Those are all direct quotes from comments on my social media. It is a pretty sanitised selection; nonetheless, it is a wonderful mixture of sexist violence and imperial misogyny. Those are just the tiniest drops in the ocean of online violence that women and girls face all the time. During these 16 days of activism, we gather again to confront a truth that should haunt us all: violence against women and girls is not only pervasive but deeply political.”
“Now we need the Scottish Government to act to ensure that trans people across Scotland can access the care that they need without waiting a lifetime or paying to go private, and to build a healthcare system that is compassionate, responsive and rooted in dignity and human rights. Minister, please act. 19:11”
“Far too often, for some who are already dealing with anxiety or the hostile political climate, that journey is unbearable. Inclusive, adaptable and regionally responsive services are not optional; they are essential. Finally, we must confront the simple fact that Scotland has only four GICs. Sandyford alone covers eight health board areas and is the only service for young people. Scottish Trans has been unequivocal in its view that, even if we expand and fund the existing clinics properly, that model is unsustainable. We need more clinics closer to the communities that they serve, and we need them urgently. I am grateful to Patrick Harvie for securing this debate.”
“Staff regularly work far beyond their contracted hours. Many could earn the same, or more, elsewhere in the NHS, without the relentless pressure that is created by those chronically long waiting lists. If we are to retain skilled staff, grading and pay must reflect the reality of the work that they do. Otherwise, we will continue to lose precisely the people we are most desperately keen to hold on to. Let us be clear: long waiting lists do not affect all trans people equally. Disabled trans people, minority ethnic trans people, homeless trans people, trans people in rural communities, very young trans people and older trans people face multiple intersecting inequalities. Some travel for hours, taking three or four buses, just to get to their appointment.”
“Specialist clinics must be there to meet specialist needs, not because the rest of the system is unprepared. Training and education are, therefore, absolutely central. Staff themselves, as noted in the recent “Evaluation of the Impact of Scottish Government Funding—Gender Identity Healthcare”, highlighted that training is underdeveloped. We are dealing with a recruitment crisis in this field—not because people do not care, but because there simply are not enough clinicians with the prerequisite skills. When there is recruitment, existing staff are stretched even further because it takes time— months, and sometimes years—to train new staff to competency. We are nowhere near the critical mass of trained professionals that is required. In addition, GIC work is demanding emotionally, clinically and logistically.”
“The strategic action framework had ambitious aims such as piloting new services, reducing waiting times and improving trans people’s experiences of healthcare, but we have failed to deliver on each of those. High-quality, gender- affirming healthcare requires specialist expertise. We need specialist clinicians who understand the complexities and nuances of gender identity care. However, we have heard, loudly, from many trans people that they are being funnelled towards specialist services when that is not always necessary. If mainstream professionals—GPs, nurses and sexual health staff—were properly trained and supported to provide routine transition-related care, many people could get help more quickly, closer to home, without being added to an already- overwhelmed gender identity clinic waiting list.”
“The figures that were published by Public Health Scotland in October should shake every one of us in the chamber. They lay bare a crisis that is not abstract or distant but is one that is lived day to day by thousands of our fellow Scots. There are nearly 4,000 people on the waiting list, and fewer than 50 first appointments each year, with—as Scottish Trans put it starkly—“the most hopeful estimate” being an 80-year wait for a first appointment. Eighty years is a lifetime—a lifetime of being told to wait for the healthcare that someone needs simply to live as themselves. That is not just a failure of a system, but a failure of responsibility: our responsibility.”
“I will speak to part 2 later this afternoon, so I will close for now. I welcome the bill, in part, as an opportunity to strengthen children’s rights, but it clearly does not go far enough to ensure that young people’s views are heard, respected and acted on. The bill risks entrenching the idea that children’s rights are to be exercised only after adults intervene, rather than independently and proactively, and it risks undermining the vital role of RME by failing to separate it clearly from religious observance. At stage 2, I will lodge amendments to separate RO and RME and to introduce the independent right of a child to withdraw from RO. 15:10”
“Dr Douglas Hutchison of ADES said: “religious and moral education should be seen as a curricular subject in the same way as any other subject.” He also said: “The idea that, in a liberal democracy, there is no place in the curriculum for religious education and there should be a right to withdraw from it does not make sense in 2025.”—[Official Report, 7 October 2025; c 27.] The Scottish Episcopal Church told the committee that RME “stands firmly within the school curriculum”, that “our children need to understand other faiths, beliefs and cultures if they are to grow up in the diverse, inclusive and tolerant society that we want in Scotland”, and that ”there is a big distinction between RME and RO, and the bill does not recognise it.”—[Official Report, 30 September; c 10.] The Church of Scotland and other faith groups also share that view.”
“The Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland is clear that the right under article 14 includes freedom of religion, thought and conscience—freedoms that the current system does not adequately protect. Religious and moral education, or RME, is quite different. As we have heard this afternoon, learning about diverse religions and belief systems is an essential part of a broad education in a pluralist society. Young people cannot withdraw from science, maths, history or English, and that is for good reason. Religious and moral education is similarly vital, and teachers agree.”
“Forced observance is incompatible with article 14 of the convention, the child-facing version of which says: “I have the right to have my own thoughts and beliefs and to choose my religion”. John Mason: On that point, is such a choice not made when the parents and the child select, say, a Catholic school, and therefore choose to take part in religious observance, rather than it being made later on, halfway down the road? Maggie Chapman: While we have religious state schools, the beliefs of a school need to be taken account of by the parents in choosing it. However, many of us would rather have complete separation of church and state in our education system.”
“It is also doubtful whether the provisions of the 1980 act would withstand legal scrutiny, regardless of the bill. Last week, judges ruled that collective worship in Northern Ireland that is not “objective, critical and pluralistic” amounts to “indoctrination” and is unlawful. The Scottish Government has responded to that, but it has also been warned that a similar challenge could succeed here unless the bill is amended to uphold young people’s rights. The bill suffers from another major flaw. Like the 1980 act, it conflates religious observance with religious education. Religious observance—in other words, acts of worship, especially when one faith is prioritised over another—should have no place in state schools. Young people of different faiths or of no faith should not be forced to take part in worship.”
“Professor Angela O’Hagan of the Scottish Human Rights Commission told the committee that, without such a right, the bill will fail to meet its basic aim of achieving compliance with the UNCRC. I found myself in a minority of one when the committee reported on that aspect. However, if colleagues remain opposed to amendment, I ask them to reflect on why they think that they know better than every children’s rights organisation in the country, better than the public and better than their own supporters. A Survation poll that was released today by the Humanist Society Scotland shows that 66 per cent of Scots believe that pupils should be able to decide for themselves whether to take part in religious observance. The majority of supporters of every political party agree.”
“That suggests, rightly, that children should be able to use their rights proactively, and not only after an adult has acted on their behalf. The bill also contradicts the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, who was explicit in her letter to the committee, in which she said: “Part 1 in its current form does not achieve compliance with the UNCRC.” The commissioner is far from alone. The committee’s stage 1 report also notes that “A majority ... supported amending the Bill to provide children with an independent right to withdraw from RO.” That majority includes the Scottish Human Rights Commission, the United Nations Children’s Fund—UNICEF—and Together (Scottish Alliance for Children’s Rights).”
“The child- facing version of the convention says: “I have the right to be listened to and taken seriously.” However, the 1980 act allows children to be withdrawn from religious activities in schools without their consent and without even taking their views into account. That is clearly contrary to the convention, and I welcome this opportunity to correct that. However, the bill, as drafted, suggests that the Scottish Government’s determination to ensure rights compatibility goes only so far. It allows a young person to opt back in if they have been opted out of those activities, but not to opt out themselves. That directly contradicts the Scottish Government’s draft child rights scheme, which says that it wants to give children “the knowledge and confidence to use their rights”.”
“This Parliament has taken significant strides in promoting children’s rights. After three years of delay caused by a petty UK Government, last year we enshrined the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scots law. Previously, my Green colleague John Finnie ensured that all children are protected from physical assault under the guise of so-called discipline, even from their parents, yet we have so much further to go. Our age of criminal responsibility is just 12—higher than in some other parts of the world but lower than in many countries. It is lower than the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child’s recommended age of 16, and even lower than its absolute minimum of 14. The bill concerns another area in which children’s rights are not fully respected.”
“As I said in my initial answer, they were about offering flexibility in honouring an existing housing infrastructure fund that had not been drawn down. In fact, that was not doable, and we ended up by offering flexibility through the affordable homes supply programme, which allowed the council to create headroom elsewhere. That was a specific response to an Aberdeen-specific case. However, as I said in my initial answer, I will consider requests for flexibility within existing budgets from any council with RAAC-affected residents.”
“It has failed to provide that thus far. In the meantime, I will continue to consider requests for flexibility in existing budgets. Maggie Chapman: Last month, Aberdeen City Council told Torry home owners that they would be offered the full value of their homes before RAAC was discovered, given the £10 million fund that the Scottish Government had made available. However, in the worst-affected city—Dundee— there is still no RAAC fund. Home owners in Dundee and Angus are wondering why they are still waiting for information and support. When will the cabinet secretary announce support for RAAC- affected home owners who face financial ruin in more ways than one in Dundee and Angus? Màiri McAllan: We have to be clear that the arrangements that have been reached with Aberdeen City Council were bespoke to Aberdeen.”