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 9 of 17.
“I begin by saying clearly that no one should suffer or die because they cannot access the support that they need to recover from addiction. Every life lost to drugs or alcohol is a tragedy and a reflection not of individual failure but of collective neglect. That is why we in the Scottish Greens whole- heartedly share the motivation behind the bill, which is driven by compassion and a desire to ensure that people who are in the grip of addiction are not abandoned by the systems that are meant to help them. We absolutely agree with that goal, but, regrettably, given the evidence that the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee heard, much of which has been rehearsed today, we are concerned that the bill will not and cannot achieve what it promises.”
“That supports a range of community justice services, including diversion from prosecution, alternatives to remand, and community sentencing. That will help us to ensure that justice social work can continue to provide alternatives to custody in the community, when it is deemed appropriate.”
“The minister outlined investment to expand secure capacity. Will she detail parallel investment in community-based and preventative services that are designed to reduce the need for secure placements in the first place? Will she say more about how the joint action plan with COSLA will ensure that local authorities are resourced to intervene earlier so that secure accommodation is genuinely a last resort? Natalie Don-Innes: Absolutely—the budget for 2025-26 includes an additional £11 million of support for community justice services and on- going work to further enable a shift away from the use of custody, which brings the total investment in community justice to £159 million, with a total increase in investment of £25 million over two years.”
“That is what Scotland can and must be. 15:14”
“Let us also be clear that the so-called hostile environment—a policy that was deliberately designed to make life unbearable for immigrants— has directly forced thousands into poverty, destitution and homelessness. That cruelty is not accidental; it is intentional and shameful. It is also the logical outcome of Tory ideology—an ideology that dehumanises immigrants and blames them for problems that stem from decades of political failure in this country. This Parliament should stand up and reject the motion outright. We must refuse to be dragged into the gutter of xenophobia. We must insist that our response to global displacement be one of humanity, dignity and shared responsibility. Instead of building walls and stirring fear, let us build homes. Let us build communities that are strong because they are compassionate, inclusive and just.”
“The Conservatives’ attempt to connect the suspension of local connection rules to the so- called unsustainable levels of asylum seekers in Scotland is dishonest and divisive. Let us remember why those rules were suspended: it was to make sure that people experiencing homelessness could access accommodation wherever they were without being trapped by bureaucratic borders. It was an act of fairness and solidarity. It prevented people from being abandoned when they were in crisis simply because of an administrative line on a map. If Scotland is seeing rising homelessness, that is because of Westminster’s austerity, Scotland’s constrained housing budgets and a failure by successive Governments to build public and affordable homes. It is because housing has been treated as a commodity, not a human right.”
“Many are here because of wars and crises that the UK has helped to create or to fuel through its foreign policy, arms sales and decades of imperial intervention that have destabilised regions and destroyed lives. To now turn around and demonise those very people for seeking safety is the height of moral hypocrisy. Scotland has long prided itself on being a place of welcome and a country that believes in compassion, solidarity and justice. New Scots have contributed so much to our culture, our economy, our national health service, our universities and our communities. Refugees are doctors, carers, teachers, artists, friends and family members. They enrich our nation in every possible way, every single day.”
“Seeking asylum is a human right, protected in international law— Russell Findlay would do well to remember that— by the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, which the UK helped to draft and which it is legally bound to uphold. Russell Findlay: Will the member take an intervention? Maggie Chapman: No. People fleeing persecution, war and disaster do not lose their humanity when they cross a border. They are exercising their right to seek sanctuary, yet the Tory motion treats them as a problem to be stopped—as if people escaping conflict and trauma are somehow responsible for the state of Britain’s public finances or local housing systems. What a grotesque distortion of reality that is. We know why people are coming here.”
“This motion is one of the most shameful pieces of political theatre that we have seen in the chamber for some time. It is steeped in cruelty, ignorance and xenophobia. It attempts to pit neighbour against neighbour and to scapegoat refugees for a housing crisis that is the direct result of decades of political choices—choices made by Conservative and other UK Governments that have imposed austerity, underfunded public services, deregulated housing and allowed landlords and developers to profit while ordinary people have struggled to find a safe home. Let us be absolutely clear: there is no such thing as an illegal human being.”
“Let us pass the bill this evening, not as the end of a process but as the beginning of lasting change. 16:04”
“Scottish Women’s Aid and Victim Support Scotland have stressed that the reviews must be independent, properly resourced and inclusive. The voluntary and specialist sectors—those that are closest to survivors and families—must have a guaranteed seat at the table. I welcome the Scottish Government’s assurances that that will be reflected in statutory guidance. For me, justice must be feminist, restorative and rooted in compassion. It must not only punish harm but work to prevent it and to build systems that protect, heal and repair. As we have heard this afternoon, the bill does not do everything, but it moves us forward in the right direction. It offers a foundation on which to build a justice system that is responsive to people’s lives and experiences.”
“It has also reminded us that victims must be kept informed of developments, including any changes to charges or indictments. In this case, communication is not a courtesy but a right. Part 2 of the bill, which creates a statutory model for domestic homicide and suicide reviews, is long overdue. Scottish Women’s Aid and others have campaigned for it for almost a decade. They have called for a framework that allows us to learn, with honesty and care, from the most devastating cases of domestic abuse and coercive control. The reviews will not undo tragedy, but they will help to prevent repetition. They will shine a light on where systems fail in housing, policing, health and in the co-ordination between those and other services.”
“It can make participation possible for those who would otherwise struggle to attend in person. We must ensure that the reforms are delivered in a way that enhances accessibility and choice. Modernisation must never become a barrier to justice—it must open doors, not close them. That is why I welcome the Government’s commitment to reviewing the impact of virtual attendance and to working with organisations such as Victim Support Scotland and Scottish Women’s Aid to ensure that trauma-informed practice is embedded in every part of the justice process. I also welcome Liam Kerr’s work in that area. Victim Support Scotland has also made it clear that victims and witnesses now expect flexibility and that taking it away would be a backward step.”
“I am pleased that, through its reforms to criminal procedure and the creation of domestic homicide and suicide reviews, the bill represents progress towards a system that listens, learns and acts with integrity. As we have heard, part 1 of the bill contains reforms that make permanent many of the emergency measures that were introduced during the pandemic, including digital submissions, virtual attendance and electronic documentation. Those might sound procedural but, as Victim Support Scotland has reminded us, they have made a real difference for victims and witnesses by reducing delays, cutting travel time and cost, and improving the smooth running of proceedings. The ability to give evidence virtually can spare victims the trauma of being in the same courtroom as the accused.”
“Before I begin, I remind colleagues of my entry in the register of members’ interests. I worked for a rape crisis centre when I was elected in 2021. Today we reach the final stage of the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill, which is both technical and deeply human. At its heart lies the question of how we can make our justice system not only faster and more efficient but more compassionate, equitable and restorative—a more humane system that upholds fairness, care and compassion for everyone it touches. The bill offers us a step in that direction. It speaks to a modern Scotland that recognises that justice must evolve to meet people where they are in the 21st century and in the realities of their lives.”
“Angela Constance: Amendment 50 is a technical amendment that will ensure that the review oversight committee and any case review panel chairs who are appointed as part of the review infrastructure provide the Scottish ministers with “such assistance as they reasonably request” in the preparation of guidance on the functions of the review oversight committee and case review panels. That will ensure that the expertise and knowledge of the members of the review oversight committee and of case review panel chairs will inform the development and amendment of guidance, ensuring that it is always of the highest standard. I move amendment 50.”
“Amendment 47 will broaden the information that is required to be included as part of the reporting requirements, so that the periodic reports will be guaranteed to include the number of notices that the Lord Advocate gives under section 18, which is about pausing, discontinuing or resuming a review, and any reasons that are given under section 18(3) in connection with those notices. That will provide further transparency about how the review process is operating. I move amendment 47. Amendment 47 agreed to. Amendments 48 and 49 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to. Section 25—Guidance by the Scottish Ministers The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 11 is entitled “Part 2 reviews: guidance”. Amendment 50, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is the only amendment in the group.”
“Angela Constance: Amendment 49 will place a requirement on the Scottish ministers to consult with the chair of the review oversight committee, the deputy chair, the case review panel chairs and such other persons as ministers consider appropriate in the preparation of periodic reports. That will ensure that the periodic reports reflect the views of those operating the review model, and it is a response to the views of the domestic homicide and suicide review task force and stakeholders, who want to ensure the independence of the process.”
“They adjust the structure of the bill, splitting section 22 into two, in recognition of the extra material that is being added to it. I move amendment 38. Amendment 38 agreed to. Amendments 39 to 43 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to. Section 23—Requirement to respond to report recommendations Amendment 44 moved—[Angela Constance]— and agreed to. Section 24—Periodic reports Amendments 45 and 46 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 10 is entitled “Part 2 reviews: periodic reports”. Amendment 47, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendment 49.”
“In relation to deceased individuals, although data protection legislation applies only to the data of living individuals, there are strong ethical and practical reasons to treat the information of deceased persons in published reports with the same level of care as we treat the information of the living. That is why deceased individuals have been added under amendment 41. In the light of these changes, amendment 40 will replace the current absolute duty in section 22(9) with a duty to take all reasonable measures to ensure that a person for whom anonymity is needed is not identifiable. The change acknowledges the unpredictable nature of indirect identification and aims to achieve a balance between transparency and privacy. Finally, the remaining amendments in this group are technical.”
“That is being done because a blanket approach to anonymity will no longer work now that the exception for consent is being removed. A blanket approach would prevent, for example, panel members from being able to identify themselves as the authors in the report that they produce, or the citation of a published author whose work has informed understandings of domestic abuse. The amendments will ensure that review reports support learning and accountability without compromising privacy, safety or ethical standards. They also respond to concerns raised by the committee in its stage 1 report and reflect the evolving understanding of information governance in sensitive contexts.”
“At present, the bill will prohibit the identification of any “living individual” in a published report unless they have consented to being identified. Following discussions with the Information Commissioner’s Office and experts in the information governance delivery group as part of the domestic homicide and suicide review task force, it has become evident that relying on consent as a lawful basis for identifying individuals in published reports is problematic. My amendments will remove the possibility of giving consent to being identified. They will also modify the duty to prevent identification to one of taking “all reasonable steps to” prevent identification, and they will extend protections to living and deceased individuals. In addition, amendment 41 will more specifically attach the anonymity requirement to those who need it.”
“If the review report includes unpublished material, sharing must follow the protocol that will be established under section 19, with options to redact or anonymise content. Recipients will have to keep such material confidential and not share it further. Any such sharing would therefore be done in a controlled and purposeful manner and could be done only in order to support learning that is aimed at safeguarding those who are affected by abusive domestic behaviour or promoting the wellbeing of victims. Amendment 42 will strengthen the learning and accountability framework while ensuring adherence to the established protocol and protecting the privacy of those who are involved. Secondly, in relation to the matter of anonymisation in published reports, amendments 40 and 41 are designed to strengthen the current safeguards.”
“The material can be redacted or anonymised “as the person considers appropriate” and an extract from a report can be shared where that is all that is needed. At the same time as sharing the draft reports, the chair in question must “provide a copy” of the material that is shared “to the Scottish Ministers for information”. Amendment 38 will ensure the accuracy of reports, which is essential, and it will allow for any necessary changes to be made in advance of finalisation. Amendment 42 will enable the chair of the review oversight committee and the Scottish ministers to share approved review reports, or parts of them, with persons whom they deem to be appropriate. That is important in order to ensure that lessons are shared appropriately even if there are good reasons why the report cannot be published.”
“Amendment 38, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 39 to 45 and 51. Angela Constance: My amendments in this group deal with two matters that relate to case review reports. First, as part of the review process, it is important that we are able to share reports with relevant bodies in confidence, where relevant and appropriate. To ensure that that is deliverable, amendment 38 will allow the chair of the review oversight committee and the chair of a case review panel to share draft review reports—in confidence and in accordance with the protocol that will be established under section 19—with “any person ... whom the chair in question considers it appropriate” in order to check the accuracy of such reports prior to finalisation.”
“Amendments 24, 27, 34 and 35 will operate in conjunction with secondary legislation that will be introduced—specifically, an affirmative order under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Together, these amendments will enable this information about spent convictions to be obtained under section 20, through the duty to co-operate provisions, and section 21, relating to the provision of information, notwithstanding the fact that it would not be admissible in evidence in court. I move amendment 24. 15:30 Amendment 24 agreed to. Amendments 25 to 33 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to. Section 21—Provision of information Amendments 34 to 37 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to. Section 22—Reports on case reviews The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 9 is entitled “Part 2 reviews: case review reports (sharing and anonymisation)”.”
“The issue related to review panels not being able to access information about spent convictions and alternatives to prosecution, which might be pertinent in relation to individuals involved in the abuse that led to a reviewable death. Access to that information is important if we are to fully understand the circumstances surrounding such deaths. The case review panel needs to be able to establish the whole relevant history, which might sometimes go back many years. The absence of that information would diminish the ability to learn from the full circumstances and apply the lessons going forward. Importantly, a case review panel is not determining anybody’s legal rights and liabilities, so there is no direct impact on the person convicted from that information being disclosed to a review.”
“Section 19—Protocol in relation to interaction with criminal investigations etc Amendments 19 to 21 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to. Section 20—Duty on public authorities to co- operate Amendments 22 and 23 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 8 is entitled: “Part 2 reviews: obtaining information about spent convictions”. Amendment 24, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 27, 34 and 35. Angela Constance: Following stage 2 of the bill, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service highlighted a barrier in relation to the sharing of information for review purposes.”
“Finally, amendments 15 and 16 make changes to section 15(4) to provide that, if one notifying body revokes its notification of a death as being reviewable but another has not done so, the review process under section 16 still proceeds. That will ensure that we can account for the possibility of differing views among notifying bodies and disapply in those circumstances the current requirement that any revocation of a notification halts further consideration of the death. I move amendment 14. Amendment 14 agreed to. Section 15—Review of notification Amendments 15 and 16 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to. Section 16—Determination as to whether to hold a review Amendment 17 moved—[Angela Constance]— and agreed to. After section 16A Amendment 18 moved—[Angela Constance]— and agreed to.”
“The inclusion of the PIRC will trigger the need for changes elsewhere in the bill, so amendments 19 to 21, 29, 48 and 53 ensure consistency across the bill and acknowledge the PIRC’s new role as a notifying body. These amendments require the PIRC to be a party to the protocol under section 19 and subject to the duty to co-operate under section 20. The PIRC office will also be added to the list in paragraph 3 of the schedule, so that current and recent former commissioners and employees will not be able to apply for relevant offices under the bill, thereby avoiding conflicts of interest and helping to ensure independence within the review process. Various other minor consequential adjustments are also made.”
“This is an important addition that responds to a direct request from the PIRC that it be included, and it also recognises the unique nature of some of the cases that the PIRC and staff deal with, which fall outside traditional notification routes. Since the PIRC does not currently share details of those cases with Scottish ministers or the directing policing body during investigations, including the PIRC within the bill is necessary in order to ensure a clear and direct route for the deaths to be notified. This addition is also supported by Police Scotland, which has stated that the addition will help to strengthen the review model.”
“My officials have already begun those pivotal discussions with organisations that represent victims and families. I move amendment 13. The Deputy Presiding Officer: No other member is looking to participate. Do you wish to add anything, cabinet secretary? Angela Constance: No, thank you. Amendment 13 agreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 7 is entitled “Part 2 reviews: the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner as a notifying body”. Amendment 14, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 15, 16, 19 to 21, 29, 48 and 53. Angela Constance: My amendment 14 adds the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner—the PIRC—as a notifying body under section 14(5) of the bill. This will require the PIRC to notify the review oversight committee of any death of which it is aware and believes to be reviewable.”
“I thank the cabinet secretary for taking my intervention. I apologise—I was waiting for an opportune moment to break her flow. Can the cabinet secretary confirm exactly what the process is for ensuring that families are kept appropriately informed of whether a review will happen? That is, appropriately, not set out clearly in the amendments, but we all understand that it is really important to keep families up to date. Angela Constance: I very much endorse the view that keeping families who are affected informed needs to be at the very heart of practice whether the decision is that a review will proceed or that it will not. It is important that that is covered in the statutory guidance that will be required to underpin practice and process.”
“On the tranche of releases that were undertaken in February and March this year, following the passing of the Prisoners (Early Release) (Scotland) Bill, 17 individuals returned to custody before the date when they would have been originally released. That is around 5 per cent. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, cabinet secretary. I will need to make progress. I repeat my request for brevity. Other members want to have their shot, and it is looking less likely that that will happen unless we get more succinct questions and answers.”
“Those who are registered with the victim notification scheme will be informed automatically if their perpetrator is being released, but people do not have to be registered with the VNS to access information. I can provide members with information and phone numbers. Those who are not registered on the victim notification scheme have two routes. They can either contact the Scottish Prison Service directly or go through a victim support organisation such as Victim Support Scotland. On the published reports that Ms Chapman is requesting, I advise her that SPS information showed that 61 people who were released as part of the emergency release programme in June and July last year had returned to custody before the date when they would originally have been liberated. That is 13 per cent of those who were released.”
“I thank the cabinet secretary for her statement and for the useful conversations that we have had about the prison population in recent months. Any early release will clearly raise concerns for victims and survivors of crime, and indeed for wider society, especially with respect to reoffending. Has the Scottish Government or the Prison Service carried out any analysis of reoffending for those cohorts of prisoners, given our experience of previous early release programmes, including any lessons learned about what works to reduce reoffending? Angela Constance: I recognise the impact that this announcement will have on victims and victims organisations. I want to emphasise a point that I did not make in my reply to Ms Clark.”
“They do not fully reflect how population growth in Monifieth and the eastern edge of Dundee will increase demand in years to come, and they do not acknowledge the role that Balmossie plays in providing resilience and back-up for neighbouring stations that are already under pressure. The consultation also fails to address—at all— the impact of removing the fire station on the ambulance station. It is a shared joint facility. Closing one will affect the other, and yet we have no information about what those impacts will be. Closing Balmossie would be a short-sighted and dangerous decision. As I said, once stations are shut, they almost never reopen. I, like Mercedes Villalba and others, will continue to stand with the local community and the FBU in saying loudly and clearly that Balmossie must remain open. 16:54”
“Let us not forget the reality of recent events. We have seen too many substantial fires in the Dundee area—incidents in which rapid attendance by local crews who know their areas made all the difference in preventing wider damage and danger. To suggest that Balmossie is surplus to requirement simply does not match the lived reality of those communities. The consultation documents that the fire service presents also fail to tell the whole story. They present figures that focus on averages and projections, but they do not capture the risk of delayed response in high-impact incidents.”
“Residents have made their voices clear in the consultation process. They do not accept that losing Balmossie will somehow leave them safer. They understand what the service means in practice: quicker responses, better cover and greater peace of mind. I attended public meetings about the proposed closure in recent weeks, one of which was organised by the FBU and one of which was a formal consultation meeting arranged by the fire service. Local residents who attended those meetings were clear that they are worried about the safety of their communities, their neighbours and their families should the closure go ahead. They are also worried about the impact of the closure on the firefighters in their communities. They see the strain that SFRS staff are under. They care about the wellbeing of their local fireys.”
“I will turn to the SFRS’s proposed changes to the provision of stations and appliances across the country. We know that once a station is shut, it almost never reopens, and that once an appliance is removed, it is almost never replaced. Balmossie fire station, which serves the communities of Dundee and Angus, faces closure. If that decision were to go ahead, that would be a grave mistake. Balmossie is not an abstract line on a balance sheet; it is a lifeline for the people of Broughty Ferry, Monifieth, Dundee and beyond. It is staffed by skilled and dedicated firefighters who know their community and who can get to emergencies quickly when every second matters. To remove that cover is to leave thousands of people at greater risk. The local community knows that all too well, which is why their opposition to closure is so strong.”
“I do not think that anyone in this chamber believes that our Fire and Rescue Service does not need to change. The minister spoke of better aligning resources to match changing risks that we and our communities face. Several members have mentioned the increasing challenges that our fire service is having to deal with. The increasing frequency and severity of wildfires, coupled with the similarly increasing risk of flooding, means that the jobs that our firefighters have to do are changing. Taken alongside the urgent need to address the demands of the FBU’s decon campaign, we all have our work cut out for us. We have all said—in different ways—that things need to change, so maybe that is an important point that we can agree on this afternoon. However, it is how that change happens that matters.”
“Cuts do indeed leave scars on our firefighters, our communities and our collective safety. We must all work with the FBU and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to stop the cuts, guarantee safe crewing levels and invest in the fire service that Scotland deserves. We owe our firefighters not just gratitude but respect—and respect demands resources. 16:22”
“Firefighters risk their lives in the moment of a blaze, but they also risk their long-term health every time that they put on contaminated kit. The least that we owe them is a workplace that does not poison them. That means investment in equipment, decontamination facilities and safety standards. In my closing speech, I will speak about the potential impacts of the SFRS’s proposed changes to fire services in the North East Scotland region— in particular, the impact on the Balmossie community fire and ambulance station. For now, I will just say that closing Balmossie will increase response times to some communities. Our firefighters are not asking for luxuries. They are asking for the tools, staffing and safety to do their jobs and to save our lives. They are asking us to value their lives as much as they value ours.”
“They are doing more, and they are willing to do even more, but we cannot and must not ask them to do more with less. Role expansion must be matched with proper resourcing, staffing and training; otherwise, it is nothing more than exploitation of their dedication. The FBU’s “Firestorm” report, which was published in 2023, makes that case powerfully. It shows the risks that our communities face if we continue down the road of cuts and underfunding; it shows the scale of the challenge in an era of climate crisis; and it demands that we all listen to the evidence and act accordingly. We must not forget the silent dangers that firefighters face. I have championed the FBU’s decon campaign, which highlights the risks of cancers and other diseases that are linked to contaminants on the job.”
“Pumps are off the run because there are too few firefighters to crew them safely. Response times have gone up from 6 minutes 51 seconds to more than 8 minutes, and, as every firefighter will tell you, those 90 seconds can mean the difference between life and death. The changes that are proposed by the SFRS might not be framed as cuts, but that is how they are understood. We are not trimming fat—we are cutting into the muscle of our fire service, which will leave scars that will last for generations. Let us be clear about the reality of the modern fire service. Firefighters are no longer dealing only with house fires and car accidents. They are tackling climate change on the front line, with more frequent and severe wildfires and devastating floods. They are stepping into medical emergencies.”
“I begin by paying tribute to all of Scotland’s firefighters—our fireys—who put themselves in harm’s way every day to protect us; to their families who live with the knowledge that, when their loved ones leave for work, they might not return; to the control room staff who stay on the phone for as long as it takes, even if that means to the end of someone’s life; and to the Fire Brigades Union, for its tireless work in defending not only its members but the communities that they serve. The FBU is right when it says that cuts leave scars. That is not a slogan—it is the lived reality of communities up and down Scotland. That is why I will support Katy Clark’s motion. Since the creation of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service in 2013, we have lost more than 1,250 firefighter jobs.”
“Although the introduction of Awaab’s law is significant, there is still much more to do to drive up the quality of rented homes. We are in the grip of a housing emergency not because we lack resources or capacity, but because, for four decades, our policies have prioritised profit over people—those who are homeless because of exploding rents and who are fighting for dignity in a system that is stacked against them. Housing instability crushes a person’s spirit—it steals hope, erodes dignity and worsens inequality. We must not create another generation that is resigned to paying too much for too little. Instead, we must create a future in which everyone can say, “I have a home, I am safe and I am respected.” 20:42”
“If properly funded and implemented, the duty for public bodies to prevent homelessness—to step in when risk is first identified rather than when it is too late—will be a potential game changer. Housing first is another game changer. Giving homeless people with complex needs a long-term stable home and offering—but not forcing—health and other support services is tried and tested. It will benefit so many people if the bill takes us closer to removing the cruel concept of intentional homelessness. Allowing someone to be assessed as intentionally homeless is a moral disgrace. Actions that might seem intentional often stem from trauma, violence and disadvantage. It is right that we have made it easier for animal lovers who rent to keep pets and for people to make appropriate adjustments so that they can really feel at home.”
“The Parliament rejected my proposals for rent freezes and rent cuts, and it has opened the door to a range of exemptions. We should not build a two-tier system of protections in which some tenants are shielded and others are left to the mercy of the market. All renters deserve the same stability, no matter what roof they live under. I am pleased that we are improving the evictions process by including more scope for delays during the winter months, although the outright winter ban that the Greens proposed would have been better. No one should live with the threat of eviction at a moment’s notice, and I remain disappointed that Scottish renters will not have the same protections as English renters for the first 12 months of a tenancy.”
“I am so proud that it was the Greens who introduced this bill and that I am another Maggie in the team, making it stronger and bringing back rent controls. This bill, along with the rent controls that it will introduce, is the first stage of the new deal for tenants that the Scottish Greens promised. Renters will know that their rents should never increase by more than 6 per cent. The bill will give them certainty and will help them to better plan their finances and lives. When rent notices are higher than they should be, renters can challenge them, and they will have more time to do so thanks to the Greens. However, the system will not be as strong as it might have been. The bill will lock in above- inflation rent increases without considering the ability of renters to pay.”