Seòmar agus comataidhean

Earlier this week, the Royal College of Emergency Medicine published its “State of Emergency Medicine in Scotland” report, and it is pretty grim reading. The college estimates that, in 2025, 818 deaths were linked to prolonged emergency department waits—a situation that remains unchanged from 2024. In the North East Scotland region, which I have had the privilege to represent for the past five years, just over a third of patients attending the Aberdeen royal infirmary ED were admitted, transferred or discharged within four hours, which is well below the 95 per cent national health service standard—some 17.4 per cent of patients waited 12 hours or more for care.

What is the Scottish Government doing to reduce avoidable deaths as a result of long emergency department waits and to improve hospital flow? When will it adopt a whole-system approach, with responsibility shared across the entire patient pathway?

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of any excess deaths associated with long waiting times in A and E departments, including the action it is taking to reduce preventable mortality. (S6O-05707)

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 grateful to Daniel Johnson for his work on the bill, and I pay tribute to him for that, but we should reflect on why it took a member’s bill to get us to this point. Why have successive Governments not acted on this most important issue for 27 years?

Parliament has acted for children before. After some delay, we incorporated the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child into our laws. Prior to that, we agreed to John Finnie’s plans to end exemptions that allowed parents to physically punish their child. Our getting it right for every child—GIRFEC—strategy aims to keep children and young people safe and protected from abuse, neglect or harm at home, at school and in the community. The bill is a natural next step on the journey towards protecting children’s rights by ensuring that seclusion and restraint are used only as a last resort and when there are genuine health and safety reasons for doing so.

The UNCRC is clear that protection from punishment and detention is crucial. It enshrines the idea that children should be isolated only as a last resort and for the shortest time possible. However, restraint and seclusion are sometimes used as frequent responses to behaviour that is perceived to be challenging. Pupils find that traumatic, not just at the time but for years afterwards. The bill has been drafted well to respond to exactly those concerns.

The bill is right to support staff, too, by making clear in law what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate restraint. We should be outlining best practice and alternatives that prevent or minimise the use of restraint and seclusion. The current inconsistency and unclear expectations leave staff exposed.

The requirement to notify parents, carers and guardians of the use of restraint and seclusion is the key provision in the bill. Those people have a right to know that those methods have been used within 24 hours of that happening. They should not find out by finding bruises on their child or through children coming home from school in tears. Along with the requirement to keep records, that will bring much-needed transparency.

The Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland’s report “No Safe Place: Restraint and Seclusion in Scotland’s Schools” found that only 18 of 32 councils recorded all incidents. We must know when, how often and where restraint and seclusion are happening, because only then can we drive down their inappropriate use. I share trade union concerns about workload, but the answer to that is to ensure that staff are given time and support, and I ask the cabinet secretary to give assurances on that point.

Within the scope of the bill, Daniel Johnson has done well to draft legislation that addresses those concerns. However, inappropriate use of restraint and seclusion stems from broader failures in our education system. There is a failure to understand and cater to the additional support needs of the children or young people involved; a failure to recognise that every child and young person has rights; and a failure to properly fund additional support needs in all our schools.

We have nowhere near enough support in our schools for children with additional support needs, and those children are disproportionately affected. As Kate Sanger told us at stage 1, a child’s shout is often not aggression requiring restraint but distressed communication requiring love and understanding. Her communication passport, which helps staff to understand how and why a pupil behaves in the way that they do, should be in all schools. I ask the cabinet secretary to address that proposal in her closing speech.

As this session of Parliament draws to a close, there has been some good progress on children’s rights. The bill is a testament to that, and the Scottish Greens are proud to support it. However, as we move into a new session, we recognise that we still have much further to go to ensure that the rights of all children are respected, defended and promoted.

15:24

Across Scotland, people will share the FBU’s concern for the service, given the fire in Glasgow. They will have noted the skilled and dedicated work of the firefighters who attended that awful scene. We must have a well-resourced fire service that can respond to ever-changing urban and rural environments. However, there is uncertainty about the future of many fire stations, including the one at Balmossie, in my region. Workers and communities have waited too long to hear what will happen to their local station and staff. When will that uncertainty end? When will firefighters and the communities that they work to keep safe know what their future will be in terms of firefighting safety?

The corporate body has produced guidance on members’ bills for all members for session 7. In doing so, we have sought to ensure that the system is as equitable and efficient as it can be.

In addition, the corporate body is not directive as to the specific number of posts or grades of posts in individual teams within any area of the Parliament. There is always opportunity to flex across the clerking team if the NGBU is facing particularly high pressure at certain times of year.

The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee has also recommended changes to standing orders that would require an introduction deadline for members’ bills that is six months earlier in the parliamentary session than it currently is. That recommendation was intended to give more time for scrutiny and to work through the bill process, and we hope that it will ease some of the bottlenecks that some members have faced.

The NGBU is a clerking team that is supported by Parliament’s lawyers and external drafters. It provides impartial and confidential support to members of Parliament who are not Government ministers who wish to take forward a proposal for a member’s bill. The unit provides support on a first-come, first-served basis. The corporate body seeks to ensure that, as far as possible, access to the NGBU is provided to members in an equitable way. However, the NGBU is a finite resource and it is also required to support committee bills, private bills and hybrid bills.

The staffing complement of the unit was increased by one member of staff at the beginning of the parliamentary session to reflect the high level of demand that was being experienced for NGBU support for the large number of members’ bills in the session.

As the member will know, NGBU’s procedural advice and guidance is provided impartially to any member. There are circumstances in which full support is neither provided nor needed. I can go into more detail on that if the member would like, but now I look forward to his supplementary question.

The corporate body is responsible for resourcing parliamentary services, but the programme of parliamentary business is a matter for the Parliamentary Bureau. Agreement to business motions is a matter for the whole Parliament. Individual members are able to seek to amend business motions, to speak against them or to speak about other items that they would wish the bureau to consider, including future programmes.

I know that the bureau is very mindful of the challenges of balancing the need to ensure that Parliament has the necessary time to scrutinise legislation against the impact that increased sitting time has for members and the Scottish parliamentary service.

That said, the corporate body is concerned that extended business creates unsustainable pressures on member and staff welfare, as well as on resourcing. I can confirm that, at the conclusion of the session, officials will review the impacts of the scheduling of parliamentary business. It will be for the incoming corporate body and bureau to work together to ensure that Parliament has a sustainable operating model.

I think that we all share that frustration when such opportunities are lost. However, although I note that that frustration exists, there can be a whole range of reasons why questions end up not being lodged.

The running of portfolio and general questions falls under the practice and procedures of the Parliament in relation to its business, so it is not directly a matter for the corporate body. However, members can write to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee on such matters, and I note that there are members of that committee in the room as we speak.

Administering the electronic random draw for portfolio and general questions that subsequently result in a not lodged status does not generate a specific cost to the corporate body.

The allocation of portfolio and general questions is done electronically by random draw each Monday after the midday deadline. Members whose names have been selected must lodge a question by midday on the Wednesday. If no question is received by that deadline, it is registered as not lodged.

There is no specific cost of administering the draw for a question that is subsequently not lodged and, as there is no question lodged, no resource is required to process it. If a question is not lodged, the chamber desk marks it as such and emails the member, recommending that they inform the Presiding Officer of the reasons for not lodging. That is the only resource implication for not lodged questions.