Hansard

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.