Pensioners
Good morning. The first item of business is the non- Executive debate on motion S1M-327, in the name of Mr John Swinney, on the plight of Scottish pensioners, and amendments to that motion.
In spite of the rather thin attendance in the chamber, I have a long list of members who have indicated their desire to speak in this debate. I realise that there have been some hold-ups on the railways this morning, so I shall be tolerant about those members who are not yet in their places. However, I appeal for short speeches from all members, including the openers from each party, so that I can fit in all those who want to speak.
I call Alex Neil.
In speaking to the motion in the name of John Swinney, I extend a special welcome to the pensioners who are in the public gallery this morning and to those who are outside the chamber and will shortly be coming into the gallery.
Pensioners have come from all parts of Scotland today to hear what the Scottish Parliament is going to do for them, and to ensure that this Parliament uses its powers to the maximum to improve their standard of living. They also want to hear the Scottish Parliament demand from the Westminster Parliament a better deal for our pensioners, especially on the level of pensions.
For many pensioners in Scotland, the outcome of today's debate will be a litmus test of how worthwhile and worthy this Parliament is. If we fail to improve the standard and quality of pensioners' lives in Scotland, the Parliament will be seen as a damp squib. If we stand up and fight for the rights of our pensioners, the Parliament will be seen as a people's Parliament. We owe it to our pensioners to stand up and fight for them, to be counted on their behalf.
We are not concerned only about the level of pensions. Age discrimination, poor health services, crime, the fear of crime, transport, employment and many other issues outlined in the "Better Government for Older People" action plan, copies of which are being distributed outside the chamber this morning, all affect our senior citizens and will be addressed in this debate.
Far too many pensioners in Scotland today live in poverty. The basic state pension is now worth only 15 per cent of average weekly income—a national disgrace. Because the state pension is so low, 48 per cent of pensioners in Scotland rely on income support or other benefits to top up their state pension to help make ends meet. According to Help the Aged, 70,000 pensioners in Scotland are currently living in severe poverty, one in three suffers from fuel poverty, and 103,000 households over 60 years of age have no central heating of any kind. According to the Registrar General for Scotland, there were 200,200 excess winter deaths among people over the age of 60 in 1997-98, the last year for which figures are available. By any standards, that is a damning indictment of how we treat our pensioners.
The report that was released yesterday, "The Widening Gap: Health Inequalities and Policy in Britain", highlights the north-south divide in health and wealth in Britain. People who live in Scotland, including pensioners, come off worse. There are
2.8 times as many people with a limiting long-term illness in Govan than in Wokingham. Eight of the 15 poorest constituencies in Britain, including that of the Deputy Minister for Local Government, are in Glasgow. Glasgow is the sick city of Britain. That is an indictment of 70 years of local Labour rule—or misrule—in Glasgow. Despite the grinding level of pensioner poverty in Scotland, new Labour at Westminster and new Labour in the Scottish Executive have failed utterly to take the measures that are necessary to tackle the deep-rooted problem. More joint ministerial committees—more talking shops—between London and Edinburgh will not put money in the pockets of pensioners. We need action, not more committees and talking shops—especially not ones announced from London.
I will deal first with the causes of poverty. It is noticeable that neither of the amendments lodged by the Tories and the Labour Executive mention the need for a decent basic state retirement pension. Gordon Brown's announced increase in the basic state pension of a miserly 73p a week from next April is an insult to our pensioners, especially when one considers that in the same speech he announced big tax cuts for big business and his fat-cat pals in the City of London. The 73p increase would not buy even half a pint of beer. Indeed, it is such a pathetic amount that many pensioners wonder aloud whether it is worth collecting.
Every other Labour Government since the war has increased the state retirement pension significantly within weeks of coming to office,
despite dire financial situations. For example, in 1964 Harold Wilson increased the basic pension from 20.9 per cent to 22.1 per cent of average earnings within four weeks of coming to power. In 1974, when he was returned to power, the first thing he did was increase the pension by a whopping 17 per cent. New Labour has not done that.
I ask Mr Neil to cast his mind back to 1979. Was it not the Wilson/Callaghan Government that decreased the value of the pension with respect to real-terms increases in the economy?
That is right. I remind Mr Gallie that two years later the Tory Government broke the link between pensions and earnings. The single pension would be higher by £26 a week if the Tories had not broken that link—or if new Labour had restored it—so we will not be taking any lessons from the Tories on pensions.
I am trying to abide by the Presiding Officer's ruling that speeches must be brief, but I will let Phil intervene one more time.
Does Alex Neil agree that the link between pensions and earnings was broken because an election promise was meant to ensure that pensions stayed ahead of increases in inflation?
That is twisting logic beyond belief. Phil has lost that point, so I will carry on.
Both the Tories and new Labour have betrayed our pensioners, yet the money to give them a decent increase exists. For example, the 1p cut in the standard rate of income tax from next April that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced will cost the Inland Revenue £3 billion. If that money had been spent on pensioners, it would have lifted the pension to £75 a week for a single pensioner and £119.50 for a pensioner couple. Surely that should have been a Labour Government's priority.
It is bad enough that the Tories abolished the link with earnings, which cost single pensioners £26 a week and pensioner couples £41 a week, but it is a national disgrace that a Labour Government—a Labour Government—refuses to restore it, despite the fact that, according to Alistair Darling, the national insurance fund has a surplus of £5 billion.
Labour cannot say that the money to give our pensioners a decent rise and to restore the link between pensions and earnings does not exist. That is what a real Labour Government would do.
Does Alex agree that it is astonishing that not one Labour member has sought to intervene to defend their party's appalling record on pensions?
Let us not encourage more interventions.
On a point of order. Why should interventions be discouraged? They are part of healthy debate.
Mr Gallie, you have had two interventions already. I asked Mr Neil to keep the length of his speech down because of the number of members who want to speak. There is no need to promote interventions artificially.
I agree with Mr Ewing.
Our pensioners are among the poorest in Europe. The average German male pensioner gets £181 a week. The national association of senior civil servants has announced a survey that shows that while our pensioners get 15 per cent of average national earnings, pensioners in Belgium—a small country—get 60 per cent, in small Denmark 40 per cent, in small Greece 80 per cent and in tinier Luxembourg 83 per cent of average earnings. Our pensioners are the poor cousins of their European counterparts.
This is not just about the level of pensions and the failure to restore the link with earnings. If the £10 Christmas bonus, which was introduced by Ted Heath in 1972, was upgraded to reflect what could be bought with £10 then, our pensioners would not get a £10 Christmas bonus, they would get a £126 Christmas bonus.
The Government has got its priorities upside down when hundreds of millions of pounds are spent on a useless dome in London. Why not use that money to give our pensioners a millennium bonus that they have long deserved?
The flat rate winter fuel payment of £100 is only one fifth of an average pensioner fuel bill. Scotland's warm deal is a raw deal for our pensioners. It is the poor relation of the home energy efficiency scheme in England and Wales, which gives pensioners £700 instead of £500 in grant. Unlike in Scotland, pensioners there qualify for up to £1,800 to put in gas central heating. In damper, colder Scotland, pensioners are denied the £1,800 that they can get in sunny Surrey.
Given the level of grinding poverty among pensioners, we would have thought the Minister for Communities would make more than a passing reference to the plight of our pensioners in last week's debate on social justice. I agreed with one statement she made. She talked about 20 years of broken promises—I take it that she meant 17½ years of broken Tory promises and 2½ years of broken Labour promises.
The broken promises have resulted in our
pensioners becoming increasingly worse off. They include abolition of the link between pensions and earnings and Labour's failure to restore it and the 1,000 per cent reduction in value of the Christmas bonus. Nearly 40 per cent of Scotland's pensioners are now living on or near the poverty line.
Ending pensioner poverty cannot wait for another 20 years, as the Minister for Communities suggested last week. For people aged 60 and over who are approaching retirement—I will not look at you when I am making this point, Presiding Officer, and I certainly will not look at Phil Gallie— waiting another 20 years would condemn our elderly people to living the rest of their lives in poverty. Our pensioners do not need platitudes about what might happen in 20 years' time. They need action today. They need action to increase their pension by much more than a miserable 73p a week.
Will the member give way?
I am winding up, Des; I have obviously wound you up, too.
Our pensioners need action to restore the link between pensions and earnings; to end fuel poverty once and for all; to abolish means-testing for long-term residential care; and to abolish the inequitable standing charges imposed by the private utility companies for gas, electricity and telephones.
We are prevented from doing the right thing for our pensioners not by lack of money, but by lack of political will on the part of new Labour. If Labour and Gordon Brown refuse to provide our pensioners with a decent standing of living, the Scottish Parliament must break with London. The time has long come for the Scottish Parliament to take an independent stance and demand justice for our pensioners. Let the word go out from the Scottish Parliament today to every pensioner in Scotland: we are on your side. We are determined that justice will be done for our pensioners. Let us prove to them that this is not a damp-squib Parliament. Let us show that it is a people's Parliament—a pensioners' Parliament. Let us do that for our senior citizens today.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the plight of our pensioners, many of whom are living on or near the poverty line; condemns the lack of action by both the Scottish Executive and Her Majesty's Government to bring about a significant increase in the standard and quality of living of pensioners, and calls upon both the Scottish Executive and Her Majesty's Government to implement a comprehensive action plan to rectify this situation, the top priority of which should be a substantial increase in the basic state retirement pension and the re-establishment of the link with earnings for future pension increases.
I thank Mr Neil for taking much less than the allotted time and setting a good example. I call Iain Gray to move the Executive amendment.
The Executive believes that Scotland must value and support its older people. I am happy to begin with a point on which I agree with Alex Neil's remarks, because I fear that there will be little more that I agree with.
We believe that we must value and support our older people. That is exactly why the "Social Justice" report, launched last week, pledged that we will tackle poverty and injustice for older people; why yesterday a joint ministerial action committee on pensioner poverty was announced; and why, as lead minister for older people, I have been attending—with Westminster colleagues— the inter-ministerial group on older people. Honestly addressing the needs of older people demands co-ordination across Parliaments and across Administrations. It is too important a matter for us not to do that.
That co-ordination is the way in which we can build, for example, on the national minimum income guarantee that addresses the needs of the poorest pensioners and will benefit 125,000 people in Scotland when it rises next April, in line with the increase in earnings. We can build on initiatives such as the winter fuel payment for all pensioners, which is rising from £20 to £100, free eye tests for the over-60s and free television licences for the over-75s. Such initiatives are making the new politics work, not for politicians— there is more to the new politics than us addressing one other by name—but for our people, by adding value to the efforts of each Administration. To do that, the Scottish Parliament must strive to maximise the impact on older people's quality of life of those policy areas for which we have full responsibility. That is an honest approach, and we intend to take it.
I was glad to hear Alex Neil say that this is not just about pensions. I was surprised, however, that he found very little to say about anything else. The Scottish Executive is devoting significant energy and resources to the needs of older people—by, for example, investing millions of pounds in the warm deal to upgrade 100,000 Scottish homes. Half the social work budget of £1.1 billion and nearly 40 per cent of the health budget—some £2 billion—is being spent on older people. We are determined to increase the effectiveness as well as the amount of those resources, to get away from the never-mind-the-quality-feel-the-width approach to the issue that is taken by so many others.
We can do that only by listening to older people to identify their priorities. We can do that through initiatives such as the better government for older people network and the recent listening event in Aberdeen. We have to listen to older people and to respond honestly.
Is it not the case that all the organisations that represent older people have made it clear to the Government that their two priorities are a decent pension and the reestablishment of the link with earnings? If Iain Gray is going to listen, why does he not listen to those calls and back them?
If Mr Neil had genuinely listened to organisations that represent pensioners and older people, he would have found that older people— which means people more than 50 years old, an age that I rapidly approach, never mind the Presiding Officer—do not view this issue as being solely about pensions. On every occasion that I have spoken to older people, I have found that they mention the report of the Royal Commission on Long-Term Care, which got a passing reference at the end of Mr Neil's speech. It seems appropriate to respond to it in this debate on older people.
Sir Stewart Sutherland's report ably analyses the problem that he and the other members of the commission identified. He powerfully expresses the views of older people over the funding of long- term care and he defuses the mythical demographic time bomb that is so often a feature of the debate around old people.
When I took up this post, I asked what older people wanted. I was told that they wanted to stay in their own homes and be independent as long as possible. I asked for the evidence and I was shown it. Better still, I asked older people themselves. They all said the same thing. I asked myself what I would want, and the answer was the same. We all want to live in our own homes for as long as possible, perhaps moving to more suitable homes. One of Sutherland's recommendations is that more people should be able to receive high- quality care that allows them to stay in their own homes.
There are proportionately fewer people in care homes in Scotland than in the UK as a whole. There are over 340,000 people over the age of 75 in this country, 33,000 of whom are in care homes. If we are to benefit older people—both those who need care towards the end of their lives and those who do not—we must ensure access to flexible and imaginative home-care services should they need them. Those services should enable them to get up or go to bed when they want and should be available seven days a week, not just Monday to Friday.
We all agree with the concept of independent living, but if it is to be achieved there will have to be an injection of capital into community care services and an eradication of the bureaucracy that families face when trying to ensure that care is available.
As we have discussed, the financial resources that are going into community care will rise this year, next year and the year after. I accept the important point that Mrs Ewing makes: this debate is not just about the scale of resources, it is about how we spend them in order to get the maximum benefit for our older people. That will mean addressing bureaucracy and systems.
People expect personal care delivered in a person-centred way, not in a bureaucratic way and they expect that care to be of a consistent, guaranteed standard. One of the royal commission's two main recommendations is that there should be a national care commission to ensure national standards of care, monitor trends, represent the consumer and encourage the development of better services. We already have in preparation specific Scottish legislation to meet those aims.
As was promised in our programme for government, we will legislate for two new bodies. The first will register the social care work force, regulate its training and produce codes of conduct to provide assurances on quality. The second— the Scottish commission for the regulation of care—will regulate the care that is provided. For the first time ever, home care, delivered to so many of our older people, as well as residential care, will be regulated. All providers, including local authorities, will be covered and there will be national standards drafted from the perspective of the person using the service.
The commission will be responsible for ensuring that all social care is provided to national standards. It will create a national database of care services and use that and demographic and resource data collected by the Scottish Executive to advise on trends into the future. It will have the power to investigate complaints about care services and report on them. It will advise us on changes needed to the care standards and provide advice on how those standards should be met and improved. National care standards are already under development, and the establishment of the commission will meet the royal commission's recommendation.
Sir Stewart Sutherland's commission made two further recommendations regarding carers: better services for people with carers and a national support package. He recognised that many older people depend on informal carers and that many are themselves informal carers. What was
recommended is exactly what we announced last week: a doubling of resources earmarked for carers services and setting in train new carers legislation.
The royal commission specifically identified direct payment schemes whereby users are able to purchase care packages to match their needs as a way of increasing flexibility for older people and cutting through the bureaucracy. It recommends that older people who wish it, should have access to direct payments. We have commissioned research on the present use of direct payments and the barriers to them and we expect to implement that recommendation for older people next year.
At least four recommendations of the royal commission demand for older people more joint working and more pooling of resources by local authorities and the national health service. We are already promoting those measures through implementation of the modernising community care action plan. However, the Minister for Health and Community Care and I agree that that is not happening quickly enough for our older people, as well as others who need those services.
Following a seminar with local authority and health service leaders last month, we are setting up a joint future working group—chaired by me— by the end of the year, to begin work in January, to address a range of joint working and funding issues in community care. All of its work will be of direct relevance to older people and the recommendations of the commission.
I want the group to do two further things that relate to the royal commission report. First, I want it to come to an agreement over what the balance should be between residential and home-based care; secondly—and crucially—I want it to address another point that received a passing reference from Mr Neil: charging for personal care delivered at home.
As Sir Stewart Sutherland said, the present system is perceived as unfair and inconsistent and it can cost a good deal to administer. It is a perverse disincentive to local authorities that provide intensive packages of care to people at home and a real obstacle to services being provided jointly with the NHS, which of course does not charge. I am determined to address that. The joint future group will tackle that and come up with proposals in time for them to be considered during the next spending review, which will begin early in the new year, and will reach its conclusions by the autumn.
Those are all measures that will benefit hundreds of thousands of older Scots. However, I am not forgetting the 8,000 or so people in care homes in Scotland who are contributing to the cost of their care at present. To benefit that group, Sir Stewart recommends changes to the funding system that would cost about £1.1 billion per annum for the UK, rising to £6 billion by the middle of the century, and suggests various intermediate steps along the way.
As I have said, we want gradually to reduce the proportion of people in traditional care homes and to use the resources thus made available to support people more effectively at home. However, I know that there are real concerns about the present funding system for residential care. The needs of older people—including those funding their own care—and the way in which residential care is funded, will be key issues to resolve during the forthcoming spending review.
I have taken the opportunity presented by today's debate to address one of the key priorities for older people in Scotland—long-term care. Building a Scotland where every older person matters means ensuring that all older people are financially secure and that they can lead active, independent and healthy lives. Alex Neil is right—it is not just about pensions. What a pity that he did not address any of the other issues relating to older people in Scotland.
Alex Neil said that he was sending his words out to our pensioners, but words are not enough. We are taking action—now, next year and into the next century—to build a Scotland where every older person matters. The Executive will use the power of the Parliament to pursue relentlessly pensioners' issues. We will not use our pensioners to pursue the issue of the Scottish Parliament's powers.
I move amendment S1M-327.1, to leave out from "recognises" to end and insert:
"notes the Executive's vision of a Scotland in which every older person matters and every person beyond working age has a decent quality of life, and welcomes the measures the Executive has already taken and has planned to support older people in line with its Programme for Government commitment to deliver person centred health and community care."
Thank you, Mr Gray, for concluding before the end of your time limit. Let us keep up the momentum.
I would like to the join the previous two speakers in welcoming the pensioners who have come to listen to today's debate.
I am happy to move the Conservative amendment to the SNP motion on the elderly. There are many areas where we can agree with the SNP, particularly in relation to Labour's record. In the run-up to the previous election, Labour
made great promises to the elderly and built up their expectations about what Labour would do for them when it came to power. The reality has been rather different—yet another in a series of Labour letdowns.
The most damaging action of the Labour Government was the decision to abolish dividend tax credits. As former pensions minister Frank Field has admitted, that decision wiped more than £2 billion off the value of pension funds in one year. At least he has been prepared to admit how much damage has been done by that move. I will be interested to hear if the ministers of the Scottish Executive will defend that decision. Sadly, I fear that we will be treated to the usual litany of lies about Labour's record.
However, the facts speak for themselves. Despite being elected on the back of Tony Blair's promise not to increase tax at all—his words, not mine—taxes will increase by £40 billion over the Parliament, which is the equivalent of £1,500 for everyone in the country. The announcements on pensioners' TV licences and winter fuel allowances are very welcome, particularly for those people who are already pensioners. However, new pensioners will still be £500 worse off, as a result of the abolition of the age-related married couples allowance. Once again, Gordon Brown is giving with one hand and taking away with the other.
Labour did not have the courage to increase income tax; instead it has increased taxes by stealth, hoping that no one will notice. The abolition of dividend tax credits is the most despicable stealth tax of all. Labour is relying on the fact that people will realise what they have lost only when they retire and it is too late. This is the first time that people's pension savings have been taxed since 1921 and is a direct contradiction of Labour's manifesto pledge to
"support and strengthen the framework for occupational pensions".
That short-sighted policy will have far-reaching consequences. Unless people up their contributions now, they will find that their retirement incomes are lower than they expected. That will leave far more people dependent on the state and is typical of Labour's bungled welfare reform. Labour boasts about adopting joined-up government, but the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.
Labour has presided over a shocking level of agism in the national health service. A recent Age Concern survey highlighted the fact that one in 20 people over the age of 65 has been refused treatment by the NHS. Elderly patients are often forced to go private, experience longer waiting times and are not treated with the respect that they deserve. That backs up earlier evidence that women over the age of 65 are not routinely invited for breast screening, despite the fact that 63 per cent of all deaths from breast cancer occur in women in that age group. People over the age of 60 are also refused heart transplants as a matter of national policy.
That is all typical of Labour, which says one thing and does another. It promised to conduct an audit of national health service policies and priorities that discriminated against older people, but that was yet another example of Labour pretending to care about the plight of the elderly, then doing nothing once it got into power. We would end discrimination and ensure that all patients were treated according to clinical need.
Those are just two examples of the way in which Labour has failed the elderly. Before we are accused of not addressing the other issues, my Conservative colleagues will later address the points that the minister raised.
I agree with Mr Harding about annuities. The value of annuities has fallen by about 50 per cent in the past two or three years. However, he has not mentioned any commitment on the basic state retirement pension. At the pensioners rally last week, his colleague Alex Fergusson made a tremendous speech demanding a substantial increase in the pension for senior citizens.
No, he did not.
On a point of order.
Does Mr Harding agree with his colleague?
I agree with what he said, and it was not a big increase in—
Mr Harding, there is a point of order.
On a point of order. Am I allowed to defend myself from what is an untrue statement?
Not on a point of order, but if you want to intervene on Mr Harding's speech—
May I intervene?
Please, yes.
I agree absolutely with Mr Neil. I did make a tremendous speech. [Laughter.] But at no point during that magnificent piece of oratory did I commit my party to a substantial increase in the state pension.
He said that he was in favour.
As I was not present, I do not think that I can comment, but I thank Mr Fergusson for the intervention.
I gave two examples of the ways in which we feel that Labour has failed the elderly. Although we agree with the Scottish National party on this, our means of addressing the problems of the elderly are different. Our aim in government was to achieve higher living standards for pensioners by maintaining the value of the state pension at the same time as encouraging greater take-up of occupational or private pensions.
Will the member give way?
Is it going to be a reasonable question?
I wonder whether the member will confirm that eye test charges were introduced during the years of Tory rule. Can he give me a yes or no answer—did his party introduce those charges?
What I will say to that is that Labour also stopped the Christmas bonus.
If I may carry on, our policies led to an increase in the proportion of people who had an occupational pension: in 1979, the figure was 43 per cent; in 1997, it was 62 per cent. More than 5 million people took out personal pensions in that period.
Those reforms mean that, unlike other European countries, we are not liable for a huge increase in public sector pensions. Those pensions are funded up front, whereas our European counterparts have a demographic time bomb on their hands. With an aging population, those countries will have to bankrupt themselves to pay for the provision, or else remove universality.
I remind Alex Neil that it was the Conservative party's brave decision to cut the link with earnings that saved Britain from that fate, and that it is folly for the SNP to suggest that we return to such a system now.
No, thank you.
We believe that there are specific areas of policy for which this Parliament is responsible, where our policies would improve the quality of life for the elderly.
One is the introduction of an integrated national concessionary fares system. At present, concessionary fares are applied in a very haphazard way. It is time that the Scottish Executive ministers stopped punishing the motorist and got some of their council colleagues to come together with the bus and rail companies to introduce an equitable system. Here in Edinburgh there are good concessions, and in Fife there are free fares. Where I come from, in Stirling, there are no rail concessions but there are some bus concessions; in Falkirk there are both. It is time that we had an integrated system for the whole of Scotland.
I would like to ask a straightforward question. Can Mr Harding tell me of one attempt, during the 18 years of Conservative rule, to bring in a concessionary fares scheme that was uniform across Scotland?
I agree with the point of Mr Crawford's question. However, my point is that policies have since developed.
In local government, Labour has failed the council tenant. Much of Scotland's council housing stock is crumbling and new investment is desperately needed. The standard of housing for everyone in Scotland would be improved by transferring control of housing from councils to local communities, which would give tenants a real choice of landlords and a real say in the management of their homes. Furthermore, such a measure would bring in private sector investment to assist necessary repair and renovation projects.
Local housing providers would have to adapt houses specifically for the elderly and disabled. Grants would be given on the condition that any new development provided a minimum of 5 per cent of sheltered housing, which would ensure that elderly and disabled people were included in mainstream housing, creating real communities.
To match our tough policies on zero tolerance of crime, we must ensure that once an offender is caught, the sentence properly matches the crime. Only by reducing crime—as the Conservatives did in Government, through measures such as honesty in sentencing—will we create a decent, civilised society. Our goal is a society in which everyone, including the elderly, can go about their everyday lives without fear and can feel secure in their homes. The Scottish Executive will never achieve that with its current policies of falling police numbers, prison closures, and keeping more criminals on the street.
Although the SNP is right to point out that the Executive's concern for the elderly is no more than skin deep, its solutions are wrong. Those solutions are unaffordable, unnecessary for the majority and would not provide the same long-term benefit as encouraging individuals who work hard and save hard for the future.
Many pensioners in Scotland are reasonably well-off because of reforms implemented during the years of Conservative Government. Such
reforms allowed Scots to save and invest in their own future and provided them with much better pensions than the state could ever afford. We can increase elderly people's incomes in the long run only by targeting state help on those who remain in real need and by assisting others to continue to make provision for their future. Labour has attacked that principle by breaking such election promises.
Our amendment sets out practical ways of improving the quality of life of older people in Scotland. Those measures, combined with an end to Labour's scandalous tax on people's future welfare, would bring great benefit to the people of Scotland. I commend them to the chamber.
I move amendment S1M-327.2, to leave out from "recognises" to end and insert:
"regards care and concern for Scotland's elderly as a major priority; recognises that the measures necessary to achieve this must include a reversal of Her Majesty's Government's decision to tax pension funds, which will cut retirement incomes, healthcare provision without fear of discrimination on the grounds of age and the introduction of an integrated concessionary fares system enabling the elderly to maintain contact with friends and family on an affordable basis; further recognises that the transfer of council housing stock would enable better housing provision to be made for the elderly, particularly those in need of sheltered accommodation, and that the rising crime rate has resulted in an increased number of elderly people, particularly those living alone, being afraid for their personal safety and the security of their homes, and undertakes to take the appropriate steps to provide reassurance and improve the quality of life for our elderly population."
As far as the occupants of the chair are concerned, this debate has set a new record, as all three speakers have used less than their allotted time. That is a welcome change in practice. I call Robert Brown to speak for the Liberal Democrats.
I also welcome the older people in the visitors gallery. One of the advantages of a Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh is that our citizens can come and be involved in debates on such important issues. Furthermore, I sympathise with the people who stood out in the biting weather this morning to hand out the leaflets that members received as we came in.
This debate on older people is very worth while and the SNP should be congratulated on its pertinent choice of subject, particularly as winter weather sets in and Christmas approaches. However, I was rather struck by the oddity of an SNP motion calling for a joint action plan between the UK Government and the Scottish Executive at the same time that the party is castigating left, right and centre the very idea of joint consultation between the two Governments. I want to take this opportunity on behalf of the Liberal Democrats to welcome proposals for better liaison between London and Edinburgh which help to harness the resources available at UK level to the best interests of Scotland. That is not a concept that finds favour with the Opposition in this chamber.
There is no contradiction. We want action, not words or committees. The point about committees is that they take minutes and waste years. Our pensioners do not have years to waste.
That is a very modest debating point. The fact is that effective action on this issue depends on effective liaison between London and Edinburgh with the various resources available across the whole of the UK. The SNP is fundamentally unable to appreciate or recognise that point.
I am also a little surprised by the SNP's terminology. As the minister said, rightly, the debate should be about older people, as it says in the Executive amendment. Pensions are not the only issue, important though financial matters are. Whether or not older people receive pensions from the state is not the issue either. The debate should be about the value of individuals, who in this instance happen to be older people, in our society.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
The Liberal Democrat theme, people count, to which I referred in the social inclusion debate is germane today also. Older people have much to give to our society. Many voluntary groups would fold without them. The service and experience that they bring is of enormous value to our communities and is vital in enhancing the sense of value and self-worth of individual volunteers.
I remember my grandfather, aged 90, helping out at social events, moving chairs or pouring tea, at the pensioners club in his vicinity. He used to say, "The old people really enjoyed themselves today," quite unconscious of the fact that most of the old people to whom he referred were younger than him. He did not identify himself as an older person, which is true of many of the people that I and other members come across in our local communities. People find it satisfying to do their bit to help. We must emphasise that side of the coin.
Some older people need a degree of help and support. Older people are more likely to need health care; a certain proportion will need to be looked after either by carers or in a home; there are issues to do with transport, sporting activity and social life and the problems of bereavement and loneliness. The objectives of ensuring reasonable comfort in the home and an adequate diet must be met. Government policy must aim to
enhance lifestyle, support individual independence and increase personal choice.
Another issue is the need for access to advice and information. Almost 300,000 people aged 60 or over rely on council tax benefit. It is high time that we were able to move towards a proper national network of funded, independent advice centres so that people in all parts of the country can be helped by citizens advice bureaux or similar agencies.
Some people despair at the demographic trends identified by earlier speakers—more older people, more people on pensions, more people needing care, more people in residential homes and more calls being made on the health service. However, the situation is nothing new. In 1911, when the Liberal Government was preparing its national insurance act, civil servants went on about the potential increase in the number of old people. The Government had introduced the first old-age pensions in 1908 at the rate of 5 shillings. Dire prognostications were made about national bankruptcy, which, of course, did not happen.
There is an astonishing reluctance on the part of the Labour Government at Westminster to take significant action on crucial social issues. In the pre-budget statement, a great flourish was made of the 75p pension increase, which Alex Neil touched on. The truth is, however, that pensioners under Labour will be worse off in real terms than they were last year. The 75p pension increase will go little way towards enabling pensioners to pay the increased council tax and water bills that will result from decisions and assumptions in the comprehensive spending review that was carried out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at UK level.
Pensioners in every Scottish region will be worse off. In Highland, they will be worse off by £42.63; in Perth, by £41.27; in City of Glasgow by £11.15; and in South Lanarkshire by £4.68. Only in the Scottish Borders, where the projected increase in water bills is less, will pensioners benefit—to the tune of 67p year. I can assume only that that largesse is due to the higher volume of rainfall in the Borders region.
Thirty-one per cent of Scottish pensioners live in poverty. Against that background, the chancellor's continued amassing of an election war chest is nothing short of an outrage. A fair deal for pensioners would be right, it would be socially just and it would be the Liberal Democrat alternative to the tax-cutting agenda of central Government at Westminster under new Labour.
I understand that there will be an announcement today on the response to the Sutherland report on long-term care. If so, it will not be before time. At national level, the air of expectation that greeted the report has faded to an irritated frustration at the lack of progress on its implementation. I therefore welcome the minister's earlier comments about the proposed reaction of the Scottish Executive to the Sutherland commission, in so far as its recommendations fall within our remit.
We should not underestimate public opinion on the issue. More than 30,000 people live in residential or nursing homes; 61,000 people suffer from dementia; more than 500,000 adults provide some level of care for older people. Many more fear the prospect of ending their days in poverty and hardship, a burden to their children, the savings that they hoped to pass on to their families taken by the state. There is a significant feeling of outrage at that prospect in the hearts of many people who have worked all their lives.
I respectfully suggest to the SNP that it might be better off backing the Liberal Democrats and arguing the case for dealing with pensioner poverty in this Parliament, which has the power and resources to tackle it, rather than yelling from a distance, over the border, on the matter.
I have worked on this issue in the Westminster Parliament and still do so. Why have the Liberal Democrats not been much more supportive of arguments propounded by the SNP on issues such as the cold climate allowance for pensioners in Scotland?
I thank Mrs Ewing for her intervention, but ask her why the SNP in Westminster did not see fit to give its backing to the various early-day motions tabled by the Liberal Democrats on such matters.
SNP members identify, for example, the £8.43 billion surplus on the balance of the national insurance fund. We urge that that should be used to restore the link between the basic pension and average earnings for the remaining years of this Parliament. That is a practical solution to what is a crucial problem, but it is not being supported as yet, as I understand, by a single SNP member. Social issues such as the plight of pensioners define the party battle at Westminster and the alternatives that the parties offer.
I return to my earlier point: it is the individual quality of life in our society that counts. It is in health care, community care, housing, social services and community facilities where the responsibilities of this Parliament lie, responsibilities which are gradually being met by the Scottish Executive through the programme for government.
In health—Alex Neil touched on this point earlier—the report published by the Townsend Centre for International Poverty Research yesterday shows the extent of the challenge, with six of Glasgow's 10 constituencies holding a top
10 position in the list of the least healthy places in Britain.
The Executive's targeted strategy to make measurable progress on reducing rates of mortality due to cancer and coronary heart disease is the right way forward, because of this Parliament's crucial ability to take a holistic, cross-cutting approach to such matters.
As part of the recent warm homes week, I was privileged to attend a house in Rutherglen, in my regional constituency, which happened to belong to an old acquaintance. The house was undergoing a package of work under the arrangements with Heatwise, which involved high- quality insulation work, including wall cavity insulation, work on windows and doors and advice. The heating system had been installed by the lady herself, but, in that scheme, many of the heating systems had been installed under the leasing arrangement with Scottish Power, which John Young will remember from his days on the City of Glasgow District Council. That was an excellent initiative, which was a cost-effective way of improving heating standards and reducing heating costs.
Will Robert Brown give way?
No thank you, I think I have given way sufficiently for the moment.
What impressed me about the initiative was the technical sophistication of what was on offer. It was a far cry from the days when we used to put wee bits of latex around doors and Sellotape up the letterbox to prevent draughts. The programme for Government commits us to improving 100,000 houses suffering from dampness and condensation by 2003, targeted on people with low incomes and on the elderly, as part of the healthy homes initiative. That is an ambitious target, but would not be ambitious enough were there the resources to do more.
I hope that, during the course of this Parliament, there will be further measures beyond what the Government has managed to achieve so far to tackle the scourge of fuel poverty, to deal with unnecessary associated deaths and ill health from hypothermia and finally to eliminate fuel poverty in this country.
Will Robert Brown give way?
No, thank you.
The commitment announced by the Deputy Minister for Communities this morning to make progress on home care payments is a significant response, albeit only a beginning, to the Sutherland commission's report.
Older people are a crucial part of our society. They do not want to be dependent, they want to play their full part, and it is the job of this Parliament to concentrate all its efforts in supporting them with all the resources and tools that we have at our disposal here in Scotland.
I support Iain Gray's amendment.
Before we move into open debate, I advise members that there will be a four-minute time limit on speeches.
As it appears that we are having to testify to our ages this morning, I am very much afraid that I have to declare an interest when it comes to being in the over-50 age group.
We heard Iain Gray speak to the Executive amendment. What a rosy picture he painted. It seems that it is great—or going to be great—in new Labour's brave new world. I have listened to the spin, but for the next few minutes I will speak about the realities, particularly the reality of access to the health service and to care in the community for those over pensionable age in Scotland today.
From the outset, it is important to recognise that today's elderly population are those same people who were starting their working lives when the national health service was introduced. Many of them were returning to work and establishing families after the long years of the second world war. They were delighted to enter into a contract with the then Labour Government, which told them that, if they worked hard and put their bit into the public kitty, they would be looked after when their working lives were over. What have today's pensioners received in return for keeping their part of the contract? A health service that discriminates on the grounds of age and a community care system that is driven by the lack of resources, rather than services that meet the needs of the growing elderly population.
I want to examine the evidence that age is used as a discriminatory factor in the health service. The Executive claims that the treatment and prevention of cancer is a No 1 priority—but not, it seems, if one is over 65 years of age. As has been said already, 63 per cent of all deaths from breast cancer occur in women aged 65 or over; yet women aged over 65 are not routinely invited for breast cancer screening. The same is true of lung cancer. Although more than half of all patients with inoperable lung cancer are over 65, palliative chemotherapy to relieve the symptoms is reserved entirely for younger age groups.
Coronary heart disease is another stated priority
area for the Executive, but not, I am afraid, if one is of a certain age. For example, there is a national policy to refuse heart transplants to people aged over 60, and we know for a fact that 20 per cent of coronary care units operate age-related admissions policies, while 40 per cent attach age restrictions on clot-busting drug therapy after heart attacks. As with those who are diagnosed with cancer, 66 per cent of all heart attack patients are over the age of 65. While I could go on and on, I ask the minister to address the rationing of health care to the elderly population when he sums up.
I have spoken on numerous occasions in this chamber about the need to implement the recommendations of the Sutherland report. Quite frankly, unless steps—of which there were hopeful signs today—are taken soon by this Executive to address the current crisis in community care, the system will go into meltdown, believe you me.
This Parliament has the power to ensure that the value of a family home and, indeed, of a person's savings, can be disregarded for up to 12 months after admission to a residential care setting.
Please wind up.
As I am aware of the time, I will cut to the chase. We talk about person-centred health and community care. Try telling that to one of the 2,000 elderly people who, while lying in acute hospital beds, await funding for residential or nursing care, or to the elderly people who have their home help hours cut and charges raised because of cutbacks in local authority funding.
Come to a close, please.
In spite of the soothing words and platitudes of its amendment, this Executive and its pals at Westminster stand accused of a breach of faith with an entire generation.
I urge members to support the motion.
The background to all debates about pensioner poverty, or any kind of poverty, must be the stark fact that between 1979 and 1997 the proportion of people in Scotland who were living on less than 50 per cent of the mean GB income— which is the official definition of poverty—rose from 10 per cent to 26 per cent. That problem could never be addressed overnight. All members should welcome the fact that, last week, the Executive made an undertaking to reduce that figure over the next few years. That was a significant development.
I agree with Alex Neil that pensioner groups want a restoration of the link between pensions and earnings. What Alex Neil did not say is that pensioner groups and individual pensioners, whom we all meet every day in our constituencies, also welcome some of the changes that the Government has made. Such changes include the £100 fuel allowance; the fact that 300,000 Scottish pensioners will receive a free television licence next year; the extra £300 million for community care; the free eye tests; and, for the younger range of older people—and here, like Kay Ullrich, I must declare an interest—the new deal for the over-50s.
Is Malcolm Chisholm aware that the average life expectancy of the Scottish male is 74, but that a person does not qualify for the free television licence until they are 75?
There are many pensioners—300,000 was the figure that I cited— who will benefit in Scotland. There is also the minimum income guarantee, which means that, since 1997, the lowest pension that someone can receive will by next April have risen by £15 for a single pensioner and by £20 for a couple.
That said, there is a problem in means-testing pensioners. In the welfare reform debate, a balance must be struck between universal and targeted benefits. The problem is greater for pensioners than for families. The working families tax credit will work well, as it involves targeting and a taper. The fundamental problem in applying the same model to pensioners is that hundreds of thousands of pensioners throughout the United Kingdom do not claim income support.
A further problem—one that we all encounter regularly in our constituencies—is that many pensioners live just above the income support level. I do not think that it is right to continue with pension increases of 75p, or thereabouts, for pensioners in that group. That is a challenge for the Government, as it recognises. The pension increase last year was combined with the £100 fuel allowance and the pension increase this year is combined with the free television licences.
Many of the Executive's initiatives are welcome and within the power of this Parliament. The warm deal is one such initiative. Like many members, I visited a pensioners' home this week. The £37 million for the warm deal, over the next three years, will be welcomed. However, one of the people in the home brought to my attention the fact that, unless a pensioner is claiming income support, they do not receive that money, which excludes a lot of people. We must investigate the implementation of a taper for that provision.
The minister mentioned many of the other initiatives that the Executive is implementing, particularly in relation to community care. There is the money that I have mentioned and the welcome
regulation. We debated the carers strategy last week, which is an important development. I also welcome what the minister said today about long- term care, although I hope that the Sutherland report will be implemented in full, as it proposes the right balance between universal and targeted benefits.
Time is out, so I cannot go on to talk about transport and crime. However, the fact that I even mention those subjects illustrates the many areas over which this Parliament has control, which will benefit pensioners. I urge the Minister for Transport and the Environment—who was sitting near to me a minute ago—to investigate a national concessionary travel scheme for pensioners.
Malcolm Chisholm opened his remarks by putting this discussion into the context of the disgraceful rise in poverty between 1979 and 1997, using the figures that are available to us.
As a socialist, I would like to put the discussion in another context. I ask: what type of country do we live in? Do we live in a poor country, an undeveloped country, or do we live in a rich country? Do we live in a country that is rich in natural resources and physical resources in the form of oil, gas, electricity, land and water? If the answer to that question is yes, why—according to the report on poverty in Scotland by the Scottish Poverty Information Unit at Glasgow Caledonian University—are 320,000 pensioners in Scotland living on or below the income support poverty line? Why, in a country that is so rich in all those resources, are there 320,000 poor pensioners?
As a socialist, I argue that, far from deserving congratulations, the UK Government, in the two and a half years that it has been in power, has not begun in a significant or fundamental way to address the real problem in this country. That problem is the distribution of wealth and power. The recent report from Bristol University says it in black and white—regardless of the laudable aims of the Government, unless it is willing fundamentally to redistribute wealth in Britain, it will not be able to tackle poverty. That is the problem that confronts us in Parliament today, and that is why I support the SNP motion.
That motion makes it clear that the real problem for the majority of pensioners is their income. That income was severely reduced in the dark years under the Tories, who, in 1980, made the disgraceful decision to break the earnings link for pension uprating. That has left single pensioners some £27 a week worse off and pensioner couples some £41 a week worse off. Is it too much to ask the national Government at least to restore that link for basic state pensions in order to give our pensioners a wee bit of dignity?
Malcolm Chisholm and others have mentioned the winter fuel allowance and the free television licences. I am against means-testing—pensioners should qualify for a range of benefits because they are pensioners, not because they are poor pensioners. Free television licences are not means-tested—they are age-tested. They go only to those aged more than 75 years. That is a ridiculous decision. Why should not all pensioners get a free television licence, given that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a £12 billion surplus and there is an £8 billion surplus through national insurance?
I ask Parliament to support the motion that has been moved by Alex Neil because it makes the point that what is required is an increase in the basic state pension. To deliver that, the Parliament will have to return time and again to those who really run this country. Perhaps the pensioners who are here have come to the wrong building. If they wanted to go to the building in which the real power is wielded and where the men and women of real power sit, they should have gone across the road to the Bank of Scotland. That is where the real power lies in this country. It is time for the Parliament to question whether we should own and control democratically the resources in our country.
As someone who is barely out of his twenties, I cannot declare a personal interest in the debate. [MEMBERS: "Ah."] According to the Benefits Agency, almost 259,000 people over the age of 60 in Scotland were, in May this year, entitled to income support but fewer than 163,000 were in receipt of it. That means that almost 100,000 pensioners—a massive 37 per cent of those who are entitled to income support—do not receive it. It is thought that an even higher number of pensioners entitled to housing and council tax benefits do not claim them—that is borne out by research that my office has carried out.
Mr Gibson raises an important point, but does he recognise that the chancellor made exactly the same point yesterday? The chancellor also said that, by co-ordinating action, we could do something about that situation.
I wonder why the Executive has made no effort to bring together the information needed to address the problem. In September, because I was unable to get the information from the Scottish Executive, as it does not record it, I wrote to the 32 Scottish local authorities asking them to give the number of people of pensionable
age in their area and the number receiving full or partial council tax benefit.
There are alarming variations: for example, the income support claimant rate in the Highland Council area is 32 per cent, whereas the full council tax benefit claimant rate is only 15 per cent. That low council tax claimant rate is reflected across Scotland: in Edinburgh, 17 per cent of pensioners receive a full council tax rebate; in East Renfrewshire, the figure is 16 per cent; and in the Scottish Borders it is 24 per cent. That compares with an overall income support claimant rate of just under 40 per cent of Scottish pensioners. While those figures are based only on the information that is available, they show alarming levels of under-claiming. I appeal to the Scottish Executive to obtain the facts needed to assess and address pensioner poverty.
The issue is wider than unclaimed benefits. Those who claim everything to which they are entitled are punished as well. Mr Alexander lives in my constituency, in a typical Glasgow council house. He is charged £42 rent and £15 a week council tax, which takes into account his single person discount. Because he has a war pension of £41 a week on top of his state pension, he has to pay £21 of his weekly rent bill himself and £7 towards his council tax, leaving him a net income of £80 a week—only £5 above the income support level. From Mr Alexander's occupational pension of £41 per week, the Government clawback is £28 of the £33 differential between the income support level and his income, equivalent to a marginal rate of taxation of 85 per cent—a new Labour poverty trap.
Two things need to be done to end that deplorable situation. One is a reserved matter; the other can be addressed by the Parliament. The first is that the taper of reduction for pensioners on housing benefit must be changed—a change of 20p in the taper would leave Mr Alexander, for example, £6 per week better off. The second is council tax: it is ridiculous that hundreds and thousands of Scottish pensioners are paying it. Moving to a system of local income tax and away from the discriminatory council tax system would take an estimated 578,000 Scottish pensioners out of local taxation. Only those eligible for income tax would have to pay and only those with substantial private incomes would find themselves paying more. I am sure that my Liberal Democrat colleagues will agree, as local income tax is part of their policy. Mr Alexander and hundreds of thousands of pensioners like him would be approximately £7 per week better off.
Pensioners deserve a better deal. We need a proper increase in the state pension, the restoration of the link with earnings, a real campaign to ensure that all pensioners who are entitled to income support receive it, and a commitment to reduce the clawback on housing benefit. Pensioners who have occupational pensions deserve to be able to enjoy that modest income without feeling Big Brother's hand in their pocket. It is time that the Government gave something back to the generations who sacrificed so much in the past and still have so much to offer in the future. I support the motion.
During yesterday's time for reflection, the minister read out a list of people whom he thought the Parliament should keep at the forefront of concern. It included the homeless, rough sleepers, alcoholics, drug addicts, victims of crime and, incongruously, the elderly. It was as though we now accept as a matter of fact—in this market- driven, capitalist society—that to be old is to be at risk and vulnerable.
That should worry everyone, because it is not the case in every society that to be old is to be at risk. The Government's publication "Social Trends 28", for 1998, contains a chapter that compares Britain with France, drawing together all the social statistics that Governments have at their disposal. It shows that expenditure per head on social protection—pensions, looking after the elderly and so on—in the UK is only 87 per cent of what it is in France. That has been the case for a long time, because we persistently underspend on the protection that we give to the vulnerable in our society. The study also shows that there are 100,000 more deaths every year in Britain than in France.
Those statistics are backed up by statistics from elsewhere. During the 1997 general election, the Campaign for Warm Homes produced statistics for every constituency in the United Kingdom on the number of excess deaths each year between November and March arising from the cold. When I added up the total for all the Scottish constituencies, I found that more than 10,000 people died every winter in Scotland because of the cold and their inability to keep their homes warm. Today in the press, we see a report on health inequalities between Glasgow and other parts of the United Kingdom. It shows that in Shettleston, for example, 71 per cent of all recorded deaths were avoidable. How many of those were old people who died when they did not have to, because we did not do enough for them?
Will the member take an intervention?
I have not got time. If I had more than four minutes, I would give way.
The question is, what do we do about the facts
to which I have referred? The Parliament is united in saying that a serious problem confronts elderly people in our society. I am not convinced that the answer is for the Parliament to debate whether there should be more or fewer constitutional changes. We already know that pensioner poverty has persisted into a devolved Scotland inside the UK and within the European Union. I am not convinced that moving to an independent Scotland outside the UK but inside the European Union— and, more significant, inside the single currency— would make any great difference to pensioner poverty in this country. At heart, I believe that the problem is not down to constitutional structures; what really matters is the political will of the people who are elected to the different Assemblies in our country and what we decide.
It is wrong for the Opposition in this Parliament to deride the changes that have been introduced by the Labour Government since 1997. Many pensioners across Scotland and Britain have welcomed those changes, which have made a big difference. A winter fuel payment of £100 makes a difference to all pensioners in Scotland, as does the reduction of VAT on fuel.
Malcolm Chisholm mentioned the warm homes deal and complained about the fact that it was targeted. One could complain that it is not targeted enough, because the maximum grant that is available under the warm homes deal in Scotland is £500. In England and Wales, a new system has been introduced, targeted on the over-60s, who are vulnerable. Under the home energy efficiency scheme plus, from next April pensioners can get £1,800 to install a new central heating system in their homes. People in Scotland will not be able to do that. Why does not this Parliament debate that issue? I understand that Energy Action Scotland is asking for a review of the warm homes deal. There should be such a review, to ensure that the money that is available is targeted at the right places.
I thought that I had just started, but I notice that I have almost finished. It is always the same when I get to my feet—there is never enough time. Let us forget our party political differences, unite around the issues that matter to old people and try to reach a consensus in this Parliament. Most Labour members agree that pensions should be linked to earnings rather than to inflation. That was always our position and it remains our position. Let us find a way of achieving that goal, instead of calling one another names because our party leaderships say something different. [Applause.]
I remind spectators in the public gallery that they must be silent and may not participate in applause.
I look forward to John McAllion and those of his colleagues who applauded his speech joining the SNP in supporting the motion.
In his opening statement, the minister said that pensioners wanted to stay in their own homes. He is absolutely right. He did not address the fact that 119,000 pensioners in Scotland live in cold, damp homes. It is a pity that he is leaving—he could learn something if he stayed.
I am not leaving.
Fuel poverty is a particular problem for elderly people. According to the Scottish Poverty Information Unit, Scottish pensioners make up almost half the fuel poor. The reasons are twofold: first, household incomes are not enough to pay for adequate heating; secondly, the condition of houses means that they are almost impossible to heat.
Elderly people die of cold in winter in Scotland; every year, more people die in winter than in summer. A glance at the columns of death notices in local newspapers between November and March reminds us of that. We seem to accept that, somehow, it is inevitable. The annual cull of people in Scotland is something like 2,500, most of whom are pensioners. That does not have to happen. In places with colder climates, such as Scandinavia or Siberia, those excess winter deaths do not occur.
Energy Action Scotland reported that in Siberia, despite an outside temperature of minus 25 deg, there is no increase in winter mortality rates, because indoor temperatures are kept at a consistent level. In Scotland, more than 100,000 pensioner households have no form of central heating. Fuel-poor families spend a higher than average proportion of their household income on fuel, but the heat goes out the doors, windows and roofs—that makes for nicely warmed pigeons but freezing cold pensioners.
Fuel poverty must be tackled on two fronts: first, housing must be improved, so that it is energy efficient; secondly, incomes must be increased to make fuel affordable. The Executive has paid little more than lip service to the first issue. Its warm deal programme is inflexible; it allows expenditure on insulation, but not to tackle problems such as dampness. As John McAllion and others have said, that is in contrast to the situation in England, where the home energy scheme allows for grants for central heating.
Until the basic problem of inadequate pensions is tackled, any measure to provide a winter heating allowance will be undermined. An increase in investment in housing is necessary to tackle fuel
poverty.
Given the number of people who live in fuel poverty in Scotland, it is hardly surprising that last week the Executive disgracefully refused to set a target for tackling fuel poverty in Scotland. It recognised that, if it set a target, it might have to do something about it, which would cost money— God forbid, it might mean opening Gordon Brown's war chest.
We need to raise our ambitions and Scotland's horizons. We need to raise our pensioners out of poverty.
I am pleased that the SNP is making such extensive use of the excellent report by the Scottish Poverty Information Unit. I am sure that my former colleagues at Glasgow Caledonian University will be pleased to have their work recognised. That report and the responses from pensioners last week make it clear that the position of older people should be a priority for this Parliament and Executive.
Scottish pensioners deserve better than the empty rhetoric that has been served up by SNP members. Over the past few weeks, every SNP front bencher has promised more money for every possible cause. Three weeks ago, Kenny MacAskill backed a comprehensive road-building package for Scotland with an estimated price tag of £900 million. When Nicola Sturgeon's commitments to education, and the commitments to health, local government and the voluntary sector are considered as well, the SNP's strategy becomes clear: blank cheques and empty promises. The SNP refuses to take seriously the choice of priorities that confronts every Government.
At least David McLetchie made it clear last week that he would have spent the money that the Executive, in establishing the coalition, set aside for schools, health and anti-poverty measures, on prisons, more police officers and the removal of tuition fees for better-off students. At least one can have a meaningful debate with the Tories. They recognise that there are choices to be made, but with the SNP all we get is a Dutch auction with funny money to cover the costs.
Many pensioners, because of their financial situation, appreciate the bankruptcy of that approach. They make choices themselves and they know that Government has to do the same. In that context, and not in the unreal world in which the SNP lives, the commitment of the UK Government and the Scottish Executive to tackling pensioner poverty as one of three joint priority tasks is welcome.
As Alex Neil pointed out in his speech, Labour has a proud record on pensions. Successive Labour Governments have consistently done more for pensioners than anybody else has, and this Government has continued that tradition. For the first time, a minimum income guarantee has been introduced, giving a minimum weekly income of £78 to a single pensioner and nearly £122 to a couple. Winter fuel payments have increased fivefold, and £10.5 million has been made available under the warm deal.
Will the member give way?
I will not give way, but in a moment I shall comment on what Tommy Sheridan said.
Those initiatives are substantial changes. Simply talking about other things that might be done if the money were available misses the point. The UK Government now spends more than £4 billion on Scottish pensioners; by 2001, the support will have risen by 25 per cent, or a further £1 billion, from what we inherited from the Conservative Administration.
Real changes, real money and real benefits are being given to pensioners, and it is important that we should put that on record. Things still need to be done. I accept, and my party accepts, the need to increase the basic pension.
We will achieve a significant increase in income levels in the coming years, building on the improvements that have already been made by Labour since 1997. That process needs to be supplemented by co-ordinated action to tackle such issues as benefits take-up, which John McAllion mentioned.
Will Mr McNulty give way?
No, I will not.
With the needs of pensioners in mind, Labour will introduce measures to improve health care, transportation and a host of other services. The Government is making a positive intervention on behalf of pensioners. That is significant and must not be swept away.
I agree with Tommy Sheridan that pensioners deserve a dignified life. As he said, pensioners require more money from society—I think that there is consensus on that. However, money is not the only thing that we must deliver to pensioners. Our society must incorporate pensioners more; they deserve greater respect and we must involve them in the whole thrust of community life in Scotland. Pensioners already make a contribution in many ways, and there are many ways in which we can extend their contribution by empowering them and giving them opportunities to participate more fully. That should be the focus of the joint
action committees; I look forward to reading their reports in due course.
Sitting beside a pensioner—my colleague, John Young—gives me an interesting perspective on the debate. I commend the Scottish National party on the motion. It is a privilege for us to be able to raise awareness about the needs of the elderly.
When I was younger, 60 seemed to be really, really old. However, when one reaches 50 and considers that Tina Turner is now eligible for her old-age pension and bus pass and that Scotland's James Bond is nearer 70 than 60, it brings a new dimension to consideration of what it means to be elderly.
Today's new pensioners were born as the war broke out, and older pensioners fought in and endured the hardships of the second world war. Many of them are the most vulnerable people in our society. That background is important to our understanding of the elderly. All too often, applying for income support is perceived as asking for charity and, in some cases, defies a fiercely independent nature. My mother is certainly someone for whom any mention of income support is a non-starter.
For once, I am inclined to agree with Des McNulty that care of the elderly is not just the responsibility of Governments. We should not look to the Government to provide all the answers to the problems of the elderly; we should look to ourselves. Responsibility for the elderly is a responsibility for all of us.
Against that background, many middle-aged women have given up jobs to care for elderly parents. As was mentioned in the carers debate last week, the welfare bill that was announced by Tony Blair will introduce a second pension and will secure pension entitlement. The aim to eradicate child poverty in 20 years can be criticised because that must be the longest time for the implementation of any policy. Carers can look forward to their pension in 50 years' time. That is ridiculous.
Yesterday's report from the University of Bristol, entitled "The Widening Gap: Health Inequalities and Policy in Britain", stated that the poverty gap in Scotland is widening. Alex Neil pointed out the comparison between Govan and Wokingham. As one of the authors of the book said:
"Despite pledging to reduce poverty the current Labour administration have clearly reneged on both their commitments regarding health made before the election as well as reneging on much of what key cabinet ministers wrote and said in the past."
The Tories can be blamed for the period from 1979 to 1997, but they cannot be blamed for not fulfilling Labour promises in the past two years.
I will not give way because I have less than one minute left.
A recent Age Concern survey pointed out that people over 65 in Britain are being refused treatment; they are being forced to use private health care; they are being refused referrals to consultants and physiotherapists; they are being refused referrals for scans; and they are waiting months and years for operations. That is discrimination against the elderly.
As Kay Ullrich pointed out, bed blocking in Scotland cannot be mentioned enough, because bed blocking means that we are not looking after our elderly as we should. More than 2,000 patients deemed medically fit for discharge cannot leave hospital because of problems with social work funding. Not only are those patients not receiving appropriate health care, but because of bed blocking, other patients are prevented from receiving health care.
When in opposition, Labour criticised the Conservatives for tying pension increases to the rate of inflation. Now is the Government's opportunity, with wages and earnings having risen by 4.6 per cent in the past 12 months, to fulfil its promises.
A recent report from Energy Action Scotland stated that results
"suggest that heart disorders are aggravated by frequent exposure to cold. Indoor temperatures below 16oC increase respiratory problems and below 5oC involve a serious risk of hypothermia."
I support John McAllion in his call for a full review of the warm homes initiative. It was promised when Labour was in opposition. Now that it is in government, it should have the review.
I wish to deal with the transport aspect of the debate. I am conscious of the time limitation and the breadth of the subject. I will make some general comments, but my fundamental aim is to call for a national concessionary fare scheme for buses.
The transport problems that face the elderly are affordability, availability and accessibility. The lamentable pension entitlement after a lifetime's work has been dealt with by my colleagues already; the pension—or the lack of it—affects the mobility of the elderly. Those who are limited to a state pension are curfewed by cost. The average pensioner who is dependent on a state pension spends, on average, 6 per cent of his income on
travel. That is an expenditure of £5 per week. Around half of pensioner households fall into that category. The average retired person whose main income is from sources other than a state pension can afford to spend 10 per cent of their income on travel. That is an average expenditure of £16 per week. Expenditure of £5 to £16 is hardly a king's ransom, but it is not enough to meet the fares so that people can remain actively involved socially and economically in our society, or maintain contact with friends and relatives either near or far.
Obviously, part of the problem for many is the cost of fuel. We in the Scottish National party are conscious that notwithstanding our proposal, access to the motor car will remain vital for many urban and rural pensioners although, as I have said previously, that is a matter for another day.
There is a multitude of schemes for providing concessionary transport. Some are good, some are not so good and some are downright deficient. The problem is that they are diverse, diffuse and unco-ordinated. We need a national scheme. We must put an end to the national shame of older people having to hop on and off buses, in and out of various schemes, to visit a friend or relative several counties away.
We must have a national lead. The Executive is to be applauded for supporting a national concessionary fares scheme for the blind. It stands condemned for leaving local authorities to foot the bill, as a national scheme is a national obligation and should be funded as such. Now that the Executive has paved the way and proved that a national concessionary scheme is possible, there is neither rhyme nor reason why such a scheme should not be extended to other groups of people, especially pensioners, sooner rather than later.
The Scottish National party proposes a national concessionary fares scheme for older people, which would provide them with benefits and entitlement anywhere in our nation. We propose to build on the best practices of the best local authorities and to top up the existing benefits that many receive. Our proposal would not replace or supplant concessionary fares, or the absence of fares, operating in many authorities. It meets the criteria of added value and additionality. We propose a scheme of half fares nationally. In areas where a better deal is on offer, that will remain. For example, in Fife, pensioners travel for free. Unless Fife Council changes its policy, that will remain the position. We propose to extend the scheme by allowing access to all points beyond the county boundary, at no extra cost to the local authority.
How do we propose to fund that? I note that Mr McNulty is not here with his so-called wish list. The answer is simple. We will fund it through the fuel duty rebate scheme that is in operation. I will digress to remind the chamber of the operation and history of that method of supporting public transport. The fuel duty escalator has driven up the price of diesel to one of the highest rates in Europe. However, the fuel duty rebate has not kept pace. Although last year an increase was made to compensate, there is still a considerable gap between the rebate and the fuel duty escalator. The rebate is 35p per litre, compared with 50p of duty per litre. Thus, the rebate covers only 69 per cent of the duty.
If the fuel duty escalator is wrong and the fuel duty rebate is right, surely now is the time to right the wrong and level up the rebate to meet the real cost of fuel. The maximum cost of that would be £19 million. That is small change in comparison with the bounty that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has obtained through fuel duty, VAT and petroleum revenue tax. It is affordable, practical and essential. It is only one aspect of transport policy for older people, but it would go a long way to lifting the financial curfew and breaking the transport chains that imprison many in the older generation.
The problem in the chamber is not only the poverty of pensioners; it is the poverty of aspiration of the likes of Mr McNulty.
I am pleased that the issue of older people has been raised in the Scottish Parliament today. We all recognise the importance of older people in our society and the value of their experience and knowledge. Our elderly population is increasing dramatically and we have heard today about some of the issues that we still have to tackle.
I am less happy with the Scottish National party motion. It indicates, wrongly, that the Government at Westminster and the coalition Government in Edinburgh have no comprehensive action plan on the issue.
I will begin by showing that there is considerable commitment at UK level, and here in Edinburgh, to put in place the structures and policies for effecting real change. They include the proposal, outlined yesterday, for joint action committees between Westminster and the Scottish Executive, which we have heard about already. One task force will examine pensioner poverty.
Let us consider some of the things that the Westminster Government has done. Iain Gray and Malcolm Chisholm have already listed many of them. Examples are the introduction of the minimum income guarantee, free eye tests and free television licences—albeit with the proviso that has been mentioned; there are many other
things.
We should be constructive and willing to move forward on issues such as claiming income support, mentioned by Malcolm Chisholm, and the review of the warm home deal, mentioned by John McAllion and others.
The "Better Government for Older People"
initiative—a Cabinet office proposal launched in 1998—aims
"to improve public services for older people by better meeting their needs, listening to their views, and encouraging and recognising their contribution."
Of 28 pilot projects, three are in Scotland. One of the Scottish projects, in my constituency in Stirling, concentrates on promoting active citizenship. One of that project's initiatives is called, aptly, One Foot in the Web; it enables older people's communication and information skills to be passed on to other older people. Another initiative brings together social work and health services, including the setting up of mobile rural care services. Those initiatives represent action, not just words. The SNP seems to disregard all the activities that are beginning in Scotland.
Kenny MacAskill raised an important point about concessionary fares. I would very much welcome a comprehensive Scotland-wide concessionary fares scheme. Transport is critical for the elderly and, for many people, public transport is the only option. Without an effective and affordable public transport system, many older people are socially isolated. The partnership agreement recognised that we must encourage the improvement and integration of concessionary fares and public transport for pensioners and those with special needs.
I would like such a scheme to be phased in gradually. I realise that costs are involved, but a phased-in system could be managed. Today I lodged a motion calling for a Scotland-wide concessionary fares scheme and I hope that it will receive widespread support. We need a commitment, in principle, and then a detailed implementation plan. Such a scheme would benefit hundreds of thousands of pensioners in Scotland and would show people the real benefits that the Scottish Parliament can bring.
Last week, Wendy Alexander introduced the document "Social Justice …a Scotland where everyone matters", which was a bold attempt to look at social inclusion in the round. The document makes specific recommendations for older people. That visionary document, together with the recent proposals for a joint Westminster-Scottish Executive task force to look at pensioner poverty, provides the type of action plan that the SNP asks for in its motion. I beg members to reject the motion and support the Government's amendment.
We have heard far too little talk of real money from the Scottish Executive today. We have had one reference to "funny money", as proposed— allegedly—by the Scottish National party. Real funny money means wasting £1.5 billion a year running Trident at Faslane.
By coincidence, £1.5 billion is the precise sum that Mr Darling is cutting from benefits. Imagine what that money could do for our pensioners and how much they deserve it. Imagine how much £30 billion—the whole cost of Trident—could do for Scotland. What could it do for Glasgow, where, to our shame, we learned today that six out of 10 constituencies are the poorest and most unhealthy in Britain? That includes Glasgow Anniesland, the constituency of the First Minister, who has been there since Adam was a boy. What has he done, and what has Labour done? It is clear that Labour is bad for people's health.
I will turn to the subject of outright age discrimination. We are all in this together; we are becoming older and older in this particular year, and with greater rapidity than ever before. We are within a month of people being able to say to all of us, even to the youngest member in the Parliament, "You are last century's people. You are last millennium's people." The age of Grecian 2000 has actually arrived—we will probably have to call it Grecian 3000 to make it seem more new.
The new millennium calls for a change in our aged way of thinking of older and senior citizens. It calls for tough action against the pervasive cancer of age discrimination, for where does the plight of pensioners begin? It begins with people being denied work in middle age so that they have no savings left by the time they become pensioners. It begins with the same sort of odious discrimination that we had to legislate against, with racism and sexism. Why should we not legislate against age discrimination?
As we have heard today, age discrimination kills. We have heard how it kills women, but it also kills men. A man thrown out of his job for being more than 50 years old is 50 per cent more likely to die prematurely. Shame on us all if we continue to allow that to happen. We know that hospitals refuse transplants to people who are more than 60 years old. That is sheer wickedness.
The issue of heart transplants has come up a couple of times today, but I think that it was addressed recently in a parliamentary question. There is a balance to be struck between the benefit of a transplant and the risk that the patient might not survive such invasive surgery.
Judgments about when to conduct surgery are based on clinical assessments. It is not true that there is a ban on transplants for the over-60s.
The minister is not a surgeon and neither am I, so I will continue.
To back my call for legislation against age discrimination, I will quote from a letter from Tony Blair. He wrote to the Campaign against Age Discrimination in Employment in July 1996:
"It is a tragedy that in Tory Britain millions of people are denied the opportunity to work. Older workers have a wealth of accumulated experience. It is economic nonsense to waste this experience."
That is quite right. He then made a promise:
"Since there are still those employers who wish to continue with a blinkered attitude, Labour will introduce legislation against age discrimination."
However, his promises went in one year and out the other. He broke that promise as soon as he was elected: no age legislation was introduced. The European Union has issued a directive, however, and I believe that Scotland should lead the way and that this Parliament should legislate on discrimination. I urge members to support the motion.
This debate is serious as it concerns the broad issues of poverty among pensioners and the health and well-being of older people.
I was disappointed that the motion in the name of John Swinney condemned the lack of action by the Scottish Executive and focused so specifically on an area in which the Parliament has no power. I was equally disappointed to see the response of Scottish National party members—particularly Alex Neil—to the report that came out today about the health of the people of Glasgow. On a day that we were shown a horrific picture of inequality in Glasgow, it is a disgrace that he should suggest that all the responsibility lies with the Labour councils of the past 70 years. To suggest that is to ignore the structural and economic problems that Glasgow has faced.
I was brought up in a poor part of Glasgow. A Labour council and a Labour Government ensured that we got a good education. My generation and my mother's generation aspired to the council housing that the Labour councils delivered because of the problems of living in the private rented sector.
Everyone recognises that the Labour council has protected Glasgow. The Parliament has to take ownership of Glasgow's problems and work with the local council and the people of Glasgow. Members of this Parliament should not take the opportunity to make cheap political points, but it should not surprise us that the SNP has done that: it always picks the wrong targets and, consequently, finds the wrong solutions. The idea that constitutional change will deliver for the pensioners of this country is an absolute nonsense.
I want to talk—
Will the member give way?
I have heard Ms Elder talking about Grecian 2000 already and I was not impressed.
I want to talk about the cross-party group on older people, which I was privileged to attend recently. It was a valued initiative by organisations representing and campaigning on behalf of older people. An important point was made there about not separating off older people. Michael Hare Duke said that we are all aging and that perhaps we should welcome it, because if we were not, we would be dead. It is a significant point to make, that when we tackle issues that matter to older people, we benefit the broader community. Equally, if we tackle the economy and issues of social inclusion and talk about poverty, pensioners will benefit. Pensioners are concerned about issues to do with drugs, and I have to say to Tommy Sheridan that his party's policy to decriminalise heroin will hardly make them feel safer in their homes.
Because older people rely on public services disproportionately, any commitment to delivering high-quality public services will impact on them. I would like to locate areas where the Parliament can have an impact. Our committees can have an impact. I cannot believe that Alex Neil said that we do not need committees and that we do not need to talk. We need to listen to people and work with them, and our committees are a key place in which to do that.
On transport, we should be talking to the bus operators about what they are doing on sensitive areas of bus service, such as routes to hospitals, for example, in Glasgow. The operators have a responsibility in that area. The Health and Community Care Committee should be discussing the importance of supporting older people to stay in their own homes. We should be talking about the rights of carers and the importance of assessing the needs of carers in their own right.
On crime, we need to acknowledge the impact of the fear of crime on the lives and well-being of many older people. We have to consider the opportunity to bring old and young people together to challenge the stereotypes that each group has about the other. Within pensioner groups, we need to recognise the diversity of needs. We are
debating equalities this afternoon. I hope that the minimum income guarantee will address the important inequality for pensioners and will give particular support to women, who, as we know, are among the poorest of pensioners.
At a lobby that I attended last week, it was clear that pensioners are demanding that we address the problems that too many of them face. One woman there said to me that she got annoyed at those who said that this Government was doing nothing and that it was as bad as the last lot; she said that we must give it a chance. The Scottish Executive must recognise that we have been given an opportunity to tackle pensioner poverty and to address questions beyond income, such as agism and so on. We have to identify the issues that exclude people and limit their lives. It is an opportunity that we must take fearlessly, without closing off options or refusing to consider any available alternatives.
We should be serious about monitoring progress, so that that particular woman's willingness to give us a chance will be rewarded with real change in her life and that of all older people.
My colleague, Robert Brown, spelled out the Liberal Democrat position extremely well.
I would like to concentrate on a few points. First, I think that I am the first genuine pensioner to speak in the debate; it shows that pensioners can make a contribution. That is being recognised gradually, but not nearly enough. Many people of pensionable age can make a huge contribution in many different ways and can enjoy doing so. I enjoy putting the boot into the establishment; by doing what they enjoy, pensioners can make a real contribution to the community.
I am happy to support Iain Gray's amendment. He is a minister in whom I have confidence, and I felt that he and some of the other Labour speakers, both old colleagues such as Malcolm Chisholm and John McAllion, and people whom I have started getting to know in committees, such as Sylvia Jackson and—I have lost the name. [Laughter.] One of the difficulties of being old is that I am not good on names.
I am beginning to value new colleagues on committees as well. We have a great chance to develop a Labour party in Scotland that is distinctively Scottish and unlike the Labour party in London. I have serious reservations about many aspects of that Labour party. I feel that its failure to reverse the Tories' consistent attack on the poor and the pensioners is unacceptable. The gulf between the rich and the poor is widening, and pensioners are among the poorest in the community. Labour in London has not done nearly enough about that; it has sold out to the capitalist system in a disgraceful manner.
Given that the member has such an interest in providing advocacy services and supporting the rights of young people, does he welcome the commitment in the Scottish Labour party manifesto to set up similar systems and organisations to ensure the protection and promotion of the rights of older people?
Yes. I am very happy with many of the things that the partnership Executive is pursuing—that is an excellent initiative. However, there is a fundamental flaw in the United Kingdom Government's attitude towards poverty and its eradication, which we must address. Westminster also fails to understand that in Scotland we have a partnership agreement. Without any consultation, Gordon Brown swans up and suggests various committees. Those committees may be a good idea—it depends how they work out—but the whole thing was done in a totally unacceptable way. The partnership Government is not like a Victorian marriage, in which one partner does what the other one tells them. There are some lessons to be learned if people wish the partnership Government to continue.
My main point is that we should approach the issue of improving pensioners' lives from the bottom up, not the top down. There is too much bureaucracy and well-intentioned regulation. We should help communities and the older people within them. Older people can contribute a huge amount to their communities. Grandparents are often the rock on which communities are built. If we help communities to develop, to provide services for the old people who need them and to enlist the support of the old people who can contribute, that will be a better approach than the top-down one that is often taken. The key is to help people to help themselves. It is easy to invent lots of bureaucracy—ticking boxes and so on—but we must help people to help themselves in their communities. Older people can make a significant contribution.
wondered when the consensus politics was going to end. I think that we just saw a fine example: Johann Lamont, with her socialist background, trying to stick up for new Labour policies—I congratulate her on doing that so well.
We have already heard about the problems faced by the elderly because of fuel poverty. It must be recognised that a major contributory
factor to fuel poverty is the imposition of standing charges by the utility companies. The Scottish National party believes that removing standing charges for electricity, gas and telephone bills would enhance pensioners' lives and give them a higher standard of living. It may be that that is a reserved matter, but as members of the Parliament, MSPs take on board everything that our constituents and the pensioners up in the visitors gallery say to us. If we had the will, we could go to Westminster and suggest that the standing charges should be abolished.
The plight of the poor was highlighted in a report by the Consumers Association, which said that the poor were suffering from the severe tactics of the gas and electricity companies, with gas suppliers cutting off 30,000 homes last year. For the elderly in Scotland, living on pensions of only £66.25 for a single person or £106.70 for a couple—one of the lowest pensions in Europe—standing charges are a major burden. That is evident from the tragic statistics—there were 2,200 excess deaths of people over the age of 60 in Scotland in the winter of 1997-98. We should not allow that to happen in a civilised society. It is obvious that there is a particular problem in Scotland that must be addressed.
There is no reason why Scotland should not follow the example of Ireland, where standing charges for pensioners have been abolished. If Scottish pensioners did not have to pay standing charges, but paid only for the fuel that they had used, it would go some way towards alleviating the problem of fuel poverty in our elderly population.
Research reveals that poor pensioners are less likely to own a telephone than better-off pensioners. In 1996-97, 12 per cent of single pensioners and 3 per cent of pensioner couples, who were mainly dependent on state pensions, had no telephone at all. Furthermore, single pensioners who were mainly dependent on state benefits were three times more likely not to have a telephone than single pensioners who had greater access to income, and 10 times more likely not to have a telephone than couples who had greater access to income.
It would greatly enhance pensioners' quality of life if standing charges were abolished and they had to pay only for the telephone calls that they actually made. It is clear that the current system of standing charges penalises the poorest and most vulnerable people, and especially the elderly. What is required from the Government is action. If Ireland can abolish standing charges, I do not see why we cannot.
We have heard many fine words from those on the Labour benches. We have not heard anything about Gordon Brown sitting on his £12 billion war chest. What about that? Why not release some of that money for the pensioners?
Words from the Executive do not heat homes, and do not buy food to put on the table. What is required is action. Removing standing charges now would be a step in the right direction.
I think that I am the youngest contributor to this debate, and I very much welcome the idea of the Parliament being able to address the needs of our older population. I believe that a society can be judged on how it treats its older people—people who have worked for their country and community, who in many cases have cared for their family for many years and who now need their family and their community to care for them. I would like to associate myself with the comments of Johann Lamont, Malcolm Chisholm and John McAllion.
I am glad that Tricia Marwick has come in. I would like to tell her why I am not going to vote for the SNP motion—not simply because it is an SNP motion, but because it lies, it lies, it lies. I read John Swinney's motion before I came into the chamber, and it left a very bitter taste in my mouth. To try to hoodwink this country's older people into believing that neither the United Kingdom Government nor the Scottish Executive had taken any action—that is what the motion says—to help pensioners is going a step too far, even for the SNP.
Yes, I would like to see the link restored between pensions and earnings, and I know that many of my colleagues on the Labour benches have fought for that for many years. I have stood beside pensioners and trade unionists fighting and arguing for it. We are now in a position in Government—not in Opposition—where I believe that we will be able to deliver it in future, and not just give people empty rhetoric.
Let me address the motion, which claims that the Executive has taken no action to help pensioners. Cutting the price of fuel by slashing value added tax from 8 per cent to 5 per cent is not lack of action. To the pensioners in Forth in my constituency who were not able to afford their heating bills last year but will be able to afford them this year, a minimum pension guarantee that provides a minimum income for pensioners in the same way as a minimum income is provided for those in work is not lack of action.
Providing free eye tests is not lack of action. A pensioner with bad eyes, who has suffered as a result of not getting an eye test, now knows that eye tests are free, appreciates that, and will go for one. A free TV licence is hardly lack of action for the older person who wants to be involved in the world out there, who wants to keep in touch, but
was not able to because he or she was not able to afford the licence.
Will the member give way?
No, Fergus. You didnae take us, we'll no take you. Sit down. We will get on with our contribution and you get on with yours. I am in the business of delivering for pensioners, not of delivering the empty rhetoric that Fergus Ewing's party, far too often, seems to produce.
The warm deal for pensioners will deliver warmth to homes where ice inside the window was far too common during our cold Scottish winter months. However, John McAllion is right: we need to look again at the warm deal, and we need to look again at whether we need to target the money at those who need it most. That is what we are about. It is not about giving more to those who already have it; it is about taking money and giving it to those who need it most.
How dare the SNP accuse this Government and this Executive of lack of action, when they have increased winter fuel payments fivefold from £20 to £100. The pensioners of this country will know the actions of this Government when they see cheques for £100 falling through the letterbox this winter.
The SNP's contribution to this debate has not centred on what the Parliament can do for pensioners, but on how the Parliament can criticise the Westminster Government. The people of Scotland spoke loud and clear on 6 May 1999. They want the Scottish Parliament and Westminster to get on with their own business, but to work together on important issues. Quite frankly, the ideological blinkers that prevent the SNP from recognising the benefits of a joint ministerial committee to tackle pensioner poverty result in a true disservice to our pensioners.
If SNP members believe that committees only waste time and money, why do they take part in them? Committees are effective and will do their best for pensioners. With our colleagues in Westminster, we—not the SNP with its ideological blinkers—will deliver the better Scotland that our pensioners want.
Much has been said about the level of state pension and many arguments have been constructed around the validity of directly comparing our state pension to the pensions of European neighbours.
However, one premise that cannot be challenged is the appalling level of poverty prevalent among our older generation. As we have already heard, about half of our pensioner households are dependent on state benefits for at least 75 per cent of their income—an income which is only around a fifth of the UK average.
As the state pension is the biggest factor that governs older people's income in Scotland, it is only right that we should examine that payment if we are to reduce poverty. Perhaps the most regressive step to date has been the Labour Government's abandonment of a state pension that can be relied on to provide a decent standard of living. That was proved by its decision to award pensioners an increase of a mere 75p per week, claiming that the move to a guaranteed minimum income was a better use of finance. I am sure that pensioners will more than welcome Gordon Brown's generous budget increase. It will buy half a box of cornflakes, two pints of milk or a broadsheet newspaper such as The Herald, but not the Daily Record or The Sun as well.
Let us examine Gordon Brown's much- trumpeted minimum income for pensioners. He heralded the fact that there would be a minimum of £75 for pensioners. However, that is dependent on pensioners claiming income support to top up their inadequate state pension of £66.75. Quite aside from the 70,000 pensioners living in extreme poverty because they did not pass the means test by a few pennies, it is surely a damning admission of the inadequacy of the UK state pension that the Benefits Agency has to shore up pensions to the poverty line.
However, the story does not end there. The system that pays out benefits is grossly inefficient, particularly when it relies on vulnerable people in the later years of their lives going cap in hand to the benefits office. Many pensioners do not claim benefits because they are unable to wade through the forms or are unaware that they have a right to this money.
Furthermore, people who have worked all their lives often do not want be treated as charity cases by the Government and certainly do not want to endure the indignity of a means test. The Government's own statistics, although available only on a UK-wide basis, bear that out. Although, in 1997-98, the average pensioner claimed £31.50 each week in benefits, an average £18.80 of benefits payable to pensioners remained unclaimed. It is just like the lottery money that lies unclaimed every week.
That means that almost 40 per cent of benefits to which pensioners are entitled are simply not claimed, which, in Scotland, represents about £100 million of unclaimed benefits each year. It is little wonder that the Government prefers the indignity of the means test to a straightforward increase in pensions which are an automatic right and do not involve a fight with bureaucracy.
This Parliament can take steps to counter poverty among older people: tackling fuel poverty, improving housing and supporting concessionary transport are all important. However, the single most important basic item that governs the welfare—or otherwise—of our elderly is the pension rate. After all, the pension is older people's wage. Until the Parliament is able to set the state pension level, we will always be fighting the battle against pensioner poverty with both hands tied behind our backs.
It is a matter of regret that the only pensioner to take part in this debate, Donald Gorrie, used the debate for other motives.
What happened to the partnership?
I have been heckled by boilermakers, sir, and you ain't no boilermaker.
Before Donald Gorrie makes such statements in the chamber, he should ask his Cabinet colleagues who attended and who chaired the meeting that day.
There has been much talk this morning about poor pensioners. Unfortunately, some members raise their eyes to the public gallery and see votes rather than pensioners.
Shame.
It is a shame.
When we talk about poor pensioners, I see parents, relatives and friends, all on low pensions and without any additional income. That is my experience of poor pensioners. It is wrong to suggest that we should treat all pensioners the same. There is a difference between pensioners living on the margins and pensioners living in Marbella.
For goodness' sake.
That is the truth. We must make the distinction. I want pensioners on the margins to benefit from the Parliament's work. To suggest that we do not care about the lives of our pensioners, given Labour Governments' long record of commitment to pensioners over the years, is complete and utter nonsense. We are delivering and will continue to deliver across the board for our pensioners. We deliver warm homes while the Opposition delivers warm words. We offer a stable economy, low inflation and a growing income; the Opposition offers boom and bust and increased taxes for pensioners. We offer safer communities; the Opposition opposes our measures to tackle crime.
The Opposition's description of the lives of pensioners is a patronising insult to pensioners who have campaigned for years for some of the things that we have delivered. There has been no mention today of the work of those campaigners or of the issues on which they have won. There has been no recognition of the minimum income guarantee for pensioners to tackle pensioner poverty.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
There has been no mention of the campaign against fuel poverty. The pensioners who campaigned against it should be given credit. [Interruption.]
Order.
Those pensioners are winning their campaign because we are delivering on their calls to tackle fuel poverty through winter fuel payments, cuts in VAT and the warm deal programme, as well as providing free eye tests and free TV licences—all measures which the Opposition has spat on this morning.
What about the 75p?
The measures that I mentioned are in place because we have a Labour Government at Westminster and a Labour partnership Executive in Edinburgh. [Interruption.]
Order.
We will continue—[Interruption.] I am nearly home, I think.
Will the member give way?
Go on.
Mr McNeil has pointed out that he has been heckled by boilermakers. Does he agree that that heckling was almost certainly of a higher quality than the heckling that we are hearing now?
Absolutely. I can confirm that.
We will continue to work in this Parliament for our pensioners. I look forward to working with pensioners and campaign groups, particularly on the issue of concessionary travel where this Parliament can make a difference.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
I have a number of years to wait before I reach retiral age. I do not know whether I am the youngest contributor to the debate as I do not
know what age Karen Gillon is.
I am the youngest.
Is it you, Tricia?
I am delighted to participate in this debate, which is a great chance for the Parliament to discuss the key concerns of older people in Scotland. My generation knows that we owe those people a tremendous debt. That is why I am determined that this Parliament should do its utmost to deliver for them. Older people's expectations of the Parliament are high. They have been disappointed time and time again by successive Westminster Governments that have failed to show any political will or determination to help older people in Scotland.
Many people are familiar with an SNP slogan which says that Scotland is the only country to discover oil and get poorer. It is clear from a report in today's press that Scotland has continued to get poorer, and it is an indictment of Westminster rule of Scotland over the decades—and, in particular, of the Labour party's rule of Glasgow—that the same report says that elderly people in Scotland are dying sooner than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. One reason for that is that, not only is Scotland the only country to discover oil and get poorer, but it is the only country to discover oil and gas and still allow old people to live in conditions in which they cannot heat their homes properly.
We have heard many statistics today: more than 100,000 households in Scotland headed by people over 60 are without central heating; in 18 per cent of cases, single pensioners do not heat their main living rooms on a regular basis. We are told that one in three pensioners lives in fuel poverty and spends 20 per cent of his or her income on trying to keep warm.
Yet Scotland is Europe's energy capital. Here we are in 1999: production of North sea oil and gas is at record levels for the past 25 years of production. One of the cruellest ironies must be that, although revenues are up 62 per cent from the same time last year, and despite all the natural resources under Scottish waters and the wells that produce that most precious natural resource in the world, there are people living on the land adjacent to those oilfields, within sight of the oil rigs, who cannot afford to heat their homes. Surely that is a scandal, and one that successive Westminster Governments of all political shades have allowed to continue.
We all know that we get the harshest of winters in Scotland, yet we hear that our old people will get £100 of winter fuel payments and a 75p increase in their pensions. They have a wholly inadequate severe weather payment scheme, run by Westminster. A payment of £100 for fuel in winter only costs £50 million a year. Are we saying that £50 is adequate to heat the homes of the 900,000 pensioners in Scotland? Surely the fact that the excess winter mortality rate among old people in Finland is less than half that of Scotland tells us that the policies coming out of Westminster simply do not work for old folk in Scotland.
As was mentioned earlier in the debate, it is the same old story from Westminster. Yes, Westminster has delivered the £100 winter payment, but what else is happening? New Labour in Scotland is cutting back on local authority budgets, which means that it is giving that £100 with one hand but taking money away with the other. There have been protests and demonstrations by old people around Scotland in recent months and years, because of increased charges for wardens, for home help and for visits to day care centres. Old folk even have to pay more in shops for their food in rural areas: that means more money taken from their budget because of the rise in fuel duty, which has a particularly bad impact in rural areas.
A significant step forward needs to be taken, with proper, adequately resourced and structured severe weather payments in Scotland. The current scheme is completely unsatisfactory; it does not take into account different climatic conditions around the country. The trigger is set at an inadequate level. There has to be an ice age before our old folk are helped.
In conclusion, the Executive does have a big challenge before it to deliver a better Scotland for our old people, but if it does not meet it, it should have the guts to return to this chamber in two years' time and admit that only in an independent Scotland will we have access to the resources that will deliver a better quality of life for old people in this country.
While I welcome the SNP's putting the issue of older people on today's agenda, I would point out that one aspect of its motion is not dealt with by this Parliament, but at Westminster. On this momentous day, the first on which there has been a truly federal situation among the Parliaments and Assemblies in the United Kingdom, I want to focus on the issues which this Parliament can tackle.
How we treat our older people is a prime indicator of where we stand as a society, as a country and a Parliament. None of us doubt, particularly after hearing Donald Gorrie's speech, that older members of our community have much to offer Scotland. Members who have had dealings with the voluntary sector know the
desperate state that this country would be in were it not for the extra work that older people put into the voluntary sector. Yet 31 per cent of our pensioners live in poverty. No member of this chamber finds that statistic acceptable or believes that we should not tackle the problem, although we may have different views on how to do so. said that, in summing up for the Liberal Democrats, I would concentrate on the issues that this Parliament is able to tackle, but I must talk about pensions first. Our pensioners want better pensions and the Liberal Democrats urge Gordon Brown to open his war chest and to give them just that. We want money from the national insurance fund to give our pensioners a better deal. Pensioners have consistently had a raw deal—the Conservatives' VAT on fuel and the removal of the link between pensions and earnings have contributed to the stage that we have reached. The latest increase in the pension is appalling. I acknowledge the initiatives mentioned by my Labour colleagues, such as the £100 winter fuel payment, free TV licences and free eye tests, which no one would say are not good initiatives. However, they amount only to inadequate steps on the way to tackling pensioner poverty.
People want decent homes. On the brink of the millennium, 25 per cent of Scotland's homes are damp or affected by condensation, which means that 4,000 Scots will face death this winter as a result of poor housing and the cold. Hundreds of thousands of others suffer from cold and damp- related illnesses, such as respiratory disease, heart disease, stroke and the general depression that comes from living in poverty and dampness. Every year, there are 70,000 emergency admissions to our hospitals of people suffering respiratory problems, and that figure does not include those suffering from flu.
Will Margaret Smith join me in condemning the Executive for not setting a target to deal with fuel poverty in Scotland?
I do not have a problem with setting such a target. At present, four out of 10 houses in Scotland are failing fuel efficiency targets. Last week, the partnership set targets for a number of social problems.
But what about fuel poverty?
It is a fact that such a target is contained within our programme for government and will affect 100,000 households by 2003 at a cost of about £40 million. Perhaps the SNP should read the programme for government.
I was about to come to that point. Against the background of Scotland's housing stock, we should tackle fuel poverty, which is exactly what the Executive is beginning to do.
While the death toll rises in Scotland during the winter months, Sweden, Norway, Finland and similar countries, which have worse winters than Scotland has, have a better record of addressing that—that is a salutary lesson. [MEMBERS: "They are independent."] Members may say that, but it is simply a mantra. Independence alone will not tackle the poverty and the problems faced by Scotland's pensioners. I gave up believing in Santa Claus and fairies at the bottom of my garden a long time ago and, quite frankly, the SNP and the independence money tree are on the same level as Santa Claus and the fairies.
The Executive's warm deal is the first part of a healthy homes initiative that, by 2003, aims to improve 100,000 houses that are affected by dampness and condensation. With an annual budget of £12 million, the warm deal is merely the first step on the road to achieving warmer homes. Targeting lower-income groups for the £500 grants for insulation will also target many pensioner households and is welcome. However, if we are serious about tackling poverty, we must tackle fuel poverty and energy-inefficient homes.
We must also consider how to give our GPs more leeway. They should have the power to think laterally on the issue of patients with respiratory problems who live in damp homes. Would it not be more effective to allow GPs to write prescriptions for home insulation, rather than sending people home to suffer in damp and cold homes? Such action would mean savings for our pensioners and for the NHS and improved health for our people.
There are other issues that are also of interest to our older people. Many of us, including Scotland's pensioners, want a clear message from the UK Government that it will accept all the recommendations of the Sutherland report into long-term care. Many of our older people live in fear of having to sell their homes to pay for long- term care. We welcome the minister's announcement today that he will chair a new group that will examine the balance between residential and home-based care—and, crucially, the charging for personal care that is delivered at home—and produce proposals in time for the next spending review.
We also welcome the extra £300 million that is being made available to local authorities for community care. The Health and Community Care Committee has decided to examine the issue of community care and focus partly on long-term care of the elderly as one of its main issues of inquiry early in the new year.
Older people want the unfair system, in which people must pay for care at home or in a hospital, to be scrapped. That system is partly why we are bedblocking in our hospitals, at a cost of millions of pounds to the NHS and at a much greater cost
to older people, who are receiving inappropriate care. This Parliament must tackle issues such as community care and transport. We must also address the fact that, throughout Scotland, several thousand people, as Gil Paterson said, are entitled to benefits but do not claim them. Both our Parliaments, in the UK and in Scotland, must address that right now.
Donald Gorrie and I must declare an interest, as we are the only genuine pensioners who have spoken, out of 24 speakers of whom I shall be the 24th.
On 1 January 2000, there will be a celebration: it will be 91 years since the first pension was introduced in this country. Robert Brown made reference to that. On 1 January 1909, the pension was 5 shillings and life expectancy was, on average, between 47 and 50 years. That does not bode well, when one thinks of the 73p increase in the state pension that was reported the other day. What could someone buy in a week for 73p? They could buy The Herald and a small bag of crisps, or they could buy a cheaper newspaper and one and a half bags of crisps. That puts the matter into a simplistic context, but that is the reality of what 73p could buy.
Thirty years ago, it was estimated that 500 people in this country—and by this country, for the benefit of my friends in the SNP, I am talking about the United Kingdom—had reached 100. Today, it is estimated that more than 6,000 people are 100 or older. That shows how ages are increasing, and how the older population is increasing. The other day, Wendy Alexander announced a 20-year programme of intent, which met with mixed reactions. However, no Parliament can afford not to look to the future and plan accordingly.
On 27 April, the Government actuary's department produced a series of projections that were based on figures that had been issued by the Registrar General for Scotland. By 2021, Scotland's population is expected to fall from its 1998 level of 5.12 million to 5.06 million. During that period, the number of children under 16 is set to fall to 85 per cent of its present level. However, the number of Scots who are older than the pensionable age is set to rise by 8 per cent, which will bring that section of the population to just fewer than 1 million, after taking into account the change in the retirement age for women, from 60 to 65. Without that change, the rise would have been 28 per cent, according to the statisticians.
Tony Blair and Donald Dewar claim that their priority is the poorest pensioner. One must say that, at times, they plead like a pair of Pharisees.
What is the reality? The European Commission has adopted a working definition, which states that people face social exclusion if their income is less than half the national average. The Government's own sources suggested that, in 1997, a single person without a car, who lived in rented accommodation modestly but adequately, needed a gross weekly income of £137.34. A married couple, who were similarly placed but who owned a car, needed £267.58. How many pensioners today receive those incomes? It should also be remembered that those figures were published in 1997 and were derived from 1996 data.
John Young rightly mentioned the 75p increase in pensions and the fact that it would buy The Herald and a bag of crisps. The Liberal Democrats 10 days ago tabled an early-day motion in the House of Commons that said that the 75p increase would be inadequate. Bearing in mind his comments, will Mr Young explain to the chamber why not a single Conservative member of the UK Parliament wants to support that motion?
As Mike Rumbles knows, that is a matter for Westminster. What are the Liberals here going to do? Will they lodge a motion of that type in this chamber?
I am sorry, but I am pressed for time.
The figures that I have quoted are taken from data from 1996. If they were updated, there would be another £25 for single people and £40 for couples to be included.
Age Concern commissioned a Gallup survey earlier this year and that survey found that one in 20 people older than 65 in the UK had been refused medical treatment. Kay Ullrich and others have touched on that. The majority of people who are treated in NHS hospitals for heart attacks are more than 65 years of age, but one in five coronary care units operates an age-related admissions policy. Clinical trials on cancers similarly exclude or under-represent older people, despite the fact that many cancers are age- related. That was touched on by a number of speakers.
Announcements on free television licences and winter fuel allowances are welcome to existing pensioners, but new pensioners will still be £500 worse off as a result of the abolition of the age- related married couples allowance. Once again, Labour is giving with one hand, but taking away with the other. Three million households in the UK that have a television include at least one pensioner older than 75 years. The cost to the Department of Social Security of free licences will be £300 million. While the Conservatives support
that move, it will not offset the problems that have been imposed on pensioners through the ending of the married couples allowance for those aged more than 65. There are higher council tax bills, and £40 billion of extra taxes have been imposed since this Government came to power.
Speakers have touched on age discrimination, which is—make no mistake—rampant against the elderly in relation to employment. Men and women experience such discrimination. Other generations suffer from age discrimination. Those between 35 and 50 suffer considerable age discrimination, so perhaps some thought should be given to introducing appropriate legislation, although that would be difficult to enforce. When one refers to the elderly, the picture that is painted is usually of someone who has grey hair, who stoops and who uses a walking-stick. That description is by no means applicable throughout that group, in which I include myself.
There are affluent elements among the elderly and they should not be disregarded. There is considerable purchasing power among them. That section of the community is very important. I think that Robert Brown mentioned earlier that we should try to harness the talents of that group. The Americans call it grey power. They use that term in a political sense, but it also means people's talents.
On 30 November—some 48 hours ago—the all- party group on aging and older people met in committee room 2 in the House of Commons. Jeff Rooker, the Minister of State, Department of Social Security, and the chairman of the interministerial group on older people, was a guest speaker. I hope that that gathering was well attended by MPs of all parties. There is something to be learned from it.
There is an issue that I think is of supreme importance—the gap that often exists between youth and the elderly. There are various reasons for that gap. First, many of our younger populations have, as a result of unemployment, no opportunity to work alongside older colleagues. I am not suggesting that it be brought back, but in the days of national service many thousands benefited from links between people in their 20s, their 30s and their 40s. Large sections of the media are heavily geared towards youth, and there is nothing wrong with that, but there is sometimes a considerable imbalance against the aged.
Care must be taken not only over the design of housing for the elderly, but over whether a family mix should be included in such housing. That has been touched on already. When I was a councillor, there was resistance to family mixes among certain elderly people. They did not like 12-year olds kicking a ball against their walls, and other things of that nature.
Gil Paterson and others have mentioned transport. The design of vehicles is crucial to allow the elderly ease of access to them. Johann Lamont mentioned transport routes to hospitals. They are crucially important, as a number of us are well aware in terms of the south side of Glasgow and the Southern general hospital. Many elderly people are terrified to leave their homes in the evenings. In some areas there is considerable fear of burglary and attack, so many of our older citizens live like hermits.
I believe all members are concerned about these things, although we may differ, on occasion, on how to approach them. There are pensioners in the gallery today, and pensioners came to the Parliament last week. I agreed with a lot of what Iain Gray said then, but a number of people I spoke to were from Clydebank and Knightswood— two very strong Labour areas—and they felt that they were not getting the considerable input that Iain spoke about. A possible coalition has been mentioned; a politicians coalition is needed. People in the gallery and throughout Scotland are not interested in us arguing away in this chamber. They want a combined force. Yes, we will have our differences, but let us come together in some form of pensioners coalition.
A great deal has been said today about pensioners' standard of living—but only statements from the opposition parties that add up to a shameful litany of fine words and no policies. No action was proposed by the SNP—its promises hold no water and are guaranteed to create uncertainty and insecurity.
We witness an unholy alliance between the Tories, with their dismal legacy, and the SNP. It is an alliance that offers nothing for our pensioners in the future. Neither Alex Neil nor any other SNP member proposed one policy; they just criticised and made promises—after 18 years of Tory Governments that widened the gap between the richest and poorest pensioners to the extent that one in five pensioners lives in a household with half the national average income.
I shall return to the essence of the debate and remind members what the Scottish Executive and the Government are doing to tackle the economic, health and care needs of older people. The minimum income guarantee recognises that the gap between rich and poor pensioners has widened dramatically since 1979 and gives most money to help those most in need. Every pensioner will get a guaranteed income—
I am grateful to the minister
for giving way as that is the point I most wanted to intervene on. What does the Scottish Executive see as the poverty line and how does that relate to the minimum income guarantee?
If I may finish, I will get to that point. Tommy mentioned the link to earnings. The minimum income guarantee restores that link for the 125,000 poorest pensioners in Scotland. I hope that Tommy will welcome that. As a showbiz socialist he will appreciate that, in the words of Ronan Keating from Boyzone,
"you say it best when you say nothing at all".
Winter fuel payments are up from £20 to £100, a fivefold increase to tackle the Tory legacy that meant that a third of single pensioners were living in fuel poverty in 1997.
We have cut the price of fuel by cutting VAT from 8 per cent to 5 per cent, so our pensioners' money goes further. There is warm deal investment of more than £10 million this year and a further £28 million over the next two years, so 100,000 homes will be upgraded by 2003. A high proportion will be the homes of pensioners as older people suffer most from the effects of cold housing.
I will give way shortly. Free eye tests for all pensioners and free TV licences for over-75s mean that pensioners' money goes further. In Scotland, an extra £300 million is going into community care, half of which will go on older people's services, with £10 million specifically earmarked for the delivery of carers' needs and services.
What of the Tories?
We already know that they oppose everything we want to do to make pensioners better off. I will give members a flavour of how they would do that. They introduced VAT on fuel and tried to increase it to 17.5 per cent. They introduced eye test charges for pensioners. They would not have given pensioner households the extra winter fuel allowance, and they would not support the minimum income guarantee.
What about the SNP? Fourteen key promises were made in its manifesto, but not one referred to pensioners.
In fact, the SNP manifesto for this Parliament was a pensioner-free zone—no figures, no costs, no ideas, no policies.
I have been trying for some time to persuade the minister to give way. Leaving aside the fact that our manifesto contained a clear pensioners package, may I remind the minister of the fact that, when the SNP group in the House of Commons tabled an amendment to reduce VAT on domestic fuel to 5 per cent, no less a person than Alistair Darling said that it was a cynical ploy?
I am one of those people who suffers from a lack of sleep, so I have read the SNP manifesto. I can tell the chamber that there was not one item that referred to pensioners.
On a point of order. I have the manifesto here—
The minister may take a copy.
Perhaps we should search for the SNP's proposals for pensioners in the infamous economic strategy for independence. Were they in there? Nope, the strategy contained nothing extra for pensioners—only forecasts that copy the policies of the Department of Social Security and the Treasury. [Interruption.]
Order.
Why does the SNP not give any costed pledges now? The answer is that it has given up its claims of a fiscal surplus of billions and admitted a deficit of billions. That is why it can promise nothing and deliver nothing for pensioners.
Does the minister agree with the study that was issued yesterday by the University of Bristol, which indicated that in the past two and half years the poverty gap in the eight Labour- controlled constituencies in Glasgow has widened? Will she and the Labour Administration accept some responsibility for that?
The figures in that study are for the period up to 1994. Earlier, Mary Scanlon said that she readily accepts blame for the period 1979 to 1997, when the Conservatives built up child poverty and pensioner poverty. That is why I will not take lectures from her.
The SNP has no idea how it would deliver existing levels of pensions and benefits. If that seems reckless to members, it gets worse. Let us not forget, as Des McNulty helpfully reminded us, that, just a few weeks ago, Kenny MacAskill made the staggering suggestion that we should spend £900 million on roads—policies on the hoof from a party on the run. How would the SNP do that? By raising income tax—again? By cutting benefits and pensions? Who would pay for the SNP's proposals? We know who would pay for them— ordinary Scots. Scottish pensioners would pay the price.
Some time ago, Margo MacDonald was quoted
in The Express (Scotland) as saying in response to the SNP's proposed tax hike that people on low incomes would lose out.
Will the minister give way?
In terms of policies for pensioners, the SNP had nothing to offer at the election and it has had absolutely nothing to offer since. No policies, but lots of pointless press releases—the poor journalists' fax machines are collapsing under the weight of SNP rant and rhetoric. The latest offering was a press release announcing the need for a shadow minister. It is a shame that the SNP did not discover that need earlier. However, far be it from me to suggest that this is just cheap political point-scoring; not even the SNP could sink that low.
What about Tommy Sheridan, who strikes poses but whose party's manifesto does not offer any commitment to restoring the link between pensions and earnings?
One of our promises was to restore that link.
I have read the whole of the manifesto, and not one of Tommy's promises—
Did the minister enjoy it?
I did, actually—it was a bit like fantasy football.
We have linked the minimum income guarantee to earnings to help the poorest pensioners in society. That is our key priority. It is about targeting our resources on the poorest pensioners.
The Executive is clear that older people matter. "Social Justice …a Scotland where everyone matters", which was launched last week, sets out our targets and milestones in respect of our older people and shows that they are at the heart of government in Scotland. Unlike the SNP and the Tories, not only will we tackle pensioner poverty and quality of life, we will be held accountable to the people of Scotland
Disappointingly, the usual attacks were made on the chancellor's announcement yesterday that Scottish Executive ministers are to sit with their counterparts from across Britain on joint ministerial committees to co-ordinate and develop joint working to tackle pensioner poverty.
I welcome that initiative. We know the importance of working together on matters of shared concern and do not adopt an isolationist position. Bringing together ministers, exchanging information and developing co-ordinated policy strategies will deliver the real benefits that we want for our older people. We will have a greater voice in those areas to ensure that the policies that the Scottish Executive and the Government develop achieve maximum results for our pensioners.
Far be it from me to remind Donald Gorrie that his leader, Jim Wallace, supports the establishment of joint ministerial committees. I recognise that memory lapses do occasionally occur.
The programme for government, which was produced by Labour and the Liberal Democrats working together, was based on listening to the people of Scotland and delivering what they want.
On a point of information, the Liberal Democrat group has yet to comment on joint ministerial committees. We will address that issue on Tuesday evening.
I thank Mike Rumbles for that intervention. Families need to talk to each other, so I suggest that he talks to his leader.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Following what Mike Rumbles has said, will the minister withdraw her rather insulting remark about Donald Gorrie?
That is not a point of order. The minister will continue her speech and wind up.
For far too long, the skills, experiences and insights of Scotland's older people have been ignored. We will invite, value and act on their contributions.
Let no one be in any doubt that the Executive is committed to listening to older people, to valuing their contribution and to supporting their needs. The vision outlined in the section entitled "Every older person matters" in our report, "Social Justice …a Scotland where everyone matters" shows that we want older people to be financially secure and to enjoy active, independent and healthy lives.
That is our goal. We have started to deliver on it. We are the only party that will do so. I would like to believe that everyone in the chamber, including the SNP, shares that goal, but would members trust it with their pension? The SNP has never said how it would pay for a separate social security department in Scotland. It has said nothing about the enormous set-up costs or the running costs and it has given no details about the different types and levels of benefit or about how they would be uprated.
The SNP will get its chance to reply on those issues. Of course, they are not easy, which is precisely why the SNP avoids them. Let us see whether, in the next 10 minutes, the
SNP will address those issues. We all want security in retirement, but the SNP offers pensioners only incompetence and insecurity.
Jackie Baillie seemed to be enjoying herself during her speech, but she is on a different planet entirely from Scotland's pensioners. Last week, pensioners who want a decent state pension were demonstrating outside the Parliament, but I did not see a single new Labour face there. [MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] If Labour members were there, the pensioners did not seem very pleased to see them.
I do not know what Jackie Baillie was doing during the debate, but if she had been listening she would have heard Alex Neil explain how the SNP would increase pensions and how Labour could do so with Westminster's various kitties.
Will the member give way?
Just give me a moment; after listening to the debate for three hours, I have only just got up.
I am not prepared to admit my age, but I shall start with a general observation or two about the attitude to older people outside this chamber—and sometimes inside it. There must be a change in Scottish society's attitude to older people. They are not a problem to be solved by dealing out piecemeal financial and social packages. I can assure members that I will not stand here spouting the motherhood-and-apple-pie platitudes that seem to be the diet of this Parliament 99 per cent of the time. Older people are not passive recipients, nor are they a homogenous group of people; we are all individuals. Older people are certainly not incapacitated, befuddled or redundant, although that often appears to be the baseline from which assessments are made.
As has been said, ours is an agist society, perhaps more so in respect of women, for whom not only beauty, but worth, is skin deep. Contempt for and fear of aging are rife, and plastic surgery rules okay. Even the language of politics in which Labour indulges seems to endorse those prejudices. Everything must always be new, young, modernising. Well, I have news for the Executive: the older people in society are as individualistic as the young, and just as diverse in their personalities, talents and requirements, as Donald Gorrie was right to point out. They have skills and aspirations and that most valuable of life's commodities: experience. They are an asset to their families and communities, not a liability. I have two of my assets here today; my parents are in the public gallery. Aged 84 and 77, they are feisty people who have no time for Labour's platitudes.
We need to educate the young and middle generations before the politics and the priorities can be righted. The Labour party wants to dole out packages, but it offers nothing that will give dignity, independence or choice to our pensioners. Let us consider the pension, which is at the root of the problem. The issue of pensions may not be devolved, but so what? We can talk about anything we like in this Parliament and that is what pensioners want us to do. If that upsets Johann Lamont, that is too bad.
Will the member give way?
I do not want to hear from Johann Lamont; I have heard enough from her already.
Pensions in other countries have been mentioned. The pension represents 60 per cent of average earnings in Belgium, and 40 per cent in Denmark. Margaret Smith, who has now left the chamber, said that independence alone would not solve the problems of Scotland's pensioners. Why is it a fairy story for Scotland but not for other countries that offer a decent pension?
Because of fuel poverty, 2,000 people die every year in Scotland who would not otherwise have died. Many die of hypothermia. That is a disgrace, when, as Tommy Sheridan said, we have oil and gas revenues. The Labour party claims to have set targets for solving fuel poverty by 2003, but I would like to know the source of that claim. Delaying until 2003 will mean another 6,000 deaths, but that seems to be okay by Labour. It is essential that we reinstate the link between pensions and average earnings. I repeat that that is what pensioners want. If Labour is the listening party, it should start listening.
I do not know where Keith Harding was digressing to when he was going on about dividend tax credits. The number of pensioners affected by that would be in the minority. The vast majority of pensioners live, as my parents do, on the state pension and on very small and shrinking occupational pensions. Having paid taxes and national insurance, the pensioners out there thought that they were providing for their older years, but they were not. The kitty has been spent, or Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling are sitting on it.
As for committees and task forces, I am falling over them. How do joint committees in Westminster compare with joint committees here? They are a different breed from the cross-party committees of this Parliament. The former are tame pets—and I know who the owner is who is in charge of taming them—and the latter are free- roaming animals which, fortunately, are beginning to display minds of their own.
How far would a Scottish minister get on the Great British state pension of £66.75 per week? They should put their answers on a postcard—a cheap one, please. What can they buy for 73p? Packets of crisps were mentioned. The Government could issue another shiny brochure. We have loads of them. Pensioners who are sitting close to their one-bar electric fires or who are wrapped up in bed early to keep warm could spend many an idle hour reading a Government brochure on how to spend their 73p.
Would the Scottish people rather see money being spent on their pensioners than on that gross London executive toy the millennium dome? Why not get a focus group working on that question? How many pensioners will be travelling from Scotland to marvel at the millennium dome? Not many, because I have costed it. It would cost them £49 for the round trip and entry to the dome, leaving them with £18 from their weekly pension. The issue is one of priorities for Westminster, and Westminster's priorities are not Scotland's.
On the matter of the Royal Commission on Long Term Care, I was pleased to see movement on Sir Stewart Sutherland's findings. That has been long awaited; the commission's report was published in March. It is important that a commission was set up and that small things are being done to help pensioners remain in their homes, but I am sceptical—I wonder why—about community care because the facts are not dinging right.
I asked the Deputy Minister for Community Care, Iain Gray, about social work cuts in East Lothian Council, which caused a home to close down, people to be dispersed, meals on wheels to be stopped and pensioners to be given two week's supply of frozen food. I await an answer. I asked the Deputy Minister for Communities, Jackie Baillie, about the funding of day care centres, particularly Broomhill day centre at Penicuik, which provides elderly respite care and needs a little bit of money compared with what is being splashed out on shiny brochures, for example. I have still not received an answer. Those matters show what is happening on the ground.
Kay Ullrich dealt with age discrimination in regard to breast cancer. That discrimination is a fact. Elderly women are not invited back for breast screening automatically, although the incidence is high.
Other things are wrong. With regard to benefits, disability living allowance is not available if the applicant does not apply before they are 65 years old. If a carer does not apply for invalid care allowance before they are 65, they do not get it. As has been said, in our generation, people in their middle to late 60s are, thankfully, growing older with their parents. Those issues must be addressed, because although they are not big issues, they are big issues for the people who are involved.
Kenny MacAskill dealt with the matter of transport. The three important words in relation to transport and pensioners are: available, accessible and affordable. Of course it is right that we have a national concessionary fare scheme in Scotland—and it is my party's policy. Sylvia Jackson referred to such a scheme, but the issue is when it will be introduced. People who are old will not be around for ever, waiting for promises down the line.
We need single ticketing initiatives so that people can buy a ticket and travel great distances without having to change their ticket. We need co-ordinated timetables, which would benefit all society, not just old people. We need integrated transport, for example buses that run to hospitals and libraries. The infrequency of public transport in rural areas does not make it an alternative form of transport for those who live there and have special concerns.
Many houses are poorly insulated and in need of repair. Often, older housing is designed badly. The warm deal does not address damp homes. That requires to be addressed. I have already said that it would be appropriate—it is mentioned in Sir Stewart Sutherland's report—to introduce small initiatives to enable older people to stay in their own homes. Measures such as handrails and walk-in seated showers are small, practical improvements with substantial outcomes for individuals, but they are not being taken.
On community care, we should have integrated services with one-stop access to information. I think that it was Margaret Smith who mentioned the GP not only writing a prescription for medicine but completing a form for housing insulation. That is essential to assist elderly people, because health difficulties are related to housing problems and other matters.
There is no difference between us on those points. I said earlier that those initiatives are being taken forward. As I said, the Minister for Health and Community Care and I agree that those are not being taken forward quickly enough, so I have announced today how we intend to do so.
When will those initiatives be implemented? Does the minister have a target? I love that word. I would like to know when those initiatives will be implemented. There is enough jaw in this Parliament.
Will Christine Grahame give way?
No, I will proceed.
The cusp of the new century is the time to act, as the Sutherland report states, "With Respect To Old Age". There are some items on the shopping list. We should have a respectable state pension; erode agism; have integrated services for transport, social and health purposes; have warm and secure homes; consult not insult; and educate ourselves and our children of the value of older people. We should demonstrate that value by our deeds, here in this Parliament and in that other, less worthy, place.
I am pleased—it has already been announced— that I have been made my party's shadow deputy minister for older people. That is not a cheap political position. I did not know that the Executive had a deputy minister for older people; I thought that Mr Gray was the Deputy Minister for Community Care. I will deal specifically with issues relating to older people. I know that that is welcomed by Better Government for Older People, many representatives of which are here today.
My job is to listen, to take account of what people say and to shadow Mr Gray. I will be watching you, Mr Gray.
Will Christine Grahame give way?
I will not give way.
Does Christine Grahame not want to listen—
I do not want to listen to Mr McAveety.
I do not doubt the sentiments that Christine Grahame expresses, but what actions does she propose to take? Let us hear what SNP policies are, how much they cost and when they will be introduced.
The Scottish National party would link the increase in pensions back to average earnings, and we would introduce a national concessionary fare and other initiatives. I will give Jackie Baillie a copy of our manifesto to make it easy for her. She could also read the Official Report of this debate.
Will Christine Grahame give way?
I took an intervention from the Deputy Minister for Communities, who was responding to the debate. I have only a couple of other sentences to say.
Older people do not go away; we all become one. Scottish pensioners want a decent state pension so that they can exercise choice and be independent. Margaret Smith found that an offensive word. Independence is a fine word and, by the way, according to a recent survey we will be independent in 20 years' time.
That concludes the debate on older people. Before we move to the next item of business, I apologise to members who were not called in the debate, which was considerably oversubscribed. We attempted to fit in as many members as possible.