Chamber and committees

From time to time, it is as well to lift our eyes from the Scottish political fray to recall that Scotland is still a European country and that events in Europe still matter to us. I am therefore grateful that we have the opportunity to reflect on all that in this debate.

Almost three quarters of a century ago, the Schuman declaration marked the beginning of post-world war two Franco-German co-operation. That was a hugely significant turning point in Europe’s pursuit of long-term sustainable peace. It came after a continuous period of more than 80 years during which Germany and France had largely been either at war or on the verge of war with each other. In the following year—1951—the alliance was opened to other European countries, and the treaty of Paris was also signed by the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and Luxembourg. That created the European Coal and Steel Community, which paved the way for the European Economic Community and, subsequently, of course, the European Union.

Europe day is celebrated on 9 May each year, on the anniversary of the signing of the Schuman declaration. Unfortunately, the anniversary fell, and falls, at a time of war in Europe. I therefore take the opportunity—as I am sure others would—to reiterate the Parliament’s categorical condemnation of Putin’s unprovoked aggression, which has destroyed the lives of so many Ukrainians since the illegal invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The Russian Government’s reckless actions during that invasion have also directly resulted in the deaths of many members of its own forces.

The European Union was established to promote peace and co-operation between Europe’s independent nations. I, of course, very much hope that, one day soon, Scotland can count herself among those independent European nations. However, for the moment, Europe day represents an opportunity for us to reflect on the European Union’s core aspirations, as well as on the challenges that it faces in today’s landscape.

Peace and co-operation are values that we must pursue and prioritise, particularly in a period of political polarisation when misinformation and, therefore, mistrust can be rife. Unless those are checked, they can, ultimately, pose a threat to democracy itself. The shared European

“values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and respect for human rights”,

are ones that I hope every individual in the chamber shares, no matter their position on Scotland’s future or, indeed, on the European Union.

However, I cannot resist saying that those who continue to argue against even rejoining the single market or re-establishing freedom of movement of people are taking an extreme stance—one that I do not claim to be able to comprehend. It is a stance that I would counsel all parties not to humour much further.

Just a few weeks ago, yet more new, expensive and complicated import controls came into force as a direct consequence of Brexit, and are causing further damage to Scotland’s businesses and our economic interests. More EU businesses are ceasing their trade with the United Kingdom altogether because of the additional expense and bureaucratic headache that the trading relationship now involves. The UK has already suffered the largest five-year decline in goods trade since comparable records began in 1997, with the volume of UK goods imports and exports being 7.4 per cent smaller than it was in 2018.

Exports from my constituency, particularly of fresh seafood, have at times suffered significantly due to the complex, time-consuming and expensive checks that are now required for every box on every journey to mainland Europe. Any small error can result in thousands of pounds of produce being held up and, sometimes, ultimately discarded.

I am conscious that the bulk of the roads in my constituency that are wide enough to drive two cars past each other without stopping are largely the product of EU structural and investment funds. The UK Government committed to matching EU structural funding after Brexit in a programme that it insisted would be

“better tailored to our economy”.

However, we have found ourselves being overlooked and short-changed.

Meanwhile, the UK Government—and, as far as I can see, the main UK Opposition—refuse to move an inch from their opposition to EU membership. I am afraid that, even with the potential for a new Government in Westminster, the tunnel vision on anything related to the EU or the single market looks to be firmly set to continue.

Last month, both Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak rejected the European Commission’s proposals for a post-Brexit youth mobility deal, for instance, which would have allowed those aged between 18 and 30 to live, study or work in one EU country for up to four years, with young EU citizens able to come to the UK on the same basis.

Brexit was unquestionably an act of cultural and economic vandalism. Scotland remains a steadfastly European nation, bound to our neighbours by a long history of cultural, social and economic ties. Although external powers have forced us to leave the political European community, I am proud to say that Scotland’s esprit européen is something that no external power can take away.

The SAWC report also said that independent tracks might have “some social benefit”. I am not sure whether that was intended to mean social benefit for the dogs or the humans. Can you say whether you view the independent track that remains as having a social benefit? How do you understand that and what do you make of that bit of the report?

I am conscious that there are people in the room who know more about this issue than I do, but I want to ask about the rehoming of dogs. Is it your feeling, on the evidence that you have had, that racing is creating a problem—that is, the rehoming of dogs—that is being left to society to solve?

Is that sustainable going forward? Are the costs and welfare issues around the need to rehome acceptable? Should we allow it?

Thank you.

How do we balance that with animal welfare and which, no pun intended, is top dog?

There will be people in Scotland—and we have heard from them—who race dogs at commercial English tracks. I presume, then, that they will be part of the process of commercial racing that results in dogs perhaps needing to be rehomed, and not all of those dogs will be socialised enough for that. This is a provocative question—I am just looking for your view on it—but are these people not creating a problem that is being left to others to sort out?

I have a quick question about licensing. The focus of our conversation has been very much about the potential licensing of tracks but have you thought about the licensing of kennels? If so, what would that mean?

I thank Marie McNair for bringing this important debate to the chamber. This week, as she said, is national epilepsy week, which is an opportunity to raise awareness of epilepsy, in particular the challenges that those who are living with the condition can face. I am pleased to take part in the debate as convener of the cross-party group on epilepsy. I also do so as someone who has epilepsy, although thankfully it has been controlled via medication for many years now.

Epilepsy is one of the most prevalent neurological conditions nationally, with an estimated 58,000 people in Scotland being thought to have it. Unfortunately, however—as Ms McNair mentioned—it is still misunderstood by many, and its wider effects are often underestimated. There remain lingering misconceptions around the condition, some of which are relics of the very considerable stigma that attached itself to epilepsy until well within living memory.

Some of that lack of understanding affects those who are living with the condition in many ways, including in relation to the job market. According to figures from 2022, as we have heard, only 34 per cent of working-age people with epilepsy are in employment. In addition, 61 per cent of respondents to Epilepsy Scotland’s national survey last year said that their epilepsy affected their employment to some degree.

Much of that comes down to a serious lack of awareness, in particular on the part of employers, of what epilepsy actually is and how necessary adjustments to working practices can often very easily be made. In 2023, I was pleased to be involved in the launch of Epilepsy Scotland’s national survey, “Epilepsy on the Mind”, which examined the impact of epilepsy on individuals and their support network, in particular in relation to mental health. Although it is important to say at the outset that epilepsy is not—as was often assumed in the past—a mental illness, the study showed that 85 per cent of respondents believed that epilepsy had, nonetheless, impacted on their mental health, with half of respondents saying that they had anxiety and a third reporting that they had depression.

Many people who are living with epilepsy are not permitted to drive, for good reasons. As someone who grew up in, and now lives in, a rural area, I cannot stress enough what a serious obstacle that can present to both work and social life. In my case, I am fortunate enough now to be able to drive, although it has been commented that perhaps my driver’s licence should be restricted in its validity in some way to the Outer Hebrides. Nonetheless, it is important to ensure that those who have epilepsy can access the right support and advice to help them to overcome some of the problems around employment that I specifically mentioned.

In addition to the essential clinical care that is required by those who are living with epilepsy, the work of charities such as Epilepsy Scotland in providing social support is vital for improving the wellbeing of those with the condition. That involves facilitating access to the relevant resources and knowledge, counselling, peer-support activities and welfare rights assistance. That work helps to relieve pressure on the national health service in the long term, with studies showing that those who receive good-quality social support can manage their epilepsy better, and that they use fewer clinical and social care services as a result.

I commend Epilepsy Scotland and other third sector groups for the incredible work that they do to support those who are living with epilepsy, and for spreading awareness about the condition and its effects. During national epilepsy week, I encourage as many people as possible to learn a little bit more about epilepsy. Everyone can play a part in reducing the misconceptions that can needlessly and unfairly exclude so many people from the employment opportunities and social life that are so important for anyone’s mental health.

As we have heard from members today, thousands of innocent sub-postmasters have had their lives ruined by being wrongly convicted of offences of dishonesty on the evidence of the faulty Post Office Horizon system.

I am glad that the bill’s passage through the Scottish Parliament will be expedited to allow justice and redress to be delivered to victims as swiftly as possible. Of course, as members have pointed out, the quickest and easiest route to overturn those miscarriages of justice would have been for the UK Government to have extended its own bill to cover sub-postmasters in Scotland. Unfortunately, the Scottish Government’s repeated requests for that were refused.

Nevertheless, the bill that is set before us today should serve symbolic and practical purposes under the overturned convictions scheme that was established by the UK Government. Anyone who was wrongfully convicted as a result of Horizon evidence is eligible to receive compensation of at least £600,000, but that is only once their conviction has been overturned.

Many of those whose wrongful convictions have been overturned, including a constituent of mine, have yet to receive a penny in compensation. As her case is already in the public domain, I will, with her permission, take the opportunity to mention my constituent, Anne Quarm, whom I have been supporting in this matter. Mrs Quarm’s late husband, William, was a sub-postmaster in North Uist.

In around 2009, Mr Quarm, who had run his sub-post office for several years, highlighted to the Post Office that he was experiencing issues with the newly installed Horizon IT system. The Post Office claimed that large sums of money were missing from the end-of-day accounts, a discrepancy that Mr Quarm could not understand. Because of what we all now know were fundamental problems with Horizon, Mr Quarm was initially ordered to pay tens of thousands of pounds. He tried to comply, but simply could not keep up.

Visiting investigators from the Post Office told Mr Quarm—as they, of course, claimed to everyone else in this sorry story—that nobody in the country was having any issues with the Horizon system except him. It has since become very clear that those investigators were incompetent, largely untrained and were telling what now seem to have very clearly been untruths.

Mr and Mrs Quarm were prosecuted on the strength of the evidence provided by the Post Office and had their sub-post office taken from them. The attached family-run shop also had to be sold. They lost their family home, much of their croft and their small bed-and-breakfast business. They soon became insolvent as a result.

Mr Quarm’s health quickly deteriorated, leaving Mrs Quarm to plead for her husband to be allowed to spend his final days in his own home, ahead of that home having to be disposed of. Despite them working for the Post Office for 14 years, it was also decided that Mr and Mrs Quarm should not have anything paid out to them from Mr Quarm’s pension. That decision has—incredibly—never been corrected.

Sadly, Mr Quarm died two years after being prosecuted on the strength of evidence provided by the Post Office. Aside from their financial losses, they both suffered enormous levels of stress at a time when Mr Quarm was already seriously ill. To that must be added the strain for Mrs Quarm of trying to contain the details of her situation in a small island community where the stigma that is associated with any prosecution is very significant. The couple, who were liked and well respected, were left completely shattered. Today, Mrs Quarm is living in rented accommodation and is having to work full time at a point when she should really be thinking of retirement.

Mr and Mrs Quarm were eventually exonerated by a court of all the crimes of which the Post Office had accused them, but, unfortunately, that came well after Mr Quarm’s death. To date, Mrs Quarm has not received a penny of compensation. Although I understand that the Post Office has offered to make an interim payment, that is yet to be seen, and there is still no sign of those payments being processed. At no stage has the Post Office or the UK Government—the sole shareholder in the Post Office—offered any support whatsoever, and the family have had to defend themselves at their own expense.

I am sure that members will agree that Mrs Quarm and her late husband have been treated shamefully by an organisation in which the UK Government is, as I say, the sole shareholder. I wrote to Kevin Hollinrake MP, the UK Minister for Enterprise, Markets and Small Business, on 26 February on Mrs Quarm’s behalf, and I have written twice again since. I have received no reply from him, far less any indication of what has become of any interim payment, any compensation or even Mrs Quarm’s pension. I hope that I will get a reply sometime. I think that members will agree that Mrs Quarm deserves that, at the very least.