Seòmar agus comataidhean

I hope that the UK Government responds positively. It needs to be reminded of how important our farming community is in providing high‑quality food and drink for domestic consumption and for export. Food and drink is Scotland’s top international sector and is valued at £8 billion annually.

Does the minister agree that the London-centric UK Government overlooks the contribution of our rural communities and our farming communities? As a last word in my many years in the Parliament, I will say that that is particularly the case in my constituency ofMidlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale.

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)

I have been banging on about credit unions in here for years, and I am pleased to hear that the member managed to get one on his main street. I have only another day to go, but I ask that he emails me about that, because it is something that I would like to see set up in Penicuik, failing our getting a mobile service. Credit unions are much underrated; I am a member of one myself. It is a great thing for people to save and then borrow responsibly.

I, too, congratulate my colleague Clare Haughey on securing the motion for debate in the chamber. I said earlier during the debate on animal welfare that that was my last speech—well, that was a wee porky. This really is my last speech and, appropriately, it is about my constituency

By email on 11 February, the Bank of Scotland advised me that its branch in Penicuik would close on 4 June. The reason that was given was that its customers are increasingly choosing mobile banking as their preferred way to bank. One could argue that they are given no other choice. Options that have been offered by the bank are helping people with online or mobile banking via their app—whatever that is—or, recognising that not all customers bank digitally, particularly those who are older or have a vulnerability, it has offered telephone banking and the services that are available at the post office. That is all very well, but the post office in Penicuik, which is excellent, is always busy and probably does not have the time, staff or facilities to provide what is being lost: face-to-face meetings.

By return, I wrote:

“I recognise you will have had a flurry of contacts and while I note your alternative proposal , the nearby Post Office is frankly insufficient. I have already had contact from constituents on behalf of elderly and vulnerable adults for whom that ‘solution’ is not sufficient but require the personal service you once provided so well. Indeed, one might say many, including myself aged 81, use online because there is no alternative—local banks having closed down, and even ATMs, right, left and centre. At one time, banks offered a mobile service, perhaps only weekly for a limited time, in some rural areas, and that would be a much better alternative. Is this something the bank would consider?”

I have yet to receive a reply.

Penicuik has a population of 16,500, according to the 2022 census, and it has no doubt expanded a lot since then. Around 20 per cent—that is, some 3,000—are over 60. 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. There should, at the very least, be such facilities; after all, £137 billion of our own money was paid over to bail out the banks in 2007-08 because of their self-made economic mismanagement.

One thing that we can do is move our accounts from the Bank of Scotland. It is the very least that we can do to show it that we mean business on behalf of those who cannot access it locally any more.

Finally, I, too, give my best wishes to Richard Lochhead. We came together in 1999. Wait for it—there is praise coming. He is a thoroughly able and unassuming politician who quietly got things done—and that is high praise indeed.

18:46

I have been banging on about credit unions in here for years, and I am pleased to hear that the member managed to get one on his main street. I have only another day to go, but I ask that he emails me about that, because it is something that I would like to see set up in Penicuik, failing our getting a mobile service. Credit unions are much underrated; I am a member of one myself. It is a great thing for people to save and then borrow responsibly.

I, too, congratulate my colleague Clare Haughey on securing the motion for debate in the chamber. I said earlier during the debate on animal welfare that that was my last speech—well, that was a wee porky. This really is my last speech and, appropriately, it is about my constituency

By email on 11 February, the Bank of Scotland advised me that its branch in Penicuik would close on 4 June. The reason that was given was that its customers are increasingly choosing mobile banking as their preferred way to bank. One could argue that they are given no other choice. Options that have been offered by the bank are helping people with online or mobile banking via their app—whatever that is—or, recognising that not all customers bank digitally, particularly those who are older or have a vulnerability, it has offered telephone banking and the services that are available at the post office. That is all very well, but the post office in Penicuik, which is excellent, is always busy and probably does not have the time, staff or facilities to provide what is being lost: face-to-face meetings.

By return, I wrote:

“I recognise you will have had a flurry of contacts and while I note your alternative proposal , the nearby Post Office is frankly insufficient. I have already had contact from constituents on behalf of elderly and vulnerable adults for whom that ‘solution’ is not sufficient but require the personal service you once provided so well. Indeed, one might say many, including myself aged 81, use online because there is no alternative—local banks having closed down, and even ATMs, right, left and centre. At one time, banks offered a mobile service, perhaps only weekly for a limited time, in some rural areas, and that would be a much better alternative. Is this something the bank would consider?”

I have yet to receive a reply.

Penicuik has a population of 16,500, according to the 2022 census, and it has no doubt expanded a lot since then. Around 20 per cent—that is, some 3,000—are over 60. 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. There should, at the very least, be such facilities; after all, £137 billion of our own money was paid over to bail out the banks in 2007-08 because of their self-made economic mismanagement.

One thing that we can do is move our accounts from the Bank of Scotland. It is the very least that we can do to show it that we mean business on behalf of those who cannot access it locally any more.

Finally, I, too, give my best wishes to Richard Lochhead. We came together in 1999. Wait for it—there is praise coming. He is a thoroughly able and unassuming politician who quietly got things done—and that is high praise indeed.

18:46

I, too, congratulate my colleague Clare Haughey on securing the motion for debate in the chamber. I said earlier during the debate on animal welfare that that was my last speech—well, that was a wee porky. This really is my last speech and, appropriately, it is about my constituency

By email on 11 February, the Bank of Scotland advised me that its branch in Penicuik would close on 4 June. The reason that was given was that its customers are increasingly choosing mobile banking as their preferred way to bank. One could argue that they are given no other choice. Options that have been offered by the bank are helping people with online or mobile banking via their app—whatever that is—or, recognising that not all customers bank digitally, particularly those who are older or have a vulnerability, it has offered telephone banking and the services that are available at the post office. That is all very well, but the post office in Penicuik, which is excellent, is always busy and probably does not have the time, staff or facilities to provide what is being lost: face-to-face meetings.

By return, I wrote:

“I recognise you will have had a flurry of contacts and while I note your alternative proposal , the nearby Post Office is frankly insufficient. I have already had contact from constituents on behalf of elderly and vulnerable adults for whom that ‘solution’ is not sufficient but require the personal service you once provided so well. Indeed, one might say many, including myself aged 81, use online because there is no alternative—local banks having closed down, and even ATMs, right, left and centre. At one time, banks offered a mobile service, perhaps only weekly for a limited time, in some rural areas, and that would be a much better alternative. Is this something the bank would consider?”

I have yet to receive a reply.

Penicuik has a population of 16,500, according to the 2022 census, and it has no doubt expanded a lot since then. Around 20 per cent—that is, some 3,000—are over 60. 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. There should, at the very least, be such facilities; after all, £137 billion of our own money was paid over to bail out the banks in 2007-08 because of their self-made economic mismanagement.

One thing that we can do is move our accounts from the Bank of Scotland. It is the very least that we can do to show it that we mean business on behalf of those who cannot access it locally any more.

Finally, I, too, give my best wishes to Richard Lochhead. We came together in 1999. Wait for it—there is praise coming. He is a thoroughly able and unassuming politician who quietly got things done—and that is high praise indeed.

18:46

I have been banging on about credit unions in here for years, and I am pleased to hear that the member managed to get one on his main street. I have only another day to go, but I ask that he emails me about that, because it is something that I would like to see set up in Penicuik, failing our getting a mobile service. Credit unions are much underrated; I am a member of one myself. It is a great thing for people to save and then borrow responsibly.

I, too, congratulate my colleague Clare Haughey on securing the motion for debate in the chamber. I said earlier during the debate on animal welfare that that was my last speech—well, that was a wee porky. This really is my last speech and, appropriately, it is about my constituency

By email on 11 February, the Bank of Scotland advised me that its branch in Penicuik would close on 4 June. The reason that was given was that its customers are increasingly choosing mobile banking as their preferred way to bank. One could argue that they are given no other choice. Options that have been offered by the bank are helping people with online or mobile banking via their app—whatever that is—or, recognising that not all customers bank digitally, particularly those who are older or have a vulnerability, it has offered telephone banking and the services that are available at the post office. That is all very well, but the post office in Penicuik, which is excellent, is always busy and probably does not have the time, staff or facilities to provide what is being lost: face-to-face meetings.

By return, I wrote:

“I recognise you will have had a flurry of contacts and while I note your alternative proposal , the nearby Post Office is frankly insufficient. I have already had contact from constituents on behalf of elderly and vulnerable adults for whom that ‘solution’ is not sufficient but require the personal service you once provided so well. Indeed, one might say many, including myself aged 81, use online because there is no alternative—local banks having closed down, and even ATMs, right, left and centre. At one time, banks offered a mobile service, perhaps only weekly for a limited time, in some rural areas, and that would be a much better alternative. Is this something the bank would consider?”

I have yet to receive a reply.

Penicuik has a population of 16,500, according to the 2022 census, and it has no doubt expanded a lot since then. Around 20 per cent—that is, some 3,000—are over 60. 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. There should, at the very least, be such facilities; after all, £137 billion of our own money was paid over to bail out the banks in 2007-08 because of their self-made economic mismanagement.

One thing that we can do is move our accounts from the Bank of Scotland. It is the very least that we can do to show it that we mean business on behalf of those who cannot access it locally any more.

Finally, I, too, give my best wishes to Richard Lochhead. We came together in 1999. Wait for it—there is praise coming. He is a thoroughly able and unassuming politician who quietly got things done—and that is high praise indeed.

18:46

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, 27 years on, I am a politician, and it has been an absolute privilege. [Applause.]