Agism
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S1M-2849, in the name of Sarah Boyack, on agism. The debate will conclude without any question being put. Members who wish to speak in the debate should press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible. Members who are leaving the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes research findings by Help the Aged indicating that over 50% of Scots in the 65-74 age group feel that the country treated older people as if they were "on the scrap heap" and "a burden to society"; believes that such treatment is unacceptable and perpetuates ageism in society, which can be seen in both deliberate and inadvertent discrimination in the attitudes of both public and private sector organisations, allied to continued media stereotyping of older people, and therefore considers that the Scottish Executive should identify and address areas of age discrimination in Scottish public life so that older people feel valued and can make a full and positive contribution to society.
We have just finished a debate on young people participating in communities, so it is highly appropriate that we end the day with a debate on older people participating in communities.
I welcome everyone in the visitors gallery who has come to follow the debate. I thank the many members who signed the motion, particularly those who have stayed for tonight's debate. Clearly, the issue struck a chord with members—that is a testament to the commitment across the Parliament to tackling agism. I have a suspicion that the interest in the debate might have something to do with the sterling work that organisations such as Help the Aged are doing in raising the issue directly with members. I thank Help the Aged for bringing the issue to my attention and for all the work that it has done on raising awareness of age discrimination in health, education, social care, transport and citizenship.
The Scotland Act 1998, which set up our institution, defines equal opportunities as
"the prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination between persons"
and lists several areas, including age. However, Help the Aged's research shows how far we must go if we are to achieve fair treatment for our older citizens. The fact that 50 per cent of our older people feel that they are "on the scrap heap" should shock every MSP and motivate us to sign up to Help the Aged's campaign to change attitudes. The fact that many older people feel that they are a burden to society is also something that we should not accept.
We face several challenges: making older people feel valued; changing attitudes among the rest of the population to stamp out discrimination; and ensuring that we have monitoring in place to identify problems and to take action where it is needed. We need to send out the message that stereotyping and hackneyed images of older people are unacceptable. If such images were of women or people from ethnic minorities, they would rightly cause offence.
As a society, we lose a great deal by allowing direct or indirect discrimination against older people. Let us take employment as an example. Long-term unemployment among the over-50s means that people are living on low incomes or in poverty. It is estimated that across the UK, £16 billion in gross domestic product and £5 billion in benefits and taxes are lost from the many people who would like to work.
We also lose out on the experience and maturity that older people can bring. That is why positive employment policies by companies and public sector organisations are important. We need flexible employment opportunities for older people, although we must ensure that those people do not lose out on their pension rights. We urgently need more training for older people so that they can keep up to date and develop new skills. There is a clear role for Scottish Enterprise to take the lead in setting the agenda for employers in both the public and private sectors.
Agism is also a social justice issue. One of the most important areas for older people is health. Our older people deserve better. A recent report on the health care of older people in Scotland showed that, although there was no evidence of agism, there was great concern among older people about its influencing health care. Older people do not want to be treated differently from others in the national health service. One of the key recommendations of the report is that the attitudes of some health care workers need to be improved. There is also a need to highlight the problem of delayed discharge, which causes distress to many older patients and their families. There are many challenges for us to tackle.
I will focus on older women. All too often, older women are invisible to policy makers. We face a challenge in ensuring that older women are living not just longer, but more healthily. In England, a fascinating project is being carried out by the Pennell Initiative for Women's Health, which has developed pilot schemes with employers and communities and has shown that many older women would welcome a focus on their health needs and on what could be done to improve their health.
The Scottish Executive should establish a national advisory panel on women's health. That would let us get at the facts, generate the research that needs to be done and give us a clearer framework for work on older women's health. I ask the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care to raise that proposal with Malcolm Chisholm and to give it serious consideration.
We cannot afford to ignore our older people. We all know that the demographics show that we are living longer and that, over time, the population of Scotland is aging. Much has been done through the better government for older people initiative, but that is only a start. We need the Scottish Executive to identify and address age discrimination across public life, because only then will older people feel valued and will we be able to develop comprehensive policies to give older people the chance to make a full and positive contribution to society.
Local government must also make a contribution. The older people's equality forum in Edinburgh is a great example of a council bringing older people into discussions, so that their views can be taken on board in the design and delivery of the council's policies and services. That has led to a much greater focus in Edinburgh on accessible and affordable transport, community safety issues and support for carers. There have been some practical spin-offs: recreational opportunities have been promoted for older people in the city; research has been performed on piloting new technology to help people to live independently; and independent advocacy services for older people have been extended for those who live in residential care.
I return to my first comments. Older people feel undervalued and on the scrap heap. The Parliament has a chance to do something about that, whether through having the right employment policies, ensuring access to affordable transport, giving opportunities in leisure and education, creating safer neighbourhoods and warm households for people, or ensuring access to high-quality health care. We need to accept that what we do in this chamber is relevant. We can make a difference. I hope that the fact that we are having this debate will send a message to older people that we are listening to them and that we know that there is an awful lot more that we need to do.
The United Nations has set out a key principle for older people. It believes that we need
"To add life to the years that have been added to life."
That is a useful principle for us all as we age and as we work with the older people in our communities.
Time is very tight, because of the number of members who wish to speak. We will try to get everybody in. I call Sandra White, to be followed by Brian Fitzpatrick. Four minutes maximum, please.
I thank Sarah Boyack for securing the debate and the various organisations that supplied information for the debate.
Sarah Boyack's motion mentions specifically the 65 to 74 age group, who feel aggrieved that they have been dumped on the scrap heap. I will concentrate on people aged 50 and over, who also are deemed to be on the scrap heap. That includes me and quite a few folk here. As the convener of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on older people, age and aging, the issue raised in the motion has come up time and time again at our meetings. In fact, we received a comprehensive presentation by Lesley Hart on the issue.
The motion calls upon the Scottish Executive to
"identify and address areas of age discrimination in Scottish public life".
I will concentrate on that point. The Scottish Parliament should be the first organisation to omit agism from its job application forms. I will provide a couple of examples of agism from Scottish Executive job application forms. Under the heading "Age", the first form states:
"the normal retirement age in the Scottish Executive is 60".
Under "Equal Opportunities" it states that the Executive does not discriminate on the grounds of age, gender and so on. An updated Executive application form quotes the same phrase as before under the heading "Age". However, under "Equal Opportunities" the reference to age has been removed.
In my wisdom, I wrote to Angus MacKay, the then Minister for Finance and Local Government, asking for information on the Scottish Executive's recruitment policy and referring to the requirement to retire at 60. A new form of words has been added to Scottish Executive application forms:
"There are no specific age limits. However, the normal retirement age in the SE"
is still 60. That is under review. Perhaps the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care can update me on that.
Sarah Boyack told us about the disadvantages that women face, but everyone is disadvantaged from the age of 50, in particular people who live in areas where there is a great deal of poverty. They find it difficult to secure jobs. I congratulate the firms—there are four or five of them—that have policies to recruit people over the age of 50. Those companies see those people as loyal workers, who take little time off. That is a marvellous and positive way in which to look at older people, if we can call folk over 50 older people.
I return to my earlier point about discrimination and the Scottish Executive's policy on working in this Parliament. MSPs are not age restricted, so I do not see why employees should be. If we are to place this Parliament at the forefront of the issue—I see Hugh Henry laughing, but I am sure that he will give me a straightforward answer—why have we not taken up the European directive from November 2000 on a general framework for equal treatment in employment? The directive says that legislation to implement it should be in place by 2003. Will the minister assure us that that directive will be implemented by 2003 for the Parliament and will apply for people who want to be employed by the Parliament?
Sarah Boyack is to be congratulated on her hard work to secure the debate. I trust that agism will not be reflected in responses to the debate. As members of a devolved Parliament, we are closer to the people whom we are elected to serve. We do not have the excuse that we lack contact on the issues that affect older people in our constituencies. Since I was elected, I have welcomed groups as disparate as Kirkintilloch elderly forum, the Springfield-Cambridge over-50s, representatives of the Auchinairn activity centre and volunteers from Contact Point in my constituency. Those people can meet us and speak to us in our constituency offices and raise with us the issues that are important to them.
I am sure that the minister does not need me to remind him that it is important not only that we listen, but that we hear what people say and that we dwell and act on what they say. A common strand is emerging—it arose earlier when we discussed the youth summit. Recently, I met constituents at Twechar day centre. All that they wanted to talk about was disorder in their village. Drugs had come into their village in a way that they did not understand. Drugs had not been a feature of their village previously and they were killing other activity throughout the community. They said that if MSPs could make one change, it should be improving policing in their area, to allow people to go about their business as they had in years past. We must listen to our communities, as they say that youth disorder and drug-related crime are a major concern.
I hope that we will take up the change of attitudes that Sarah Boyack urges on us. We have been involved in much activity in connection with the year of volunteering. In my constituency, many of our local volunteers are older people. That is a challenge for younger people. That situation relates partly to changes in work patterns and in family life. A 92-year-old man in my constituency works in a lunch club to help the old folk in the community. If he is not guilty of agism, neither should we be.
Throughout the Executive's work, I hope that we will examine our interactions with older people. The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee is developing its lifelong learning report. A key group in that work is silver surfers—elderly or older people who use new technologies to enrich their lives and improve their family contacts. My mother recently applied for the European computer driving licence. That is not a gimmick. She has grandchildren throughout the country and Europe and she has family in northern America and in Australasia, so the e-mail system has been a great way for her to keep in contact with her family, and she wanted more information on how to use her computer better. There are women and men like that throughout Scotland. The old cliché is that to get something done, we must ask a busy woman. That woman is often a busy older woman.
The volunteer centre in Kirkintilloch in my constituency recently secured sustained funding of £150,000 for befriending projects, which will allow it to plan. Older people assist and befriend excluded and isolated groups. I trust that the minister will touch on how we can better organise the volunteer effort among older people, to provide opportunities that they can take up in settings that are appropriate to their needs.
In introducing her excellent motion, Sarah Boyack dealt well with employment. As that is, regrettably, a reserved issue, I will keep off it and talk about politics and the voluntary sector. I will follow up some of Brian Fitzpatrick's comments. I probably have to declare an interest, as I am the third oldest member of this august establishment. I have my nice bus pass and other such benefits. My excuse is that I got involved in politics when I was about 30, which means that my political span is not as long as someone who got involved at 17.
There is a benefit in having older people in politics. That is because we can be more independent. I have no future—I have only a past. The whip might say to me, "You are very naughty, Donald. You must not do that." What I say in reply cannot be said in public in the chamber, but there is nothing that he can do. He needs my vote more than I need his patronage, which I will not get anyway. I feel great sympathy for the younger members who want to have a career. They have families to feed and there is a lot of pressure on them. I have had a lot of pressure on me and so I sympathise fully with them.
Older members can make a contribution, but I know also that we can be dead boring. I remember that, when I first joined the former Edinburgh Town Council, there was an excellent Labour councillor who, whenever I proposed an idea, would say, "Oh, we tried that in 1933 and it didn't work." Twenty-five years later, I found myself saying the same things. We do not have all the answers, but we have some of the answers.
I also want to talk about the voluntary sector, which Brian Fitzpatrick spoke about well. I am sure that we have all visited organisations that promote, recruit and support volunteers. We could do a lot more to support volunteering. I am sure that there is a hidden reservoir of people with a great deal of talent. People may think that the work is too high powered, but a man or a woman in their 60s who is honest and who can add up can become the treasurer of an organisation.
In my experience, treasurers are the hardest people to find. It is always possible to find conveners or chairpeople. Potential egomaniacs like me will quite cheerfully become chairpeople, but treasurers have to do some work and they do not get the same glory. That is a small example of where older people could make a great contribution. In the context of the previous debate, it would be possible for a pensioner to become the treasurer of a boys' football team. It is possible to mix the old and the young.
Many voluntary organisations could benefit from the participation of older people who can contribute by making home visits, befriending and so on. Young people need help in running their tenancies and that takes human beings as well as money and properties. The human qualities and life experience of pensioners can contribute greatly and that is even more the case for people in their 50s. People of my son's age work far too hard. They cannot find time to help in a voluntary organisation. The good side of that is that they will probably retire in their 50s. They will be burnt out, but when they retire early, they can make a bigger contribution to voluntary organisations.
The Executive has a role in helping to advertise and stimulate volunteering. We could send out a leaflet with every council tax demand, suggesting that people volunteer.
I thank Sarah Boyack for the opportunity to represent the grey vote. I am not sure where old age begins, but it is probably about 20 years beyond the age that one is at any given time. Recently, I took consolation from a new definition of middle age, which includes the ages 35 to 65. For the next 18 months, I will cling to that definition with desperation. My view of age is one that I developed as a kid. People of 30 seemed utterly ancient, until I became 30. The next progression of decade anniversaries passed relatively painlessly and with increasing gratitude that I am still here.
As I indicated earlier, prejudice towards the elderly is akin to all prejudice. That is because the observer makes presuppositions on the basis of appearance. That is no more valid with regard to elderly people than it is to ethnic minorities, people of different religions, the fat, the thin, the red-haired or the disabled. People are what their genes, their lifestyle and their life experience has made them. Each individual is a unique distillation of all those qualities.
The old are present in larger numbers than ever before. It is tempting, and almost inevitable, for accountants to see them as potential burdens on a decreasing number of younger people, whose taxes have to pay for their upkeep. Stopping people working at 60 or 65 reduces their salaries and tax contributions and obliges the state to pay them pensions. If we can delay that, it must be of economic benefit to the nation, as well as to the individuals who want to keep working.
In other European countries, the starting age for old age pensions tends to be above ours, and there is a determination in the European Union to discourage people from taking the early retirement that Donald Gorrie mentioned and to allow people to work beyond current retirement dates. I endorse that approach, although it should not be compulsory.
Older people are a great source of knowledge. For example, I taught a beginners guide to the first world war course at Strathclyde University's senior studies institute, the very title of which indicates that it was not open to the under-50s. Although none of my students had actually fought in the war, the parents, grandparents, uncles or aunts of many of them had. As a result, everyone in the room brought a huge amount of depth and different experience to the subject. I urge the younger people who might be listening today or reading the Official Report of the debate tomorrow to talk to their grandparents now while they still have the opportunity and to find out what they remember about life in what they would call the old days but what was in fact their youth.
Older people are an important resource and should not be barred from employment either by open or covert prejudice. If a job is within their capabilities, they should not be debarred from it on the ground of age. We should follow the example of age discrimination legislation in the United States and allow people to work for as long as they are fit to do the job. I should point out that three leading firemen who died on 11 September were aged 54, 63 and 71. Presumably all of them were physically and mentally capable of being on duty that day.
In short, agism is prejudice, and prejudice is wrong. It stifles individual growth and opportunity. As long as older people want to work and have the physical and mental aptitude for the job, they should not be debarred on the ground of age.
I congratulate Sarah Boyack on securing this debate. Many members have spoken about practical steps that should be taken to challenge agism, whether it be through improved access to health, fair employment practice or the contribution of the voluntary sector. I must confess that I am not sure that I agree with Donald Gorrie's view that the voluntary sector is a haven for burnt-out executives.
As Sarah Boyack pointed out, the Executive and the Parliament are responsible for promoting equal opportunities and tackling discrimination in whatever form it occurs. With an increasing proportion of our population becoming older, it is essential that we tackle agism. As the chamber has recognised, agism takes many forms. It is apparent in the perception that older people are a burden, in the evidence of enforced early retirement—indeed, many fewer people aged 50 or over are in work today—and in differential access to services. None of that is acceptable, and all of it must be challenged.
The Executive's equality strategy provides us with a useful framework on which we can build, because if we are to make significant and sustained progress on older people's experience, we must mainstream consideration of their concerns into our legislative, policy-making and resource allocation processes. We must also ensure that that approach extends into local government services, the national health service and across the public sector.
I want to spend some time considering society's perception of older people, in particular the view that somehow they are on the scrap heap or are a burden to their families and have nothing to give. Quite frankly, I find that astonishing. I spent a period of my youth—which some would say is long gone—in a place called Hong Kong. I grew up in a society that valued older people; indeed, it positively revered them. That reverence recognised a lifetime of experience and wisdom and recognised that older people's knowledge would help us to learn for the future. Society's attitude and perceptions cannot be changed overnight. We need visible and positive examples of older people and we need to harness the power of the media, but we also need to change how we do things on an everyday basis.
I want to mention better government for older people pilots, which were carried out throughout Scotland. The aim of the pilots was to improve public services for older people by meeting their needs better and listening to and encouraging their contributions. Each pilot concentrated on a different issue, such as transport, volunteering and benefits, but the direct involvement and participation of older people was consistent through them all. They worked in partnership with agencies on the ground. Perceptions of the agencies and communities that were involved and even the older people who were involved were changed. There are now new ways of working and specific improvements to services. More important, there is long-term cultural change.
That lesson is important for all of us. By engaging with older people and listening to, learning from and acting on their information, there are better results for older people and society. There is a wealth of knowledge and experience that we should value.
I recognise the work of the many elderly forums and older people's organisations throughout Scotland and in my constituency. From the Vale of Leven elderly forum to the Good Companions group in Dumbarton, their energy, knowledge and commitment constantly challenge policy makers to do better for older people. More power to their elbow.
Sarah Boyack is to be congratulated on raising the subject of agism, but it is unfortunate that the debate has a 5 pm slot. It is more unfortunate that no journalist is in sight. Racism, gender balance and disability rightly receive great prominence in the chamber, but perhaps agism does not receive the publicity that it is due, unless there is a hidden person from the press whom I cannot see.
Many past links between youth and the aged no longer exist. In the national service, for example, large companies employed huge labour forces of all age groups prior to the information technology age. A colleague of mine once said that MSPs should retire when they reach 55—he must have been giving me a message. He added that they should certainly not go beyond the age of 60. I had to remind him that, if it had not been for a 66-year-old old age pensioner in 1940—Winston Churchill—it is unlikely that most of us would be here today.
There are many other examples of age not being a barrier. At 43, George Foreman went the distance with Evander Holyfield for the world heavyweight boxing championship and lost only narrowly. Two former Wimbledon champions from the 1920s—Jean Borotra and Henri Cochet—played a passable tennis match in the 1990s. Borotra was 90 years old and Cochet was a mere 88. Yesterday, the Queen announced forcibly that she had no intention of retiring at 76. After retiring as a US senator, the astronaut John Glenn went back into space at 77 years of age. I know of a brain surgeon who is 65. One wobble of his hand or scalpel by a fraction of a millimetre could cause death or paralysis for a patient. With all due respect, how many 25-year-olds have such skill?
There appears to be age discrimination in the workplace, on television, in the media, in certain areas of politics and in many other areas. Sometimes, it feel strange that I remember air raids in the second world war, seeing Churchill at the end of the war and the death of George VI when hardly any of my colleagues remember them, or indeed were born when those events happened.
The problem originated from ground rules that were established in the past. Two or three centuries ago, life expectancy meant that one was old at 50 and perhaps at the point of death. In the 19th century, it was not uncommon for leading politicians to be active in their seventies, but life expectancy was low.
I am almost 72. I do not feel that I am, although I probably look that age. I am lucky. Winnie Ewing is the mother of the house and I am the father of the house. She once said to me, "Are we responsible for producing a lot of those MSPs?" I have to say that my mind boggled. Successful organisations in all areas require a cross-section of ages. The Scottish Parliament and politics are no exception to that, nor is any other area.
Finally, I will mention a comment that Donald Gorrie made in his speech in the debate earlier this afternoon. He stated:
"People are old for a long time; they are only young for a short time."
I add that the longer someone lives, the more they experience. At the same time, we need the energy, thrust and drive of youth. Cathy Jamieson should be congratulated on what she put forward in the earlier debate. Both sides must value and respect each other for the common good.
Our ages are all coming out of the cabinet. I am 57 and have found that I am now an older person—it is as if I have somehow lost my individuality. That is complete nonsense.
I remember that in 1997 a young man at a political selection meeting said to me, "Christine, do you think that you're up to it? You're no spring chicken." This ex-spring chicken is in the Parliament and that young man is not; that says something.
There is a serious problem with perceptions of aging, because perceptions lead to attitudes. For example, there is what I call the "my dear" syndrome. People know that they are there when somebody in the medical profession says, "How are we, my dear?" Notice the use of the plural. The situation becomes worse when they say, "How is she?" as if the person is no longer there. That has a serious impact on the way in which some younger members of the medical profession treat older people who are in bed. They are treated as if, because they have become older, they are somehow not individuals.
When my mother was very ill, we put up on the wall beside her pictures of her in her youth, with her family and at her golden wedding, to bring home to some of the younger staff that she was a person with a past, a present, a family and individuality. The attitudes of staff changed on the spot.
I do not want to be grim, because I have a future, although Donald Gorrie may only have a past. I am here to talk about my perceptions of aging. I think that there is fun at 50—I know because I have been there and I am doing it. I believe that there is sex at 60 and I am looking forward to it—no doubt someone can advise. I think that there is sin at 70 and I am looking forward to that, but what is there at 80 and 90? I will tell the chamber.
I had two old chairs in the conservatory that needed a facelift, as some of us do. I phoned up the upholsterer I know from many years ago, whom I had not seen for 10 years, and said, "Tommy. Are you still doing upholstery?" He replied, "Yes, but I dinnae do a quick job." I said, "That's not a problem. You do a good job." Tommy came along. He was a fit-looking man and I guessed that he was in his 60s. He looked at the chairs and costed the job. He said that he would take them away and would be a few months. They were heavy, old Windsmoor-type chairs—Parker Knolls. He picked one chair up and took it down my long hall and out to his white Volvo estate. He loaded it in and came back and took the other one.
Months passed before he came back with the chairs. I had a look at them in the back of his white Volvo estate and said, "You've done a blooming good job." He said, "Could you help me carry them in?" That was when I found out how heavy they were. We lugged them back into the house. I saw how nice they looked and thought, "Right, the next project will be the old suite in the living room that the cats have shredded." I took him through to the living room, showed him the old suite and asked him to give me a cost for doing that, because he is not cheap. He had a look at them and said, "I don't know if it's worth it, Christine. I might be pushing up the daisies." I said, "You mustn't talk like that. That's not the way to look at life. How old are you?" He replied, "I'm 92." So, I am here to tell the chamber that at 80 and 90 there is upholstery.
It is difficult to follow Christine Grahame. I, too, am a member of that elite group of people in the Parliament who are over the big 50.
I welcome the positive steps that the Scottish Executive has taken through the development of the equality strategy, the creation of a dedicated older persons unit within the Scottish Executive and the provision of free personal care for older people, which tackled a blatant discrimination that meant that patients paid for care on account of their age.
I will concentrate on the health and well-being of older people. I recognise the work of the expert group on the health care of older people, which was set up by the Scottish Executive. Older people are the core business of the NHS. Specifically, I will concentrate on the health and well-being of older women. I want to give some statistics about older women. I do not make any apologies for that; it is vital that we understand what research shows about that particular group. Studies show that one fifth of the UK population are older women; that the number of reported cases of depression in women over 45 is twice that for men; that 59 per cent of women over 75 live alone; and that 78 per cent of widowed people are women.
Sarah Boyack mentioned the Pennell Initiative for Women's Health, which exists to champion the cause of older women's health by researching and addressing the physical, emotional, mental and spiritual needs of women who are over 45. The Parliament has a responsibility to improve every woman's prospect of living well into a healthy old age and should promote understanding of health issues and take action to benefit women from middle age to very old age.
As Jackie Baillie said, one of the major public policy challenges for the Parliament is how to mainstream equality issues. I add my voice to Sarah Boyack's call for the setting up of a national advisory panel on women's health. The Pennell initiative aims to set up a major conference on the health and well-being of older women and to establish pilot projects that are aimed at improving the health of women in socially excluded communities, in black and ethnic minority communities and in more rural communities. I ask the minister to take a request back to Malcolm Chisholm for a meeting to discuss the Pennell proposals.
I seek the minister's assurance that the health and well-being needs of older women are being addressed in the work of the national physical activity task force. We talk a lot about encouraging young children to be more active to avoid problems in later life. Major issues need to be addressed in encouraging older people to be active. We must concentrate on the health and well-being of older people, rather than on the problems. I ask the minister to give me an update on that, either today or in writing.
I pay tribute to the many older people in my constituency of Midlothian and in Scotland who are active in the voluntary sector, through arthritis and cancer charities, pensioner groups and elderly forums and by running gala days, and who care for partners or grandchildren. In some cases, older people are the mainstay of the voluntary sector.
I thank Sarah Boyack for the debate. If the Parliament does nothing else, it must speak up for people who do not have a voice in Scotland. The Parliament must represent everyone in Scotland, regardless of their age.
I congratulate Sarah Boyack on obtaining the debate. John Young quoted Donald Gorrie in the previous debate. I would like to alter what Donald said. He said that people are young for a short or limited time and that they are old for a long time. I would like to say that they are old for an increasingly long time. The number of people who are over 65 is likely to increase by 50 per cent in the next 30 years and the number of people who are over 80 is likely to double. That has huge implications for the health service and for personal care, and is a debate of its own.
I want to echo something that Jackie Baillie said. I switched on my car radio in the middle of a debate on agism. A young Kenyan was being interviewed about how older people are treated in Kenya in comparison with how they are treated here. The comparison was very unfavourable. Older people in Kenya are treated with great respect as one of the most valuable parts of that society. It is ironic that we arrogantly regard the west as the most developed part of the world, but our treatment of the old is much more primitive and much less sensible and wise than it is in the so-called underdeveloped world. I think that we have lost something important.
I shall make two brief points. The first is about engaging with older people. Like other members, I meet pensioners forums. The people who run the Perth pensioners forum, whom I meet almost monthly, have more energy and stamina than I have. I met them most recently last Friday. They are tremendous at raising the issues that concern them and their members—issues to do with transport, bus passes and the health service, for example. They need help with the running costs of the forum, although those are very small, and I have tried to help them by putting them in touch with parts of the Executive and the lottery. As members said in the previous debate, it is important that members of the Executive and the Parliament act as facilitators to enable such groups to operate effectively and to lobby on the issues that deeply concern them.
Sarah Boyack covered the issue of employment comprehensively. I agree with Sandra White and Help the Aged that mandatory retirement should be outlawed. Early retirement should also be considered from a different perspective, given the changing pressures on the economy and the increasing number of older people. There should be flexibility and people should be able to work for as long as they want to, full time or part time. In Sweden, 75 per cent of the over-50s are economically active, and I would like the percentage in this country—which is currently 64 per cent—to rise to that level.
If older people are not in full-time or part-time employment, we should utilise their ability, experience and maturity in the voluntary sector, as Donald Gorrie said. I recently attended a voluntary sector fair in the Rothes Halls, in Glenrothes. There I encountered an organisation that is run by older people, in which retired people from a range of different professions and trades provide experience to help new small businesses to grow. That is a vital organisation and the people who are involved in it get huge satisfaction from helping something new and young to grow. Mentoring services are also important. The United States is far ahead of us in developing mentoring, which involves the old and the young.
I like the phrase "adding life to years". That is what we must be about. We must make the later years worth while. We must enrich the lives of older people—and enrich society—by making those lives full of opportunities and possibilities to contribute.
I congratulate Sarah Boyack on securing the debate. I thank her for giving us a welcome opportunity to have an open and humorous but serious discussion on a subject that concerns all of us—if not now, eventually.
As Keith Raffan said, our society has not been as good as others at valuing older people. Jackie Baillie made a telling comment on the way in which societies such as that of Hong Kong value older people. Parts of our society used to have that respect for older people, but we have lost it. Those of us who came from big, extended families in working-class communities will remember the role that the grandmother and the grandfather—if he lived long enough—played in supporting the rest of the family. The older members of the family not only helped to raise the kids and give the occasional thruppence—half a crown if they were really flush—but gave advice and support. They also helped to instil values that have become lost in our fragmented and fractured society.
Sarah Boyack has done something useful in helping us to focus on an issue that is extremely important. I share her concerns and the concerns of others about the perceptions that exist. It has been stated clearly in the reports from the chief medical officer, which have been mentioned, that there is no evidence of discrimination against older people in the health service in Scotland. However, the perception that there is discrimination is worrying. If people feel that they are not getting a proper service because of their age, we have to consider that matter carefully.
A number of points have been made in the debate. I will address some of them now and I will reply individually to the members whose points I do not cover.
I want to put on record the fact that older people have been and continue to be a priority for the Executive. Rhona Brankin, Sarah Boyack and Jackie Baillie have mentioned some of the Executive's initiatives. We value older people and the Executive has invested time and effort into addressing some of the problems that face older people in our country. Not only have we introduced free personal care for the elderly, but we have put in place initiatives on central heating and, later this year, we will address concessionary travel. We are making important improvements that will enable older people to play a full role in their local communities.
Colin Campbell and others are absolutely right: we should not take the attitude that, just because someone has reached a fixed retirement age, they have lost their value to society and are to be dispensed with. Those members who have spoken about the economic loss to society that results from not involving older people are right. We do not want to take a hard attitude and raise the retirement age. For generations, many people have fought to lower the retirement age. People who worked in heavy industries such as coal mining, shipbuilding and steel working valued the opportunity to retire at an age when they still had at least a couple of years to go. Equally, we have to recognise that industries and workplaces have changed and that some people who are working now can continue to play an active role. The fact that we are living longer means that we can continue to play a more active role for more years than people could previously.
People who want to continue to work should be allowed to do so and to contribute value to society. However, as Brian Fitzpatrick and others have mentioned, those who perform the valuable role of volunteering in our society should also be encouraged. The Executive is paying attention to that issue. As members have said, there is a wealth of experience and talent in our older population. Indeed, when we talk to older people's groups, we see a wealth of enthusiasm and energy that would put many others to shame. In a sense, it depresses me when I go around local community groups and find that the same people are active in all the various groups, but the older people who are involved—not just in the elderly forum but in tenants groups, health groups, church groups and so on—still have an energy and enthusiasm from which we could all learn.
Sarah Boyack is right about flexible opportunities, which we want to encourage. As Sarah Boyack and Rhona Brankin have asked, I will speak to Malcolm Chisholm about the national advisory panel and the work of the Pennell project. We will see what we can learn from those ideas.
As Sarah Boyack said, the better government for older people initiative must be viewed only as a start, not as the end product. There is a whole lot more still to do.
Sandra White asked about age discrimination in public life. The Executive is trying to age proof its personnel practices to eradicate the potential for discrimination by April 2003. I cannot comment on the issue in so far as it relates to the Parliament, but I hope that those who are responsible for that will consider the matter. She mentioned the fact that I was laughing when she was talking, so I should point out that I was only sharing a joke with Colin Campbell. Donald Gorrie said that he has a past but does not have a future and Colin Campbell has, unfortunately, just been deselected as a candidate by the Renfrewshire branch of the SNP and replaced by a younger man. I do not know whether the SNP has examined its agism policies, but I am glad that Colin is still able to laugh.
Brian Fitzpatrick mentioned silver surfers. Increasingly, we find that older people throughout the country are using new technology. Lifelong learning developments are important in encouraging that. My colleague Wendy Alexander has spent time considering how we can continue to encourage people to learn throughout their active lives.
Colin Campbell was right to urge young people to ask their grandparents about their experiences. I remember that my father would talk to my children about things that he would not talk to me about. An empathy exists between grandparents and their grandchildren—perhaps because they do not have to be up half the night with the children and can ship them back—and it is important that we cherish that.
Jackie Baillie mentioned promoting equal opportunities. She was right to say that enforced early retirement and the use of words such as "burden" must be put to rest once and for all.
John Young talked, as others did, about employment. We want to encourage flexible employment policies. Some of the firms that encourage older workers, such as B&Q and Asda, say that they get more value from their older workers. Indeed, customers comment that they seem to get more and better service from older people. That is not to say that we want to start discriminating against younger people, who were the topic of the previous debate; it is just that we need to consider what older people can contribute to our society.
I will not go into what Christine Grahame said about fun at 50, 60 and 70. I will leave others to comment on that.
Is it a reserved matter?
Employment is a reserved matter, but that will not prevent Christine Grahame's colleagues in the SNP from putting it into their manifesto for the next election.
Rhona Brankin was right that we need to mainstream equality issues. I will raise that with my colleagues in the Executive. She asked about the national physical activity task force and older women. Mary Mulligan and I had a meeting recently with members of that task force, which will report soon. One of the frightening things that is coming out of the task force's work is that our society is becoming less and less active and that that lack of activity is an even bigger threat to our health than smoking. It has also been shown that, not only do not enough young people participate in activity, but older men and women need to be encouraged to do a minimum amount of activity throughout the week. There is evidence that their lives will be prolonged and improved as a result.
The debate has been important but not nearly long enough given the significance of the subject. We will continue to consult on age and aging issues. I hope that, in that process, we can collectively develop a constructive debate throughout Scotland that values older people and says that they have a role to play. They have a voice that needs to be heard. They have a contribution that will make our society better.
Meeting closed at 17:59.