Official Report 840KB pdf
Good morning, and welcome to the 10th meeting in 2025 of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. Maggie Chapman and Evelyn Tweed will attend remotely.
The first item of business is consideration of motion S6M-17314, in the name of Tess White, on the removal of Maggie Chapman from office as a member of the committee. I refer members to paper 1 and I invite Tess White to speak to and move her motion.
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 want to express my solidarity with trans and non-binary people across Scotland. I have spoken to many of them over the past weeks and months and they consistently say the same thing: that they feel under attack; that they feel that, as a group, they have been cast as a threat to others when we know that they are not; and that they just want to live their lives as who they are, like any of us do.
I am grateful to the many people—trans and cis—who have been in touch with me over the past two weeks to tell me their stories. It has been devastating to hear about the exclusion and prejudice that they or their loved ones have faced and how worried they are for the future. Some have just been in touch to thank me for standing up for them in this cruellest of culture wars.
A culture war is what is happening. Trans and non-binary people are having their lives weaponised in absolutely dreadful ways and, for the first time in a long time, human rights appear to be going backwards. We are already seeing implications for women too, with challenges to our bodily autonomy, our abortion rights and our right to exist as we wish, rather than according to socially imposed views of femininity or beauty.
The Good Law Project and others have produced detailed analyses of the questions that are raised by the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s interim statement that was produced on Friday evening—and, indeed, the Supreme Court ruling—about compliance with our obligations under international human rights law. I will not go into that in detail now; we will spend time discussing that in due course.
This debate is about what I said in response to the Supreme Court ruling. I have never questioned the court’s right to make the ruling that it did, but that does not mean that I must agree with it. I do not, and I am very concerned about the impact that it will have and is already having. Trans and non-binary people just want to be able to live their lives like any of us, without the fear of prejudice or violence, but they are now concerned about how their lives and rights will be affected by the ruling.
I have stood up for and advocated for trans and non-binary people and I always will. That is not just because it is the right thing to do; it is also my job to stand up for my constituents. All of us have constituents who are trans or non-binary. Other constituents have trans or non-binary children, parents, siblings and friends. They deserve representation as who they are.
I will not stop being a vocal trans ally. That is what I was doing in Aberdeen nearly 10 days ago, as I had done in Dundee the day before, and as I have done many times over the years on our streets and in our Parliament. Thousands of LGBTQIA+ people and their allies gathered on our streets after the Supreme Court verdict because they were angry, afraid and uncertain of what lies ahead for them and their loved ones.
We know that our courts reflect our society. We have probably all criticised court judgments in the past when racist or homophobic laws were upheld, when women did not get justice for the abuse and violence that they had faced, or when coal miners were convicted of offences during the miners strike of the 1980s. Just a couple of years ago, this very Parliament pardoned all those who were convicted during the strike with the Miners’ Strike (Pardons) (Scotland) Act 2022. That is not to say that the courts did not have the constitutional right to make those judgments—of course they did. However, we would all surely hope that those rulings would be made differently if they were to be made today.
This ruling did not happen in a vacuum; it happened with a backdrop of a culture war that has seen trans people and their loved ones being targeted and demonised by too many politicians and by large parts of the media. However, as politicians, we must use our voices to speak out when we see rights being removed or injustices faced by anyone, and perhaps especially when minoritised communities are threatened by societal prejudice. We not only have the right of freedom of expression to be able to speak out; we have the obligation to speak out.
I do not expect all MSPs on the committee to agree with my views on the ruling or about trans rights more generally, but I hope that members will uphold my right to them.
Lord David Hope, who served as the Lord President of the Court of Session and first deputy president of the Supreme Court—and who is not a Scottish Green Party member—said of me:
“I do not think that she should stand down or be removed from her post but she should be more careful with her language.”
I will let members be the judge of that.
09:45However, this is not about me—it is about what message our Parliament sends, and what we do for people who feel under attack and who are worried about what the future holds.
Finally, I am sorry that I am not with the committee in person, but I am at the Scottish Trades Union Congress annual congress in Dundee. Congress opened yesterday with a clear statement of welcome to, and inclusion of, trans people. The STUC’s general secretary, Roz Foyer, has expressed grave concerns about the impacts and effects on trans and non-binary people of the Supreme Court ruling, and trade unionists from across the country spoke passionately in support of trans and non-binary people, expressing solidarity in the face of the onslaught that they face. I am proud to be a trade unionist, just as I am proud to be a trans ally.
I thank my colleague Tess White for lodging the motion, which recommends
“that the Parliament remove Maggie Chapman MSP from office as a member of the Committee.”
I agree with the points that Tess White has made and I will vote for the motion.
As parliamentarians, it is our duty to set an example for the people of Scotland. After all, our constituents chose us to be their voice and represent their interests in the Scottish Parliament. Unfortunately, the shocking behaviour that we witnessed on 20 April from Maggie Chapman MSP shows that she is not fit for the role. Maggie Chapman, MSP and deputy convener of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, with regard to the UK Supreme Court judgment on the definition of the word “woman”, said:
“We say not in our name to the bigotry, prejudice and hatred that we see coming from the Supreme Court”.
That is shocking behaviour that is not appropriate for a member of the Parliament, let alone for the deputy convener of this committee, which deals with matters relating to civil justice and to equality. Therefore, her position is untenable.
I was privileged enough to witness the UK Supreme Court judgment in the For Women Scotland Ltd v the Scottish Ministers case in person in London two weeks ago. I was sitting in the courtroom as Lord Hodge eloquently delivered the court’s unanimous decision. He used understandable, measured and balanced language, free of legal jargon—that was a sentiment that was shared by many people whom I spoke to.
In this country, our judiciary is tasked with upholding the law and acting as a check on Government powers. Its role is not to make law but, rather, to uphold, apply and interpret it. Under the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008, members of the Scottish Parliament
“must uphold the continued independence of the judiciary”.
Members of this committee, which also covers matters of civil justice, ought to know that.
For Maggie Chapman to say that “bigotry, prejudice and hatred” come from our Supreme Court is not just irresponsible; it is dangerous. Roddy Dunlop KC, the dean of the Faculty of Advocates, has said in a letter to the committee, on behalf of the faculty’s office-bearers, that Maggie Chapman’s comments
“constitute an egregious breach of Ms Chapman’s duties to uphold the continued independence of the judiciary ... and create a risk of danger to the Members of the Court themselves.”
The faculty has come out to say that it does not believe that Maggie Chapman’s words
“allow her to properly discharge her responsibilities as Deputy Convenor in line with the impartiality requirements”.
Judgments are there to be welcomed and respected, and there is no place for such language. We have seen examples from around the world in which death threats have been issued against members of the judiciary; we cannot have such examples repeated here. Scott Wortley, a legal academic from the University of Edinburgh, said that although judgments are subject to criticism,
“any legitimate criticism should be made while respecting the independence of the judiciary and the importance of upholding the rule of law.”
When asked to apologise for making the comments, and whether she was considering her position on the committee, Maggie Chapman did not apologise but said:
“There are plenty of politicians in Scotland who are prepared to stand up and represent people with transphobic views, people who don’t think trans people should be out in public, should be allowed to use public facilities, like the rest of us do.”
Labelling supporters of the ruling and all those in favour of single-sex spaces transphobic is reckless, does a great disservice to women and women’s rights advocates and is a perfect example of gaslighting.
I have received correspondence from many constituents who have expressed concerns over Maggie Chapman’s flare-up. Today, the public is watching. We all have a duty as members of the committee to decide whether we continue to have people like Maggie Chapman on the committee, tainting the good work that we all do here. That cannot be the face of an equalities committee.
I fully support Tess White’s motion and encourage members to vote in favour of it.
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate as we consider the motion before us this morning.
The motion has been lodged under the standing orders of the Parliament, and it is important that we have a full and open debate. I recognise that debating and deciding on such a motion is challenging, as it relates to a colleague and their responsibilities in the committee, so I wish to address my comments to all colleagues in a respectful tone. We should deal in factual information and provide an opportunity for the deputy convener to clarify her position to the committee and more widely. I have not provided commentary on the motion prior to the debate in the committee, because I believe that the proper place to have the debate and to reach a conclusion is in the Parliament.
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has handed down a judgment in the case of For Women Scotland Ltd v the Scottish Ministers, stating that the meaning of the terms “sex”, “man” and “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex. That judgment was unanimous.
Since that judgment, there have understandably been a number of different reactions from different organisations, politicians, academics, lawyers and individuals in society. Many have welcomed the clarity of the judgment and the definitions that are in it, particularly for women and sex-based rights. Many have expressed concerns about what the judgment will mean in practice for transgender people and their lives.
Throughout debates on the broader issues, the discourse has often been heated, and I have consistently said in all my contributions on those issues that applying general pejorative terms to whole groups of people is wrong and does a disservice to our debates. I note, once again, that when giving the opinion of the court, Lord Hodge stated that the court
“counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another. It is not.”
Since the judgment, people have exercised their freedom of speech to voice opinions on the judgment. That is, of course, entirely right in our democracy. MSPs around the committee table and across the Parliament have done likewise. However, in doing so, it is incumbent on us all to recognise and respect the jurisdiction of the court, the independence of the judiciary and the fundamental importance of upholding the rule of law. Indeed, we have a solemn duty as parliamentarians to do so.
As we have already heard, in the comments that she made in Aberdeen, the deputy convener referred to
“the bigotry, prejudice and hatred that we see coming from the Supreme Court and from so many other institutions in our society.”
Although I acknowledge the passionate reactions to the judgment, as I have previously outlined, I was concerned to read such a statement from the deputy convener, which appears to suggest that the institution of the Supreme Court and therefore its judges are engaged in bigotry, prejudice or hatred in relation to their judgments.
I was further concerned by the correspondence that the committee received from the Faculty of Advocates and the response of the Law Society of Scotland. The faculty sought to remind members that
“the Supreme Court—indeed, all judges—are in post to apply the law. They do not take sides. They decide without fear or favour, consistently with the judicial oath.”
The Law Society said:
“The Supreme Court’s task is to consider the most difficult and complex legal questions and it must be able to do so without fear or favour.”
I agree with those statements.
In the past, I was equally concerned when the Supreme Court was accused by members of Parliament of showing partiality in determining judgments on, for example, the consent of the United Kingdom Parliament in relation to triggering article 50 or in relation to the legality of the prorogation of the UK Parliament.
The Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee has an important role in this Parliament, not only on matters of equalities and human rights but on civil justice. It is the civil justice role that I am most interested in talking about today. It is our job to scrutinise the administration and delivery of civil justice in the Scottish courts and in relation to the Supreme Court as the final court of appeal.
Our scrutiny role is important but so, too, is our role in legislation, given that we recently considered a bill at stages 1 and 2 to amend the regulation of legal services in Scotland, which included taking evidence from the most senior members of the judiciary.
For us to be effective and our role properly carried out, all members must leave no doubt that we support the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. To that end, it would be immensely helpful to me if the deputy convener would take this opportunity, on record in the committee, to withdraw her remarks relating to the Supreme Court; to state her respect, without qualification, for the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary; and to acknowledge the concerns that have been raised with this committee by the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society with regard to her remarks.
I appreciate that the deputy convener has already made a statement. However, I do not feel that it has done what I have just set out, so I am willing to give way to her, if appropriate, convener, if she wishes to clarify anything at this point.
There are a few members who still want to come in. I will bring them in, and then I will ask Ms Chapman if she wishes to come in at that point. Tess White will sum up at the end.
Thank you, convener. The deputy convener and I have served on this committee together since 2023. There are areas on which we agree and there are areas on which we disagree. She has a right to express her views on a wide range of policies in relation to her constituents, her region and her party, and I recognise that many people view her as an advocate and a passionate voice for them.
However, fundamentally, I believe that, to retain confidence, particularly in terms of the committee’s role on civil justice, she must take the opportunity to clarify the points that I have raised. If she takes the opportunity to do so sufficiently, I believe that we can move forward as a committee. Otherwise, we might have no choice but to refer the matter for the consideration of the whole Parliament, with a recommendation for her removal.
I will be brief in my remarks. I certainly accept the decision of the Supreme Court. It is correct that we can agree or disagree with what Maggie Chapman has said or believes. It has been helpful that Maggie Chapman has confirmed that she was not speaking in her capacity as deputy convener of the committee and that she was speaking up on behalf of her constituents. I feel that we have no control over what any member of the committee says in their personal capacity. It would be helpful if Maggie spoke again to clarify the points that were raised by our colleague Paul O’Kane.
I do not consider this to be a matter for the committee to decide on, and I cannot support the motion that Tess White has lodged. I will oppose it, but I will listen to further contributions by other members.
I thank you and the committee, convener, for welcoming me to the committee and giving me the opportunity to speak.
As members will be aware, I have supported the motion of my colleague Tess White. Maggie Chapman, who is deputy convener of the committee, must be removed. She has undermined judicial independence and breached rules on parliamentary conduct. I was surprised to hear her contribution just now. Maggie Chapman may not agree with the Supreme Court judgment, but it appears that she has doubled down; she is conflating her own opinion with the interpretation of law. This is not, as Paul O’Kane says, a triumph of one or more groups. This is about Maggie Chapman’s beliefs and opinions.
10:00We could easily say that women have been victims of a personal culture war. Women have been accused of misogyny and sexism; they have been accused of racism and bigotry and could legitimately make the same claims that we are part of a cruel culture war. That has nothing to do with this matter. I agree with my colleague Pam Gosal—this is gaslighting, Maggie Chapman.
The committee is taking a highly unusual step today. Calling for an MSP to step down is a serious matter. We have been here before over lesser matters, but never has the Parliament seen such an egregious dereliction of duty. The convener will be aware that I was a member of this committee when Ms Chapman was sanctioned for breaching the MSP code of conduct by failing to disclose her former role as chief executive officer of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, while questioning the CEO of Rape Crisis Scotland. That breach, in a way, was small fry compared with what is before us today. I do not have a vote; other members have a vote.
We are discussing what Maggie Chapman said in Aberdeen on 20 April this year. We have heard that she declared to an assembled group:
“And we say not in our name to the bigotry, prejudice and hatred that we see coming from the Supreme Court and from so many other institutions.”
We will all be aware that when lawyers take their oath to do right to all manner of people without fear or favour, affection or ill will, they mean it. Judges make decisions by interpreting the law, and to use the language that Ms Chapman used implies that Lord Hodge and his colleagues were not simply doing their job in interpreting the law, but bringing so-called prejudice, bigotry and hatred to their decision.
In response to Ms Chapman’s shameful attacks, as we have heard, Roddy Dunlop KC, dean of the Faculty of Advocates, considered it his duty to speak out in defence of the judiciary. The faculty considers the comments made by Ms Chapman appalling and highlights that the Supreme Court and all judges are in the role to apply the law and not to take sides.
The most serious of points made by the faculty are that Ms Chapman has failed to uphold the independence of the judiciary, which members have talked about this morning, and that her comments
“create a risk of danger to the Members of the Court themselves.”
The First Minister, John Swinney, agrees that her comments were wrong and that she was wrong to challenge the independence of the judiciary, so I am surprised to hear that Marie McNair does not support Tess White’s motion.
Many people will try to defend Maggie Chapman’s comments by referencing the right to freedom of speech. We live in a democracy, but as the legal academic Scott Wortley said,
“any legitimate criticism should be made while respecting the independence of the judiciary and the importance of upholding the rule of law.”
In summary, why should Maggie Chapman stand down? She has not carried out her parliamentary duties in an appropriate manner, consistent with the standing of this Parliament. She has brought the Parliament into disrepute. Her comments are a direct attack on the independence of the judiciary. She cannot carry out her duties as deputy convener of this committee in line with impartiality requirements in guidance that is set by the Parliament, and in that vein, witnesses may be reluctant to partake in committee proceedings.
I call on all committee members to put personal loyalties and their personal opinions aside and to act to uphold the integrity and impartiality of the committee and vote to support Tess White’s motion to remove Maggie Chapman as a member of the committee.
Maggie Chapman has indicated that she would like to accept the committee’s invitation to speak.
I will just say a couple of words in response to members’ contributions. First, Rachel Hamilton said that I was the CEO of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, but that is not true. I was chief operating officer at the point of my election. At the time of the witness session in question, that connection had long ceased. I just want to correct the record there.
Pam Gosal said that we have been chosen by our constituents
“to be their voice and represent their interests”.
That is precisely what I have been doing: representing trans and non-binary constituents and their friends and loved ones who live in the region that I am privileged to represent.
In response to Paul O’Kane’s challenge to me, I say categorically that I do respect the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary; I have no problems in confirming either of those things. I have never questioned the Supreme Court’s right—its constitutional right—to make the judgments that it has made on this, or any, matter.
Finally, I repeat the words of Lord Hope:
“I do not think that she should stand down or be removed from her post but she should be more careful with her language.”
Convener, I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate so far—I know that Tess White will sum up in a moment. I am grateful for members’ thoughts and comments and I will, of course, reflect on and consider what has been said this morning.
I invite Tess White to wind up and indicate whether she wishes to press or withdraw her motion.
Thank you, convener. May I give Maggie Chapman one final opportunity to show remorse and apologise for the accusations that she made?
Tess White, I ask you to sum up and press or withdraw your motion—
I would like to ask Maggie Chapman, one final time before I move to close, whether she is going to apologise.
Convener, do you want me to come in?
Maggie Chapman, are you satisfied that you have said what you needed to say, or do you wish to take up Tess White’s invitation to speak?
I have said what I wish to say.
Okay—thank you. Tess White, please continue.
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.
The question is, that motion S6M-17314, in the name of Tess White, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland)(Lab)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Motion disagreed to.
I suspend the meeting for five minutes to allow us to bring in our witnesses and commence the rest of today’s business.
10:12 Meeting suspended.Air ais
AttendanceAir adhart
Decision on Taking Business in Private