Hansard

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.]