Seòmar agus comataidhean

I regret to say that I have been forbidden to use Twitter by the world at large.

I thank all those who signed my motion, which has allowed it to be debated in this global intergenerational week.

Global intergenerational week is in its fourth year, and it now involves 15 countries, including Australia, Sweden, Mexico and the countries of the United Kingdom, including Scotland, of course. The campaign is aimed at inspiring individuals, groups, organisations and local and national Governments to connect people of all ages—especially younger and older generations—to share good practice and take opportunities to come together, to enjoy one another’s company, and to make friendships that cross the age divides. That can be done in the simplest of ways, such as through physical activities, chatting, gardening, baking and the arts. In Scotland, the lead organisation is Generations Working Together.

Some of those activities already happen quite naturally, of course, through grandparenting and interactions with elderly relatives and neighbours. It can be about cuddling into granny or grandad telling a story from a book or simply sharing memories from the past—embellished, of course, at least in my case, for dramatic or romantic effect. That is special, and it gives parents a break. Walking hand in hand in the sunshine, with the young one chattering away and the elder out and about rather than sofa bound, is the stuff of abiding memories.

That can happen in more established settings, such as a care setting, when young ones come in to share simple play and perhaps perform a song or two. In schools, it can involve a lesson in social history—on what it was like to grow up post-war with the remnants of rationing, or in the swinging 60s, when miniskirts were all the fashion and the young rebelled against the older generation. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. It can involve a young person showing someone older how to use Facebook or the mysteries—for some—of the internet. It can be about using emojis in the right place at the right time for the right reason. Remember how David Cameron got caught out with the misuse of “LOL”?

In formal settings, we sometimes miss out by failing to consult and collaborate across the generations. Consider, for example, housing developments that are adaptable to changes as someone moves from single occupancy to family requirements to being elderly and perhaps the sole occupant again, and needing ground-floor living yet being able to remain in the same development. In social housing in the 1950s, there were what used to be known as pensioners houses in mixed developments, so pensioners were part of a mixed community. Developers have also contributed by building schools with integrated community spaces for use by both young and older generations in the evenings and weekends. That happens, but not often enough. It would be a good idea if new-build schools had allotments to be shared by young and old. Perhaps the older generation could share their expertise and the very young could learn that peas taste best stolen from the living pod.

That sharing breaks down barriers—real or perceived—of age divides or stereotypes. The words that we use of the elderly—the “challenge” or “burden” of demographics, people being “privileged to have pensions” and elderly people being “boring” or “selfish”—set the tone. The words that we use of the young—“a challenge”, “privileged”, “selfish” and “boring”—make the point about parallel perceptions.

Youthful exuberance in public places can be interpreted by the elderly as intimidating. I have been there, too. Coming home from a youth fellowship meeting one Sunday evening in winter, a dozen of us were gossiping at a street corner. The next thing, a policeman approached and told us to move along. Being the person I was, even then, I questioned his authority, as we were “not breaking the law, this is a democracy”—and so on. I added that we were the youth fellowship, for goodness’ sake. It transpired that nearby households had reported us because of the noise that we were making. Needless to say, my challenge did not go down well, as the officer escorted me home. Yes: plus ça change.

Age discrimination against the older generation is alive and well, but so is age discrimination against the young. The untrammelled energy of youth can be annoying, but so, too, can the slower pace of the elderly irritate those who are young, when life is in a hurry. Tolerance and understanding is a good prescription.

It is generalising generational behaviour that is at fault. Individual-to-individual interaction can be quite a different matter. That is why one-to-one encounters—personal encounters between the younger and the older generations—can shatter such perceptions and, more than that, enhance respect and understanding.

The minister for older people, Ms Roddick, sat with me on the back benches until recently. She is 25, going on 26, and I am 78, going on 79. More than 50 years separate us and—dreaded thought of thoughts, for her and me—I am old enough to be her grandmother. She helped me when my Surface played up, and she still does so, and I hope that I was of use to her with my experience back here. More important, we also had fun on the back benches, where a degree of naughtiness can go unnoticed, Deputy Presiding Officer. A penchant for mischief can, after all, be delightfully intergenerational.

When Ariane Burgess mentioned the reintroduction of wolves, I thought that Edward Mountain was going to fall off his chair.

I congratulate Kenneth Gibson on securing this intriguing debate. I say to Edward Mountain that that does not mean that the reintroduction of the lynx is imminent, but it opens up the debate to what I hope will be informed and tolerant discussion.

I will reference the detailed research by the Lynx to Scotland partnership, which sought to assess the social feasibility of the potential reintroduction of lynx to Scotland through consultation with stakeholders and communities in two focal areas—the Cairngorms national park and Argyll. I understand that that work represents the first effort to assess social feasibility, which is of central importance for the proposed reintroduction of a large carnivore that has been absent from Britain for a period of time equivalent to multiple human generations.

I will provide some graphic but relevant information. The lynx is, of course, a pure carnivore. Depending on the region and the availability of prey, it hunts cloven-hoofed animals such as roe deer, as well as young red deer, small mammals such as hares and rabbits, and in rare instances, smaller predators such as foxes are also on the lynx’s menu. It hunts mainly in the evening, when its prey is also active, and its territory is heavily wooded and afforested areas.

When hunting, the lynx is aided by its excellent sensory organs, which enable it to see six times better in the dark than a human, and it is able to spot a rabbit from a distance of 300m. With its finely tuned ears, it can also hear the slightest rustle. It is a stalk-and-ambush hunter that catches its prey just like a cat does. However, I understand that, if a surprise attack fails, the prey is not pursued. It seizes its prey with its front claws and kills it with a bite to the throat.

If a lynx has killed a deer and is not disturbed, it will return to its prey over several nights until it has completely consumed it. A lynx needs to kill about one deer a week, which equates to around 60 animals a year. Therefore, the lynx could—I simply say “could”—provide a natural means of keeping deer numbers down. It could also predate on foxes, which, in turn, predate on ground-nesting birds.

Having been driven to extinction in parts of Europe since the beginning of the 19th century—

I welcome the concessionary bus fares. How much do those subsidies—indeed, I would call them investments in the services—cost?

I note that the minister has recently met representatives of producers and retailers, which is good, but has she met the Resource Management Association Scotland, as I have? It represents 400 companies—small and medium-sized enterprises—that operate in waste management, with 6,690 employees. It has concerns, given that Biffa has a monopoly, that those businesses will be put out of work and that those jobs are at risk.

My information from many good gamekeepers in my part of the south of Scotland is that their concern is about foxes predating on ground-nesting birds. Foxes nipping out of the woods are the problem. I ask Edward Mountain to hold his peace, because he will be happy with my conclusion, I hope.

There were diverse views, as expected, on the benefits and disbenefits of reintroduction, and that is rightly the case. Indeed, there was a proposal for the trial reintroduction of lynx to the Kielder forest by the Lynx UK Trust in 2018, which was rejected by the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for, among other reasons, insufficient engagement with key stakeholders and communities.

The overall objective of the Lynx to Scotland study was to provide an evidence base to inform the discourse among stakeholders about the feasibility of reintroduction, to be clear about the range of views of stakeholders, and to gain a clearer understanding of public belief and perceptions around reintroducing the animal. Four hundred and thirty verbatim statements were initially selected from interview transcripts. Those were refined to a set of 52 statements and then considered. Community groups were also invited to engage.

The view was reinforced that roe deer have become hugely problematic over recent decades and difficult to hunt under woodland cover. It was thought that, in an ideal world, lynx would have a regulatory impact on smaller carnivores that negatively impact protected species such as the capercaillie, as I have said, and it was questioned what role lynx might play in contributing to nutrient recycling in woodland.

However, the view was also expressed that red deer are commercially very valuable to the Highland economy and that lynx might be detrimental to that. A potential consequence of lynx reducing red deer abundance was thought to be a loss of grazed heath, with knock-on impacts on protected species and perhaps an increased risk of wildfire on the peatlands. Questions were also asked about the growth dynamics for lynx populations and what limited their numbers in Europe.

The main body of discussion concerned the potential impact of lynx on sheep farming in Scotland. Naturally, farmers want to protect their sheep from traumatic and unnecessary death.

I hope that Edward Mountain is listening, as I have selected three recommendations from the study. First, it states:

“It is not currently appropriate for proponents of lynx reintroduction to submit a licence application for reintroduction. At present, there are significant areas of contestation with regards to the feasibility of lynx reintroduction, and if these are not satisfactorily addressed, there is strong potential for the escalation of existing conflicts.”

Secondly, it states:

“A group with cross-sectoral representation should be established to appraise the findings of this study ... The process should seek to integrate local and scientific knowledge in appraising and addressing these areas, and the output from this group should inform the ... processes.”

I will not quote all the recommendations but, thirdly, it states:

“A comprehensive risk assessment for protected species and rural industries is required, in order to address divergent perceptions over the potential impacts, both positive and negative, of lynx reintroduction.”

I conclude by saying to Mr Mountain that, although I understand his concerns, he should look at that considered report and see that it proposes not that lynx should be reintroduced now but that much more detailed research must be done to satisfy all stakeholders if and when the Eurasian lynx might be reintroduced to Scotland.

I congratulate Alexander Stewart on securing the debate and congratulate the University of Stirling, which has a proven track record in respect of issues regarding the elderly.

I declare an interest, having entered Parliament in 1999, when I was already—according to the definition of ageing—elderly, although I was only 55. I am now on track to be 79—

We know that wealth protects and that poverty brings with it physical and mental ill health, which blights the prospects of some children even before birth, because the damage of poverty and inequality begins in the womb. It can also corral whole communities, as a postcode can determine people’s prospects in health, wealth and happiness.

Sustainable economic growth focusing on indigenous businesses, fair taxation and fair pay, together with a just benefits system, provides a foundation. However, it is simply that: a foundation. Therefore, it is what we build on that foundation that matters. Of course, we do not have power over the macroeconomy, over most areas of taxation or over some substantial benefits. Devolution dilutes not only radical progress in redistribution but the growth of a nation’s wealth.

Despite that, housing, education and health care are just some examples of where Scottish Government policies have and will improve the quality of life of those who currently cannot see the way forward for themselves and their children.

We need to accelerate the building of public sector homes. Currently, many of my constituency emails deal with housing issues: overcrowding; damp; people languishing on council lists for years; and people paying high rents in the private sector or stretching their income to breaking point with a mortgage. Yes, there is a place for home ownership, but that should be a choice, not driven by necessity.

That said, wellbeing starts with a decent roof over everyone’s head. In my book, if we want to increase the happiness, health and ambition of people, we should start with social housing. I welcome the measures that have been announced to bring empty homes back into use.

Then there is education, which is the key to having the opportunity to realise our potential. That happened for me. I was brought up in a council house, educated in state schools and had my university fees paid twice, through two degrees. Indeed, at one point, because of the family income, I had a full grant for living costs. I say to the Opposition that Brexit has impacted our university research and development.

I welcome the support for families. The uptake of the baby box is well over 90 per cent, and we have 1,140 hours of free nursery care for three and four-year-olds, with the prospect of that being extended to one and two-year-olds. In addition, there are no tuition fees. We also have free school meals for primary 1 to 5, which will be extended to P6 and P7 for those in receipt of the Scottish child payment.

I turn to health and social care. We do not pay for prescriptions. In England, the cost is well over £9 an item. Here, no one is worrying over the cost, or rationing which medication they can afford, if they can afford any.

For context—we must put some blame at the foot of the UK economy—the UK economy is at the bottom of the G7 countries in its recovery from Covid. It is doing even worse than Russia, which is waging an immoral and costly war. General inflation is above 10 per cent, and food inflation is about 18 per cent. This Parliament can do nothing about that.

It is a bit hypocritical for any Conservatives to argue that poverty in Scotland has nothing to do with Tory policies that we did not vote for. Part of the issue is being dragged out of Europe. No matter what spin Jeremy Hunt puts on it, the UK economy is, at best, stagnant, and teetering on the edge of recession.

Undertaking a house-building programme for social rented housing, as we did many decades ago, would benefit the economy, from the planners, architects, trades and suppliers to the shops that sell the takeaway bacon rolls. If I was to rank the three areas of housing, education and health, I would start with decent housing for anyone in Scotland who needs it.

It appears that the UK position on gender recognition in Scotland has shifted since 2018, when it was that

“Scotland can have its own system”.

I know that no amendments have been proposed by the UK Government. As a last resort, to truncate litigation, would the Scottish Government be sympathetic to a sist of proceedings, with the agreement of the UK Government and leave of the courts, to see whether the bill could be amended to both parties’ satisfaction, while still protecting the Scottish Government’s right to proceed if that does not happen?

It is brief. What impact has Brexit had on staffing levels in the care sector?