Hansard

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.