Holyrood, made browsable

Hansard

Every contribution to the Official Report — chamber and committee — searchable in one place. Pulled from data.parliament.scot, indexed for full-text search, linked through to every MSP.

129
Current MSPs
415
MSPs ever elected
14
Parties on record
2,095,827
Hansard contributions
1999–2026
Coverage span
Official Report

Search Hansard contributions

Clear
Showing 0 of 2,095,827 contributions in session S6, 11 May 2026 – 10 Jun 2026. Latest 30 days: 2,655. Coverage: 12 May 1999 — 09 Jun 2026.

No contributions match those filters.

← Back to list
Committee

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee 29 April 2025

29 Apr 2025 · S6 · Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Item of business
Motion to Remove a Member of the Committee
Hamilton, Rachael Con Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire Watch on SPTV

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.

10:00  

We 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.

In the same item of business

The Convener (Karen Adam) SNP
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 atten...
Tess White (North East Scotland) (Con) Con
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 Mag...
Maggie Chapman (North East Scotland) (Green) Green
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 consi...
Pam Gosal (West Scotland) (Con) Con
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 Commi...
Paul O’Kane (West Scotland) (Lab) Lab
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 standi...
The Convener SNP
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 wi...
Paul O’Kane Lab
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 wh...
Marie McNair (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) SNP
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...
Rachael Hamilton (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Con
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 supporte...
The Convener SNP
Maggie Chapman has indicated that she would like to accept the committee’s invitation to speak.
Maggie Chapman Green
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 ...
The Convener SNP
I invite Tess White to wind up and indicate whether she wishes to press or withdraw her motion.
Tess White Con
Thank you, convener. May I give Maggie Chapman one final opportunity to show remorse and apologise for the accusations that she made?
The Convener SNP
Tess White, I ask you to sum up and press or withdraw your motion—
Tess White Con
I would like to ask Maggie Chapman, one final time before I move to close, whether she is going to apologise.
Maggie Chapman Green
Convener, do you want me to come in?
The Convener SNP
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?
Maggie Chapman Green
I have said what I wish to say.
The Convener SNP
Okay—thank you. Tess White, please continue.
Tess White Con
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....
The Convener SNP
The question is, that motion S6M-17314, in the name of Tess White, be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No.
The Convener SNP
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, ...
The Convener SNP
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 4, Abstentions 0. Motion disagreed to.
The Convener SNP
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. 10:21 On r...