Chamber and committees

I would like to ask Maggie Chapman, one final time before I move to close, whether she is going to apologise.

Thank you, convener. May I give Maggie Chapman one final opportunity to show remorse and apologise for the accusations that she made?

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.

You have requested meetings. Have they replied yet?

My first question is for Ms Mulvagh. CESCR called for improved mental health services. How does your organisation view Scotland’s progress on that front?

You said that the summer is the opportunity for the Scottish Government to look at rural proofing and the direction of travel. Is the strategy for a sustainable food programme something that you would like to see placed fairly and squarely at the feet of the Scottish Government?

We are tight for time and, as you say, we could spend a whole session on this issue. Mr McMillan made the point about somebody being locked away for 50 years. That is not good enough and the money could be spent elsewhere. I will not continue that discussion, but the committee is focusing on it.

In response to Lorne Berkley, I note that we are looking at autism. The focus of the committee is on patients who cannot get autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder assessments and on waiting times in child and adolescent mental health services. You are all in agreement that those are huge areas that need to be looked at.

I will go on to my second question. Access to affordable food is a huge issue, and nobody seems to have grasped the ears of that elephant in the room. Ms Mulvagh, you mentioned access to good-quality affordable food. I have a few facts.

Sixty per cent of the food that is consumed on this island is produced on this island, and that has not changed for about 100 years. That is a fact. Another fact is that the majority of people do not achieve the dietary requirements set by the Government, so the quality of food is going down dramatically. Charlie McMillan talked about his 86-year-old father. When we were growing up, we all got used to quality food that was locally sourced, but now the direction of travel is taking us somewhere completely different. If we were to take a holistic human rights-based approach, we should do rural proofing of our food supply to ensure that it is sustainable and affordable. I know that Professor O’Hagan mentioned that theme when we talked about rural proofing of health. However, instead, we have this drive to industrialise our landscape with huge monster pylons and substations. It looks as though our energy strategy and planning are geared towards one thing, and the danger with that direction of travel is that we will not be able to source our food locally or have quality food.

Professor O’Hagan, what are your views on the potential for a human rights-based national food strategy in Scotland, bearing in mind the context of that holistic landscape?

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

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?

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?