Seòmar agus comataidhean

—too soon for my liking. Where did all those decades go? Thank you, Mr Whittle. The first comment that I will make is that not only are we—the “aged”—all individuals, but we represent a substantial age range, spanning five decades, so one cannot generalise.

I know that the challenges of ageing are not only physical but are, as the motion states, cognitive and social. I would expand that list to include the isolation and loneliness that were referred to by Alexander Stewart, who is very young. We have the research, but what can we, as politicians and individuals, do?

Older people are generally—I do mean generally—reasonably well catered for in respect of healthcare, for example with regular vaccinations, but it is when we are unable to care for ourselves that we are vulnerable, especially if we do not have savings or a decent pension.

That is why reform of the care sector and support for its workforce must be priorities. Too many people languish in hospital when aids and adaptations to their homes, care support at home, or access to a care home would not only free up hospital beds and the staff who service them, but keep people hale and hearty. Mental and physical wellbeing can soon disintegrate when a person is stuck in a bed far from the home where they should be. The creation of integration joint boards was a first step, but we need cohesion between the national health service and the care sector.

There is also the plague of isolation and loneliness. There are folk whose trip to the local shop or supermarket is the only social interaction that they have. Travelling on the bus with their pass is a bonus; it might be their only social life. The phone might be silent unless there is a cold call, and the front door remains locked, even in daytime, because there is no one coming to visit. Many people will not admit that they are lonely or that they have only the television or radio for companionship.

Retirement need not be absolute. For some people, continuing to work either whole time or part time, if that is compatible with the demands of the job, is a choice. I note that, with the diminishing workforce, many elderly people are returning to work, but doing so should be their choice and should not be done to prop up a poor state pension, for instance. Some 40 per cent of people who are entitled to pension credit, which is a UK benefit, do not claim it, and that percentage has remained unchanged during my entire time in Parliament.

For many people, especially very elderly people, there is a sense of being invisible and of melting into the background. Confidence erodes, as does the person’s sense of self-worth and their value. It need not be like that, however. In society, older people are too often regarded as a burden; they are patronised and they are not given the respect that age has earned them. I can report that age discrimination is alive and well, even in this building. It should be remembered that we were young once, too. We recognise the path that the young are treading, because we trod it before them. Perhaps only with age, however, do we appreciate time, because it is not on our side.

Other cultures value their elders, and we should do more of that in Scotland. I assure members that I will ensure that the Scottish Government does not ignore us.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am having other technical problems this afternoon—now it is the mobile phone. I would have voted yes.

I am technologically intact.

Wellbeing starts—

I beg your pardon, Presiding Officer—I seem to have done something funny to my screen. Sorry about this, but can someone remove something from my screen, please? [Interruption.]

I have got a lot of funny stuff down the side of the screen.

I understand that the current system of packaging waste recycling notes will end when Circularity Scotland’s system kicks in. Who will benefit from the loss of PRNs? Who will experience a disbenefit?

The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body is committed to providing accessibility support to enable members of the public to engage in parliamentary business. However, as the member is aware, cross-party groups are not a formal part of parliamentary business and, as such, the corporate body is not responsible for providing resources for them.

Nevertheless, as is set out in the members’ code of conduct, cross-party groups may use the Parliament’s facilities where those are available for public use. That means that MSPs and CPGs can access the interpretation infrastructure of our meeting rooms, which includes a portable set of equipment and headphones They can also access the advice and guidance on language support that is set out on the cross-party groups page of the Parliament’s intranet.

In addition, we are aware of a facility in Microsoft Teams to support remote interpretation for informal meetings. We are developing guidance for MSPs and committees on that facility, and we will also place the guidance on the CPG pages of the intranet.

I support my colleague on this issue.

I note that the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission also supports a snaring ban in Scotland, recommending that the sale of snares and their use should be banned on animal welfare grounds. However, the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill, as it has been introduced, just restricts their use. I advise the cabinet secretary that I—along with others, I imagine—will be pursuing a complete ban on snaring.

I thank Paul Sweeney for his supplementary question. I think that we are prepared to review the policy. However, with regard to cross-party groups perhaps having greater access to support, that would be a matter to put to the Parliament through the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee in order to assist CPGs in engaging with the members of the public they bring in. That is worth looking into.

I understand that this debate is the highlight of today.

First, I congratulate members of St Andrew’s Children’s Society, who would have been here had decision time been at 5 pm. Fortunately, I was able to alert them that there was a change of time. I also thank those who signed my motion, allowing the debate to go ahead, and those who have stayed behind in the face of competing attractions on this auspicious day.

The motion marks the centenary of the society, which is understood to be the oldest adoption and fostering agency in Scotland. Its history and its procedures today reflect the changing societal attitudes to single mothers, which were addressed so poignantly in the chamber last week when the then First Minister offered an apology to those who were forced to give up their babies who were born out of what we call “wedlock”. I am old enough to recall the attitudes of those days and I will expand on that shortly.

Recently, I sponsored an event in Parliament to commemorate the centenary of the society, and I was very moved by the accounts of two recent adopters. Before I talk about that, however, I must mention Maureen McEvoy, a member of the society who has written a commemorative booklet on its history. She is an extraordinary woman—a foster carer and adopter herself.

I will quote from her first experience.

“It is fifty five years since my husband and I approached the Catholic Social Services Centre with the hope of adopting a child. I would like to share a reflection on our first adoption experience. On Monday 1st July 1968 life changed forever for my husband, Jim, and me because that was the day that we brought home our first adopted daughter. We had always hoped to have children, but after years of unsuccessful tests, we decided in 1967 that adoption would be the route to our family. On Tuesday, 25th June 1968, Jim’s birthday, we received a letter telling us about Jenny, who was three months old. We went to see her at her foster family on Wednesday, and then began a hectic whirl of activity. I handed in my notice, and my employers, who knew of our adoption plans, allowed me to leave work on the Friday. Work was hectic as I finished off as much as I could, and handed over the rest of my work to sympathetic colleagues. We had to collect the pram we had ordered, and buy loads of baby paraphernalia, including lots of terry towelling nappies!”

Members might remember those.

“We had been waiting nine months for news of a baby, and had been too worried that it was never going to happen, so had bought very little. There was no paternal leave in those days, and after we got home, buying formula milk on the way, Jim just had time for a cup of tea before going back to his office. No sooner had he gone, than Jenny started crying, and I had to set about her first feed. Boiling the water, mixing the feed, then cooling the bottle seemed to take forever and her wails got louder and louder. I felt a total failure in that first hour.

Both of our families welcomed Jenny into the wider family, and although we had never heard of funnelling in those days, we were very gradual in introducing her to our many family members. Jim’s sister and husband lived in Edinburgh with their five children, and Jenny loved spending time with her cousins.

When I learn now of the phased introductions for adopted children, and hear of continued contact with foster parents, I realise that Jenny’s move to our home was harder for her than it needed to be, and only her sunny nature seemed to make it so easy. No life story book for her—all we got was about ten lines of information and no photos of her before she came to us.

In 1968 babies were placed with families, some straight from hospital, but the birth mother was unable to give full consent for her child to be adopted until three months after giving birth, and she was able to reclaim her child at any time during that period. After three months, adopters could launch a petition to adopt the child, and if the mother changed her mind before the adoption order was granted there had to be a legal hearing to decide the best interests of the child.

Changed times thankfully for birth parents, foster parents and adopters and the children.”

When the agency was established in Edinburgh in 1922, it helped unmarried mums to find homes for their babies, as was the social norm at that time. Now it helps to find homes for vulnerable children and welcomes adoption and fostering inquiries from all members of the community, including single people, people who follow a faith and people who do not, and members of the LGBTQI+ community, through its offices in Edinburgh and Aberdeen.

In 2010, it entered into a partnership with After Adoption in England and Wales to be its exclusive providers in Scotland of the groundbreaking parenting programme, safebase. The Scottish Government supported the agency to get the initiative off the ground and it has presented courses in many locations throughout Scotland. It also offers courses on Theraplay to all its adopters, to help them to reduce the development gaps that many adopted children have experienced in their early life, because children who are adopted today might very well suffer from the physical effects of parental alcohol or drug addiction.

The centenary event was a delight and heart-warming. It exemplified how far adoption has come. Two parents with their children present told us their stories. One was a single gay male with his adopted teenage son and another a gay male couple who had adopted three siblings: two little girls and a boy. All the children were on their best behaviour and beautifully turned out. The wee girls were in tartan skirts with Aran sweaters and their brother was in matching trews. One of the dads told us how he and his partner had intended to adopt just one child but, when they were introduced to the wee trio, there was only one decision for them. From having no family to having three children was quite a life-changing experience. There were no more exotic holidays or posh restaurants for them—more like burger bars and play areas. As that dad said, he would not change it for the world. Throughout his speech, you could hear his wee family, seated with his partner, encouraging him with cries of “Daddy, daddy.” He was not dry eyed, neither was I and neither was the minister who is now sitting in front of me.

It is appropriate that this debate follows on from the statement that the First Minister made last week, in which she apologised on behalf of us all for the way in which the state treated unwed mothers in past decades, which St Andrew’s Children’s Society fully recognises, and that the debate acknowledges where we and the society are now. I wish the society and all of its foster and adopter parents and their charges well.