Chamber and committees

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.

The convener has touched on the point that there are quite a lot of cross-party groups out there. Would you consider occasional joint meetings with some of the other groups that you have mentioned, as a way round that challenge? I know that other cross-party groups have tried to do that, to avoid stretching MSPs too thinly every time there is a meeting.

Access to affordable housing remains one of the key factors driving depopulation in our islands. There has been significant Scottish Government investment in recent years, but can the First Minister say more about the Scottish Government’s approach to working with key stakeholders to ensure that empty homes are brought back into use and that enough new homes are being built in both rural and urban areas of the Highlands and Islands?

Amendment 192 seeks to provide additional clarity regarding the persons in respect of whom ministers may make regulations relating to continuing professional development.

To pick up on Richard Leonard’s point, stakeholders have queried the meaning of “farmers” in section 27(1)(a) and have asked whether that would include or exclude farm workers and other persons—in particular, family members—who contribute to activities on the farm or in the business. By proposing to expand section 27(1) to include

“persons who work in agriculture (whether as employees or otherwise)”,

I seek to clarify that provision and ensure that we do not leave behind anyone who is making a contribution in agriculture, while providing ministers with flexibility in relation to the design of CPD.

Will the member take an intervention?

I was merely muttering to myself, but I think that Ben Macpherson said the opposite of what Graham Simpson has characterised him as having said.

I will not try to do a vote of thanks for what was a well-informed debate. I thank Christine Grahame for what I understand were the six years of work that lie behind her bill and for the evidence that she provided to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee. I know that the welfare of animals is a subject that is very close to Ms Grahame’s heart, and she should be commended for her consistent advocacy on that subject in this place.

Our history as a nation of dog lovers has been alluded to, and dogs have played a key role in Scotland’s folklore. Countless people visit Greyfriars Bobby’s grave every year and Mary, Queen of Scots was well known for her love of dogs, having acquired that affection during her time in France. Incidentally, it is believed that, upon the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots, her loyal canine Folly, a terrier, was found hiding at her feet. You will be pleased to know that I will not continue much further in that vein, Presiding Officer. I am prompted to mention it all merely through the sudden recollection of Christine Grahame’s campaign some years ago to repatriate to Scotland the respective components of Mary, Queen of Scots.

In the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, there was a widespread acceptance that the aims of the proposed legislation are good. We can always do more to ensure the legality, safety and robustness of the way in which dog breeding and dog sales are governed. Therefore, I believe that, on the whole, we should support the general principles of the bill at stage 1.

The bill proposes a new code of practice regarding acquiring and supplying a dog. Although powers already exist to introduce codes of practice relating to animal welfare under sections 37 and 38 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, the proposed code is structured around the duty of care that will be placed on the owner to meet welfare needs, which are based on the internationally recognised five freedoms approach.

As an MSP for the Western Isles, where the use of working dogs is still important, I believe that we should consider whether the scope of part 1 of the bill should extend to all dogs, regardless of the purposes for which they are kept. Indeed, the Scottish Government’s current code of practice for the welfare of dogs applies to all dogs, whether they be pets or working animals. After hearing evidence from stakeholders and reading the written responses to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, I believe that such a proposal is worth considering.

Although some proposals in the bill will not have entirely convinced some members of the committee that they are necessary to improve animal welfare, I am confident that there is scope for useful and helpful amendments from members across the Parliament to ensure that the bill does what it seeks to do, which is to ensure the long-term welfare of Scotland’s dogs. As other members have pointed out today, that is often in the face of great cruelty and, very often, in the face of organised crime.

On that basis, I am very happy to support Ms Grahame’s bill at stage 1 and to endorse its general principles.

The member makes a very good case as to why new legislation is necessary. My understanding is that her bill would include a code. Could she say why she feels that it is necessary for the detail of that code to be—unusually—in the bill? I do not say that as a criticism of the bill, but I would like to know why the member feels that so much information about the code needs to be in the bill itself.

I wonder whether the point about redistribution is also relevant to the formation of a rural support plan. Will the impact of agricultural policy on redistribution be a factor in forming a rural support plan?

I look forward to hearing what the cabinet secretary has to say about the amendments before I decide whether to move mine. However, the aim of amendment 119 is simply to ensure effective consultation with those impacted or affected by the rural support plan. In order for the plan to deliver the desired outcomes, there needs to be effective discussion and consultation in advance of its publication and in advance of subsequent amendments to the plan.