Chamber and committees

My motion, under rule 6.3 of standing orders, calls for the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee to recommend that the Parliament removes Maggie Chapman from office as a member of the committee. It follows Maggie Chapman’s public comments in Aberdeen on 20 April 2025 relating to the Supreme Court judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v the Scottish Ministers. She said:

“We say not in our name to the bigotry, prejudice and hatred that we see coming from the Supreme Court and from so many of our institutions”.

She added:

“Not in our name, never in our name.”

Her outburst was shocking and was a totally unjustified attack on the rule of law. Her comments about the Supreme Court were not just rabble-rousing; they were dangerous and incendiary.

Maggie Chapman has been deputy convener of this committee since June 2021. Our remit as a committee includes civil justice. She is not a private individual; she is a legislator, and, as deputy convener of the committee, there is a high bar for her conduct. Words matter. Tone matters. There must be boundaries around behaviour and rhetoric.

Section 1 of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 is clear: members of the Scottish Parliament must uphold the continued independence of the judiciary. The Faculty of Advocates has written to the committee. It not only restates that legal imperative but highlights the

“risk of danger to the Members of the Court”

created by Maggie Chapman’s comments.

The faculty was unequivocal in its criticism of Ms Chapman. Its correspondence to the committee said that her comments were

“beyond the pale”

and that her behaviour was

“irresponsible and reprehensible”.

It added that her comments fail

“to respect the Rule of Law”

and

“constitute an egregious breach of Ms Chapman’s duties to uphold the continued independence of the judiciary”.

It is worth noting that the correspondence came from the office-bearers of the Faculty of Advocates, including Ruth Crawford KC, treasurer of the faculty, who acted for the Scottish Government in the case in question.

The faculty called on Maggie Chapman to apologise, but no apology has been forthcoming. Instead, Ms Chapman has doubled down on her remarks and refused to reflect on her position. She is devoid of remorse. Given that she has done so, her position as deputy convener and member of this committee is clearly untenable.

Let me be clear that the Supreme Court’s ruling on 16 April was about correctly interpreting the law as it stands. Page 2 of the judgment states as much. The Supreme Court was not making policy but answering a question about statutory interpretation.

As legal academic Scott Wortley, at the University of Edinburgh, said:

“judgments can be legitimately subjected to criticism.”

No one is saying that the committee cannot disagree with a legal outcome or point to the potential consequences of that outcome. However, Scott Wortley adds:

“any legitimate criticism should be made while respecting the independence of the judiciary and the importance of upholding the rule of law.”

Maggie Chapman’s emotive remarks did not pass that test. The judiciary cannot defend itself publicly. However, she used words such as “prejudice” and “hatred”, which suggests animus on the part of the Supreme Court judges. In doing so, she attacked the judges’ perceived motivations rather than critiquing the substance of the ruling. That is why her comments are so deeply disturbing and why Maggie Chapman has failed to discharge her duties as deputy convener of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee.

Words matter, especially when they are weaponised. Rather than take the heat out of the situation, Maggie Chapman doused it in petrol. As a committee that deals with civil justice, we now have a deputy convener who has publicly claimed that Scotland’s apex court is bigoted and prejudiced. How can anyone working in the civil justice system have confidence in the committee following her remarks?

The Scottish National Party First Minister has said that Maggie Chapman’s comments were wrong. The Scottish Labour leader has said:

“when we get into the place of attacking the judiciary ... I think that takes us down a very, very dangerous route.”

MSPs of all persuasions have a duty to respect the rule of law, no matter what they feel about a particular verdict. Think of the precedent that will be set if Maggie Chapman’s comments go without challenge or consequence.

I urge my fellow MSPs to do the right thing today and back my call to recommend that Maggie Chapman be removed from her position as a member and the deputy convener of the committee.

I move,

That the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee recommends that the Parliament remove Maggie Chapman MSP from office as a member of the Committee.

The EHRC’s update was crystal clear, and there is a vacuum right now. Biological males should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities in workplaces or public buildings such as schools or hospitals. That is compulsory. It is the law, as the Supreme Court ruling and the EHRC have clearly laid out, yet John Swinney said yesterday that public bodies should wait for the “legal certainty” of full EHRC guidance in June before implementing new policies.

The Scottish Government is dragging its feet. Will it now finally stop kicking the can down the road and remove biological men from women’s spaces across the public sector—yes or no?

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the interim update from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission on the practical implications of the recent UK Supreme Court judgment in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers. (S6T-02484)

The cabinet secretary talked about that meeting. We all know the truth behind that meeting. Last week, the First Minister stood up in this chamber and said that he would respect the rule of law and abide by the Supreme Court’s ruling. This morning, Scottish National Party MSPs voted to keep Green MSP Maggie Chapman as deputy convener of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee after she shockingly attacked the highest court in the land following the verdict.

Maggie Chapman has shown contempt for the rule of law and has brought the committee into disrepute, when it should be scrutinising the implementation of the Supreme Court’s judgment. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the SNP’s decision to keep her in post on the committee risks undermining trust in Holyrood itself—yes or no?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. This bears no relation to the topical question in hand.

I thank the committee for allowing me to speak. It is important that I support this very important petition. Unwanted sexual choking and non-fatal strangulation in cases of domestic abuse is pervasive among women, particularly women under the age of 40. I would like the committee to note the incredible work that Fiona and Germain Drouet are doing, through their charity EmilyTest, to stop violence against women in educational institutions. Fiona Drouet is here today, at the committee, to stress the importance of this. The committee knows how important the matter is and that she is tracking the petition very closely.

Non-fatal strangulation must be a stand-alone offence. Historically, aggravators have not been applied consistently, and, without the creation of that offence, nothing is likely to change despite any attempts that might be made to educate. Having a legislative add-on would actually minimise the severity and the seriousness of this particular crime, not only for victims and survivors, but for perpetrators. The cabinet secretary references the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill as a potential legislative vehicle. However, thus far, the Scottish Government has made no commitment to amend the bill in accordance with the petition.

I am sure that I speak on behalf of Fiona Drouet in thanking the committee for taking the matter seriously, for having this discussion a month after the last discussion of the petition and for recommending—as you have just said, convener—that the petition be referred to the Criminal Justice Committee, which I think is the right place for it.

It is absolutely clear to the committee that we must tackle this pernicious problem before more lives are irreparably damaged and lost. The lives and safety of young women and girls depend on it, so I thank the committee for recommending that the Criminal Justice Committee take evidence and progress the petition.

It is agreed unanimously. Thank you.

Scotland’s public bodies are, by definition, an extension of the Scottish Government. Last week, the Supreme Court exposed the Scottish Government’s fallacy, but the SNP’s reckless ideology has become embedded, like Japanese knotweed, in our public institutions.

While this smacks of asking an arsonist to extinguish the fire, will the cabinet secretary secure written assurances from all the Government’s public bodies that they will put in place policies complying with the Supreme Court ruling within three months of her meeting with the EHRC?

I, too, thank Douglas Lumsden for securing time for this important debate on NHS Grampian.

Healthcare in the north-east is in crisis as a result of years of chronic underfunding of NHS Grampian by the SNP Government. The health board is financially crippled. The situation is so desperate that it has had to take out a £67.5 million loan from the Scottish Government, bringing the total debt that it owes to £92.2 million. There are huge questions about how that debt will be serviced, given that the health board is already trying to make eye-watering savings. It is almost impossible—how can it pay a debt when it cannot make ends meet?

The reality is that NHS Grampian has been short-changed by more than £260 million—a quarter of a billion pounds—since the SNP got into power. The SNP Government’s parity formula is not worth the paper that it is written on.

That underfunding has resulted in the erosion of community hospitals, closed in-patient facilities and the end of night-time minor injuries units. It also means that NHS Grampian has the lowest bed base in Scotland.

All that has created substantial pressures on hospitals, GPs and the Scottish Ambulance Service, with crews queuing for hours just to get in the door of Aberdeen royal infirmary—a symptom of a system that is stretched beyond its limits.

That is why a critical incident was declared at ARI last November, when patients were diverted from the hospital because the capacity simply was not there. On that day, a dedicated ambulance crew saved the lives of a couple. The crew decided that, if they went to NHS Grampian, the couple probably would not have had their lives saved. The ambulance was diverted—it was blue-lighted all the way through to Dundee and NHS Tayside, double or triple the distance.

Upwards of 3,000 patients in the NHS Grampian area have been languishing on waiting lists for more than two years. The health board’s cancer waiting times are the worst in Scotland, with more than 40 per cent of patients waiting longer than two months to receive their first treatment after being referred. That means lives not just put on hold but put at risk, because we know the pivotal importance of early intervention. It is a ticking time bomb.

Despite the brilliant efforts of NHS staff, NHS Grampian received red ratings for nearly two thirds of its key targets between October and December 2024.

I rarely agree with Kevin Stewart, but, as my colleagues have said, he was spot on when he rightly pointed out that the national treatment centre for Grampian is on ice. The Baird family hospital and the ANCHOR projects have been beset by problems, delays and design issues. What is the SNP Government’s response? To carry out a patchwork of short-term fixes and make empty promises. It is no wonder that Audit Scotland has highlighted the lack of a strategic vision, and that NHS workers are sounding the alarm.

The SNP has failed the north-east. It has failed our NHS. Today, Neil Gray must apologise for the harsh financial conditions that his Government have created for NHS Grampian. My constituents, and the constituents of other MSPs who are speaking on their behalf, deserve better than this.

It is absolutely disgraceful. All the groups that I have mentioned are watching this debate to hear the defence of the SNP Government. They are looking to see who is in the chamber today. It is disgraceful.