Chamber and committees

It is not only Governments but individual citizens who are making decisions every day. I was struck by Professor Bell’s earlier comments about public engagement and the active choices that people need to make if we are going to change how we do things. It is clearly very important, therefore, for Governments to set a good example.

The committee is looking closely at the recommendations in the citizens assembly report. Is the Climate Change Committee considering them, too, and will it make a formal response?

Scottish Labour has been calling for an immediate moratorium on new incinerators, alongside a policy review. The Scottish Greens website has a quote from Mark Ruskell warning that Scotland is

“sleepwalking into an incineration nightmare.”

I sincerely hope that that did not harm his ministerial chances.

In the spirit of working collaboratively with all parties and listening to our communities that are under threat right now, will the First Minister work with Scottish Labour to introduce an urgent moratorium on new large-scale incinerators? Further, in case I missed the First Minister getting off the fence, can she clarify whether the SNP-Green Government that she leads now supports the stop Cambo campaign? Yes or no?

We heard the First Minister confirm that consideration has been given to the limited use of Covid status certification for access to certain higher-risk venues. Will the First Minister elaborate on what she means by “higher-risk venues”? Does that include care homes, which were not mentioned in today’s statement and which continue to be subject to restrictions on visiting?

I congratulate you, convener, and Fiona Hyslop, and I look forward to working with all members of the committee.

There is already lots of agreement. I thank colleagues on our predecessor committees. There is a lot to read in the reports. Like Jackie Dunbar, I will go back and read them a number of times.

Fiona Hyslop is right that our focus really needs to be on scrutiny and implementation. We have had a steer on the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, for example. There is a lot in that. We have already discussed the climate change plan in the chamber since we came back. We will have a big role to play there.

Liam Kerr touched on ferry procurement and future ferries policy. Obviously, there are recommendations on that in the legacy reports. The deputy convener made a point about the fact that the members of this committee do not represent all of Scotland. However, I think that, through our work, we will very much aspire to do that. I represent Central Scotland, where ferries are not a big issue, but they are a big issue across the country. With regard to how we engage, particularly with younger people, we have a real opportunity to set a good example and be innovative, and also to get out there and do interesting visits.

In September, we will know more about the programme for government. The circular economy has to be a massive priority, and I am interested in what the Government plans to do around incineration. I know that the minister and the cabinet secretary have given a commitment on that.

Transport infrastructure is a huge area, so we will need to break that down. Obviously, we are looking at the remit of the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport, but his performance in his job will depend on the performance across all portfolios of Government, and we already know that there is some overlap with issues that are in, for example, Mairi Gougeon’s portfolio. Issues such as 20-minute neighbourhoods will present real opportunities. The cabinet secretary will have strategic responsibility for that policy across Government, but it will involve lots of other areas. I am interested to see how all that works in practice. We have a job to ensure that Government does not work in silos. We all appreciate the ambitious targets, but the key is delivery and how we get there.

Like Liam Kerr, I am interested in getting an update on the public energy company. I think that work is under way with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to develop a business plan. Again, the role of local government in that is important.

Others have touched on the issues of a just transition, which involves green jobs, support for businesses that want to innovate and the need to ensure that we have the right skills and that communities are not left behind.

I think that it is going to be a really exciting time. We have a lot of work to do and I look forward to working with everyone on the committee.

I have no relevant interests to declare.

I am grateful to members for supporting the motion and for taking part in the debate.

Historical forced adoption was most common from the 1950s to the 1970s, but the pain of the victims continues to this day. What happened was beyond cruel. Women were shamed for being pregnant outside marriage. State-sanctioned abuse made them believe that they were unfit to be mothers. That can never be justified.

The practice of separating unmarried mothers from their babies and removing those babies for adoption was not unique to Scotland and the United Kingdom. In other countries—notably Australia, Canada and Ireland—Governments have apologised on behalf of the state for the injustice that changed the course of the victims’ lives for ever. There has been no inquiry and no apology for the 60,000 women in Scotland who were the victims of forced adoption. Many women have already gone to their graves believing that they were bad mothers.

Dr Cynthia McVey, who has spent decades supporting the victims of forced adoption, says that many of those women will never be able to forgive themselves without an apology from the Scottish Government. I cannot think of one single good reason to delay or deny them a formal apology.

Evelyn Robinson was a victim of forced adoption in Edinburgh when she was 19. Her journey took her to Australia, where she became part of the Australian apology, which was issued by former Prime Minister Julia Gillard on behalf of the Australian Government in 2013. That landmark apology shows us what is possible and continues to give hope to women in Scotland. In Gillard’s opening words, she said:

“Today, this Parliament, on behalf of the Australian people, takes responsibility and apologises for the policies and practices that forced the separation of mothers from their babies, which created a lifelong legacy of pain and suffering.”

If Australia can acknowledge the profound effects of such policies, why can Scotland not do so? Campaigners in Scotland have been waiting for eight years to hear those words from the Scottish Government. The act of forced adoption is the historical injustice that we are debating tonight, but the lack of an apology is today’s injustice.

Award-winning journalist Marion Scott has supported campaigners for more than a decade, giving them a platform and forcing us, the politicians, to listen. Marion is a fierce advocate for women and I hope that her persistence pays off. Time is running out for the women Marion supports.

Two weeks ago, my colleague Neil Bibby spoke powerfully at First Minister’s question time on behalf of his constituent Marion McMillan, a victim of forced adoption who continues to campaign for an apology despite being terminally ill. I have a statement from Marion, whose son was taken for adoption from a mother and baby home in 1967. Marion said:

“I sincerely hope that Scotland will finally take the opportunity to make an official apology to the 60,000 vulnerable mothers who had their babies taken from them simply because they were not married.

What happened to all of us was a dreadful abuse of our human rights, and set in motion lifelong pain and psychological damage to the women and the children.

Mothers spent their lives searching for the babies they were forced to hand over.

I remember crying and telling the authorities that my baby already had a mummy. But they simply took my son from my arms, and left me weeping.

Our children suffered too. They also had no choice in what happened to them.

Many were left deeply scarred, told their mother did not want them, or their mother was dead. Those policies condemned many to a lifetime searching for who they really are, looking for their parents within a system which put many barriers in the way of any reunion.

In 2015, I met with government ministers to ask if Scotland would take the step taken by Australia, an official apology is something which would acknowledge the wrong that was done to all of us.

It saddened me greatly the opportunity was not taken then.

However, I hope the government will listen carefully now to the personal stories of those affected, and finally take the step of apologising for what was done.

Those simple three words ‘we are sorry’ seem to have been the hardest of all, and we cannot understand why?

Scotland still has the opportunity to lead the way in the UK by doing this, and I hope the support from all political parties will show that the time is right for us to do the right thing.”

It is clear that Marion McMillan is not giving up, despite the bombshell revelation reported in The Ferret today that, ahead of that ministerial meeting in 2015, Scottish Government officials warned ministers not to apologise, and to avoid the issue when meeting Marion and other campaigners. Documents that have been released to The Ferret confirm that. I have the briefing to SNP ministers in my hand. It warns:

“A commitment to replicate the public apology made by Australia on forced adoptions should be resisted.”

Officials also contacted the UK Government to ask for a steer on the issue, and the Department for Education confirmed:

“our lines also resist calls for a public apology.”

Although it is welcome that the Joint Committee on Human Rights in Westminster, chaired by Harriet Harman MP, will be investigating historical forced adoption, we simply cannot wait for the UK Government to act. I know that the minister is due to meet her UK Government counterpart, but it is time for the Scottish Government to act.

In 2015, a University of Edinburgh report warned the Scottish ministers that as many as one in three mothers with experience of forced adoption might suffer from severe mental health issues. Researchers concluded that

“tens of thousands of birth mothers in Scotland would benefit from acknowledgement of their experiences and an offer of help in dealing with the life-long consequences of adoption.”

I appeal to the minister and to Nicola Sturgeon not to wait for the UK Government to act, to ditch the bad advice and to find the compassion and courage to do the right thing. They should deliver this long overdue apology and finally give the women and the families that were affected the recognition and support that they deserve.

We in Parliament were all proud when the First Minister gave an apology to men who had sex with men who were criminalised because of who they loved. That was the right thing to do and it had huge value. Do these women not deserve the same?

I welcome the discussions and meetings that the minister is about to embark on, but women such as Marion McMillan had meetings in 2015 and told their story then, and we are telling it again tonight. Can we get a commitment that the First Minister will attend those meetings, too? As we have heard, the women and their families do not have time. As a mental health professional, the minister knows that it is traumatising for people to have to tell their story over and over again. Can we get a commitment to speed up the process? We have freedom of information requests that show that, in 2015, ministers were told what to say before the women had even opened their mouths. Let us get a commitment from the minister that that will not happen again and that we can move forward towards the meaningful apology and support that the women and families need.

Will the member take an intervention?

I welcome the minister to her new post and agree with what she has said so far. Does she agree that, if we are to get the benefit of all those measures, we need to embed menstrual wellbeing education in the curriculum? What plans does she have to speak to colleagues across the Government to make sure that that happens?