Christine Grahame
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding whether any of the support announced in response to the increased cost of heating oil will help the agriculture sector and other rural industries in Scotland that are dependent on that fuel. (S6O- 05695)”
“At a recent First Minister’s question time, I raised the matter of the successful prosecution against the Hamiltons, who are part of the cruel puppy- farm trade. That case was concluded after a five- year investigation by the SSPCA that started when 33 puppies were found in dreadful conditions.”
“Of course, some can go online or use an app, but there will be many who cannot, and for them, it is essential that they speak to a real person at the bank, not a chatbot. Therefore, I would impress upon the Bank of Scotland the need for it to take up my suggestion of reintroducing mobile services, which I understand it abandoned in 2024.”
“My first prize at school was for an essay on animal welfare, but being a vet was out of reach for a girl from a council house scheme. However, I got to the right place at last, chairing the cross- party group on animal welfare for more than a decade, with two acts of Parliament—the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 and the Welfare of Do…”
“I made my first speech in June 1999, and one Mary Scanlon, a Conservative, broke my peroration—I thought that I was doing rather well—with a point of order that challenged the relevance of my contribution to the motion. I was devastated, but I ploughed on.”
“The Scottish Sentencing Council is developing guidelines for environmental and wildlife crime, but companion and farm animal welfare cases, which make up the vast majority of investigations, are not included.”
The complete record
Every one of 727 lines we hold for Christine Grahame, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 15.
“For Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay] Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn] McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Against Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 91, Against 26, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment 81 disagreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Amendment 79, in the name of Jackie Baillie, has already been debated with amendment 66. Jackie Baillie: I am happy to not move the amendment in favour of a UK Labour Government delivering for social care workers in a way that the SNP has simply failed to do for four years. Amendment 79 not moved. Amendment 80 moved—[Jackie Baillie]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 80 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“For Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay] Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn] McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Abstentions Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 50, Against 60, Abstentions 7.”
“On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. Despite the technician’s endeavours, which I applaud, I have been unable to vote. I would have voted no. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Grahame. I will ensure that that vote is recorded.”
“In addition, the proposed new active travel facilities would provide cyclists and pedestrians with their own safer, dedicated alternative routes, by removing the existing barrier and transforming the way across the A720. However, I remind members that 2,773 objections to the proposals were received. Advice on the matter will come to me once the Scottish Government has completed its analysis of the reporter’s recommendations. Although we have received those, I have yet to receive the subsequent advice. When I receive that, I will deal with it. Housing (Scotland) Bill (Homelessness Prevention) 2.”
“I am not surprised that Miles Briggs has launched such a campaign—had he not, I would probably have done so myself. My constituents in the Borders and Midlothian have to use that junction all the time—as do I, because it connects to the A68 and the A7 in my constituency. I add my own concerns about the delay to the project going ahead, because it will only become more costly the longer that the delay continues. Fiona Hyslop: I acknowledge the concerns raised by Christine Grahame and other members. The proposed new flyover arrangement at Sheriffhall would separate local traffic, including public transport, from strategic traffic on the Edinburgh city bypass. It would improve traffic flow on the bypass at that location, which would in turn improve road safety and journey times for users.”
“I hope that, in a small way, that reduces barriers to meeting me as a politician—Ah’m jist a wumman out wi ma shopping. That small change in my approach has helped people to engage with me. If that could be expanded so that people were generally less intimidated by politicians and politics, we might get even more value from the participation process. 16:07”
“In these situations, credibility and trust can be maintained by being open and transparent about how decisions are made.’” That underlines the importance of making clear exactly what the panel is for. The elements that public participation brings out might be valuable, or they might not, but it certainly means that people can genuinely be part of a process of involvement. I agree with members who have said that we must improve engagement with the wider public, particularly through our work on committees. I think that people’s panels are a modest improvement, which I support. That is not a criticism—I am simply being realistic. I will give an example of what we could do. Personally, I hold my surgeries in Tesco, with my messages and my trolley at my side, right next to customer services.”
“It is also about being very open with group members about their expectations, and completing the process by telling them what has happened is important, too. Christine Grahame: Indeed, and that relates to what Oliver Mundell said about the work of panels not being a substitute for the formal processes of Parliament. I refer members to paragraph 66 of the committee’s report, which says: “While deliberative democracy, and participation more generally, are important tools to support the work of the Parliament, we agree ... that ‘public participation will not be suitable for or resolve every issue, and will be one of many evidence sources used to make decisions.”
“I also caution against giving members of the public an expectation that their views might have greater or, indeed, lesser value than those of their elected representatives, which would undermine people’s trust even more. It reminds me of the perceived effects of victim impact statements, which people think will do far more than they actually do—they will not change the conviction that is given at the end of a trial. Therefore, we must make it clear exactly what that the panel process is and is not for. Martin Whitfield: The issue goes back to formulating and framing the question. It is about understanding what that group of people is being asked to do and what the potential effect could be, then taking feedback on what the effect was.”
“What had been black and white became, if members will forgive me, shades of grey—not 50, but shades of grey. I thought that that exercise was successful because it had a narrow focus and because there was detailed discussion about what was appropriate in each case, which led to complex, not simple, judgments. The report supports that, saying in paragraph 65 that “Participants in deliberative processes tend to come out knowing more about the topic and are willing to revise their opinions in light of new information and opportunities to deliberate together. This is in striking contrast to much current public debate, which tends towards polarisation, fixed opinions and misinformation.” I refer members back to the example that I gave from many years ago of the justice committee looking at the penalties for various crimes.”
“You can sometimes get good evidence from that, although it is very difficult for the purposes of the Official Report. That is another method and can be part of the process. I recall something similar to what is being suggested happening when the justice committee held a light-touch, regulated discussion in which mock criminal cases were presented to different groups. It was structured to allow each group to determine the penalty to be given to the accused who was on trial, which meant that there was a narrowly focused topic. At first, there was limited evidence about the background of the accused, and the penalties given were pretty draconian. More background information was then introduced, with the effect being that the judgments about the appropriate disposal changed and were modified.”
“I worry about the danger of participative committees becoming an alternative to having real people taking part in the committee process. They might be an easier way to do things, but I think that we need to look at how our committees gather evidence. As she says, there are good ways of doing that. I worry that our committees might become secondary and that we might lose the chance for those who are most disadvantaged to participate in our Parliament, so we should look at other processes, too. Christine Grahame: I do not think that that is the thrust of the committee’s report. Also, those difficulties are sometimes overcome by having a round-table discussion that allows the various witnesses to interact with very little intervention by members.”
“It was harrowing, but it also allowed the participants to expand on the difficulties they had to overcome in giving evidence to the court. I recall one participant stating that she just wanted her day in court. She was quite taken aback when I gently corrected her and said that she did not want only her day in court but her day in court and a conviction. I gently asked her to consider whether it would be worse to have that day in court followed by a not proven or not guilty verdict. That difficult exchange could have happened only in the security of a private briefing where we could speak freely and it was a two-way street. I will take Mr Mundell’s intervention. Oliver Mundell: I am interested in a point that the member made during an earlier intervention.”
“It is merely shorthand, and we do need to hear from chief executives of national health service boards or from the chief constable of Police Scotland, but it is difficult to hear from what one might term ordinary members of the public. I agree that it is best and the interaction will have most import if the focus is narrow. That can be achieved through private briefings. Oliver Mundell: Will the member accept an intervention? Christine Grahame: Certainly, if I can just finish this particular part of my speech. That can be achieved through private briefings, one of which I chaired when I was convener of the justice committee and we looked at the impact of the court process on victims of rape and sexual assault.”
“The former is information that is inaccurate or wrong when that is not necessarily deliberate, whereas disinformation is deliberately misleading—you cannot take the teacher out of me. Let us not muddle them but, instead, call something a spade when it is one. The report by the Parliament’s Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee— what a title—takes on the tough issue of how to engage with the public at large, which is something that we have been trying to do in this establishment for many years. This Parliament particularly does that through its committees. I have convened four committees, convening justice twice and health twice, and I know how hard it can be through initial calls for evidence, and certainly through calls for oral evidence, to avoid having the usual suspects as witnesses. I do not mean that disparagingly.”
“The situation with council elections is worse; sometimes, just around 25 per cent of those who are entitled to vote do so. In passing, I say to Stephen Kerr that public engagement and accessibility is certainly better here than in Westminster. It is not perfect here, but it is a good sight better. One looming culprit in the erosion of democratic engagement is the ever-present social media, where there is little accountability for content and where serious political issues can be, and are, reduced to a Twitter exchange. That cannot, in any shape or form, be defined as a debate. Whatever one thinks of the Beeb, it at least has to aim for journalistic standards. I here make the pedantic distinction between misinformation and disinformation.”
“Oh, I was hoping for 15 minutes, but there we go. I wonder, Mr Carlaw, what was making your face redden during that discussion. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. Christine Grahame: I will return to the report. I very much welcome the debate and assure Jackson Carlaw that I will be wearing sufficient bling tomorrow. It is not known for me not to be noticed, if that is what it takes to get a word in. This debate is particularly pertinent and serious, given that we see less and less engagement with the democratic process. A new low was reached at the latest UK election, when just 59.7 per cent of those who were entitled to vote did so, and Labour has an overwhelming majority with just 34 per cent of that 59.7 per cent. The first-past-the- post system also distorts the voting in the UK elections.”
“I see her now, even though my eyesight is failing in my advanced years. Ms Grahame will be pleased to know that the way in which we reach out through panels specifically does what she asks. Often, the people who are randomly selected to take part have never participated in anything similar, some have never voted and some have never had any engagement in the political process at all. The way in which the members of people’s panels are selected reaches and brings in some of the very voices that Christine Grahame is concerned that we should seek to reach.”
“I have huge regard for those efforts, but a little bit of me always says that, even with the holding of people’s panels, the people that I—and, I am sure, all members—want to reach are the very ones who have never voted, who are in housing schemes and who see nothing of worth in any politicians, whatever political hue or rank we might be, and regardless of whether we are on councils or whatever. How on earth do we reach out to those people? I do not wish to undercut what is being done; it is just that, somehow, I feel that we are never going to reach those people. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair, please. Jackson Carlaw: I am very grateful for that intervention, and I apologise to Christine Grahame. Her uncustomary lack of bling today meant that I did not quite catch the fact that she had stood up when she did.”
“[Made a request to intervene.] Jackson Carlaw: Panels also show the Parliament at its best, by giving focused and considered attention to important issues and drawing on a wider range of diverse voices to hold the Government to account. Christine Grahame: Will the member take an intervention? Jackson Carlaw: Of course I will. Christine Grahame: Having pressed my button, I thought that seeing my image on the screen would be enough to halt you in your tracks, Mr Carlaw, but obviously it was not.”
“It is important to recognise that we are building on a strong base. I recognise some of the concerns that were raised during the consultation and some of the issues that we have touched on today, but the strength of some of the sectors in all the communities—including farming, forestry, the renewables industry—and of all the important industries and sectors that we have across the south of Scotland, as well as some of the organisations that I have mentioned, shows that we are building on strong foundations. It is that strength that I am keen to build on. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the ministerial statement on the Galloway and Ayrshire national park proposal. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business to allow front-bench teams to change positions. NHS Grampian”
“I declare an interest, as my sons are Gallovidians and I lived and worked there for many years, when I saw the beautiful landscape buried by the Forestry Commission overplanting Sitka spruce. I find the reporter’s results disappointing—I understand them, but they are disappointing—as Galloway could well do with increased tourism opportunities, which would provide work that would help to redress the imbalance in demographics. I do not know whether the cabinet secretary will know this, but, given its interest in the economy, does South of Scotland Enterprise have any options that might be open to the Government? Mairi Gougeon: Christine Grahame talks about South of Scotland Enterprise, which, as I touched on in my statement, has made a proposal for how we could move forward. We are giving strong consideration to that proposal.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what research has been undertaken into any impact of the Scottish child payment on food poverty. (S6O-04733)”
“The First Minister: Christine Grahame makes an incredibly powerful point. In the aftermath of Covid, when, as we all know, there were negative implications for children and young people in our society, making sure that there are good facilities for them to enjoy is part of the work that we have to do. Some weeks ago, I had the pleasure, with the Deputy First Minister, of seeing some of the improvement work that has been undertaken in Kirkintilloch, and it is happening in other parts of the country. I am not surprised that it has been welcomed by my wise colleague”
“I have a bizarre and inexplicable tolerance of Mr Kerr, who is like that black cloud that appears on a sunny day, even if only temporarily. [Interruption.] Can I— The Presiding Officer: Ms Grahame, please take your seat. Mr Lumsden, were you trying to attract attention? I am just asking why you were shouting from your seat. Please desist. Christine Grahame: On playgrounds—apart from the fact that Mr Kerr seems to need an abacus rather than a playground—I commend the fact that £800,000 has already been allocated in the Borders, and £1 million in Midlothian. On a serious note, after Covid, when children were socially isolated for so long, it is excellent that they can now have fresh air and fun and be liberated to the safe space of a playground—not too safe, but safe enough.”
“Frankly, and quite brutally, it would help the public purse. This is a well-worn mantra, but it is worth saying again: spend to save. I would like the Government to provide the same kind of access to audiology services that we have to free eye care and eye tests. 17:39”
“In 2024, it supported 2,497 people through local drop-ins and phone and online support. It also engaged in more than 4,300 individual interventions, including 1,907 hearing aid support interventions, 2,347 information and advice sessions and 116 hearing checks. However, as is the case everywhere, Midlothian and the Scottish Borders face funding pressures, and—for reasons that we all appreciate and I need not expand on—accessing services in rural areas is more expensive. Therefore, bringing audiology services into community settings, on a par with Scotland’s eye care model, would be most welcome. That early intervention could prevent more serious ear conditions from developing and help to tackle preventable mental health problems, cognitive decline and isolation, which can be linked directly to hearing loss.”
“As more of us, thankfully, grow older in Scotland, it is no surprise to find that, currently, just under a million adults have their hearing affected, and demand for services is expected to rise significantly as the population ages. Indeed, the number of over-60s is projected to increase by 50 per cent by 2033—I do not think that I will be around then. However, all is not lost. Midlothian Council has developed a strong partnership with Deaf Action to support residents of all ages who are living with deafness or hearing impairment, through initiatives such as—this is just one example—outreach and home support, covering health, financial and social issues. Similarly, in the Scottish Borders, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People’s Near You service is a community-led success.”
“Their whisper—my colleagues will identify with this—becomes more of a stage whisper. People say “Pardon?” or “Sorry?” far too often. The difference is that people do not find a reduction in someone’s vision funny, but hearing loss can certainly make someone the butt of a joke. It is time that that stopped. Loss of hearing— small or large—can have an impact on our wellbeing. We might keep apologising when we have absolutely nothing to apologise for. At this point, I will slip in a point about the importance of earwax removal by a professional. Earwax might not be the sole source of reduced hearing, but it certainly does not help. However, not all general practitioners now provide that service and, at about £60 for private treatment, it is not an option for everyone.”
“I congratulate Sharon Dowey on securing this debate. As the Parliament’s only—perhaps last— octogenarian MSP, I should perhaps declare an interest, because people of my age certainly become aware that their hearing is not in as sharp shape as it was in their youth. It is a realisation, rather like needing glasses, that sneaks up on people. I had compensated for my short- sightedness by recognising people by their gait and the sound of their footfall. I can still do that. I did not realise until I could not read a notice board in a lecture room that there was more to it. Glasses, and now contact lenses, are a liberation. Hearing loss follows a similar path. I began to notice that I preferred to sit in the middle of a group, because then I could more clearly hear the conversations. Ambient noise disrupts people’s hearing.”
“We cannot afford to wait while individuals and families remain in limbo. I express sincere thanks to NHS staff, local authority teams and third sector organisations that continue to provide vital neurodevelopmental and mental health services. They fulfil their roles often under immense pressure. I hope that the debate can be the beginning of a focused and sustained effort to listen to those with lived experience, learn from evidence and urgently deliver the real change that is needed. 16:48”
“Claire Baker spoke about the third sector community groups in her constituency that offer incredible support to families but said that such support should be delivered through the NHS. There are key actions. There is no doubt that the current system is under serious strain. Families and individuals are waiting for far too long for assessment, treatment and support. Rightly, the motion “calls on the Scottish Government to work urgently with NHS boards and local authorities” to improve “shared care arrangements”. The recommendations from the NAIT and the Royal College of Psychiatrists are clear: we need dedicated adult neurodevelopmental pathways and stepped care models. The on-going scoping work on demand and capacity and the use of local neurodevelopmental data are essential, but data collection must not delay decisive action.”
“It is good to see widespread recognition of the challenge, its scale and the opportunity that we have to improve provision. Willie Rennie pointed out that a medicalised route is not necessarily needed for everyone, and nor is it best in some cases. We just heard from Christine Grahame about the need for early intervention at school or nursery, whereby, if we provide appropriate and tailored support, we may not need medical interventions. Elena Whitham and others raised the challenge of constituents’ families being pushed around the system, having had an indication from a GP of a potential diagnosis but being unable to get one, as well as the need to ensure that local areas are properly resourced. Willie Rennie and Annie Wells spoke about young people having to wait for so long that they will no longer be children.”
“I cannot say whether medication is involved for those individual children, but those interventions, with support, are certainly working. Diagnosis and medication matter, but other steps can be taken in place of or in addition to diagnosis and medication. I stress that my submission about other interventions is not to sidestep, dismiss or minimise diagnosis and medication but simply to illustrate that those may be—I stress the words “may be”—unnecessary in whole or in part. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the winding-up speeches. 16:46 Ariane Burgess: The debate has certainly brought to light our urgent need to strengthen the way in which we support people with neurodevelopmental conditions across Scotland. I thank colleagues for their thoughtful contributions.”
“For example, early intervention at school or nursery might be preferable as a first step. That will also support other children, as it will avoid all the other children having to be decanted into the playground almost daily when one child disrupts a class or a nursery. I say that in the context of recent constituency cases. I had a fruitful and focused conversation with the director of education, the principal educational psychologist and the chief education officer from Scottish Borders Council. The upshot is that, in three primary schools, tailored support has been provided to individual children under what the education team describes as a 12-week process. That appears to work in the interests of the class and of the individual child, and the situation of classes having been disrupted appears to be improving.”
“Alex Cole-Hamilton: I understand what Christine Grahame says about people going private, but does she recognise that, if even a small proportion of those who are on waiting lists went private for a diagnosis, that would relieve pressure on those lists, which are already stretched? Christine Grahame: I always find it unfortunate when money is able to put people nearer the front of the queue. I do not say that to in any way insult the people who do that—it is just a problem for me. That said—this is not an alternative—ADHD and other neurodevelopmental conditions can be suspected and even identified without a diagnosis, and the support that a toddler or child requires might not include medication. That is not to dismiss medication and diagnosis, because they matter, but there might be appropriate temporary or permanent options.”
“We surely all agree that there is unmet need, that there has been a sharp rise in demand following Covid, that there are difficulties with the supply of medication and that there is concern about the widespread removal of shared care arrangements, although I worry that some parents can afford to obtain a private diagnosis for their child and others cannot. As I indicated, I have cases in which parents have been told that they cannot even— Alex Cole-Hamilton: Will Christine Grahame give way? Christine Grahame: I will, if the Deputy Presiding Officer will give me a little bit of time back. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Be very brief, Mr Cole-Hamilton.”
“I, too, welcome the debate and recognise the commitment of the Liberal Democrats to the subject. Diagnosis and referral for adults or children who are suspected of having, for example, ADHD have become more of an issue post-Covid. I have a number of cases in my inbox relating to the situation that has resulted from the different protocols that are in place in different NHS board areas. In this short debate, I intend to focus on early intervention pre-school and in early years. The preceding debate focused on education, as I will do, but I hope to keep within the scope of the motion and the amendments, because I do not think that coping with neurodevelopmental issues and supporting people with such issues and, indeed, their families is isolated to health. I have brief comments on the Government’s amendment.”
“I understand that culling is a highly emotive issue, and I do support animal welfare, but appropriate—and appropriately monitored—culling is about animal welfare, too. I hope that that provides some context. 17:43”
“Indeed, the 2023 “State of Nature Scotland” report found that, since 1994, when the monitoring of 407 species of plant and animal life began, the abundance of such species has declined by an average of 15 per cent. In the past decade alone, there has been a decline of 43 per cent. I am not saying that the decline is all attributable to the deer, but it is a fact. Where culls are necessary, it is essential that they are carried out in a way that minimises suffering and takes animal welfare into account. For example, I would want culls to be undertaken by experienced shooters, who are more assured of a quick kill and know how to identify animals that might be diseased than an inexperienced shooter who would run the risk of maiming. Moreover, I want culls to be restricted to areas where there is evidence that the number of deer is a problem.”
“Those periods are known as open and closed seasons, respectively, and the dates vary according to the deer species. Following consultation, the Scottish Government removed the closed season for male deer of all species in Scotland, with effect from 21 October 2023. The 1996 act also requires that only certain specifications of firearms and ammunition can be used to kill deer, to ensure that the deer are shot as humanely as possible. On the broader issue of deer culling, I should say that I take no pleasure in deer being culled, but the situation with the deer population means, unfortunately, that it is a necessary evil. There are 1 million wild deer in Scotland, up from around 500,000 in 1990, and that increase in the deer population has led in some areas to overgrazing, which can strip the environments that other species need to thrive.”
“However, depending on the situation and the area, fences are expensive and do not always work. They can damage other animals, and they simply move a large deer population from one area to another. The fact is that there are too many deer, and they need to be managed. I am not talking about some stereotypical rich foreigner swanning around a landed estate in his plus fours, having a poor beast practically lined up for him to shoot. I am talking about sensitive, selective culling for the health of the animals, because gone are the wolves that would have predated on them. Such an approach protects the landscape, too. The Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 sets out when, where, how and by whom deer can be shot, and it also defines the periods of the year when the killing of deer is or is not permitted.”
“Therefore, managing red deer sustainably in the uplands requires collaboration, as has been mentioned, and that is made possible by voluntary deer management groups. NatureScot works with the Association of Deer Management Groups, local deer management groups and others. The deer in lowland and urban areas are predominantly roe deer, which are more solitary, secretive and territorial than red deer. Land ownership patterns are more fragmented in those areas, and managing roe deer there is very different from managing the red deer in the uplands. Although deer management across Scotland is a voluntary and collaborative activity, NatureScot has statutory duties to intervene in specific circumstances. Fences are sometimes used to manage deer, say, for road safety or to protect woodlands in the short term while they recover.”
“I do not know about you, Deputy Presiding Officer, but I have certainly had a long afternoon. I congratulate Elena Whitham on securing the debate. Some time ago, the cross-party group on animal welfare had an informative briefing on Scotland’s deer population and management— and I should declare an interest as convener of the group. There are more than 1 million wild deer in Scotland, with no natural predator. Although deer are free ranging and belong to no one, the right to take or shoot deer is associated with land ownership, so whoever owns the land that the deer are on has the right to shoot them. Red deer might travel long distances in search of food, however, often covering more than one land ownership area.”
“I think that Patrick Harvie referenced the fact that the local economic return from a community-owned wind turbine is 34 times greater than that from a privately owned one. That is much better even than the current community benefit arrangement. Such schemes would, of course, get higher public support, as 62 per cent of people back community-owned energy projects in their areas. A report referenced by Social Enterprise Scotland said: “in terms of sheer size, the benefit payments from community owned wind farms far exceed the payments from private wind farms.” I hope that today’s debate opens up opportunities for communities in my constituency, and I will certainly be publicising those. 15:22”
“That brings me to CARES, the community and renewable energy scheme. I note that, since its inception, it has advised more than 1,300 organisations and provided £67 million in funding to communities throughout Scotland. However, now that the scheme is reopening again and various communities can bid for support from the £8 million Government fund, which closes in September and is capped, I recommend that my constituent communities do not waste time but apply PDQ. That fund could help communities to install wind turbines and solar panels or develop other types of renewable energy generation, such as hydro, which would meet local needs. I will end on the wider benefits of community ownership.”
“For example, through the Longmuir renewable energy and biodiversity project in my constituency, Galileo Empower is developing proposals for a renewable energy and biodiversity project on land approximately 4.5km north of the village of Stow. That is only in the initial stages, but the proposals are for up to 10 turbines, with co-location of solar photovoltaics and a battery energy storage system. The developer also proposes a renewable electricity discount scheme, known as REDS, which will result in cheaper electricity generated by the project being distributed to locally designated areas. In addition, a 10 per cent community ownership stake will be provided. The project is in the early days, and I am unclear whether that 10 per cent has to be bought by the community or is just part of the contract.”
“At the moment, it is voluntary and negotiated. I do not know the answer to that, but I think that the cabinet secretary is about to rise and tell it to me. Gillian Martin: The Scottish Government has been calling for the mandating of community benefits. We did not have any luck with the previous UK Government, but the current UK Government has put out a consultation. I think that it went out last week, and I look forward to seeing its results. Christine Grahame: I note that the issue is, of course, reserved. However, we are talking about having something whereby there is some sort of muscle, by giving communities the power to have ownership and enabling local authorities to exercise planning conditions. I have to say that some companies seem to be in more of a negotiating mode with communities.”
“Returning to the issue, there is the rare opportunity for a community to have the option of buying shares in a wind farm development. However, I think that that is more of a wish-list item, because the capital required to do that would be substantial, and, frankly—although I am probably going to get told off again—I do not know of any community in my constituency that has bought shares in a private development. I note, though, that the cabinet secretary made reference to Government support. Perhaps in her summing up that can be clarified. I have what might be a daft question, but I will ask it anyway. Would it be possible for a local authority, or in this case the Scottish Government, to give planning authorities the flexibility to introduce either community benefit or share options as—and I emphasise this—a condition of planning consent?”