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 2 of 15.
“For example, there is very strong evidence that, in the event of a terminal diagnosis, marriages and relationships are more likely to end when the person being diagnosed is a woman who is in a relationship with a man. This is a difficult time for far more reasons than the diagnosis alone, and people may be suffering from elements of some or all the situations that I have listed, yet still genuinely wish to end their lives purely due to their pain and the symptoms caused by their illness. That can be clarified, but it should be clarified as being the primary reason. 16:00 Bob Doris: This is my first real opportunity to speak in this afternoon’s debate. I clarify that many of the amendments that I will speak to over the next few days have been developed with the Scottish Partnership for Palliative Care, which is neutral on assisted dying.”
“It is about having somebody—perhaps a person who is separate from their home life—who is able to take another look and make sure that the decision that an individual is making is entirely their own and that they understand the alternatives open to them. Amendment 141 refers to issues that people with a terminal diagnosis will commonly experience. Our primary response to those issues should be to provide support and to try to tackle them, regardless of how long a person has left to live. Discussions about the reasons for a person seeking assisted dying—which, undoubtedly, will always be complex and multifaceted—might give us the opportunity to ease those burdens. However, I am clear that if they are the primary reason for making such a request, that is not what assisted dying is for. We must be alive to societal context.”
“However, the definition of capacity has already been well tested in Scots law, and we do not need to—forgive me for saying this—clutter it with the amendments that have been suggested. Emma Roddick: I appreciate that Christine Grahame is happy with the section as it has been drafted, but I am not, and I know that many others are not happy with it, either. My amendment is not simply about demonstrating capacity; it is about digging into the individual’s social context. It is not just about ensuring that they are able to understand their illness or what assisted dying involves; it is about ensuring that, mentally, they are in a place where they can accept that there are other options and that they can fully understand what those look like.”
“I am satisfied with the bill as it is drafted as regards section 3(2)(b), which is about capacity. Capacity is well understood in Scots law. When people make a will or grant a power of attorney, or even when they buy a house, they need to demonstrate to an agent that they have capacity, that they are not being coerced, that they fully understand the consequences and so on. The definition in the bill is that people: “are capable of … understanding information and advice about making the request, … making a decision, … communicating the decision, … understanding the decision, and … retaining the memory of the decision.” That covers the areas that Emma Roddick has quite rightly brought to the Parliament’s attention.”
“That the Parliament agrees that the Social Security (Up- rating) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Scotland) Regulations 2026 [draft] be approved. The Presiding Officer: That concludes decision time. Banking Charges for Charities and Not-for-profit Organisations”
“That the Parliament agrees that the Legal Aid and Advice and Assistance (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2026 [draft] be approved. That the Parliament agrees that the Care Home Services (Visits to and by Care Home Residents) (Scotland) Regulations 2026 [draft] be approved. That the Parliament agrees that the Community Care (Personal Care and Nursing Care) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2026 [draft] be approved. That the Parliament agrees that the Early Removal of Prisoners from the United Kingdom (Amendment of Specified Time Periods) (Scotland) Order 2026 [draft] be approved. That the Parliament agrees that the Social Security Up- rating (Scotland) Order 2026 [draft] be approved.”
“Motion agreed to, That the Parliament agrees that the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Offshore Wind) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Scotland) Regulations 2026 [draft] be approved. The Presiding Officer: I propose to ask a single question on eight Parliamentary Bureau motions unless any member objects. As no member objects, the question is, that motions S6M-20973 to S6M-20980, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on approval of Scottish statutory instruments, be agreed to. Motions agreed to, That the Parliament agrees that the National Bus Travel Concession Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 2026 [draft] be approved. That the Parliament agrees that the Budget (Scotland) Act 2025 Amendment Regulations 2026 [draft] be approved.”
“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) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) 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) (Ind) 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) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind) 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) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) 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) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) 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) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (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 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) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (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) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) 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 Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 92, Against 28, Abstentions 0.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My electronic device would not function properly—I will deal with that later. I would have voted yes. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Grahame. We will ensure that that is recorded.”
“I do not know whether there will be anything left to answer on this topic. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of reports that a large number of applications have been rejected in the future farming investment scheme, what analysis and guidance it has issued explaining the grounds for rejection. (S6O-05586)”
“There are pressures on how ELC is delivered—that is a separate issue, which relates to competing pressures in councils. It is difficult to disaggregate the wellbeing benefits of ELC from the benefits of other support. In this short debate, I have been able only to take a glance at the issue. 13:07”
“In this short debate, I do not have time to address the practicalities that I have encountered, such as Edinburgh nurseries charging people from Midlothian. The member was quite right to raise that issue, and the First Minister addressed that. We have other new funding. There is the national breakfast club provision and the expansion of after-school clubs. There is also the best start funding. In the Borders, 6,130 families have received best start grants and food payments. That is worth more than £3.4 million. I say to Roz McCall that it is right that we assess the benefits of ELC, but it is difficult to disaggregate the benefits of ELC from those of the other support that is available to families. I would like to know how we might do that.”
“There are other interventions, such as the Scottish child payment, which helps low-income families with children under 16. Each child under 16 gets £27.15 per week, which will rise to £28.20 from 1 April. There is no limit on the number of children in a family who can get that payment. The Scottish child payment also helps families and carers. In fact, it supports 5,785 children in the Borders and 6,320 children in Midlothian. Roz McCall: I recognise what the member is saying, but that is not helping parents right now. How can we support parents to access that childcare? Christine Grahame: The point that I am making is that three and four-year-olds do not benefit only from free nursery education. There are lots of other supports for children, especially for those of families that face economic pressures.”
“Access for two-year-olds is means tested—parents require to receive certain benefits, such as income support or universal credit. There appears to be an issue with parents’ awareness of the availability of that provision, which I hope that the minister will address when she sums up the debate. Currently, the Scottish Government provides about £1 billion per year in funding for ELC. The Covid-19 pandemic had a profound impact on the lives of families in Scotland, and there is growing evidence from a range of research studies that suggests—unsurprisingly—that many young children and their families have been negatively affected. The benefits that are provided by ELC are extra; they do not come on their own. We cannot assess the benefits of ELC on their own.”
“The 2022 ELC parents survey found that 74 per cent of parents of three to five-year-olds mentioned that it had enabled them to work or look for work, and 71 per cent said that they were able “to think about what they may do in the future”. Overall, take-up of funded ELC among three and four-year-olds was 97 per cent in 2023. I understand from the Scottish Parliament information centre that, to date, it is about 100,000 per cent—I do not mean 100,000 per cent; I mean 100 per cent. What was I thinking? However, in 2025, the estimated uptake for two- year-olds was 55 per cent, which represented a small decrease on previous years. The 2022 ELC parents survey found that two-year-olds were less likely to access the full 1,140 hours than older children.”
“I thank Roz McCall for securing this debate. It is important to see how the ELC system is working and how it can be improved. It is worth remarking in passing that, in Scotland, ELC is free to all parents and carers of three to four-year-olds, whereas in England it is means tested. The basic test is whether parents and carers take up the extra hours of funded ELC—I know that there are some practical difficulties; I do not have time to get into them, but I agree that there are some, across various councils—and what improvement that contributes to the wellbeing and development of the children, to the family and to the economy. The policy also saves parents and carers about £6,000 per child annually.”
“This is a serious business. For legislation to be effective, it must be tightly drawn, it must be just and it must not have unintended consequences. In this case, it should not be introduced ahead of the review that is already due to be carried out. For those reasons, I cannot see why the member and the group on the Labour benches are supporting the bill. Like Richard Leonard, I will be retiring, and to hear someone in here supporting flawed legislation is simply wrong. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to closing speeches. 18:02”
“Thank you for taking my late request to speak, Presiding Officer. There are two reasons why I will not support the bill. First, the review by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee must be undertaken, given the huge flaws in the process. Secondly, I want to refer specifically to Richard Leonard’s summing up on behalf of the Labour Party. He said two things that, in my view, were actually reasons why the Labour Party should not vote for the bill. I very much support having the means to recall and deal with miscreant MSPs. However, the first thing that Richard Leonard said was that he would support the bill “for all of its flaws”. Then, to justify that, he said that the bill sends a message. Legislation can, indeed, send a message, but it should not be flawed—not from the outset. That is my major concern.”
“rose— The Deputy Presiding Officer: The member is concluding. Richard Leonard: It is experience that is converted into determination, and articulated in the inspiring words of Angela Davis, who famously declared: “I am no longer accepting the things I cannot change. I’m changing the things I cannot accept.” That is the spirit of resistance, the sense of injustice and the scale of ambition—of vision—that the next Government, the next members of this Parliament and the next session of this Parliament, must adopt as their own, and that is how we must approach our vote on this bill tonight. It is how I will approach my vote tonight: a vote that the Labour Party will support. 17:49”
“That reminds me of the words of Johann Lamont, who resigned as Labour leader in 2014, with immediate effect. She accused the UK party of treating Scotland like “a branch office” and said that she had “had enough”. Anas Sarwar has obviously not had enough. He and Jackie Baillie have been publicly humiliated, but apparently not enough to make them follow in Johann Lamont’s footsteps. Put back in their box by Labour headquarters, lid firmly nailed down, they have betrayed the WASPI women. The images of them and Sir Keir Starmer standing shoulder to shoulder with WASPI women cannot be erased. The abandonment of the WASPI women by Labour and, before that, the Tories, after years of false promises, is a disgrace. I say to the WASPI women: don’t give up; fight for another U-turn. 17:37”
“In its final report in March 2024, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman concluded that the DWP committed maladministration by failing to adequately communicate changes to the women’s state pension age, found that that caused injustice, including distress, and lost opportunities to plan, which I mentioned, and recommended that compensation of between £1,000 and £2,950 be paid to the women affected. That is not a lot of money if a pension of several years has simply disappeared, but it was compensation only for the delay, not for pension loss. Now Labour will not pay even that small amount. I give Anas Sarwar his due. Once upon a time, along with Labour colleagues, he said that the UK Government should pay up, but, as we know, what Labour says in here—what Anas Sarwar says—is dismissed by the UK leader.”
“Although former UK Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Liz Kendall apologised for the 28-month delay—that is a delay of more than two years—in sending letters warning of the pension age change, she said that there was no evidence of “direct financial loss”. Well, it depends how you define “direct”. Women had planned their finances on the basis that they would receive their state pension at 60, as I did—I paid off my mortgage. That was especially true of women who were divorced, widowed or single, who had only their own income. They discovered, out of the blue, that they had better change their plans. It is not that they objected to their pension age being equalised with that of men; it is the way that it was done that they objected to. It was done without notice and not incrementally—there was simply a cliff edge.”
“I thank my colleague Bill Kidd for securing the debate. Since my contribution is at this late stage in the debate, there will be some repetition in it. As has been said, according to data from the House of Commons library, it is estimated that between 331,000 and 336,000 women in Scotland have been affected by what women against state pension inequality are campaigning about. Women who were born in the 1950s—as were three of my sisters, although I am old enough not to have been caught up in this—had their state pension age raised without adequate notification. Compounding the injustice, more than 4,000 WASPI women in Scotland have died since 2020 without receiving anything.”
“To ask the First Minister what measures the Scottish Government is taking to standardise the criteria for urgent referrals to child and adolescent mental health services for an assessment, in light of reports that it is currently a postcode lottery. (S6F- 04690)”
“To quote Elvis Presley once again, perhaps we should have a little less conversation from the Greens on issues that are not even in the competence of this Parliament, and maybe a little more action, please, on the real issues that our constituents face every day. 15:45”
“When it suits them, the Scottish Greens often come to this chamber to complain about the Government not stepping in to save jobs in Scotland, but they would be happy to potentially put thousands of jobs at risk in and around Prestwick airport. At a time when Scotland faces many challenges, it is disappointing to see the Scottish Greens use their parliamentary time to lecture us on defence and national security. They could have talked about the social care crisis, hospitals or ferries— they did not. After 19 years of the SNP, with the Greens playing a part in its failure, we need serious politics for serious times.”
“As I said in my opening speech—I was crystal clear on this point, which is also in my amendment—we expect that any nation that uses Scottish or UK infrastructure should do so in accordance with domestic and international law. I could not be clearer about that. We also accept and support our international obligations, such as NATO, which is a treaty that was signed in 1949. We want to uphold that, but the Scottish Greens want to rip it up. The cabinet secretary mentioned that we must not forget that four years ago, almost to the day, the democratic European nation of Ukraine was illegally invaded by Russia. It is important that we remember the role that Prestwick airport has played in supporting Ukraine’s efforts against Putin’s invasion.”
“Ironically, the Scottish Greens appear to be positioning themselves with others who wish to cast doubt on NATO and its importance during a period of increasing global instability. Ross Greer: It would be useful to get clarity on this, because it was not a position that Labour laid out a few weeks ago. I accept that, from Labour’s perspective, the US is a military ally of ours. However, does the Labour Party really believe that the US military should be allowed to breach Scots law and British sovereignty in its actions—which is exactly what it did a few weeks ago— or does the member at least agree that there should be consequences when our allies disrespect our domestic laws? Neil Bibby: I do not accept that that is the case.”
“It would play into the hands of our adversaries, who are the only ones who would gain from such a reckless act. I spoke earlier, as did other members, about the economic importance of Prestwick airport. We are talking about 450 jobs directly at the airport, and also more than 3,300 full-time jobs in the cluster surrounding it. That contributes almost a quarter of a billion pounds in gross value added benefits to our country’s economy. Asking why we should place more importance on some jobs over others is not a logical approach to supporting our economy, and it is irresponsible. Our foreign policy should not be dictated in this way by the Scottish Greens, who do not support NATO. As Alex Cole-Hamilton said, it also should not be dictated by their—or anyone’s—disdain for the occupant of the White House.”
“15:41 Neil Bibby: As I close on behalf of Scottish Labour, I note that the lines of division in the debate have been very clear. Although the Scottish Greens spent their time attempting to undermine our international standing and security, the debate has provided a vital opportunity to reinforce why Scotland and the UK must remain a serious partner in a world in which our resolve continues to be tested by global events and global instability. We on this side of the chamber will not forget that the United Kingdom, under Attlee and Bevan, helped to forge the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. That commitment to collective security is not a relic of the past, but a living necessity. To turn our backs on US military use of our Scottish airports would be to turn our backs on not only NATO and that alliance, but ourselves.”
“Small countries can make a difference, especially by sharing their sovereignty with others on a mutually beneficial basis. An independent Scotland in NATO, the EU and the United Nations could do just that. I want to debunk another myth in relation to NATO membership. Of 32 NATO members, only the United States, the United Kingdom and France possess their own nuclear weapons. Five countries—Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey—host US nuclear weapons under a nuclear sharing arrangement. The majority of NATO nations, such as Canada, Norway and Poland, do not. There is nothing to prevent an independent Scotland, nuclear free, from being a member of the very important alliance called NATO. The Deputy Presiding Officer : We move to closing speeches.”
“Let us think about the threat to energy supplies and the cost of energy, which is at the base of much inflation. Yes, I say to Stephen Kerr, Trump will go—but the world order will not return to the way that it was before his reign. With regard to airports, there are not only the limitations of devolution; there are also other, reserved restrictions at play. Aircraft landing at any UK airport require permission from the UK Government, not the Scottish Government. Prestwick airport operates on a commercial basis, at arm’s length from the Scottish Government, and operational decisions regarding the day-to-day running of the airport are a matter for its management. Do I wish that it were otherwise? Of course I do. Could it be otherwise? Of course it could.”
“Although he will not have it all his own way—as other international alliances, political and economic, are being formed, some of which are pretty unholy—he has debunked the long-standing myth that the UK has a special relationship with the US. He has caused Europe to pull up its socks and deal with Putin’s imperialistic ambitions. In fact, Finland and Sweden joined NATO not only in the face of the invasion of Ukraine, but also because of the casual, confrontational and dismissive attitude of Trump to NATO. The Scottish Government has spoken out about the Russian invasion to absorb Ukraine and Trump’s ludicrous attempts to annex Canada and Greenland—straight from Putin’s playlist. Destabilisation has a substantial impact on devolved issues.”
“I refer members to paragraph 7(1) of part 1 of schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998, which states: “International relations, including relations with territories outside the United Kingdom, the European Union (and their institutions) and other international organisations … are reserved matters.” As a devolved legislature, we have substantial limitations on our exercise of power—would that it were otherwise. Do I wish that I could cock a snook at Donald Trump and his unholy Administration? Of course I do—probably along with many European leaders, including Sir Keir Starmer, who are all holding their collective noses as Trump blunders around the world. Do I think that he has destabilised the world order? Of course I do.”
“The decision about housing allocation will be determined by the local authority, which is the authority with the statutory responsibility for housing. However, I will take away the point that Christine Grahame made about the interaction of housing allocation and social security, and I will write to her about that.”
“I have a constituent who is homeless and is staying with his mother following the break-up of a relationship. He has applied for permanent two-bedroom accommodation, which is required for him and his two children, because he shares residency on an equal basis with their mother. However, Midlothian Council will allocate only one-bedroom accommodation because he does not receive child benefit. That is usually okay as a test, but I would argue that that is not so in this case. Does the cabinet secretary agree that my constituent requires two-bedroom accommodation because he shares residency equally with his former partner, and that allocation should not be based simply on which party receives child benefit? Màiri McAllan: I thank Christine Grahame for drawing my attention to her constituent’s case.”
“The containers are solid on the side the visitor approaches from, with grid walls on the other side, facing the hills, so the birds can scope their future territories. Wearing a gauntlet for protection, the visitor raises a small leather flap in the side of the container through which they can present the fleshy morsels to the chicks. As I did so, this huge bird turned away from those hills and briefly stared at me and the food, in that order. To say that I was taken aback by the size of that chick is an understatement. It was enormous. More scary was the predatory look that it briefly gave me. I was, indeed, coming face to face with the eye of its ancestor, the dinosaur—but what a privilege and what a thrill. I commend that project to anyone coming in once I have retired. 18:06”
“I thank the member for this debate. As an endangered species myself, I am grateful to be species champion for the once endangered golden eagle, and I even have the South of Scotland Golden Eagle Project in the Tweed Valley in my constituency. From 2018 to 2024, 28 juvenile chicks were legally moved from the Highlands to the south of Scotland, establishing the current population of 48 to 50 birds. They are thriving because of the terrain, the supply of food and the protections. I visited the secret location where the chicks develop into full-grown adults. They are released in stages on to platforms for food, returning initially to their camouflaged container homes until they choose to fly free for good. Escorted by experts, the visitor approaches the containers silently across fields, carrying a tub of fresh kill.”
“We need to get to the bottom of what has happened at the hospital, which often means robustly challenging the Government and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. I think that we can do that in a way that avoids retraumatising or potentially scaring people out of treatment. It is vital that we do not lose sight of the people who have been most affected—the patients, their loved ones and the grieving families. Their pain and suffering must be at the forefront of our minds at all times. 15:43”
“I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s confirmation that that will be the case. Pastoral support must be offered to those staff and patient representatives. What some of them will have been through is unimaginable, and it is vital that a trauma-informed approach is taken, so that their suffering is not compounded by reliving the events at the hospital. Despite my reservations about the wording of the Labour motion, I will vote for it at decision time, as I said in my opening speech. The Scottish Government still has questions to answer about the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, and we would not be doing our jobs as MSPs if we did not put those questions to the cabinet secretary. We must keep putting questions, for as long as it takes for them to be answered, to whoever needs to answer them.”
“Along with the public inquiry, the oversight group will, we hope, help to answer any questions that patients, families and staff have about what went wrong at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, who is responsible, how they will be held to account and how we can move forward. I hope that the Scottish Government will fully embrace the opportunity that the oversight group gives us to make progress while we are waiting for the full outcomes of the inquiry. We must not squander that opportunity, because too many people have been let down and traumatised by the failings at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. The oversight group must be open, transparent and—crucially—accountable. That is why it is imperative, as I mentioned earlier, that patient and staff representatives are on the group.”
“As I said in my opening speech, I welcome the establishment of the safety and public confidence oversight group. I am either less cynical or more hopeful than Jackson Carlaw. Although it cannot make up for the suffering that has been inflicted on the patients and families involved, I believe that it provides a crucial opportunity to restore trust and rebuild relationships. Neil Gray: To save some time in my closing speech, I confirm to Gillian Mackay, in response to her question in her opening speech, that patients and staff will be represented on the oversight group. Gillian Mackay: I thank the cabinet secretary for that.”
“The SNP’s track record of responding—and, more than that, of letting independent inquiries do their work without fear or favour—goes back a long way. Regrettably, the same cannot be said of Labour. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the winding-up speeches. 15:39 Gillian Mackay: At the heart of this debate are patients and families, many of whom will be hurt, traumatised and angry. That is why it is so important that we get the tone of such debates right, that we air concerns without worsening their trauma and that we share stories without invading their privacy, because they have been through enough. To lose a loved one in a place where they were meant to be safe is unimaginable. To then be lied to about what happened to them is disgraceful, and we should make sure that it never happens again.”
“The SNP, new to government, instigated an independent inquiry, which was published in 2014 and which established that the hospital environment had not been conducive to safety and cleanliness, with poor antibiotic prescribing practices and inadequate nursing care. In 2007, a Health Protection Scotland survey found that 9.5 per cent of patients in acute hospitals in Scotland had a healthcare-associated infection. In the same year, under Nicola Sturgeon’s stewardship as Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, the outsourcing of cleaning and catering contracts to private companies in acute hospitals was banned—they were brought back in-house. As a result, the number of hospital- acquired infections was halved, from 9.5 per cent in 2005-06 to 4.9 per cent by 2011, and it remains low. Why do I say that?”
“The conclusion must be that Lord Brodie is not up to the job, that he has failed to call all relevant witnesses and that failure to do as Anas Sarwar asks will mean that the inquiry is flawed and cannot be relied on. That is an act of desperation and political sabotage. In 2007, following eight years of a Labour and Liberal Democrat Administration, Scotland faced a major crisis in relation to hospital-acquired infections. An example is the Vale of Leven hospital in Jackie Baillie’s constituency, where Clostridium difficile was a contributory factor in 34 deaths. Those failures had occurred during the Labour and Liberal Democrat Administration.”
“Mr Sarwar requests that the five-year-long inquiry be reopened, particularly to interrogate Government ministers—despite the fact that Jeane Freeman, who established the inquiry, had already given evidence and the fact that Government ministers had stated that they would give evidence if requested to. That they have not been called is entirely at the judgment of Lord Brodie, who may call whomsoever he wants. I quote from Mr Sarwar’s letter: “I appreciate that reopening public evidence sessions would be an extraordinary step but I believe that it is the best route to securing the answers that families and staff need and ensuring that your report, and the public, are able to account for this vital component in the scandal.” I repeat: to ensure that “your report, and the public, are able to account for this vital component”.”
“I, too, pay my respects and tribute to Jeane Freeman and offer my condolences to her partner. I am concerned that the attempt by the Labour Party to interfere in the independent inquiry into the Queen Elizabeth university hospital is shifting base but with the same goal: to undermine confidence in the inquiry and the confidence of patients and staff in the safety of the hospital. Interference—undermining the findings before the publication of the report—is Labour’s shame. I have here a copy of the letter from Anas Sarwar to Lord Brodie, a former inner house judge, which blatantly breaches the independence of the inquiry process and challenges the very competence of Lord Brodie as chair.”
“In recent years, 13 applications have been turned down by the local authority in Dumfries and Galloway but nine of those decisions have, on appeal, been overturned by the Scottish Government. Your example is an exception to the rule; it is not what normally happens. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. Christine Grahame: I gave it merely as an example; I did not claim that it was the standard reply. The key is to have meaningful consultation with groups throughout the south of Scotland and the Borders. They may not always get the answer that they wish for—as happens in many consultations—but, at the moment, we definitely need more serious consultation, particularly on the cumulative impact of turbines and pylons. 17:12”
“Not all applications are agreed. CWP Energy wanted to build 60 turbines of up to 250m—820 feet—in height at Scoop Hill, a few miles south- east of Moffat. Dumfries and Galloway Council objected to the scheme on the grounds of its visual and landscape impact. The Scottish Government has concluded that it is “not the right development in the right place” and has refused permission for it to go ahead. We can look at that in the balance of the Government’s taking forward the real issues that people have— Finlay Carson: Will the member give way? Christine Grahame: Yes. Finlay Carson: I appreciate your taking part in the debate and your giving way. However, your example is an exception to the rule. We hear over and again of local authorities objecting, matters going to appeal and the Government overturning decisions on appeal.”
“That cannot be fair when communities are certainly left getting absolutely nothing out of this but an industrialised landscape.” The First Minister answered: “Issues of cumulative impact are a legitimate consideration in the planning process … Indeed, there will have been examples of developments that have not been able to proceed because of the concerns about cumulative impact.” He hoped that “the consideration that we are giving to the implications for the strategic spatial energy plan will assist in addressing the point that she has raised with me.”—[Official Report, 22 January 2026; c 16-17.] That is as it should be, together with improving statutory benefits to communities from developments, which currently arise mainly through agreement with the developers, and consideration of regional electricity pricing, albeit that I understand that that is a reserved matter.”