Plenary, 26 Jan 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 26, 2005

Official Report 453KB pdf

---

Older People

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2298, in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, on older people, together with three amendments to the motion.

I am pleased to introduce today's debate on an important issue that has probably threaded through the Scottish Parliament's discussions in the chamber, in committees and in cross-party groups since its earliest days.

Before setting out our thinking on older people and what we are doing to support them, I want to highlight some points that we must be careful about in developing policy for older people, given the diversity that exists in the age, interests, experience and opportunities of people who might be defined as old. Indeed, for some of us, even the definition of "old" is becoming a slightly touchier matter than it once was. We should not think of older people as a block or a burden or only as passive recipients of our largesse.

The issues that we must address include the demographic time bomb, the needs of carers and those for whom they care and, crucially, deprivation and the way in which poverty among older people is unevenly spread across Scotland. Of course, there are also issues around the experiences of particular groups—such as disabled people or women in older age—which are shaped by the responsibilities that those people had in earlier life.

Those are not the only issues that we need to address in developing policy for older people. We must understand that policy must cover more than just how we look after older people, albeit that that is important. We have already demonstrated our commitment through a number of flagship policies, including free personal and nursing care, free concessionary travel and the central heating programme. That important start provides a foundation on which to build, but we continue to be committed to the needs and interests of older people.

People sometimes think that new policies that are not labelled as being for older people are of no benefit to them, but the reality is that many of the Executive's actions have a direct impact on older people's lives. For example, we know that many older people are concerned about safety in their neighbourhood. Our measures to deal with antisocial behaviour will help to make the lives of everyone, including older people, safer and more secure.

I can tell the Tories that the current generation of pensioners—especially those in their 60s and 70s who lived with the consequences of the Tory policies that created high unemployment and fractured communities—understand better than most people the importance of work and employment. From that experience, they understand that stable economic policies that are driven by social goals are also important in shaping their experience in old age.

As the minister has referred to the Tories' legacy, will she acknowledge that private pension funds, which provided safety for many pensioners when we left office, have been destroyed by her Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, who has raided £5 billion from them each year?

No, I do not agree. We know that poor pensioners have lived with the consequences of economic policies that were shaped by the belief that unemployment was a price worth paying for the Tories' economic goals. The Tories did not live with those consequences, but ordinary people in our communities did.

We also know that older people are contributing and participating. I cannot be the only constituency MSP who is amazed at the extent to which older people support communities and hold them together. Many organisations would simply fall apart without the support of older people.

No doubt much of today's debate will be about what is being done and what should be done for older people. That is fine as far as it goes, but it is only part of the bigger picture, which should be about recognising, valuing and supporting what older people are doing for themselves and for others in their communities and about listening to what they are saying about their communities.

I very much agree with the minister on the need to recognise the contribution that older people make to our communities. In my constituency, one issue that has emerged among older people is a concern about the adequacy of the provision of support services, especially for those who suffer from dementia. That issue is often raised by carers of those individuals. What does the Government intend to do to pressure or to give support to local authorities to improve the provision of those services?

I am aware both of the issues relating to dementia and of the tireless way in which carers fight on behalf of the people for whom they are caring. That issue was raised with me when I first became an MSP. At that time, I was struck by the fact that, when developing policy, we needed to pay much more careful attention to what people were doing. I hope that later we will be able to say more about the details of how progress can be made in that area. However, I assure the member that I recognise the importance of the issue that he has raised.

Sarah Boyack's debate last month on older volunteers demonstrated one important way in which older people are involved and contributing. I want to reflect for a moment on the extent of that and other types of involvement. Recent analysis showed that about a quarter of people aged 50 or more had done some volunteering in the past 12 months. The proportion falls with age, but many people aged 75 and over are still actively volunteering, often in ways that help other older people. As the research carried out last year for the retired and senior volunteers programme demonstrated again, volunteering benefits both volunteers and those whom they help—it has double benefits. Many of our programmes are predicated on the commitment of volunteers. The credit union movement was shaped by volunteers, who were often older people. Those people are still working in partnership with us to deliver financial inclusion.

Although most people have left the labour market by the time that they reach the state pension age, many people want to continue working, perhaps in different ways or in different jobs. According to the Scottish household survey, more than 10 per cent of men aged between 65 and 74 are still in some form of employment. That trend is growing, and longer working is associated with better health as well as higher income. There is increasing awareness among Scottish employers of the benefits of an age-diverse workforce. Employers are developing good practice in assisting older workers to continue in work in ways that suit their needs, as well as those of the employers themselves.

Most older people do not need care, but many of those who do rely on informal carers—relatives, friends and neighbours. Many of those carers are themselves older people and the value of the work that they do is incalculable. More than a fifth of women aged between 50 and 59 provide care. Almost one in 20 men and women aged between 65 and 84 provides more than 50 hours of care a week.

We also know that many older people play a significant role in their families' lives as grandparents, providing both emotional and practical support to their families. In many households, the grandparents look after the children while their parents go out to work. Where families break up or have serious problems, often the grandparents step in to look after the children. It is my experience that in some of our fragile communities, where drug addiction is a serious problem, grandparents are holding together not just families but the broader community by their commitment.

We know that older people in Scotland are and want to stay involved. It is essential that we find ways of ensuring that older people have the best possible quality of life. We are working in a range of ways to support older people; I will mention just a few of those. The first is free concessionary travel. We want to remove barriers and what better way of doing so is there than to provide free, unrestricted national bus travel for people over 60 and those with disabilities? Recently, the Minister for Transport announced that, from April 2006, all older and disabled people will be entitled to Scotland-wide free bus travel. By offering a more joined-up scheme, we are directly addressing concerns that older people's organisations have raised about the difficulties that their members regularly experience. The scheme will provide free travel to all parts of Scotland at any time of day, not just at off-peak periods.

The minister mentioned disabled older people. Can she assure us today that there will be development of easy-access buses on the major routes, especially in the cities?

I will ensure that we raise the issues of disability and equality, for which we have responsibility, with the Minister for Transport. We must also identify areas in which community transport and so on can help people. Transport should follow the needs of those who use it and should not be restricted to the main routes. I assure the member that we will pursue the issue that he has raised.

Under the scheme, older and disabled islanders will be offered two free return ferry journeys each year. We all recognise that ferry services help to enrich the lives of islanders.

The new scheme is a significant expansion of and improvement on our existing free bus scheme. Of course, the improvements do not come without a cost. We are investing a maximum of £159 million in 2006-07 and £163 million in 2007-08. By making that investment in older and disabled people, we are listening to their requests and removing the barriers that they have experienced.

We are committed to tackling pensioner poverty. Most pensioners are not poor. The vast majority feel that they have enough to live on; just over 5 per cent of pensioners feel that they have difficulties with their finances, compared with more than 20 per cent of non-pensioners. However, some older people are poor and we need to continue tackling that problem. We all know the consequences of poverty on quality of life.

In relation to the perception and reality of income poverty in particular, does the minister agree that 44 per cent of pensioner households in Scotland have an annual income of less than £10,000 and that 41 per cent of single pensioners have an annual income of less that £6,000? Surely the minister accepts that, by any definition, that is income poverty.

I have not said that there are not poor pensioners. Tommy Sheridan's point indicates precisely why the Government and the Executive have a strategy to commit huge resources to those who are poorest in our communities, as well as to those communities in which mostly older, poorer people live.

I will skip ahead now, because I will not have time to cover a number of points. There are issues to do with pensioner households and people who are fuel poor. We have committed through the independent review of local government finance to look at not just council tax but the distribution of funding across local authorities, to recognise the link between deprivation and poverty among older people. We also have to address health care for older people, an area in which significant progress has been made.

I trust that today's debate will be productive and constructive. Members across the chamber have shown a commitment to older people. We recognise the diversity of older people and we recognise their significance in our communities. We are determined to ensure through our policies that, in old age, people have a secure life in a secure community.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the contribution that older people bring to our communities; recognises the substantial progress that has been made in meeting the needs of older people through policies such as free personal and nursing care, the central heating programme and free bus travel anywhere in Scotland at any time of day; welcomes other policy initiatives that benefit older people by promoting volunteering and lifelong learning and tackling anti-social behaviour; seeks to build on these by recognising the diversity of older people and tackling ageism, and welcomes the involvement of older people through the Older People's Consultative Forum, and in other ways, in the development of policy across the Scottish Executive.

I rise as an older person—indeed, as a pensioner—to speak to and move the amendment in my name. I advise the chamber that I will start with some quotations from what I think was the first debate in the Parliament on the elderly, which was initiated by the Scottish National Party in December 1999. In doing so, I hope to measure how far the Liberal-Labour coalition has travelled—although often kicking and screaming—down the road to improving our older people's lives.

First, I congratulate the Parliament on the introduction of free personal care and the recent announcement of a nationwide concessionary fare scheme, albeit deferred until 2006. On that point, I ask the minister to see, when conferring with the Minister for Transport, whether the scheme can be extended to the carers of elderly and disabled people, who have to push the wheelchairs. There is no use giving free transport to the person in the wheelchair if their carer does not get it, too.

In the 1999 debate, I said in summing up as shadow deputy spokesperson for older people:

"On the matter of the Royal Commission on Long Term Care, I was pleased to see movement on Sir Stewart Sutherland's findings."

Indeed, my first proposal for a bill in the Parliament was for free personal care in February 2000. However, it took the coalition until July 2002 to make that policy a reality—hence the kicking and screaming.

In that same speech, I said:

"Of course it is right that we have a national concessionary fare scheme in Scotland—and it is my party's policy."—[Official Report, 2 December 1999; Vol 3, c 1181-82.]

I congratulate the coalition again on taking that up, even if only eventually.

Will the member take an intervention?

I want to get into my speech.

Other issues that were raised in that debate still remain, such as the level of the state pension and pensioner poverty, which can lead ultimately to an untimely death through fuel poverty. I found what the minister said about pensioner poverty extraordinary. In 1999, the basic state pension for a single person was £66.75 a week, when gross average earnings were £364 a week. Today, six years later, the level of that pension is just £79.60. Of course, if one is a woman, one probably will not even get that. My state pension is £72 a week because I took three years out to do a degree and six years out to look after my children. There are many women much worse off than that. Gross average earnings are now £436 a week, compared with the £79 pension a week. Six years on, the pension is just £13 more a week, compared with an increase of £72 a week for the rest of society.

The figures that I gave came from the Scottish household survey, which is based on people's perceptions of how they feel about the situation. Recognising that some pensioners are not in poverty does not diminish our responsibility to address or focus on the issue of pensioner poverty.

The minister is talking about perceptions; I am giving her facts.

Of course, there is always the means-tested pensions credit, which is demeaning and unfair. It penalises people with small occupational pensions, who use that money to subsidise the spitefully small state pension. As a result, some 30 per cent of those who are entitled to claim the credit simply do not do so. However, if those people lived in independent Norway, they would receive a basic pension of £121 a week. If we had an independent Scotland now, pensioners would receive £106 a week. That measure can be paid for. In fact, an independent pensions survey has found that the money is in the Treasury, but the political will is simply not there.

Will the member give way?

Sit down, Robert.

Until the will exists, there is little prospect of the one in five of Scotland's pensioners who live in poverty seeing any real change. As a result of such poverty, in 2003-04, 2,500 people over the age of 65 died from cold-related illnesses, which is 400 more than for the previous year and 1,100 more than for the year before that. In comparison, 66 people of that age group died in road traffic accidents. That means that people over 65 are 38 times more likely to die of cold in Scotland than to be killed on the road. It is a disgrace that we can have such a situation in an energy-rich nation.

An National Opinion Polls survey in Scotland found that more than one in six pensioners struggled to keep warm in their own home; one in 10 avoided using certain rooms because they were too cold; and one in three admitted to turning off their central heating in the afternoon to reduce costs. Again, those are not perceptions, but facts. There is little point in having a central heating system if people cannot afford to use it.

Will the member give way?

Will the member give way?

Yes.

I think that that was to Phil Gallie.

I thank Christine Grahame very much for giving way.

Oh, sorry. I meant Robert Brown.

On the issue of pensioners and fuel poverty, will the member comment on current renewables targets, which threaten future energy supplies and will likely increase energy charges?

At this point, I must apologise to Mr Brown.

Mr Gallie knows that I cannot comment on the matter that he raised.

I had meant to let Robert Brown in; he can come back on this next point if he so wishes. In the 1999 debate on pensioners, he said:

"there will be further measures beyond what the Government has managed to achieve so far to tackle the scourge of fuel poverty … and ill health from hypothermia and finally to eliminate fuel poverty in this country."—[Official Report, 2 December 1999; Vol 3, c 1139.]

Although that was nearly six years ago, the figures are getting worse. Does Mr Brown want to comment now?

If I may say so, Christine Grahame is a great woman for dealing with facts. Does she agree that the money that the Scottish Executive has put into the central heating programme, free personal care and so on is real and not the fictional money that the SNP says will be available after the fêted independence?

It is a pity that I let Robert Brown get up.

As other members have pointed out, the burden of council tax compounds the fuel poverty trap. According to a Help the Aged survey, the council tax is, with the exception of the monthly food bill, the largest expenditure that pensioners face. That is no wonder—bills have increased by 50 per cent since Labour came to power. As a result, the £13 increase in the pension that I mentioned earlier has long since been swallowed up by council tax charges. Indeed, four out of 10 pensioners do not even claim council tax benefit, which compounds the situation even more. What is the coalition doing about the matter? It is having a review. I think that we will put that under the working title of "Keeping the Liberal Democrats Quiet".

Scotland's pensioners live in an asset-rich nation that has oil, gas and wave and wind power. The country is self-sufficient in food from sea and land, but many pensioners live impoverished lives, shop at the Oxfam shop and buy food that is past its sell-by date. Those impoverished lives are the responsibility of Labour and its partners in crime against the elderly, the Liberal Democrats. They should be thoroughly ashamed.

The way forward for older people is independence. Only by that route will we have, as of right, a decent pension that will enable us to lead independent and dignified lives, free from the humiliation and injustice of means testing and secure and warm in our own homes.

I move amendment S2M-2298.1, to leave out from second "recognises" to end and insert:

"for example, as role models, carers and volunteers; recognises the progress that has been made through policies such as free personal care, the central heating programme and the commitment to national free bus travel by 2006; considers, however, that the state pension is inadequate for a basic living standard and requires to be supplemented by the means-tested pension credit which some 30% of pensioners fail to claim; notes that one in five pensioners live in poverty, with some 70% in council tax poverty, and that excess winter mortality rates are three times higher in Scotland than in Germany and Sweden, and asserts that, without an increase in the powers of the Parliament to deliver a citizen's pension providing a decent standard of living which will bring security, dignity, independence and choice, improvements to the lives of Scotland's elderly can only be at the margins."

First, I congratulate Christine Grahame on her miraculous recovery from her ill health, which prevented her from attending this morning's meeting of the Communities Committee. She is certainly in good spirits this afternoon—well done.

One of the most urgent problems facing Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom is the threat to our pensions. Personal savings in Scotland are close to a record low and people live in fear that their savings may become worthless. Debt is also at the highest level ever. The dire situation in Scotland is compounded by the possibility that our tumbling birth rate and aging population may lead to an insufficient working-age population to fund viably our pensions and other services. The period of the Labour Government has been characterised by means-tested benefits, the latest of which is the pensions credit. As Christine Grahame said, the process is now so complicated and demeaning for pensioners, who are reluctant to disclose their personal information, that one in four pensioners in Scotland does not claim their entitlement.

Will the member take an intervention?

No. I am short of time and I think that we are almost in agreement on that issue.

The report by Adair Turner's Pensions Commission confirmed that

"there are clearly many people for whom means-tested benefits do create a significant disincentive to save individually".

Given that the take-up of such benefits is very low, it would be much fairer to increase the basic state pension. A Conservative Government would reduce means testing by linking the basic state pension to earnings rather than to prices. That would take 1 million pensioners out of means-tested benefits.

According to Help the Aged in Scotland, four out of 10 pensioners also fail to claim council tax benefit, which could help to lift them out of poverty. Last October, Sheila MacKay and the Highland senior citizens network conducted a survey, which highlighted the fact that, since Labour came to power, the council tax in the Highlands has risen by 50 per cent, whereas the basic state pension has gone up by only 27.5 per cent. It also highlighted the fact that council tax and water and sewerage rates are taking a higher proportion of the income of lower-paid pensioners.

The Conservatives would focus on reducing the level of tax for the benefit of all. Less than 20 per cent of council funding is raised from council tax; the rest comes from income tax and business rates. Furthermore, another £293 million is paid in council tax benefit to Scottish council tax payers, including 40 per cent of pensioners. Therefore, it would certainly not be appropriate to look at an alternative to the council tax that was based on income tax.

My colleague, David Davidson, will speak at length on care and bedblocking.

Will the member take an intervention?

No. I desperately want to get this point over.

There is no doubt that the Executive's opposition to care homes that are not run by the state has resulted in an unfair financial bias against voluntary and independent homes. We have spoken about bedblocking for almost six years, but the number of beds blocked is higher now than it was in February 1999, despite the fact that £30 million has been targeted on the problem.

In the Highlands, people frequently come to me and say such things as, "There is a space in a care home and my mother has been in Raigmore hospital for nine months, so what can I do?" There is still a shortage of funding. It is time to come clean and be honest about whether social work has inadequate funding or whether its funding is being used for other services. I am fed up with the buck being passed between councils and the Scottish Executive.

Malcolm Chisholm will be familiar with my next point. When I was a member of the Health and Community Care Committee, we talked about integrated care homes, in which elderly people would not have to move when their condition deteriorated—a residential home and a nursing home would be together in one home. I ask the minister why people are now coming to me to say, "My mother has had a stroke and needs nursing care, but she is in a residential home. She cannot get funding for a nursing home and the home she is in has chosen to be only a residential home." That is not what was in the legislation that we passed in the Parliament. I checked the matter with the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care and I know that my facts are right. In the Health and Community Care Committee, we agreed on a single budget. We did not agree who should hold that budget, but I still say that my point is crucial.

The Highland senior citizens network has also raised the issue of podiatry and chiropody. I remember that one of our first briefings in the Health and Community Care Committee was from Andrew Walker, who pointed out that, although members were complaining about access to beta interferon, beta interferon at a cost of £10,000 a year might benefit just one person with multiple sclerosis; however, £10,000 would pay for chiropody and podiatry care that would allow 1,000 elderly people to be mobile and independent. If we consider that simple opportunity cost, we can appreciate that investment in such services would save money elsewhere.

We are always being told that women over 60 and men over 65 have access to free national health service dentistry. However, people have access only if they can find an NHS dentist. In the Highlands, insurance through Highland Dental Plan Ltd to cover access to a private dentist costs £257—that is £5 per week for every pensioner. The NHS is free only where it is available.

The other points in the amendment in my name will be covered by Nanette Milne and David Davidson. I move amendment S2M-2298.3, to leave out from second "recognises" to end and insert:

"acknowledges that substantial progress needs to be made to meet the needs of older people which achieves a sustainable funding agreement to reduce bed-blocking and to end the inequality in funding between council-run homes and independent homes; calls on the Scottish Executive to ensure that all elderly people assessed for free personal and nursing care are given the appropriate care in the environment which suits their needs, either at home or in residential care; acknowledges the central heating programme and free bus travel anywhere in Scotland; looks to the Executive to propose policy initiatives that benefit older people by promoting volunteering and lifelong learning and tackling anti-social behaviour, and calls on the Executive to build on these by recognising the diversity of older people and tackling ageism and encouraging the greater involvement of older people through the Older People's Consultative Forum, and in other ways, in the development of policy across the Scottish Executive."

The minister identified many positive and forward-looking measures, which are greatly appreciated by senior citizens, but much more is required. I was taken back to the heady days—perhaps I should say the sore-heady days—of Harold Macmillan, who said that we had never had it so good. However, senior citizens are far less gullible in the 21st century than they were in Macmillan's time.

In the past two years, 5,400 people in this country have died of winter-related illnesses, as was mentioned. That is unacceptable. Some 40,000 free central heating systems have been installed, but 70,000 people are still waiting for their free system. It has slowly dawned on my generation that we should no longer be satisfied with the crumbs from the master's table. We represent nearly 25 per cent of the electorate and that figure is growing year by year. Another important point is that my generation exercises its democratic right to vote. Younger people, who are understandably apathetic and disillusioned with politicians in general, vote with their feet. That means that the grey vote is even more powerful.

Sadly, our Parliament has not yet won fiscal autonomy for Scotland, but that must happen in the fullness of time—and I am speaking as a representative of a unionist party. Meanwhile, pensions are not devolved and senior citizens in Scotland are exposed to the tender mercies of Gordon Brown. On most financial matters, Gordon Brown's track record is superb. However, as far as pensioners are concerned, he is a total, abject, uncaring failure. It is difficult to accept that a son of the manse can continue to support council tax and an approach as demeaning as means testing. Both policies impact adversely on senior citizens' standard of living.

For someone who has worked for more than 40 years, a pension of £79 is a sick joke. A university study identified that a minimum of £160 per week is the least that anyone could exist on. My party does not demand a pension of £106, as the Scottish National Party proposes; we demand £160 per week for men and women. We do not undervalue ladies by 50 per cent—what would Emmeline Pankhurst think of that? How can the lady MSPs on the Executive benches meekly accept such sexist discrimination? Shame on them.

Does the member agree that, if we were to convince the multimillionaires in the country to pay their taxes, we could easily afford the level of pension that he demands?

That is an excellent point and I take it on board very sincerely. Tax avoidance is an industry in this country.

Executive ministers should spare a thought for their mothers and grandmothers and introduce real equality into their lives. Fifty per cent for spouses? Get a life!

How could the nation afford a pension of £160 per week? Tommy Sheridan mentioned one aspect of what is called redistribution of wealth. We should increase income tax by 1 per cent or 2 per cent for people who earn more than £50,000 per year—that includes MSPs, among others.

By scrapping means testing, the Government would save countless millions of pounds. We could scrap Trident—which is a Chernobyl waiting to happen. We could prevent Tony Blair from going into any more illegal wars. The Iraqi war has cost well in excess of £4 billion; even more important than money, it has cost countless thousands of lives, including those of British troops.

Tony Blair justifiably boasts about our excellent low unemployment figures. However, he invariably fails to mention—as the minister failed to mention today—the fact that, because of ageism throughout the country, 40 per cent of men between the ages of 60 and 65 are unemployed. Only 59 per cent of women between the ages of 50 and 59 are currently gainfully employed. Positive discrimination will be required to rectify that situation, to enable the Government to tap into that valuable and experienced resource. Those people would gladly contribute to growing the economy—if only employers could be given a tax break to encourage them to offer employment to older people.

Free personal and nursing care has been mentioned. The impression is given that the NHS and social services will deliver free care at the point of need from the cradle to the grave. Sorry, but that is a bit of a con. People are still having their homes sold to pay for their residential care. It is now politically acceptable to rob older people of their homes at a time in their lives when they are ill and at their most vulnerable. Social workers who should be doing something more beneficial for society are sent to the bedside of senior citizens to help them to sell their homes to pay for residential care. That is obscene and unpalatable. That lonely pensioner has probably struggled for many years to pay their mortgage and has probably had happy thoughts of passing their home on to their family one day, to give their family a better chance than they had.

To be fair, I admit that people are now given the chance of making deferred payments, whereby they sign over their home but it is not sold until they die, at which point the state recoups the cost of the residential care.

I move amendment S2M-2298.2, to insert at end:

", accepts that, despite these actions, there remains a growing problem of the ageing population demographic timebomb and believes that, without immediate, positive Executive action, many older people will continue to be adversely affected and die in this wealthy society in the 21st century."

I am very happy to speak for the Liberal Democrats in support of the motion. I would like to divide my remarks into three parts. First, I will cover some of the good things that we have done in the coalition in Scotland. Secondly, I will cover some of the things that my party opposes in what the Labour Party is doing in London, and thirdly—and most importantly—I will cover what we will have to do better in future.

The coalition can take reasonable credit, although it will never achieve as much as it would like to, or as much as strident people such as Christine Grahame suggest it should. Fewer old people are in poverty than were previously. We have achieved the principle of free personal care and we have delivered much of that. We have made a great improvement in free travel for older people, and we will deliver that throughout the country. We have cut fuel poverty, although there is still a problem about winter deaths and we will obviously have to do better. However, as Robert Brown said, we have put in real money and achieved real improvements in areas such the warm deal and central heating initiatives. We have a care and repair scheme, which particularly helps older people.

An interesting briefing paper that we were given said that we should talk not about "the elderly" but about "senior citizens". I will try to remember to do that. We are talking about a wide range of people of different ages. I have known people in their 20s who were middle-aged, but there are also people like Gladstone or Clemenceau, who were running great countries when they were well into their 80s. This is perhaps an incorrect story, but it illustrates the power of older people. A keen young French reporter asked Clemenceau, who was well into his 80s, "Monsieur, at what age do you lose your interest in women?" Clemenceau replied, "Ha! You must ask somebody much older than me." Older people have a great deal to offer each other and society in general.

The Liberal Democrats have great concerns about some things that the Government in London has done—we are allowed to say that without upsetting the coalition boat. The coalition draws on the strong points of Labour and the Liberal Democrats, and has achieved better results that way. At Westminster, the Government's treatment of pensions and its insistence on the use of means testing in the benefits system have been highly unsatisfactory. A generation ago, any decent Labour politician would have gone ballistic at the thought of means testing, but now the Labour Government in London is busy pursuing that policy. We support the idea of having a 50 per cent tax on people who have an income of more than £100,000 and of using that money to help with pensions, among other things. We think that the pensions of the oldest pensioners should be increased first because they need most help. There are many issues on which we disagree strongly with what the Government in London is doing; doubtless, our colleagues will contest the general election on that basis.

In looking forwards, I say that there is support from members of all parties for provision of more and better-organised support for carers. Their work is crucial, so we certainly support that. Within Parliament and as part of the on-going review of local taxation, we argue that the council tax should be replaced by a local income tax, which would be much fairer and would help senior citizens in particular.

Will Donald Gorrie give way on that point?

I will just press on, if I may.

We think that there should be a much more flexible retirement age, which is an idea that is being developed at Westminster and here. People should not have to continue to work if they do not want to, but they should be able to do so if they enjoy what they do, as John Swinburne and I do. I believe that we make a reasonable contribution and that we should be allowed to continue to do so for as long as the voters will put up with us, which is the key point, obviously. It is important that we should have a flexible retirement age.

I want to emphasise the importance of the voluntary sector and of community involvement, in which senior citizens can play a huge part. They already do that, but I think that they could contribute more. First, we must educate senior citizens to value themselves and then we must educate the surrounding community to value them. There is still quite a lot of ageism—people do not give senior citizens the opportunities that they should give them.

The presence of an increasing number of remarkably healthy, energetic and potentially useful older people is an opportunity, not a time bomb. The glass is half full of really good whisky in the form of older people who have potential; it is not half empty. The number of older people in society is not a disaster but an opportunity. If we can develop a sense of purpose and self-development for older individuals, that will benefit the community. Older people can make a great contribution to their communities; to vary my metaphors, I say that we are failing to tap into a huge seam of gold. We must make use of the talents of senior citizens and build on the good things that the coalition has already done.

We move to the open debate.

We should use the opportunity that the debate presents to focus purely on what Parliament can deliver for the elderly. In my experience, elderly people are not worried about what they are called; they are more concerned about what Parliament delivers for them. People out there look to Parliament to deliver. As well as focusing on the areas in which the Executive's schemes must be applauded, I will—as Donald Gorrie did—highlight areas in which delivery of services to the elderly needs to be improved.

I make no apologies for applauding the Executive for its central heating programme, which has benefited 12,000 households throughout Scotland. When I was first elected as a councillor in 1993, the idea that anyone could receive a free central heating system without being means tested was unheard of. By delivering the central heating programme, the Executive has moved the debate on a great deal. However, we must develop the central heating programme. Ministers must reflect on the need to improve the criteria for access to the programme. We need a much more effective scheme to ensure that we deliver central heating systems in areas that are densely populated with elderly people. However, we have taken direct action to assist those who need central heating systems; we have not just talked about energy advice and provided glossy leaflets.

We should applaud the introduction of free concessionary fares and the progress that has been made through the decision to remove the restriction on the times at which people can use the concessionary scheme. My only concern about smart cards is that that they should say "Free" on them. The mass of elderly people are not concerned about what the smart cards say; they simply want free travel. However, there is no point in providing free travel if we do not have a reliable bus service to deliver it. It is time for Parliament to get tough with the bus companies—the multi-million pound plcs—that are failing to deliver services in many of our communities. We have heard many kind words from the Minister for Transport about how he will consider that issue and disabled access—about which David Davidson expressed concern—but it is time for action. I do not want to attend the Local Government and Transport Committee day in, day out to hear the minister say that he will consider the issue, or to take evidence from organisations such as the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland; I want Parliament to take direct action, given that we have the power to do so.

We should also consider the technology that is available in this day and age. I do not know about other constituencies, but even in the deprived community of Springburn, which I represent, the number of people who communicate with me by e-mail has increased. Elderly people have taken the new technology in their stride—they often use e-mail, for example, to communicate with their families overseas. We must consider the latest broadband technology. If it is possible to provide free internet access for silver surfers, we should do so because it would present opportunities to provide information on local health services and to communicate with the large elderly population. We should never dismiss the elderly when we consider technology advances in Scotland. All too often, organisations dismiss the opportunities that technology provides in relation to elderly people.

In every debate on the elderly in which I have spoken, I have referred to the alive and kicking project in the Red Road area of my constituency, which is a one-stop shop for services for the elderly. I commend that project for the services that it provides. It has become a dating agency in Springburn—many people have married in the later years of their lives. I would welcome a visit from the Minister for Communities to the project, which provides a wide range of services in Springburn and which has allowed many people who have been isolated for many years to access services.

The "alive and kicking" title is one that Parliament should consider harnessing in considering the future of our elderly population. People will not have to live in cold homes, because we will deliver central heating systems; they will not have to worry about access to public transport, because we will deliver more effective, reliable and accessible public transport; and they will not have to worry about paying for personal care. Let us ensure that elderly people in Scotland continue to be alive and kicking.

Rightly, much of the debate has concentrated on the shameful levels of poverty that still haunt far too many pensioner households, in particular single pensioners and especially single female pensioners, who are the worst-off pensioners in Scotland and who did not have the same earning opportunities and often have smaller pensions than their male counterparts.

It is important in a debate such as this that we reflect on the context of the discussion. For example, the average pay for the chief executives of Britain's top 100 Financial Times-quoted industries is £1.677 million a year. The basic pay for those bosses is £596,000. The bosses of the top 100 companies in the United Kingdom saw a wage rise of 23 per cent last year on top of the 28 per cent that they received in the previous year. Tesco, which has been in the news recently for the billion-pounds profit that it is generating from its customers, many of whom are pensioners, has eight directors, who share a wage bill of £20 million.

Let us concentrate on the Bob Mendelsons of the world. Some people may remember Bob, who used to be at Royal & Sun Alliance. He sacked 12,000 workers and presided over a 90 per cent fall in the share price of Royal & Sun Alliance. He was shown the door by the company, but was also given a £1.4 million pay-off and an annual pension of £354,000. That type of information is relevant because when people such as John Swinburne stand here and call for a pension of more than £160 for every pensioner, some will say, "Ah, well, that's unrealistic. How can we afford it?" I will tell them how we can afford it. We can afford it by getting the multimillionaires to start paying their taxes. I wish that the Inland Revenue used the same resources and the same vigour to pursue tax avoidance among the rich and the multinationals that local authorities use to get pensioners to pay their council tax.

Does the member agree that it is disgraceful that the Inland Revenue has moved its property portfolio offshore to avoid tax? It should be showing a lead, not following the craven example of others.

I agree absolutely. Stewart Stevenson points out a ridiculous situation in which the body that is responsible for trying to clamp down on those who avoid paying taxes has sold its property to a company that is based in an offshore tax haven. That is the kind of example that we can do without.

Is the member sure that he has his facts right? I can recall the Labour Party promising, prior to 1997, that there would be an end to fat-cat salaries. However, the situation he describes now is worse than it was then.

Mr Sheridan, will you ensure that you keep your speech relevant to the motion and the amendments.

I will try my best, Deputy Presiding Officer.

I note that Phil Gallie had a huge tongue in his cheek as he made that point, as well he may, because he knows that the gap between the rich and the poor in this country is greater now than it was even in the unequal days of the Tory Government. That is a disgraceful and shameful situation.

I understand Paul Martin's point that it is quite right that Parliament should concentrate on what it can deliver. However, Parliament should not operate in a vacuum, outwith the context of how unfairly the resources that are available to our society are distributed. Rather than slam the unemployed as scroungers and asylum seekers as beggars, if the Rupert Murdochs of the world paid the taxes that they should pay on the massive profits that they generate on their newspapers we would have the opportunity to give our pensioners a decent living pension.

Obviously, Parliament has to concentrate on issues such as free bus passes, but it is a bit rich for the motion to talk about what Parliament has done and then to mention a policy that will not even be introduced until April 2006.

I am on record as supporting and promoting the central heating programme for our pensioners, but it needs to be modernised. The original aim—to target those who had no central heating units—was good, but we now have huge problems with pensioners whose central heating units are broken, too old or too expensive to operate and we need to bring them into the installation programme as well.

I have concentrated on some of the wider issues, but that is an important part of Parliament's fighting its corner for the resources that are needed properly to tackle pensioner poverty. As at least a third—perhaps even half—of members know, we will be able to tackle those problems only when we have the economic wherewithal and the power to use our economic resources to end the shameful premature deaths of the 2,900 pensioners who die because they cannot afford to heat their homes properly. In an oil and energy-rich nation such as ours, that statistic is a disgrace and we should tackle it now.

While Mr Sheridan was speaking, I was reflecting on the irony of our having debated closing the opportunity gap last week when we hear proof yet again that the gap between the rich and the poor is widening all the time in this country.

Today's debate is about older people. I will focus on one sector of the elderly population: elderly carers, who are mentioned in the Scottish National Party amendment and who are referred to in some measure in what the Executive's motion says about the contribution that older people make to our communities. I can think of no bigger contribution than that which is made by elderly carers. In Scotland, 500,000 people are carers and most of them are over 55 years old. Those figures come directly from the Scottish Executive's website.

A couple of years ago, Help the Aged commissioned a study, which was carried out by the University of Kent, called "Caring in Later Life: Reviewing the role of older carers". It painted a bleak United Kingdom-wide picture and, despite there having been enacted under devolution some legislation that affects carers, all would agree that we still have a long way to go. That study found that more than half of older carers suffer from a long-standing illness or disability. It revealed that three quarters of the older people who live with the person for whom they care receive no regular visits from the health service, social services or home-care agencies and that more than half of them put in long hours of intensive caring on very low incomes while suffering from serious health problems. One third of those carers said that they had never had a break, and carers aged 75 or over were more likely to provide intensive care than those between 60 and 74.

That brings me to another UK study, which was carried out by Jane Hubert and Sheila Hollins, about people with intellectual disabilities and their elderly carers. I will focus on that topic, because I have met many people in my region who are in that situation. The majority of people with intellectual disabilities—or learning disabilities, as they are also called—in the UK live at home with their families, usually with their parents or, more commonly in later life, with one parent, usually their mother. That raises many issues. For parent and for adult son or daughter, there is a physical issue. When a person is getting older, something as basic as mobility affects significantly how well they can care for the person whom they love so much.

Mental health is also an issue:

"Psychiatric disorders, including depression, affective disorders, anxiety disorders and delusional disorders, are more frequent among elderly people with intellectual disabilities than among the general elderly population."

I quote from the report that I mentioned, because the researchers say it better than I can.

It is clear that aging carers and their adult children will have a complex set of individual and joint needs. The needs of an older person with intellectual disabilities may conflict badly with those of an elderly parent. I have had the privilege of meeting the Murray Owen Carers Group, which is a group of elderly carers of adult children with learning disabilities in East Kilbride and I have heard some of their stories of the very basic difficulties that they face. For example—this is about a lady I know—how is a woman of 80 supposed to cope with the fact that her son, who is over 40, refuses to get into the bath or shower in the morning? That is very difficult, in both a physical and a mental sense. The stress is enormous.

There are also worries about bereavement when it comes to elderly parents. For people with learning disabilities, the loss of a parent—especially the sole surviving parent—is so much worse than it is for the average person, because they can find it so difficult to understand that their mother is no longer there one day when they come home from the learning centre. People in that situation can often be excluded from the rituals and processes that are associated with illness and death. Although they are aware that their life has suddenly changed, they sometimes do not understand why. Couple that with their having to move into a strange environment, which might be an institution or some kind of accommodation that they share with other people or another family. They might instead stay in the same house; I know someone in that situation. A person can end up staying in the same place, with a visit two or three times a day from a carer or from assorted carers. Such a change in a person's life must be absolutely awful for them to cope with.

Planning must begin long before that point is reached. I would like the Executive to consider that seriously. The Murray Owen Carers Group has submitted a public petition, because it feels that despite implementation of "The same as you?" whose good intentions the group does not knock in any way, there are many hidden families whose needs are not being addressed because everything is focused on taking people from institutions—quite rightly—and putting them back into the community.

I ask the Minister for Communities or the Deputy Minister for Communities to meet me and representatives of the Murray Owen Carers Group. I am sure that the group represents people from all over the country who are in the same position. Let us see whether we can make a difference to the lives of people who contribute so much to our communities here in Scotland.

We need to be aware of what the debate is really about. We are talking about older people—the generations to whom all of us in the chamber, including the people in the gallery, owe so much. We must put in that context what we are trying to do and what we trying to offer them. Older people are entitled to their dignity and to respect. They are entitled to care and comfort and to a certain quality of life. They must also maintain their independence where possible, so we owe it to them to treat them as members of society and not to have them put into care homes, where that is avoidable.

We have an aging population. It is a fact of life that when people get older they become more liable to suffer from a range of medical conditions. I do not think that the co-morbidity costs of that have been fully identified in the context of the health budget. Older people are more liable to catch a hospital-acquired infection, particularly MRSA. There have been a number of recent cases in which it has been shown that in more and more hospitals more and more people are acquiring such infections—13 per cent of Scotland's hospital beds can be occupied at any one time by people who have hospital-acquired infections, most of whom tend to be older people.

People are entitled to warm and dry homes, which prevents some ailments, such as rheumatism, arthritic conditions, asthma and chest infections. I congratulate the Executive on what it has done so far and I remind ministers that when Stirling Council was run by the Conservatives we established the window replacement programme there two years ahead of target. We can all work together to get such things delivered.

What about disability aids? If we are going to keep people in the community, they need such aids. There is a shocking waiting list in some council areas for people to have adaptations made to their homes. We must make it easier for people who are in rented accommodation to move to more appropriate accommodation, rather than their staying put in what might be a larger house than they need. We should get them away from stairs and into safe and secure ground-floor accommodation, sheltered housing or whatever. I do not think that enough is being done in that area. I am not talking about building new houses; what is needed is an adjustment in how we move people around if they choose to go down that route.

Other members talked about means testing, which I know my mother detested. I will deal with health issues. Winter deaths were mentioned earlier. In a debate on the elderly that we had several months ago, I proposed that all pensioners should have pre-winter MOTs, or health checks, which would allow us to identify those who might be at risk in the winter months and ensure that social services and health care professions became involved with them. It is important that such contact is kept up.

I mentioned bed blocking in relation to hospital-acquired infections. Bed blocking is causing disruption in the health service; it is creating longer access times for treatment for regular patients, if we may call them that. One of the major causes of bed blocking is the closure of independent and voluntary care homes and nursing homes. At the end of last year, Scottish Care and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities produced a joint report that stated that nursing home places needed a minimum of £478 support a week and that residential home places needed £390 support a week, although that report is a few months out of date. However, what do we see? Current levels of weekly support for places in the voluntary and independent sector are only £417 and £355 respectively. In other words, those homes receive less than their costs. They cannot cover their costs and have therefore to close, which is resulting in bed blocking in mainstream hospitals.

We do not use community hospitals well enough and, furthermore, they do not exist everywhere. We have to take that issue seriously. I ask the ministers to engage with their colleagues in the health and community care division of the Executive to ensure that they bang heads together. It is quite immoral that a council is obliged to recover its costs and can pay a council-run home, say, £600 a week for a place but it is not obliged to do that for another home that is not in its control. Quite frankly, if anybody is registered under the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care to provide nursing care to a set standard, they should receive the same money, with minor variations dependent on property costs in various parts of Scotland. The situation is beginning to become a crisis. We have to deal with that.

The other part of the issue is that too many councils have waiting lists for people to get free personal care. The numbers of people who need such care were underestimated and the policy is underfunded. We need to ensure that all councils apply the scheme in the same way—it is supposed to be a national scheme, but it is not applied in the same way throughout the country. Councils show me documents that demonstrate that they interpret the scheme differently from neighbouring councils. Those are fundamental issues relating to a policy that Parliament is in charge of.

I agree wholeheartedly with Linda Fabiani's point about the role of carers. However, we still do not have a register of carers. There is no mechanism for noting who a carer is or for picking up on their health problems, mental health problems and need for respite care. Parliament ought to be looking more closely at what we can do and getting on with it.

I regret that I am unable to call three backbenchers and that I can give Ms Oldfather only two minutes.

I will be as concise as possible. I had intended to run through the range of positive programmes that are under way, but I will have to accept that my colleagues, such as Donald Gorrie and Paul Martin, have already identified the range of steps that have been taken, such as free personal care, the central heating programme, the warm deal and concessionary travel.

Although we should be proud of that record, if we are serious about pushing the agenda forward, we should recognise that there are some small steps that we can take that will make a difference. We are all delighted with the progress of the travel scheme, which has been strongly welcomed on the streets of my constituency. There is no doubt about the popularity of the measure, which will get elderly people out and about, contribute to their fitness and well-being and help them to adopt healthier lifestyles. However, I find it incredibly frustrating that the most vulnerable elderly people, who through physical or mental disability cannot travel alone, are being penalised because they have to pay for a carer to travel with them. I ask the minister to consider that situation seriously. Smart cards could provide a mechanism by which that problem could quickly be addressed. I hope that that can be taken on board in the detail that is being worked out at the moment.

I will quickly mention elderly people and advocacy. It is of paramount importance that we get to grips with the strategy; I think that the minister will make an announcement on it quite soon. For elderly people in residential homes—particularly those with dementia or Alzheimer's disease—independent advocates are essential. In my experience, some nursing homes encourage advocacy on only a token basis while some take it seriously. We need attitudes to be formalised across the board.

The care commission does a great job, but I think that the number of unannounced inspections should be increased. There is merit in announced visits, but they should be done as a follow-up to unannounced visits. It is essential to give the care commission more teeth.

Although I have to finish now, there is much more that could be said. The Scottish Parliament has made huge progress, but if we do not speak up on behalf of our elderly people, who will?

I owe so much to previous generations, whether to family or friends. I agree with David Davidson on that. Grandparents enrich our lives and I learned so much from mine. When I was a child, my grandmother used my nimble fingers to top and tail fruit and she would then send me outside with a jammy spoon to check whether the jam was ready to bottle. I helped her with cooking and baking and that was an enjoyable and easy way to learn. I wish that more grandparents had access to their grandchildren. If they did, perhaps more people would be taught how to cook, rather than use a microwave.

On the retirement of a partner, I was a single-handed general practitioner for 10 years and I could not have managed without the help of three recently retired general practitioners who were a tower of strength to me during that period. Businesses should value experience, and recently retired people are a great resource that should be tapped.

General practice gave me a privileged insight into people's lives and it was often the lives of the elderly that concerned me most. People are often at their most vulnerable, and are often on their own for various reasons, at a time in their lives when they require the most help. Their family, if they have any, may well be in Australia, Canada or Aberdeen—no matter, they are not on the doorstep. Their husband or wife may be dead, or in other cases they will be an invalid and problems will increase if the carer becomes ill. I knew two sisters in their 90s, the younger of whom cared for the older, who was in a wheelchair. Difficulties always arose when the carer had to go into hospital. Members might be interested to know that they both lived to over 100.

Many elderly people are on low incomes and are scared to run up heating bills. Sometimes, as a GP, I entered houses that were colder inside than out. The fire would be put on for my benefit and, I suspect, was turned off when I left. Sometimes only the coloured bulbs of an electric fire were used. Central heating does not make a lot of difference if it is set to come on only twice each day and to go off at night. Hypothermia is a real worry and sadly the 2003-04 figures, which have already been mentioned, show that it claims 2,900 lives per year; if we compare the past two years, we see that that is a rising figure. I am particularly concerned about people who take ill at night and lie on the floor in the cold until someone finds them. The ones who do best are those who fall near their bed and have the presence of mind, if they are conscious, to pull the duvet over themselves to keep warm.

People who have recently been discharged from hospital are extremely vulnerable, despite the fact that they might have a lot of people coming and going during the day. Between visits and at night they are not likely to have supervision and if they fall in an attempt to make a cup of tea or go to the toilet, they might break a limb as well as suffer hypothermia, which will add to their plight and endanger their life. We need better discharge plans and more 24-hour cover to make sure that recently discharged patients eat and drink so that they maintain the progress that they made in hospital. There is always pressure for hospital beds not to be blocked, but it is imperative that the elderly have time to convalesce. If they do not, they may well end up in hospital again and their health may be put on a downward spiral, ending in premature death.

I always stressed to medical students the need to keep all age groups as fit as possible, but especially the older age groups, so that they are fit enough to stay in their own homes as long as possible, which prevents them from ending up in hospital. To keep people fit, their chronic conditions need to be treated. That gives them quality of life. Something as simple as good and frequent chiropody services enables the elderly to take advantage of free bus travel, which has been commented on.

Elderly people are proud and do not like to think that they are living on charity. The consequence of the lack of spare cash is often heartbreaking and overwhelming to them when, for example, the fire, cooker or central heating boiler is condemned and they have no financial reserves. One of my constituents recently had to resort to using her burial money, which nearly brought tears to my personal assistant's eyes. Help is out there, but a waiting time of six to nine months in the cold winter months often means that the burial money must be used. My constituent used that and her boiler was fixed within weeks.

We know that people do not always apply for benefits, for various reasons. I will never forget the lady who confessed that she was at her wits' end to make her money stretch to pay the bills since she had finally retired at 70. She lived alone. She was filling jamjars with various sums of money to cover her future bills and she confessed with much embarrassment that since retirement she was constantly short. I suggested some benefits of which she was unaware and she left my surgery. Some months later, the lady returned with smiles and a small bunch of carnations to thank me. She had applied for the benefits and she was pleased to be able to make ends meet. That brought tears to my eyes.

For all those reasons and some that I could not mention, I support John Swinburne's amendment and ask all members to support it.

The debate has been good and people have made many interesting points. We all listened with interest to Jean Turner's anecdotes from her experience as a medical practitioner. Donald Gorrie's initial analysis was helpful. He talked about the good things that the coalition has done, the bad things that have been done in London and what we might do better. That theme has run in various ways through the debate. Several interesting points were made about the importance of central heating. David Davidson spoke about the cost of poor health and its implications for society and individuals.

I will talk a little about the positive contribution that older people make to society, which the minister was right to make a point about. It is unhelpful to categorise older people in a box in which various things happen to them and which has nothing to do with society at large. Older people are part of society—as demographic trends progress, they are in number at least an increasing part of society.

We all know people who are as far as anyone can tell oblivious to their calendar age and who continue to be the driving force of residents groups and other voluntary groups. We also know other people who may be at a further stage in life and who may have been struck down by illness or disability but who remain nevertheless an enormous inspiration to their families and friends. I am not sure whether it has been medically vouched for, but retaining an interest and having the feeling of contributing, being valuable and having a worthwhile life are vital.

We have a demographic problem of people living longer. It is probably wrong to regard that as a problem; it is a challenge and a feature of our society. The challenge is to keep people active nearer to their death, if members follow me. An important object of social policy is to reduce inability, incapacity and ill health to the minimum.

One affliction of many people in old age is loneliness, which is a serious problem. It is not surprising to read in briefings about depression, isolation and suicides among old people. Those are all tragic matters. One of my favourite voluntary sector organisations is Contact the Elderly, which some people have met. The organisation's work involves the simple idea of people inviting three or four older people into their homes once in a while for Sunday tea, a bit of conversation and a bit of cake. That breaks into the isolation and loneliness. Every so often, a bigger get-together is held, such as an annual gathering.

Does the member agree that bingo has a serious and significant role to play—particularly for elderly women—in keeping people socialised, mentally alert and out of their houses with other people? Does he agree that we should do everything to ensure that the costs of running bingo do not continue to rise as they have been?

I do not want to give an immediate comment on that. However, Stewart Stevenson is certainly right to say that any social activity of that kind that takes people out of their houses regularly is important.

Debates on older people have a good record and the Liberal-Labour partnership has a good story to tell and defend in the Parliament—other members have made that point. However, the Opposition's amendments make important points. The Tories are concerned about issues such as bedblocking and the appropriateness of care, which are valid issues to debate and on which we can have different points. Of course, there is the major issue of pensions, which will be vital at the forthcoming Westminster general election. Pensions are not a central issue for the Parliament, but they have been the subject of a number of debates recently. Earlier, Donald Gorrie laid out the Liberal Democrats' proposals to improve the financial position of pensioners first by getting rid of the unfair council tax and having a fair local income tax that would be levied according to people's ability to pay and, secondly, by moving away from the means testing of pensions, which he rightly said would have led a previous generation of Labour politicians to rise up in unanimous indignation.

Many pensioners who have worked for a lifetime very much resent the fact that their pensions are taxed. If we were to go for a local income tax, it would hit senior pensioners hard.

There is no doubt that any tax change will have a variable impact according to people's manifest circumstances. However, across the board, there is no doubt that a more progressive tax that is based on people's ability to pay is far better for many pensioners than the sort of proposal that Phil Gallie is talking about.

Of course, the difference is that Liberal Democrats also say how money will be raised. As I said in the debate the other day, we do not propose the administrative rearrangement of independence and claim that that will magically lead to better provision of pensions. According to the House of Commons library, the SNP's pensions policy would cost around £10 billion a year which, I regret to tell Christine Grahame, will not be provided by administrative savings, far less by reducing the pot through Jim Mather's corporation tax cut. Important issues lie behind the matter that will come out in debates as we approach the general election.

In summary, this is an important debate. Few things are more important in our society than assuring a reasonable standard of living for our elderly people and the wider social points that have been made about them. The motion and the points that have been made in the debate are well timed.

I am glad that the motion that we have been debating begins by recognising the contribution that older people make to our society, because in recent years the focus has tended to be on youth at the expense of the value and respect that previous generations have accorded their senior members. As society has evolved, medicine has advanced and people live healthily for longer. The liberated younger generation produces fewer children and the whole balance of the population has moved. The so-called elderly now form nearly 20 per cent of our modern society and many of them are physically and mentally very active. Like Christine Grahame and others, I qualify for my bus pass, but I am much prouder of the fact that I get a senior citizen's discount on my ski pass when I visit the French Alps.

As several members have said, today's generation of older people makes an enormous contribution to society. After retirement, many pensioners continue to work either at their previous employment in a part-time capacity or in a new role—sometimes paid although often voluntary. Many older people continue with education and learn new skills or study subjects that they did not have the time to pursue during their paid employment. Some of them tour the world and others devote their time to playing golf or looking after grandchildren. Whatever they choose to do, many senior citizens are major contributors to our communities long after the official retirement age.

Sadly, all of us are mortal, and sooner or later we may become dependent on other people and services to meet our needs. Most people want to be independent for as long as possible. If they need care, they want to have it in their own homes for as long as they wish to stay in them. Services should be geared up to look after people in their own communities and to avoid unnecessary admissions to hospital and the bedblocking that often ensues.

Last year, I lost my last remaining aunt and uncle. Their story is not unusual. Both had passed their 90th birthday but were still coping independently—just—in their own home and were determined to stay there. My uncle developed a sore back—probably the result of an athletic youth—and was admitted to hospital for investigation. While in hospital, he developed an infection that kept him there beyond the few days that were initially anticipated. On her way to the hospital, my aunt fell and broke her hip.

After various complications and eventual rehabilitation, and after adaptations had been made to her house, my aunt was finally ready for discharge about six months later, but she died suddenly, from an unrelated condition, on the very day that she was due to go home. Getting my uncle ready for discharge took another six months, during which time he became one of those to whom David Davidson referred, as he fell victim to MRSA and other infections. Sad to say, having blocked a bed for nigh on a year, he too broke his hip shortly after he had settled into the nursing home place that he eventually occupied. He died from pneumonia three days later.

That is a fairly typical tale of what can happen to elderly people who end up in hospital because community services cannot give them adequate support at home or provide an appropriate residential nursing home place. As David Davidson pointed out, the situation is bound to get worse if the Scottish Executive persists in presiding over the underfunding of independent care homes. The Executive's position is already resulting in the closure of many such homes at a time when more places are urgently needed.

The Tory party is sympathetic to Help the Aged's new year resolutions, which Mary Scanlon said I would deal with. We all want to eradicate excess winter deaths, so we welcome campaigns such as the one that was launched this week by energywatch Scotland. With the backing of Age Concern, the campaign encourages elderly people to sign up for free energy services and publicises the schemes that are currently operated by gas and electricity suppliers. Of course we encourage pensioners to make full use of the benefits that are available to them. We would also keep the winter fuel allowance and the free television licence for those over 75.

However, we do not like means testing. Like the SNP, we would prefer to lift people out of means testing by increasing the basic state pension and linking it to earnings. Unlike the SNP, however, my party will be able to implement the policy in Government at Westminster. It is unlikely that the SNP could ever do that.

Will the member give way?

No, I am almost finished.

We know that.

I am not finished in the political sense.

We hope that the care commission will fulfil its role in protecting the care home sector, but we are sympathetic to the idea of a vulnerable adults bill to protect and to strengthen the support that is offered to those elderly people who are not covered by the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 or the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003. We look forward to scrutinising the detail of the proposed vulnerable adults bill as it proceeds through the Parliament.

We believe that council tax is now far too high, but we will focus on reducing the level of council tax for everyone. Our proposal to fund the Scottish school system directly from the Scottish Executive would allow everyone a reduction in council tax, to the tune of around 35 per cent in band D. Contrary to what our critics say, that would not mean a cut in education funding as exactly the same money that is currently available for primary, secondary and special schools would be given directly to the schools via their pupils.

On Help the Aged's fifth resolution, we will continue to campaign for readily accessible chiropody and podiatry services across Scotland. As Mary Scanlon said, such services are essential for the health and well-being of older people.

We acknowledge that the Executive has developed the central heating programme from the early initiatives that we introduced and we acknowledge its proposals for free bus travel across Scotland. I will leave members to consider the other points in the detail of our amendment, as I am running out of time.

In response to the briefing from Help the Aged, my final comment is that I, too, would rather be called senior than elderly.

I call Sandra White. Ms White, you have a tight seven minutes.

In this debate on older people or senior citizens—whichever title we wish to give them—there should be no doubt that we will not improve older people's lives unless we eradicate poverty in Scotland and in Glasgow in particular. Elderly people are most at risk from premature death if they happen to live in the Glasgow area. The fact that premature deaths have more to do with poverty than anything else is a point that members should take on board.

We will support Mary Scanlon's and John Swinburne's amendments, but we will abstain on the Executive motion. I will explain why. We have no problems with the Conservatives' amendment, as it acknowledges that progress still needs to be made in this area. It also deals with the reality of the closure of nursing homes in both the council and independent sectors and how that affects people at the coalface. John Swinburne's amendment recognises that there is more to be done and that positive action must be taken. I note that he uses the word "immediate" in his amendment, and I agree with him on that.

The Executive motion fails to mention the real problems that many members of our older population face. As my colleagues have said, we should take very seriously the issues of fuel poverty and premature deaths. I am sure that the Executive takes them seriously, but they are not mentioned in the motion. For that reason, we cannot support it and will abstain on it.

Nanette Milne has mentioned Help the Aged's five resolutions, to which I, along with other members, have signed up. All members of the Parliament have been invited to do so. Help the Aged has identified five points that would improve the lives of our elderly people. I will not read out the whole document, but it calls on us to eradicate excess winter deaths, to support a vulnerable adults bill, to increase uptake in benefits for older people and to reform the council tax.

I was astounded when I heard the minister's opening speech, as the only one of the five resolutions to which she referred was that relating to council tax. There was no mention of eradicating excess winter deaths or increasing benefit uptake.

A number of the points were in the text of my speech, but I chose to take interventions from a significant number of members in order to facilitate the debate. That is not to say that I devalue in any way those important issues.

I accept the minister's apology and am sure that the Parliament will do the same.

It was not an apology.

I understood that the minister was saying that she was sorry that she did not mention the issues that I have raised. I raised them because she failed to refer to them in her speech. She said that she was unable to mention them, but the Executive should take them on board.

I congratulate the Parliament on the free central heating programme. As John Swinburne said, it has made a difference to a large number of Scottish pensioners. However, as members from all parties except the Executive parties have said, it cannot be right that 2,500 of 2,900 winter deaths each year involve people who are more than 65 years of age. We know from stats that people die because they cannot afford to turn on their central heating. One in three respondents to a recent NOP poll carried out in Scotland indicated that they could not turn on their heating because they could not afford it. Seventy-two per cent had not even heard of a Government programme that could provide them with heating improvements. The Parliament should take up that issue. I am sure that members will agree that it falls within the scope of the Parliament.

Fuel poverty and winter deaths may increase dramatically, because gas and electricity prices have increased so substantially—in some cases, by 10 per cent or more. However, Communities Scotland, which is a Scottish Executive agency, says that even a 5 per cent increase would leave an additional 30,000 households in fuel poverty. When I put a question to the Executive or the Executive makes a speech on this issue, the minister raises her hands and says, "What can we do? We can do nothing, because it is a reserved matter." For the people who suffer from fuel poverty, it is not reserved. Paul Martin and other members, particularly those from the unionist parties, talk about what we can do in the Parliament. Paul said about three times that he would take direct action. I ask him and other members why they do not take direct action by supporting our amendment, which calls for the Parliament to have more powers. I hope that they will look to their consciences, support our amendment and at least think about supporting independence for the Parliament and a better life for our pensioners.

I recognise that some good things have been done. However, it is not enough to talk about what elderly people can do for the voluntary sector, what the voluntary sector can do for them and how good it is to have free transport and smart cards. Local councils up and down the country talk about those matters all the time—I talked about them when I was a councillor. However, we are a Parliament, not a local council, and we should have the powers of a normal Parliament to improve the lives of our people. We could talk about those subjects all the time, but we should let the councils speak about transport, for example. This is a Parliament and rather than talk about free transport, we should have the powers to look at tax issues and benefits and to improve the lives of our elderly people. Although free transport is a great thing, I ask members to remember that the Welsh Assembly introduced such a scheme and it does not have the powers of this so-called Parliament.

I ask members to think about this: we need more powers for this Parliament. That would enable us to introduce a citizen's pension to give people dignity in their old age and would allow them a decent pension so that they could put on their heating. That is an SNP idea; other parties might have other ideas, but they are only tinkering around the edges of the problem. Unless we have the powers of an independent Parliament, elderly people will still live in abject poverty. Poverty is the main cause of premature deaths in Scotland and unless we have our own powers in our own Parliament, we can do nothing about it.

We do not see older people just as recipients of services, although it is clear that the Executive has an excellent track record in that regard, and many of the issues have been covered in the debate today.

One of our key points is that older people are a resource. I was pleased to speak about that recently in the volunteering debate and we are pleased to fund the retired and senior volunteer programme. We want to make sure that society has a far more positive attitude towards older people. We have heard a lot about their invaluable role as carers today. I am pleased that they are involved in the development of policy and I chair the older people's consultative forum, which is one of the bodies in which that takes place.

In everything that we do, we are determined to challenge any stereotypes that people have about older people. Sometimes those stereotypes are related to ageism. I am pleased to say that Westminster legislation to make age discrimination illegal in relation to employment and training will be in place by 2006, as John Swinburne said. If ageism is to be found in any of the services that are delivered in Scotland, we will challenge that as well.

As Paul Martin said, we want to concentrate most of all on what the Parliament can do, but I must respond briefly to the point about pensions, which dominated Christine Grahame's and John Swinburne's speeches. I thought that John Swinburne's comments about Gordon Brown were particularly unfortunate, given that the Labour Government has raised expenditure on pensions by £10 billion since 1997. We can argue as much as we like about the combination of means testing and targeting, but the reality is that if that £10 billion had been evenly spread among all pensioners, many pensioners today would be a great deal poorer. Christine Grahame should remember that 170,000 pensioners in Scotland alone have been lifted out of poverty since 1997—a reduction of 68 per cent.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I will do so in a minute, but I want to talk about devolved areas first.

There was a lot of discussion in the debate about the central heating programme. At the latest count, 44,000 central heating systems have been installed, so Paul Martin underestimated that number. John Swinburne said that 70,000 people were still waiting, but we have no evidence that the number is so large. We believe that there are just fewer than 5,000 people on the waiting list, including people with the broken systems that Tommy Sheridan was concerned about.

I am glad to hear that and I hope that the minister will put it on record that those broken systems will now be replaced.

Will the minister agree today that British expenditure on pensions is the lowest in the European Union and that that is the problem when it comes to tackling pensioner poverty?

It was certainly galling to hear the Conservatives speak about various matters today. I indicated the massive progress that has been made in the past eight years. Nobody is saying that that is the end of the road—I do not expect that it is.

Paul Martin emphasised several initiatives for older people, particularly on information technology. I am pleased that several schemes are now in place to ensure that older people who are unable to access IT facilities at home can do so in their communities and, indeed, in all libraries. Paul invited me to visit the alive and kicking project in Springburn, and I am very pleased to accept his invitation.

Nanette Milne mentioned the proposed vulnerable adults bill. This is clearly a key area for us; after all, there has been much concern about protecting the vulnerable from abuse. I have to say that we will not tolerate such activity. The care commission, local authorities, health boards and bodies such as the Mental Welfare Commission already have powers to investigate allegations of abuse and we intend to strengthen the protection that legislation affords the vulnerable of whatever age. A bill will be presented to Parliament as soon as practically possible.

Sandra White raised the other issues that Help the Aged has written to us about. I have to say that we are strongly sympathetic to—and indeed are taking action on—all its demands. If it is possible to say so without annoying my Liberal friends too much, I think that Labour is the only party that supports a fairer council tax. I believe that the Liberal Democrats do not support such a tax at all.

Members raised many health and community care issues. We must take a balanced approach to such matters and recognise that there is much more to do. For example, the group that is considering a national NHS framework is carrying out a lot of work on older people, particularly those who have multiple chronic conditions, and on issues such as rehabilitation and prevention, which David Davidson raised. That said, we do not favour the model that he proposed.

Mary Scanlon also highlighted many health issues, including delayed discharge. Once again, we have much to do in that regard, but we should also acknowledge that significant progress has been made over the past three years. When the action plan was launched in March 2002, the total number of delayed discharges was more than 3,000. That figure is now going down from 1,900.

Of course, there is more to do about care homes, but progress has also been made on that matter. We must recognise that, for example, new money has been made available on the back of the spending review announcement and that, since the national review group was established in September 2001, £140 million extra has been invested in the independent care home sector.

I appreciate the minister's comments. When he sat beside me as a lowly member of the Health and Community Care Committee, was it not his understanding that every single elderly care home would be an integrated care home? I have to say that that has not happened. Secondly, I should point out that, when an elderly person's condition deteriorates, they do not receive funding for nursing care as early as they should.

Mary Scanlon will have to provide some of the details of that in writing to Rhona Brankin. All I can say is that the model set out under the provisions Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001 is for single care homes, and that is how all care homes are now registered.

On David Davidson's point about medical aids and adaptations, the equipment and adaptations strategy forum was established to achieve a much needed sense of direction. Its report, which has been welcomed by ministers, makes a series of recommendations, and we will shortly set up an implementation steering group.

John Swinney mentioned dementia. Again, progress is being made in that area. A short-life working group has reported and guidance has been prepared with Alzheimer's Scotland to offer a template and planning and audit tools.

Donald Gorrie and Linda Fabiani raised the issue of carers, whose massive contribution I have already acknowledged. Once again, in the first four years of the Parliament, funding support for carers has increased significantly and the new legislation to which Linda Fabiani referred has been enacted. Moreover, since then, a carer information strategy group has been set up and its recommendations should help to deal with some of the issues that she raised. Identifying hidden carers is an important part of the policy.

Will the minister give way?

Do I have time to take an intervention, Presiding Officer?

You are not in your last minute yet, minister, but how you use your time is up to you.

I will take Linda Fabiani's intervention.

The people whom I mentioned—the Murray Owen Carers Group—feel as if they have been hitting their heads off a brick wall for more than two years. Despite the fine words, the glossy brochures and the good intentions—I am not having a go; I accept that there are good intentions—people are being missed out. Will the minister commit to meeting the group to gain a personal understanding of the issues?

The correct people to meet carers are the Minister for Health and Community Care or the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care, so I will convey that request to my colleagues. That is not to say that I am not interested in and concerned about those matters, but that is the way in which we have to operate in the Executive.

Irene Oldfather mentioned advocacy services. I am glad that I have been invited to speak tomorrow at the launch of Lothian NHS Board's advocacy plan. There is certainly a commitment from the Scottish Executive that anyone who needs an advocacy service should be able to access such a service. I know that boards are working with local authorities to develop plans and, having read the Lothian plan, I also know that very significant progress has been made and that there has been a big increase in the resources that go into advocacy.

I will end, untypically, by quoting Nicola Sturgeon. Before Christmas, she said:

"I am not knocking anything that the Scottish Executive is doing for pensioners"——[Official Report, 4 November; c 11552.]

I thank Nicola Sturgeon for that endorsement. However, I was slightly disappointed to see that although there were 40 promises in the manifesto that she launched with Alex Salmond in the leadership contest, only one related to pensioners, and it dealt with pensions. That the Scottish National Party is not engaging with the issues that this Parliament can take forward for pensioners is a problem. I thank all the members who have drawn attention to those issues in the debate.