Pensioner Poverty
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-1020, in the name of John Swinburne, on pensioner poverty, and on three amendments to that motion.
All political parties are starting to worry. The hitherto placid pensioners are on the move. Grey power is sending out the message, and pensioners are starting to realise that they are capable of exercising political power. That will increase year after year, as the demographic time bomb keeps ticking.
During this parliamentary session there will be 1.18 million pensioners. The Scottish Executive must therefore do the right thing and eliminate pensioner poverty, or it will pay the price at the ballot box. In all caring societies, the elderly are held in high esteem. Indeed, their influence and guiding hand is greatly appreciated. Unfortunately, that is not the case in modern Scotland. All too often, pensioners are regarded by those in authority as an ever-growing drain on public resources. My generation still has a great deal to offer. On reaching retirement age, we do not automatically become incapable. For example, it is estimated that in excess of 76,000 carers in Scotland are over 65, and 27,000 of them are over 85.
The fact that the Parliament has agreed to debate pensioner poverty is a small step in the right direction. At the same time, it is also an indictment of this and past Governments for failing to anticipate the present situation. Research by the Family Budget Unit recommends that a straightforward, across-the-board increase in the basic state pension from £77.45—which represents only 17 per cent of average United Kingdom earnings—to £160 a week, index-linked to earnings, would solve that problem and would eliminate the need for costly means testing. The money should be paid to men and women—the practice of giving 50 per cent to the spouse is unacceptable. A weekly payment of £160 equates to only £4 per hour for a 40-hour working week, which is less than the minimum wage, yet still I hear the cries of "impossible" and "impractical".
A university study arrived at £160 as being the absolute minimum that a pensioner would need simply to keep body and soul together. It would not allow for any luxuries whatever. Due to the low wage structure during their working life, the majority of today's pensioners simply could not afford to save for their retirement. The right to buy has meant that many thousands of council tenants are owner-occupiers, with the consequential demand to maintain their properties. On current pensioner income, such maintenance is not viable, resulting in a deterioration in pensioners' homes and an increase in the poor health of their inhabitants. There is insufficient affordable accommodation for rent for the numbers who require it. Sheltered housing caters for more than 34,000 pensioners, while nearly 16,500 amenity houses are provided by local authorities. Those figures represent 5.3 per cent of the pensioner population in Scotland. For private sheltered and retirement homes, of which in excess of 5,500 presently operate, the future is bleak, as can be observed by the recent and continuing closures due to inadequate funding.
Not all senior citizens are poverty stricken. Five per cent are very well-off, and 45 per cent are comfortable; it is the bottom 50 per cent that gives me cause for concern. The bottom 25 per cent live below the Government's poverty level. Fortunately for them, they receive council tax relief, rent relief and access to full pension credits, which, from 12 April, will give them £105.45 a week. Using the Government's own terms, they have been lifted from absolute poverty into relative poverty. The next 25 per cent of senior citizens are caught in a poverty trap. Their state pension, plus their works pension or savings, takes them to above the £139.10 threshold. They are on their own. They get no help from the state and are required to pay full council tax—the same amount as the house next door, which could easily have a household income well in excess of £1,000 a week.
The Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition deems the council tax a fair and equitable way for local authorities to raise their income. The coalition says that the system must be property based to some degree. That is why I welcome the Scottish National Party's paper on local income tax, which is a mirror image of the Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party's election manifesto pledge. The problem and the solution are currently reserved to Westminster, yet the UK Government allocates only 5.1 per cent of its gross domestic product to pensions, and Gordon Brown has stated that that will fall to just over 4 per cent. The UK spends less on pensions than nearly every other country in Europe, and its projected spending will decrease when compared to hugely increasing commitments—nearly 16 per cent—by France and Germany.
Pensioner poverty is a fact of life. As politicians, it is our duty to relieve that iniquitous burden on those who have contributed so much to our well-being. Fiscal autonomy would give the Parliament the power to do that—the sooner it comes along, the better.
There was an interesting item in the newspaper yesterday. The Adam Smith Institute proposes a doubling of the pension, which would take it to roughly £155. The only thing that I do not agree with is its proposal to raise the pension age to 68.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that pensioner poverty must be eradicated.
I call Mary Mulligan.
I will move the amendment formally and make comments after I have heard the debate.
I move amendment S2M-1020.3, to insert at end:
"and congratulates the Scottish Executive for closing the opportunity gap for Scotland's poorest pensioners; welcomes Executive policies that are helping pensioners to save money on heating their homes effectively, providing assistance with bus fares and continuing free personal and nursing care, and supports the Executive in encouraging pensioners to claim benefits that are rightfully theirs, such as council tax benefit, through the central heating programme, and through disseminating information to local authorities and old people's organisations."
I welcome this morning's debate and thank John Swinburne for bringing such an important topic to the Parliament.
John Swinburne has already outlined some statistics, but the one that sticks in my mind is that one in five pensioners lives in poverty—a ridiculous and unacceptable situation in a country such as Scotland, which has so much potential and is so energy rich. However, to make those resources work for pensioners in Scotland, we need control over the real levers of power that can affect pensioner poverty, such as pensions, tax and benefits. Without that control we can only tinker at the edges of pensioner poverty, but with it we could do so much to tackle the real issues. The Parliament could begin to address those, such as restoring the link between pensions and average earnings. It is somewhat ironic that the Conservatives now want to restore that link, given that they broke it in the first place.
I suppose that the Conservatives are at least trying to make amends, which is more than Labour has done. Labour has well and truly ditched its manifesto commitment to restore the link between pensions and average earnings. The SNP will hold true to its commitment to restore that link, but the Parliament requires the powers to be able to do that. If the situation is not turned round, we will be heading for a pension crisis, with many more thousands of pensioners living in poverty. The situation will be made worse by the failure of the Pensions Bill at Westminster to give compensation to employees whose pension fund has collapsed—an opportunity well and truly missed.
As John Swinburne has already alluded to, another important issue that will impact on pensioner poverty is the abolition of the council tax. The council tax has been the bane of many pensioners' lives. Thousands of pensioners end up being caught in the poverty trap. They lose out on council tax rebates and have to pay full whack, perhaps because they took out an occupational pension. They thought that they were doing the right thing, but they have ended up being punished for that. We want to end that situation by abolishing the council tax and bringing in a local income tax that is based on the ability to pay.
It is estimated that the council tax raises £1.8 billion and that the local income tax that the SNP proposes would raise only about £1.5 billion. How would the SNP address that shortfall? Would it further cut services to the very pensioners that it is trying to protect?
The minister should read our policy for herself instead of believing the spin that comes out of her department. Our proposal would replace, penny for penny, the money that the council tax raises, but it is based on the ability to pay. That compares with a system that punishes pensioners. Our system would take half a million pensioners out of local taxation and help to end pensioner poverty—it would replace the unacceptable and indefensible council tax system, which the minister is obviously happy to try to defend. I look forward to hearing her defend it in her concluding remarks; her defence of it will be of great interest to Scottish pensioners.
I would like the Parliament to focus on ending pensioner poverty, but in order to do that we need powers over pensions, tax and the benefits system. When we have those powers I look forward to joining John Swinburne and doing something to end pensioner poverty.
I move amendment S2M-1020.2, to insert at end:
"and that this can only be achieved if the Parliament has a full range of powers including control over pensions, tax and the benefits system."
I suspect that the reason why I was asked to open this debate for the Conservative group is that I am its youngest member and therefore the furthest away from retirement, so I could not be accused of having a partisan interest.
I am pleased that John Swinburne has given us the opportunity to debate pensioner poverty this morning. Despite the Executive's fine words and its usual self-congratulatory amendment, its record is not a happy one. Between 1997-98 and 2000-01, the number of pensioners in Scotland who live in households with less than 50 per cent of mean income rose from 170,000 to 180,000. That figure represents 20 per cent of all pensioners in Scotland. We know that free personal care is being underfunded, with gaps in certain areas, and that hospital waiting lists are getting longer in many cases. Health is a major consideration for older people, so those problems impact disproportionately on their quality of life. However, we cannot say that we are going to eradicate poverty, as Mr Swinburne's motion does, without proposing some measures for doing so. Our amendment seeks to do that.
We recognise that many of the issues that relate to pensioner poverty are reserved to Westminster. The Labour chancellor, Gordon Brown, has dramatically increased the use of means testing. According to the House of Commons library, when the pension credit began in the autumn, 59 per cent of pensioners were eligible for means-tested benefits. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has calculated that the proportion of pensioners on means-tested benefits is expected to grow to 73 per cent by 2025 and 82 per cent by 2050. As Mr Swinburne acknowledged in his opening comments, that extension of means testing brings its own problems. Many pensioners are reluctant to claim means-tested benefits as they regard it as demeaning to do so. Therefore, pensioners end up losing out and living in unnecessary poverty.
The member mentioned several statistics to back up his argument. Is he aware that it is estimated that only 52 per cent of pensioners claim pension credit, which means that the remaining 48 per cent, who are entitled to do so, do not claim it?
That is a fair point from Mr Rumbles.
Unusually.
My colleague ungraciously said "Unusually", but I will not share in that comment.
We must reduce means testing and consider pensions being paid as of right. A higher basic state pension would be the single most effective weapon in helping to reduce pensioner poverty. That is why our colleagues at Westminster have a policy to re-establish the link between pensions and earnings, which would be of direct benefit to every pensioner in Scotland and the United Kingdom.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry. I am very short of time this morning.
It is a tight debate.
As Mr Swinburne acknowledged, it is interesting that the Adam Smith Institute, the free-market think tank, yesterday proposed a substantial increase in the state pension, albeit funded by an increase in the pension age, which we do not find quite so acceptable. Clearly, that increase has a cost, but it is generally acknowledged that it is much less desirable to have means-tested benefits than to have a basic state pension available to all.
The great majority of those who retire—some 90 per cent—do so with some sort of private or occupational pension. In the past few years, those sectors have been under constant attack from the Labour Government. A huge part of the problem was Gordon Brown's decision in his first budget to levy a £5 billion per year tax on pensions by abolishing dividend tax credits. The result of that was to make private pensions much less attractive and, accordingly, people are stopping saving for their retirement. When that is added to the increase in means testing, it is little wonder that the savings ratio is at an all-time low. The take-up of stakeholder pensions since their introduction has been poor. We must encourage people to start making provision for their old age again, and we must make it attractive for them to do so. Otherwise, pensioner poverty will continue to be a problem.
Fundamentally, we should not consider pensioner poverty in isolation from questions of the wider economy. It is only by having a strong and growing economy that we can provide wealth for all in our society, including our pensioners. Conservatives believe in a free economy with a light touch in the form of regulation and lower business taxes. That is the way to close the opportunity gap and to make our society wealthier, healthier and happier.
I move amendment S2M-1020.1, to insert at end:
"; acknowledges that the increases in means testing for pensioners introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, adversely affect many pensioners who are reluctant to claim the benefits to which they are entitled; supports the re-introduction of a link between pensions and earnings as proposed by the Conservative Party at Westminster, and recognises that a growing, dynamic economy through lower tax and regulation is the best way to address the problem of poverty for all, including pensioners."
I must declare an interest in the topic at the outset because, like many other people, I am a pensioner. I congratulate John Swinburne on bringing forward this debate on behalf of his party. The fact that the people of central Scotland decided to elect him to the Parliament is an indication of the importance of pensioner issues. Perhaps it is also an indication of the need for the Government to address pensioners' needs much more fully. In other parts of the world, the grey vote is given far greater priority than it is given in Scotland, but I hope and believe that political parties will recognise senior citizens' needs more fully in future. Should they not address pensioners' problems, it will be at their peril.
The figures that Mr Swinburne mentions in his motion are scandalous. It is estimated that more than 2,500 elderly people die each year because of cold-related illnesses. That is reprehensible—after all, we are living in the 21st century, not the 19th century. The motion is right to welcome the free central heating programme and I agree that more must be done to improve and expand the service. In my constituency, I have heard about too many cases in which a poor service has been given by those who are employed by the Eaga Partnership to carry out the work. Many people are kept waiting for a surveyor or for the work to be carried out. Pensioners are often told that a contractor or surveyor will turn up on a certain day, but they do not. That is disrespectful, to say the least, and it is frustrating for those who are waiting. In many cases, it will increase the feeling of helplessness and isolation that is often felt by those who are poor, old and vulnerable. I ask the minister to make representations on that issue to the Eaga Partnership after this morning's debate.
In rural parts of Scotland such as the Highlands, much of the problem with the delivery of the central heating programme stems from the lack of—
Mr Munro, I think that you are beginning to stray into this morning's second debate.
The problem stems from the lack of skilled technicians to do the work. Like everywhere else in Scotland, there is a shortage of trained plumbers, electricians and carpenters. That problem cannot be addressed quickly or easily, and the Executive must give it further thought. It is a shame that such a positive programme has been marred by problems that could be solved. However, I give credit where credit is due, and the reports that have come back from those who have benefited from the central heating programme are positive.
I am sure that many speakers will mention another problem that pensioners face, which is how to pay their council tax, because many old people are on a fixed income and council tax increases affect them disproportionately. The Liberal Democrats, the socialists and now the SNP all support changing from the council tax to an income-based tax—a local income tax, which I, too, support. That is a fair tax, because it is based on the ability to pay. It will benefit not only pensioners, but all those who are on low incomes. I am confident that the independent review of local government finance will find that local income tax is the best option. Not only is it based on the ability to pay, but it maintains local accountability.
It is galling in this day and age, and in a new Scotland, that many pensioners cannot afford to pay vast tax bills when their pensions rise only by 2.9 per cent, while people who can afford to buy a second home receive an immediate 50 per cent discount on their council tax. That is not acceptable or fair.
I am sure that everybody realises that, as politicians, we will be judged on the level of provision that we secure for our senior citizens. We must all ensure that they can enjoy their years of retirement in comfort and dignity.
Time for the open debate is very tight. We have time only for a short speech from Mark Ballard.
Like others, I congratulate John Swinburne on initiating the debate. Nobody should doubt the severity of pensioner poverty in Scotland. We should recognise that we need radical solutions to tackle the deep-seated and endemic problems. Such radical solutions to deal with our pension and tax systems can be achieved only when the Scottish Parliament has the power to implement them.
How will we lift pensioners out of poverty? What radical solutions do we need? One of the main problems is the non-integration of our tax system and our benefits system. I agree with Mike Rumbles and Murdo Fraser that having a means-tested benefits system for pensioners is a major problem. On top of that means-tested system are the complexities of the minimum income guarantee and other measures. It is no wonder that a huge number of pensioners do not take the benefits to which they are entitled, as Mike Rumbles said.
The radical solution that a Scottish Parliament with full powers should adopt is integration of the tax and benefits systems through the introduction of a citizens income that is available to all citizens who are over 18. A citizens income would give pensioners and others in society the flexibility to continue to work, to retire or to use the savings that they have accrued over a lifetime of work without the fear that means testing would reduce or eliminate their savings. A citizens income that was available to all citizens would allow pensioners who wish to retire early to do so. Why do we need an arbitrary retirement age of 60 or 65? Some people want to retire earlier and some, like John Farquhar Munro and John Swinburne, wish to continue to make a contribution to society by working hard.
Such a measure should be supported. A citizens income would guarantee that we lifted pensioners out of poverty while enabling them to enjoy their savings and allowing those who wish to continue to work to do so. We should be mindful of the contribution that all in society can make and we should be grateful for the work that pensioners have done and are doing. We should ensure that they do not suffer poverty as they enjoy their old age. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak.
That brings us to winding-up speeches.
I will speak about the latest stealth tax that has been imposed on pensioners in the Highlands. They are being forced to pay for chiropody care that they received for free in the past. Conservatives believe that if people pay their taxes and wish to pay for private treatment, that is their choice. However, we do not believe that people should be forced to go private when no regard is had to ability to pay.
In the past two years, NHS Highland has reviewed chiropody care. That has resulted in cuts in chiropody care for people who are in care homes; for people who have Alzheimer's disease and cannot state their needs or communicate their pain; for elderly people who have diabetes; for people who are registered blind; and for people who have arthritis and cannot even hold scissors, who are told that they must take care of their own foot care. Many people have been removed from the treatment list and the number of appointments for those who receive chiropody care has been halved at best.
I commend Alex Bochel of Nairn, who was 82 this week. Many elderly people feel very vulnerable and do not wish to speak out, because they are frightened that they might be picked on. They are frightened of going back to the NHS as they feel that they might be victimised.
Another war veteran—a Normandy veteran—came along to my surgery in Nairn this week. Like Alex Bochel, he has worked all his life. He fought in the war and paid his taxes and national insurance. He desperately needs chiropody care to be mobile and independent; to prevent him from falling; to save the health service from providing him with community care; and to reduce the need for him to receive NHS acute care in hospital. Nairn is a very social place and offers a good life for those who play bridge and golf. That gentleman told me that in one week, he had spoken to about 50 people who have had their chiropody care cut or have been removed from the list altogether. He said that they are being forced to go private, irrespective of their ability to pay.
Mark Ballard talked about radical solutions. NHS Highland came up with a radical solution for that gentleman. In the vein of Marie Antoinette, it was suggested that he and his friends should have a party. He was told, "Never mind bringing your own bottle. Why don't you all bring your own toenail-clippers?" That shows the arrogance and complacence in NHS Highland's treatment of elderly people. I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and to describe the respect that the Executive has for our war veterans and many others. It asks people who have Alzheimer's disease or diabetes, who are registered blind or who have arthritis to have a toenail-clipping party. That must be the height of arrogance, complacence and heartlessness. The fact that NHS boards are being forced down that road reflects much of the Lib-Lab Executive's direction.
I thought that I had two minutes for my speech, but I was given four minutes, so I will finish early.
Like many others, I congratulate John Swinburne on initiating not only this debate, but the subsequent debate, because they concern important issues. I share deeply the concerns that he described in his speech. I have been involved in such issues for about three decades, having been the Scottish National Party's social security and pensions spokesperson at Westminster. I assure members that understanding social security and pensions legislation is not an easy task.
Many of the forms that are presented to our population are complex and people find them very difficult. We must remember that demographic changes in our society mean that not every pensioner has close at hand a loyal member of the family to assist them with those complexities. As social security is a reserved matter, one issue that Westminster should deal with is simplification of the forms that are presented to our elderly population.
It is amazing how much money the Treasury saves from the lack of take-up of the benefits that are available to our pensioner population. People do not fill in the forms because they are so complex. Another factor is the attitude of a generation that believes strongly in the concept of independence.
I remember my brother and I trying to persuade my mother, when she had been widowed, that she should apply for housing benefit from the council. However, she said that she did not want charity. The only way in which we could persuade her to apply for housing benefit was to take along our pay slips and say, "See these deductions, mum? That is our contribution to looking after people such as you. This is not charity—people like us are working and are willing to support you."
As members of the Scottish Parliament, we can only advise and provide information to pensioners. I hope that in her response to the debate the minister will say what representations she is making to the Executive's pal Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the streamlining of the social security system.
It is amazing that Murdo Fraser, of all people, should have spoken about the breaking of the link between pensions and earnings. Somewhere in the grey recesses of his mind must be the knowledge that the link was broken by a Conservative Government. He should not argue the case in the way that he did when the problem is the Conservatives' fault.
I look forward to hearing what the Liberal Democrats will say about fuel poverty, as we have heard part of it already. However, as we know, last year John Farquhar Munro received the award for being the free spirit of the year. He said that the SNP now supports the introduction of a local income tax. I have been a member of the party since 1966 and believe without hesitation that the introduction of a local income tax has been our policy since that time. It has taken some of the other parties a wee bit longer to wake up to it. We have always believed that taxation should be based on the ability to pay. Fergus Ewing and I live in Lossiemouth, where we are surrounded by a small community. Nearly all our neighbours are widows or widowers, but we are all in the same council tax band. Our household has two salaries coming in, but other people do not have that luxury. For me, ability to pay is critical.
Pensioners are a great asset to Scotland and to our communities. As grandparents and great-grandparents, they help with our children. They deserve our respect and to be involved in our society. A bus pass does not mean redundancy from life and a pension is not a passport to oblivion.
I welcome the opportunity to speak this morning on this issue and I am glad that John Swinburne chose it for debate.
The Executive is delivering changes that are making a real difference to our older people; they are reducing poverty among older people and improving their quality of life. Since 1997, 80,000 pensioners—almost a third of pensioner households—have been taken out of relative poverty. More than 170,000 pensioners—more than two thirds of pensioner households—have been lifted out of absolute poverty. Those are real improvements that are making a real difference to the lives of the poorest pensioners. On average, Scottish pensioner households are £1,400 a year better off as a result of measures that have been introduced since 1997.
How have we made that progress? A number of initiatives have been introduced and actions taken. There have been above-inflation increases to the basic state pension, and a new pension credit has been introduced that ensures a minimum income for all pensioners and rewards those who have saved. More than 200,000 pensioner households in Scotland have claimed the credit so far and uptake continues to increase. I say to Mike Rumbles that the introduction of the credit has been deliberately phased. However, no one will lose out on their entitlement, even if they are in the later stages of phasing. I hope that that reassures him that pensioners will not lose out.
The winter fuel payment is a £200 payment that is made to all people of pension age. In the winter of 2004, the UK Parliament increased the payment by £100 for the over-80s. Free TV licences have been introduced for the over-75s and fuel tax has been cut from 8 per cent to 5 per cent. That tax was introduced by the Tories, who tried—fortunately unsuccessfully—to increase it to 17.5 per cent. What effect would that have had on our pensioners?
The Executive will continue to ensure that all pensioners claim their full entitlement to benefits. Because we listen to them, we know that poverty is not just about income.
Will the minister acknowledge that this year the Executive will claw back £259 million in Scotland because of means testing? In the United Kingdom, the figure is a massive £2.56 billion. Does she acknowledge that as long as there is means testing, there is no way the Executive can deliver what it wishes to deliver? The forms are too convoluted and complicated.
I will come on to form filling and how we can assist with that. Through means testing, we are able to tackle the problems of the poorest, the most vulnerable and the neediest first and because we live in the real world and have limited budgets, it is important that we address first the needs of those who are most in need.
We listen, and the partnership agreement tries to respond to issues that we have heard about. The agreement commits us to reducing fuel poverty further and to extending our central heating programme and the warm deal, with initial focus being on the over-80s. We will introduce free local off-peak bus travel for all pensioners, which will benefit more than 1 million disabled and elderly people throughout Scotland.
We have already introduced free personal care and nursing care. By the end of 2006, we will have committed £450 million to the scheme since it began. However, we still hear criticisms from the likes of Murdo Fraser. I say to Mr Fraser that, had we been in the economic situation in which the Conservatives left us in 1997, we would not have been able to introduce the scheme.
Will the minister give way?
No—I do not have time.
We will continue to invest £30 million a year for three years to tackle the problem of delayed discharge and we will provide 1,000 community and convalescent care places for people leaving hospital. I say without hesitation that we are reducing pensioner poverty, providing public services for pensioners and improving the lives of older people, but we know that we need to consider complex solutions.
Yesterday we had an excellent debate about issues relating to antisocial behaviour; we know that older people can be affected disproportionately by the sense of fear and alarm that antisocial behaviour causes. That is why we are building respect in our communities. We want to ensure that people of all ages have a decent quality of life. Through the supporting people programme and the quality of life initiative, local authorities are providing about £290 million of extra services to older people in their homes, which enables them to remain independent in their communities. The services include community care-and-repair schemes, housing adaptations, sheltered housing wardens and installation of security devices.
I return to the point that John Swinburne made. I am aware that people sometimes have difficulty claiming benefits. It has been brought to our attention that provision of assistance and advice would be valuable in ensuring that people are able to claim what they are entitled to. Today I am delighted to announce that we are providing £125,000 to Age Concern Scotland, with the aim of giving better information and advice to older people. Age Concern Scotland will develop a consortium-led approach, working with a range of organisations—including older people's organisations—to get for older people the answers that they need as quickly and easily as possible.
The minister has mentioned £125,000 that will be given to Age Concern Scotland, which all members welcome. Has an assessment been made of how many people the money will affect?
I do not have those figures at the moment, but we have made a start on developing an advice and assistance service that will respond to the needs of the people to whom Mrs Ewing referred in her speech. It is important that we get it across to people that benefits exist as their entitlement, that benefits do not represent charity and that people should claim what is available.
Pensioners do not make up a homogeneous group and their needs are diverse. The Executive is tackling pensioner poverty and we are improving the lives of older people who need it most. Through UK Government policies, we are delivering real reductions in poverty. We are increasing incomes and investing in and reforming public services that pensioners in Scotland need through a range of targeted and universal services. We have always recognised that it might take time to bring about change, but we will bring change. We acknowledge that we still have much to do, but it is our ambition that pensioners will live in a Scotland in which everyone matters.
I will set the context for the debate—we are the Scottish Parliament in lobbying mode. We cannot do anything about getting fair pensions because we do not have that power, but I suspect that we will hear less about our lack of power in that respect than we heard yesterday about our shameful lack of power as regards the three men who are dying in Glasgow.
In exercising Parliament's power as a lobbyist, we have to persuade Gordon Brown that he is taking the wrong tack. I say that regretfully because I accept much of what the minister said about the improvements to the lives of perhaps 50 per cent of UK pensioners since the Government changed. However, that is not enough—what about the other 50 per cent? Let us not forget the figures that John Swinburne produced—50 per cent of pensioners' income is below the level that we consider to be reasonable and acceptable in this day and age, and 25 per cent live in real poverty.
The minister cannot defend the current system: she can defend what the devolved Scottish Executive has tried to do to ameliorate the shortcomings of the present system, but it is not enough. Until the Scottish Parliament exercises sovereignty over a combined tax and monetary policy, we will not get things right. We must harmonise our tax system with our benefits and if we do not, we will only ever be putting a sticking plaster over the wounds that John Swinburne's speech exposed.
We should accept that pension levels are not an argument in favour of fiscal and monetary union with England. As well as lobbying for the pensioners who are suffering today—in particular the 25 per cent of them who concern Mary Mulligan as much as they concern me—we should also be looking wider, longer and broader. We should look to see how we can harmonise our tax system with our benefits system.
I commend to the minister the Pensions Policy Institute report that was published only yesterday. It draws on experience from New Zealand, where there is no attempt to target, or to differentiate between, pensioners. Every pensioner in New Zealand, depending simply on their age, is paid the set, basic state pension. It is obvious that some people make private arrangements and will therefore have an income that might comprise the state pension plus their private pension, on which they will be taxed. Therefore, rich pensioners pay more and poor pensioners who either do not have private savings or who have much smaller private savings pay less in tax. That seems to be a much more equitable system. I say with all due respect that if the Tories were able to forget the idea of trying to induce people to save, they could adopt the New Zealand policy, too. It would be much simpler to administer and would not involve the 39 pages of form filling that is currently required if people want to claim their entitlements.
What can we do to improve the quality of Scottish pensioners' lives? We know that we cannot do much about their basic pension at the moment. We have tried and I commend the Executive for that, but we could do more. To do more, we must ensure that local authorities are given more money than they have at present to operate, for example, free exercise schemes. Now that I have won my campaign to get physical education teachers into schools, I warn the minister that I am going for the golden oldies. I want proper exercise facilities and regimes in place at local level—depending on local facilities—and I want them to be funded and free for pensioners.
Television is an absolute requirement for providing information and advice in today's world. When one gets to be over 75—a lot older than I am, anyway—one can have a free television licence. For goodness' sake, why cannot people get a free television licence when they stop working? I do not see why there should not be free licences for those who are not working because that aspect should also be brought to bear on the judgment.
The Government's policy of targeting the poorest people is not working. If it were, we would not be having the debate today. The Executive has to be much more universal in its approach to benefits and it must use the time-honoured system of clawing back through the taxation system from people who can afford to pay their way. All sorts of notional payments can be levied from local and national services, but I will not go into that now. I would like to bang the drum for local authorities to be given much more freedom to ensure that older people make full use of existing services. I assure the minister that, if she went right now to the Edinburgh royal Commonwealth pool—where I should be instead of here—she would meet many ladies of my age, all of whom exercise two or three times a week in the pool. The pool is open to swimmers anyway, so it would not lose out on the paltry sum that we pay because we are not paying an economically viable sum anyway. I want free exercise to be available.
If Margo MacDonald went to my constituency in West Lothian, she would be able to go swimming for free. Does she accept that local authorities should be given the right to make decisions on such issues?
I agree totally. Local authorities should have that freedom, but they also need the money. Although you could not get me out of Edinburgh with a knife and fork, Presiding Officer, I pay tribute to West Lothian and what it has tried to do. However, because of the financial structures of leisure services here, the City of Edinburgh Council cannot do the same at present, although I want it to be able to do so.
We also have to consider the part that health boards play in enhancing or diminishing the quality of life for older people. Mary Scanlon's story about chiropody in the Highlands was absolutely scandalous. I realise that we in the Scottish Parliament do not give order to such matters according to budget alone, but elderly people should not pay for chiropody—it is part and parcel of keeping them up and going and ensuring that they contribute to the economy so that they are not a drain on health services. I ask the minister to take seriously what Mary Scanlon said.
In conclusion, I ask the minister to use her influence—I realise that she does not have the power—to open a debate with the chancellor and the Government at Westminster on a flat-rate pension that would allow every old person to retire in dignity and comfort.