Seòmar agus comataidhean

I, too, congratulate Bob Doris on securing the debate. I am delighted to speak, not only because I am a custodian—I jest—of the Borders railway but because I just love trains. That is particularly useful, as I am terrified of flying, but I digress.

The removal of peak-time rail fares is brilliant. It makes rail so much the better choice for commuters who travel to work or college, for example, and for commuting not just out of the Borders but into the Borders, where the cost of housing is much more reasonable than in the city and where there are excellent schools.

The story of the Borders railway, which on 9 September celebrates its 10th birthday, is one of unmitigated success. The passenger numbers that I am about to give represent thousands of journeys off the Borders roads, reducing congestion into the city of Edinburgh. Here are just a few stats. Borders railway footfall was nearly 2 million in 2019-20, which significantly exceeds the initial projected 600,000 annual passengers. That demonstrates a successful reintroduction of all rail services to the area after decades of local campaigning—and failure of the union.

More recently published figures show that, at some stations, the number of travellers increased by more than 30 per cent during 2023-24. The highest percentage increases were at Tweedbank station, which saw a 32.4 per cent increase, and at Gorebridge station, which had a 32.9 per cent increase. Although, nationally, Scotland enjoyed a 16 per cent uplift in the number of passenger journeys, local figures for stations in that section of the Borders line exceeded that impressive rise by a considerable margin.

The reduction in the daily return fare from Edinburgh to Tweedbank, for example, which was £22.50 before the abolition of peak fares and is now £15.10, will only serve to increase usage and reduce congestion and emissions. Keeping with the day return—you can, of course, buy weekly, monthly, seasonal and other tickets, with even more cost savings—I note that its reduction in price of more than £7 a day equates to a saving of £35 for the week and, for a working month, say, £140. Take another step up and it could be £1,500 a year. That is a huge economic bonus in this time of raging food inflation and energy costs. Other concessions and discounts still apply, including the kids-for-a-quid £1 ticket, which has already been referenced.

The Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen supports the removal of peak-time rail fares. For me, that approach underlines the value of our railway system—although not the network—being in public ownership; we can avoid the costs and complexities that are so obvious in England, with its range of private companies and bewildering plethora of prices—all of which Sue Webber managed to dodge. On top of that, it adds to the argument for extending the line to Carlisle; there is a £10 million feasibility study to see whether an extension of the railway through the Borders to Carlisle would be financially viable—that case, I think, is proven. What has happened with the railway in the past 10 years shows that the extension is important. That is all a good thing and is assisted by the abolition of peak fares.

By the way—I am sorry that Sue Webber is the only Conservative here to hear this—the Conservatives initially opposed the return of the Borders railway. I have been here so long that I remember that.

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the 10th anniversary of the Borders railway, whether it will provide an update on the progress of the feasibility study to extend the line beyond Tweedbank to Carlisle, via Hawick. (S6O-04894)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body issued guidance that those attending in the public gallery should desist from wearing visible slogans. Does that direction apply to MSPs in the chamber? No matter what a slogan says, the issue is especially significant as we enter election periods.

I thank the many organisations concerned for their briefings, and I thank my colleague for securing the debate and raising the profile of kidney disease.

Members’ business debates allow parliamentarians to bring to public awareness issues that go unnoticed, and kidney disease is one of those. They also educate politicians like me. The disease does not grab the headlines, yet it is my understanding that more people die in Scotland from kidney or kidney-related disease than from cancer. It is a long-term condition that does not usually have visible symptoms until the advanced stage, and it is incurable.

Chronic kidney disease should be a significant public health concern in Scotland. I understand that it affects 600,000 people, according to data contained in a recent petition to the Scottish Parliament. There is a slow-growing understanding of the issue, and there have been calls to improve early diagnosis and treatment. Key challenges include improving access to care, supporting vulnerable patients and preventing progression to end-stage kidney disease.

Without wishing to frighten anyone, I note that people are more at risk if they have high blood pressure, diabetes or a history of the disease in their family. Although there is currently no cure, unfortunately, treatment can slow or halt the disease’s progression. Apart from the physical symptoms, there is a possible need for treatment such as dialysis or a transplant. Here I give notice, in passing, that I am sponsoring an organ donation exhibition in the Parliament later this month because, despite there being an opt-out system, organ transplants are on the decline.

“Chronic Kidney Disease: An Action Plan for Scotland” estimates that

“More than one in ten people in Scotland are estimated to have CKD. Of those, 45% ... are already in the more severe, later stages”.

Is it not therefore time to make tackling the disease a priority? On that data alone, CKD requires to be much higher up the health agenda.

Statistics are one thing but, to bring home the impact of the disease, I shall recount Craig’s story. Craig was diagnosed with immunoglobulin A nephropathy, or IgA nephropathy, a form of chronic kidney disease, in his 20s. He is now 54. He managed his condition without intervention until the summer of 2018, when he started to feel very unwell. Tests revealed that his kidney function had dropped to a critical level, and he was immediately put on to the transplant list. Fortunately, his mother, two sisters, brother and partner all put themselves forward to be a potential donor and, after initial tests, his eldest sister was found to be a perfect match. He was lucky.

In the interim, Craig had to go on dialysis. He opted for peritoneal dialysis, which he could do from home, and which would mean less disruption in his daily life. He had to have surgery to get a tube inserted into his abdomen, which he could then hook up to a peritoneal dialysis machine at the side of his bed at home. From then, for a period of eight months, he hooked himself up every night, and the machine used his peritoneal cavity to cleanse and filter his blood inside his body, performing the function that his kidneys no longer could. The family grew used to the whirring, gurgling and beeping noises that the machine made throughout the night, and they affectionately nicknamed it “George” after an inspirational transplant patient they had met. In a grim situation, a bit of humour helps.

There is not yet a cure, but I hope to sound a positive note. Craig had his kidney transplant from his sister six and a half years ago, and he is still going strong. He will be on immunosuppressants and a cocktail of other drugs for the rest of his life, but that allows him to lead a relatively normal life. He is forever grateful to his sister and to the doctors, the nurses and the surgeon who took care of him throughout the process.

I hope that the debate progresses diagnosis and early treatment. I repeat my thanks to Kenny Gibson, to Craig, for letting me tell his story, and to those attending. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response.

I simply want to assure Jackson Carlaw that, every time I have written about this, which I have done often, I have made it plain that Hamas’s actions were atrocious and that it is Netanyahu, not the Israeli people, who is at fault in his actions. I say that to assure the member that those of us who are writing about this make that distinction very loud and clear.

To call out the Israeli Government’s deadly actions in the Gaza and West Bank genocide, which I have done on many occasions in articles, is not antisemitic. Indeed, many in the Jewish diaspora are equally appalled. In Israel, dissent in relation to Netanyahu’s actions is suppressed.

I note the call on the UK Government to prohibit the import of goods from Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories, but I suggest that the UK goes further and prohibits imports from Israel itself. Devolution has its limits, but individuals like me in Scotland have not, and it is my intention to boycott those imports in the meantime.

Do we have any idea why the rate of organ donation has fallen? The legislation that we introduced was supposed to make organ donation easier and much more accessible. Do we have any idea why that is not the case?

I am sure that the member would agree that one of the great achievements not just of the SNP but of the Parliament was the reopening of the Borders railway, which will celebrate its 10th anniversary on Saturday. Things have been delivered for the people of Scotland.

Will the member take an intervention?

I thought that, while recognising the concerns raised by members, I would be alone in defending the clever, adaptable gull. I was wrong. The debate has been reasonably balanced.

I watched a gull on a busy high street case out a local store. It looked cautiously this way and that, glanced through the shop window, double-checked, dismissed me as being too distant to be a threat and then, when the shop door swished open, it was in and out in a flash, with a packet of crisps secured. It managed to break the seal to enjoy a snack. It was not a thief; it was simply an animal looking for easy pickings.

Language such as “mugging” and “menace” can be applied to us and to our counterparts, but it is not appropriate to demonise an animal that is simply looking for food. Anthropomorphising is tempting but not helpful. In part, as we recognise, we brought this on ourselves, as we are mucky creatures. Unlike the gull, however, we know the consequences, and we should take responsibility for dropping our half-consumed chips and for throwing sandwich packets to the ground, even when there is a visible waste bin nearby. There are also waste bins that are not regularly emptied but that should be. We fill tips with the detritus of our lives. If you were a gull, you would be tempted.

Do not get me wrong: I recognise that gulls can be intimidating and that there are serious incidents. Of course, if someone is somewhere where gulls regularly nest and have nested historically, they must keep their distance and respect nesting birds, which are, quite rightly, fierce defenders of their young. I was dive-bombed during the nesting season on the Isle of May. I say to members that I use the term correctly—I am not demonising; I am describing an action. That incident was completely my fault. It happened because of my ignorance.

What can we do? We can modify our own behaviour—we have mentioned all the things that we do wrong. We must not feed them, for example. We can choose methods to constrain and restrain that cause least harm to these animals. We might provide alternative nesting sites—perhaps that is why the stonemasons were being attacked.

In the Parliament, we have used trained hawks. In the main, that has been effective, although I recall seeing gulls mobbing a hawk and seeing it off, never to be seen again. However, that hawk was possibly being mobbed because the gulls have nests on this very site.

I have listened to the debate, in which legitimate issues and concerns have been raised. We must consider legal ways to control specific areas—methods of control that are humane for the gull population. I look forward to the response from the minister. However, we must not have a situation of people versus gulls or gulls versus people.