Official Report 442KB pdf
The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-20603, in the name of Christine Grahame, on animal welfare sentencing and public protection. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
I ask members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak button, and I invite Christine Grahame to open the debate.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises what it sees as the serious harm caused by animal cruelty, neglect and illegal breeding; notes concerns raised by animal welfare organisations regarding the consistency and proportionality of sentencing in animal welfare cases; understands that many cases involving the welfare of pets and farm animals are dealt with under summary procedure, limiting the penalties available under the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020; notes what it sees as the lack of specific sentencing guidelines covering these offences; further notes the view that clearer guidance and greater awareness of available powers would support more consistent sentencing that reflects the severity of the crimes; acknowledges calls for stronger monitoring and enforcement of disqualification orders, including consideration of a national animal offenders register to improve information sharing between agencies, and notes the importance of continued partnership working between the Scottish Government, justice partners, the Scottish Sentencing Council, Police Scotland and animal welfare organisations to support effective sentencing and protection for animals and the public in Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale and across the country.
11:00
Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.
Well, breaking news: Christine Grahame is at last retiring—some might say not before time—and I am proud that my last debate is on animal welfare. As a lass of 10, I made a phone call to the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, concerned that a lovely stray labrador running about our street was being tormented by children, and fearing that its happy, boisterous behaviour might just change. A family who lived a couple of doors down had taken it in—yes, they were feeding it, but then they just let it run loose. The SSPCA called me back—the dog was in good health, they told me, but they were missing the point, and, not more than a week later, it bit a child and was put down.
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 Dogs (Scotland) Act 2025—under my belt. I am holding in my hand, as my first and last prop, the newly published “Certificate and Code of Practice for New Owners of a Puppy or Dog”.
We have come quite a long way in recognising animals as sentient beings, but not far enough, in particular on the sentencing of those found guilty of cruelty. There are currently no specific sentencing guidelines for animal welfare offences relating to companion or farm animals. 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. That can lead to variation in how similar cases are approached and sentenced across different courts, and there is a risk that similar offences may receive markedly different outcomes, and so undermine confidence in the justice system.
In practice, most animal welfare cases are brought under summary procedure in the sheriff court, even when the level of harm, the scale of offending or wider concerns might suggest that a more serious approach is justified through the use of solemn procedure in the High Court. On summary prosecution, the available penalties are very limited.
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. It was taken as a summary prosecution, however, and all that happened was that the Hamiltons were given community service and were banned from having more than one dog for five years. Those are minor penalties, in my book.
We have come far. However, I note—while respecting the independence of the judiciary, of course—that there is work to be undertaken in the next session of Parliament on sentencing guidelines; on more cases, where it is appropriate, being taken under solemn procedure; and, in my view, on consolidating animal welfare legislation.
At this point, I thank all the animal welfare organisations and individuals who have kept me informed and who do such amazing work in representing and protecting the wellbeing of animals. I also put on the record my thanks to all those across the Parliament who have helped me over 27 years and who, as my ability has reduced, have been so very kind and thoughtful.
To my colleagues, I say au revoir, à bientôt, see you at conferences—at which I may even speak, goodness help you. I send my best wishes to my constituents in Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale and, most importantly, all my thanks to my excellent staff in team Christine. They gave themselves that name, and that mattered.
One final word. 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. Later, at home, I took solace at the bottom of the garden with a large whisky—most unusual for me—and many tears, proclaiming that I did not want to be a politician. By the way, Mary Scanlon insisted on coming to hear my final speech, and she is in the public gallery now. So, I say to Scanlon, as I call her, that, twenty-seven years on, I am a politician, and it has been an absolute privilege. [Applause.]
For the avoidance of doubt, Ms Scanlon will not be able to make a contribution from the public gallery.
11:05
Presiding Officer, I am here under false pretences. I understood that that was to be Christine Grahame’s final speech, and yet I now gather that there are to be more final speeches than Frank Sinatra had farewell concerts.
I am very happy to contribute to today’s debate, not just because Christine Grahame and I are the oldest members of our respective parties—I will not say that we both have one foot in the grave, but we are nearer to that than to having one foot at primary school, or to being like Ross Greer, whose best school days still lie ahead. It is a pleasure to contribute in the final debate to be led by Christine Grahame, which is on an issue that she is passionate about.
I have come to know Christine Grahame particularly well over the past five years, as we have served together on the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. We have found, to our surprise, that, from time to time, perhaps because of our lifetime experience, we have the same view on issues that come before the SPCB, sometimes to the disquiet of the other members. I am no better at technology than Christine Grahame is, so, unfortunately, it is always down to Maggie Chapman to plug Christine Grahame in and to try to get her up to speed with the agenda, which she usually manages about halfway through the meeting.
Christine Grahame has brought to the chamber this fantastic personal concern for animal welfare, which is one of those issues that sits far higher up in the public’s consciousness and on the public’s agenda than is often the case with issues on the political agenda. All of us who are of a certain age probably remember Harold Macmillan lamenting the fact that, when the Russians first put a monkey into space, all the great powers of the world were devastated and concerned about what it meant that Russia was in space whereas all that the people who wrote to Harold Macmillan were concerned about was what happened to the monkey. Similarly, I remember Mrs Thatcher saying, when she was dealing with high unemployment, that people did not write to her about that but about lead weights in swans. As I said a moment ago, personal concern for animals has been much closer to the public’s heart than many other issues.
The corporate body’s proceedings during Covid were often interrupted by guest appearances from Mr Smokey, the much-loved cat in Christine Grahame’s ownership—maybe “ownership” is too bold a word to use for a cat. I am less of a cat person than a dog person. I remember a very wise woman telling me that dogs are very transparent, playful and charming, just like men, whereas cats are more like women in that they are less of all those three things. Mr Smokey was a great passion for Christine. I saw a card the other day that said, “If cats could text, they wouldn’t.” However, I know that Christine Grahame has a great passion for animals of all kinds. I recall her, Margo MacDonald and Mary Scanlon forming a cross-party friendship in that regard in the Queensberry house lounge, over not a bottle of whisky but a bottle of wine—each. In my experience, such cross-party friendship has been Christine Grahame’s example as a parliamentarian.
I have watched Christine Grahame speak in all sorts of debates where she has had to go and research the topic. I have watched her bring thoughtful contributions to the chamber. I have watched her challenge members of her own party just as much as she has challenged those in the Opposition parties. She has done all that indefatigably, and I doubt that she will be in any sort of retirement for very long. I expect that we will hear far more from her, and I look forward to doing so.
I was going to call Stuart McMillan, but I cannot see him for the time being, so I call Carol Mochan.
11:09
I thank Christine Grahame for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I want to speak in the debate for three reasons: first, because it is on a very important issue; secondly, because it is a members’ business debate and I like to speak in those; and, thirdly, because I want to thank Christine Grahame for bringing the debate to the chamber and for spending time in members’ debates in the five years for which I have been in Parliament.
Animal welfare is important to me personally, but not just to me. A study by the SPCA on public opinion on animal welfare found that 91 per cent of people across the United Kingdom recognise the value of animal welfare education. Welfare was ranked as the third most important issue for people when speaking about animals, and 34 per cent of people surveyed were worried about wildlife. The case for action is overwhelming. The figures send a clear message that the public care deeply about animal welfare and expect action. That action must include legislation. The study’s report is a call to action on sentencing, monitoring and enforcement of disqualification orders.
[Made a request to intervene.]
Of course I will take an intervention.
I apologise—I pressed the button inadvertently. However, this is an opportunity to put on record how sorry I will be to not be sitting next to, and sometimes plugging in, my amazing colleague Christine Grahame. I wish her all the very best for the future.
I see that Joe FitzPatrick has picked up Christine Grahame’s excellent technology skills.
Many of the cases that I hear about are from constituents raising concerns that someone who has already been to court and had an order against them banning them from having a dog or pet still has an animal. I also hear about cruelty to wildlife, but often the concern is that the authorities might already be aware of the incident. The debate is important, because sentencing, legislation and the way in which the guidance is delivered must be updated. That is the point that Christine Grahame is trying to make, and that is certainly the case in my experience. The Parliament has done really good work on the issue, but we need to build on that. I look forward to the minister giving us some insight into that.
That links to the messages that I want to give about members’ business debates. I want to raise the profile of members’ business debates. Some in the Parliament suggest that they are not to be prioritised, because we have busy diaries. However, I put on record that I have certainly learned much from members’ business debates over my five years in Parliament. They have helped me with facts on many important issues and to understand the views of members from across the chamber, which definitely helps with the cross-party approach and the ability to work together. Members’ business debates have also given me confidence in other debates, because we perhaps feel more comfortable about intervening during them.
On balance, members’ business is a really important part of the parliamentary system. I thank Christine Grahame for bringing this debate to the chamber today. Sometimes, in this setting, such issues can grab the attention of ministers. We can use this process in the Parliament to get an issue further up the agenda and into different areas.
Thirdly, I thank Christine Grahame for taking part in many members’ business debates in the chamber and for raising many important points about animal welfare and other issues. It has been a great pleasure to spend so many evenings with her, and I wish her well on her next adventure, which I am sure will include more fighting for the rights of our beloved animals and more debates between Labour and the Scottish National Party. Thank you, Christine Grahame.
11:14
I am pleased to speak in today’s important debate for many reasons. First, I want to acknowledge the legendary Christine Grahame and her passionate dedication to the cause of animal welfare. There are not many people we can call a legend, but I think that Christine qualifies. As this is my last speech in this place after 10 years, I want to thank Christine for being an incredible colleague who is full of wisdom and advice—even if you do not want it. She does not suffer fools gladly and, boy, don’t they know it. As chief whip for our party, I have to be honest and say that she has at times been a challenge, but you really cannot stay mad at Christine for long.
Presiding Officer, Christine is just one of the incredible and inspirational women that I have worked with since being elected in 2016. The other two that I want to mention are the much-missed Christina McKelvie and Jeane Freeman. What a privilege to have known and worked with those freedom fighters. They fought for equality, fairness and, of course, independence. What a legacy they leave. I know that they will always be in our hearts.
There is much more that I could say about my time here as an elected member, which has been so memorable. It has been an absolute privilege to represent the fantastic constituency of Strathkelvin and Bearsden and to work with my terrific constituency team.
I turn now to Christine’s important motion. I totally agree with her that animal cruelty sentencing does not reflect the serious nature of such offences. There should be specific sentencing guidelines covering these offences and better awareness of the available powers. This is 2026. Animal suffering should not be tolerated at any level. We are an animal-loving, compassionate nation, and I know that animals are sentient beings who are entirely dependent on the human kindness and care that we should always give them.
I have nothing but contempt for those who exploit animals for human entertainment or profit, be that puppy farming, greyhound racing—thankfully, since last week, that has been banned in Scotland—or any other form of exploitation. Christine has done a great job of highlighting all those issues and more in the cross-party group on animal welfare, which she has chaired for more than a decade. I am a member of the group—although, in truth, I have not been a very good attender.
To mark Christine’s amazing dedication to the cause of animal welfare, I am delighted to have been asked to present her with a gift from several animal charities, including Humane World for Animals, OneKind and the Scottish SPCA, to name but a few, and it will be my honour to do so after the debate. Parliament needs more dedicated, passionate elected members such as Christine Grahame, although I doubt that we will ever see her like again.
11:17
I thank Christine Grahame for lodging the motion and securing the debate; it is a privilege to be able to speak in it. Yes, it is about animal welfare, but is also about marking the extraordinary contribution of Christine Grahame to this place. I know that I am not alone in saying that Parliament will feel very different without her.
The motion in front of us is one that I whole-heartedly support. I strongly agree with the statement that animal cruelty causes serious harm to animals and to society. How we treat those who are helpless in themselves, such as our animals, is a reflection of the kind of society that we are. We know that, as the motion points out, sentencing is inconsistent and often feels insufficient—particularly when cases are handled, as they are, under summary procedure, with limited penalties. We desperately need clearer sentencing guidelines, better use of the existing powers that we have, stronger monitoring of disqualification orders, and serious consideration of a national animal offenders register, because we know that animal cruelty often does not stop there—it moves into other forms of cruelty, too. If we take animal welfare seriously, as the motion pleads with us to do, sentencing must reflect the severity of harm caused. The motion is about justice, it is about prevention and it is about public protection.
I want to speak, too, of Christine Grahame’s legacy on animal welfare, as others have already done. Christine has been relentless in her advocacy for improving animal welfare. She has delivered changes in the law through the legislation on which she has led in Parliament. She has been a tireless campaigner and a convener of the cross-party group on animal welfare, as Rona Mackay and others have mentioned. The CPG has brought together so many different voices and has focused on so many different topics over the time that I have been a member of that group, and I thank Christine for her tireless charting of such a strong and coherent course as convener. It has been a great group to be part of and to learn from, and it has been great to take part in those discussions.
Christine does not just speak about animal welfare and change the law. Everything that she has done has raised standards, shifted attitudes and made Scotland a leader in that area. The debate and the motion are a continuation of that legacy.
Before I move on to some personal reflections of my five years with Christine, I pay tribute to Rona Mackay for her principled and measured contributions to so many debates in this place—some of which were quite heated. She has always brought calm and clarity in her contributions. I have learned a lot from her, and I am very grateful to have served in this place with her. I thank her very much.
I have personal reflections of Christine Grahame as not only a colleague but, I hope, a friend. Eleanor Scott, a former Green MSP, said that, when a lot of people retired at the end of the last session, people asked how Christine would get on, as a lot of her friends had retired. A mutual friend said to Eleanor, “Well, it’s fine—Maggie’s there.” Of course—why would I not be friends with somebody who is as remarkable as Christine and who is so passionate about animal welfare? I share that passion.
Jackson Carlaw mentioned Christine’s membership of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, which is where I got to know her and where she was always sharp, determined, principled, chaotic, warm, funny and utterly herself. My personal memories will include not only helping her with her information technology and the campaign that we both ran—and lost—for a Parliament cat, but primarily, in one of my finest moments in this place, getting a security pass for Christine’s horse. When the low-emission zone was due to come in, Christine was not sure whether her car would be admissible to the parliamentary car park, and she talked about coming in on horseback, so we got her a pass for her horse. That is a perfect example of what Christine’s wit and humour could elicit in us all.
Presiding Officer, I know that I have gone over my time. Christine Grahame means so much to this place, as a founding figure of the Parliament and a character in the best sense—independent, principled and never afraid to speak her mind. She has helped to shape this place in not only legislation but culture, and it is right that we reflect on that in today’s debate. Christine, I thank you for everything that you have given to this Parliament and for everything that you have done for those who are unable to speak for themselves.
11:22
I am really chuffed to speak in support of today’s motion, which recognises the serious harm that is caused by animal cruelty, neglect and illegal breeding. Across Scotland, including in the South Scotland region, which I represent, people care deeply about the welfare of pets, farm animals and wildlife, yet we continue to have cases in which cruelty goes unpunished or sentencing does not reflect the severity of the harm that is caused.
Animal welfare organisations consistently raise concerns about inconsistencies in sentencing, the limitations of cases being dealt with under summary procedure and the lack of specific sentencing guidelines under the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020. When penalties are capped or guidance is unclear, justice cannot always be delivered in a way that matches public expectations or the seriousness of a crime. Strengthening sentencing is not about being punitive for its own sake; it is about proportionality, consistency and, above all, better protection for animals and the public. Clearer guidance and greater awareness of existing powers would support more robust and consistent decision making across Scotland’s courts.
That is why calls for improved monitoring of disqualification orders are so important. A national animal offenders register, which would allow agencies to share information more effectively, deserves consideration. If someone has demonstrated that they are a risk to animals, the system must be equipped to prevent reoffending. That is in the interests of animal welfare organisations, police officers, local authorities and, ultimately, the public.
Although today’s motion rightly focuses on the future direction of policy, I also want to highlight the contribution of someone whose commitment to animal welfare has shaped this Parliament for nearly three decades: my friend and colleague Christine Grahame. I feel as though I am at the coo’s tail, though, because everybody has done an excellent job of describing her work.
Christine has served in Parliament since 1999, where she has been one of the most consistent, passionate and influential voices for animal welfare. By leading campaigns, championing reforms and scrutinising legislation with determination, she has made a tangible difference to animals across Scotland. Her work has never been about making short-term headlines; it has been about achieving long-term change founded on compassion and justice. During this parliamentary session, Christine introduced her member’s bill, the Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Bill, which strengthened protections for animals and built on years of advocacy on issues such as puppy farming, cat and dog welfare, wildlife protection and tougher penalties for cruelty. The issue of puppy trafficking is a shared concern. It was one of the first issues that I addressed when I was elected 10 years ago, because puppies continue to be trafficked through the port of Cairnryan.
Christine has always been generous in providing me with guidance, which has sometimes been very direct and always sound, and supporting me in navigating the complex aspects of parliamentary work. More than once, we have found ourselves speaking at short notice in response to the lodging of motions on challenging issues by Opposition members. In those moments, Christine’s calm and measured approach, sharp thinking and wit have made those tasks much easier.
As we debate how to strengthen sentencing, improve consistency and better protect animals across Scotland, it is only right that we recognise the foundations that have been laid by Christine Grahame. Her contribution over 27 years has changed Scotland for the better and will continue to influence policy long after her time in the Parliament.
I fully support the calls in the motion for clearer sentencing guidance, improved consistency across the justice system and stronger enforcement to prevent repeat offending. When we work together—the Scottish Government, the justice agencies, Police Scotland and the many dedicated animal welfare organisations—we can build a system that offers the strongest possible protection for Scotland’s animals. It is vital that we continue to do so, inspired by the work of Christine Grahame MSP.
I call Jim Fairlie to wind up the debate.
11:27
Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is an enormous pleasure to respond to what I had thought was going to be the debate in which Christine Grahame made her final speech. That is not the case, as Jackson Carlaw pointed out, and it should hardly be any surprise that the last word of the entire parliamentary session is likely to go to Christine Grahame tomorrow.
However, it is still an enormous pleasure to respond to—dare I say it?—my friend, Christine Grahame, who has had a long and hugely respected career in the Scottish Parliament, where she has been a formidable and tireless advocate for animal welfare in all its guises across all its sectors. In my earliest days in the Parliament in 2021, I spent quite a bit of time with Christine in the garden lobby, getting lessons on how to be a good parliamentarian; how to make impactful interventions—we heard earlier about Mary Scanlon, who is in the gallery today; how to be succinct in making my points—I am sorry that I never learned that; and what a privilege it was to be here and that we should all remember that the people of Scotland sent us here to represent them and to stand up for what they wanted from this Parliament.
Christine Grahame is a lady of immense character who does not suffer foolishness gladly, as Rona Mackay has rightly pointed out. At the same time, she would attempt to guide folk in the direction that she felt would be beneficial to them in achieving the best outcomes. If there was a point to be made, Christine would make it, even if it was not always received in the spirit in which it was intended—her points were always well meant and made with the best of intentions.
I knew Christine vicariously because she knew my dad, who was the depute leader of the Scottish National Party in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Her name was spoken regularly in our house, to the point where I recognised her and felt that I knew her long before I ever met her.
I got a greater understanding of why she was a familiar name in my house in my early youth when Christine told me a story during one of our earliest garden lobby blethers about the old SNP. She recited a story about a crucial debate that was being held by the party, in which my dad was debating with Jim Sillars on the direction that the party should take in relation to the constitutional convention.
By all accounts, dad, in his own style, had made a very compelling speech. The conference hall was quiet while listening to the debate and, right at the end, my dad apparently attacked Jim Sillars in a way that Christine thought was unnecessary. She told him that she took the view that dad had let the silence and intense attention make him believe that he had lost the argument, which he had not. He had, Christine said, simply had conference’s undivided attention, and the attack on Jim Sillars was not needed. It was not a criticism from Christine; it was her point of view. She was merely telling dad so that he would understand that the silence was a sign not that people were disagreeing but that they were listening intently. Apparently, my late mum was none too pleased at that sage advice, because she had misinterpreted Christine’s intent, which was, in fact, to be helpful to my dad. Just as Mary Scanlon taught Christine a lesson, I took a lesson from Christine, which was always to be mindful of the intent, as much as the content, of the things that people say to us.
Why have I recited that story in the chamber today? I have done so merely to highlight that the force of nature that is Christine Grahame has never been afraid to challenge, to probe, to be inquisitive and to push hard for what she believed in. She has always offered advice and a helping hand, whether that was to the depute leader of the party in the 1980s or to the First Ministers who have sat in this seat. I am quite sure that Nicola Sturgeon will know very well the feeling of having Christine Grahame sitting in the chair directly behind this one over a number of years.
That determination and intent were never more evident than when Christine was advocating for better animal welfare in Scotland. She has been instrumental in driving that agenda for as long as this place has been reconvened. She is the convener of the cross-party group on animal welfare, and she has raised every kind of question, statement and debate that this place enables members to raise to do their work. She has been steadfast in her belief that we can and must always do more for the animals in our care and in the wild. She has undoubtedly been animals’ voice and champion.
I thank the cross-party group and all its members, including the vice-conveners, Emma Harper and Maurice Golden, for their excellent work in this session. Collectively, they have been responsible for raising awareness and helping us to deliver significant improvements in animal welfare in this session.
Is there more to do? Absolutely. However, we have a pretty formidable track record, which is worth highlighting. We should be proud of what we have achieved so far: the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (Scotland) Regulations 2021; the mandating of closed-circuit television in abattoirs; the ban on live exports of store and slaughter animals; and our support for members’ bills, namely Emma Harper’s Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2021, the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, Christine Grahame’s Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2025 and Mark Ruskell’s Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill. In addition, we are currently consulting the other United Kingdom nations on tail docking and lamb castration. As the motion says, sentencing guidelines are for the judiciary to decide, but this debate will allow members in the next session of Parliament to consider the content of the motion.
I would like to put in a word for Rona Mackay, because her speech in this debate has been her last contribution to the work of the Parliament. Rona has been a fantastic colleague. Her formidable powers of persuasion, even if they did not all work on Christine Grahame, are legendary. When Rona sets her mind, there is a settled face that she gets that she has perfected. Once we see that determination on her face, her will is not going to be bent, and we might just as well give up the argument.
I, too, pay tribute to Rona Mackay—I knew that this was her final speech, and I meant to comment on the fact—because she has been an indefatigable champion of the issue of chronic pain throughout her time as a member. In the absence of my former partners in the transvaginal mesh debate, Alex Neil and Neil Findlay, Rona was one of the ones who stepped forward, and she has been most vocal and supportive on the issues surrounding transvaginal mesh. Rona convenes the cross-party group on chronic pain, and that support and sustained commitment have meant so much to the many people who suffer from the chronic pain ailment, who have looked to her with great gratitude for all the work that she has done during this session of Parliament.
I offer Rona my very best wishes for what comes next.
Before I finish, I want to mention the fact that there are so many powerful women in this Parliament. I pay particular attention to Nicola Sturgeon and Elena Whitham, who have been enormously influential and huge characters in our Scottish Parliament. They will both be missed tremendously.
I conclude by saying to the chamber—and to Christine Grahame, in particular—that we are, rightly, determined to continue to do more. However, if we do not go faster and deliver more, I fully expect to hear Christine Grahame in my ear saying, “This is simply not good enough,” and that we must do more to get our act together. To be honest, I would not have it any other way.
That concludes the debate, although not, I suspect, the contribution of Christine Grahame to public life in Scotland. For now, though, I suspend this meeting of Parliament until 2 o’clock.
11:35
Meeting suspended.
14:00
On resuming—
Air adhart
Time for Reflection