Chamber and committees

Maybe that is something that the committee could help with.

I have heard what members have said, and I thank Paul O’Kane for his words and for actually stating that we do have a solemn duty to respect the rule of law.

To go back to what Marie McNair MSP said, I respectfully disagree. We can represent the voices of our constituents, but to do so in the manner that Ms Chapman has done, and to weaponise language like that and make it a direct attack, sets a dangerous precedent that says that parliamentarians can act in one way in the committee and in the chamber but that the rules do not apply when we are in our constituency and being the voices of our constituents. I would push back and ask, is that the Scottish National Party position? I would ask the SNP to reconsider that, because it is setting a dangerous precedent.

I would like to make one point of substance, and then I will sum up. There are protections under the Equality Act 2010 for the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—I think that it is very important to say that.

Maggie Chapman, in her remarks this morning, did not engage at all with the statutory duties of an MSP, or with the premise that, as deputy convener of the committee, she has responsibilities under the 2008 act, in particular as the committee oversees civil justice matters.

I say to the convener and the committee that, this morning, we have seen absolutely not a jot of self-awareness. There is no self-reflection at all, which in itself is dangerous. This is not about freedom of expression; it is about the words that Maggie Chapman used to attack the Supreme Court. She has weaponised language and the verdict, rather than engaging with the substance of the verdict. No one is questioning her right to critique, but she has violated very important boundaries and disregarded the rule of law.

The Supreme Court was clear that trans people are protected under the Equality Act 2010, but today we have heard no apology from Maggie Chapman, and no remorse. Therefore, I urge the committee to support my motion, which says that her position on the committee remains untenable.

Will you be requesting a meeting with the Scottish Government to progress that?

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.

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.

I have a final question on this area. During the committee’s evidence session on the proposed but delayed learning disabilities, autism and neurodivergence bill, we heard the alarming figures that 90 per cent of women with learning disabilities have been subjected to sexual abuse and that just under 70 per cent of them experienced sexual abuse before they turned 18. Did the SHRC’s research for this report encounter safeguarding concerns in institutional settings?

You have, Cathy. The buck stops with the Scottish Government and Scottish ministers.

My final question is, what communication have you had with Audit Scotland on that? Are you aware of whether it intends to undertake work on this area following your report? As you say, questions need to be asked.