Scottish Parliament, 11 March 2004

454 contributions from 84 members. The official report.

Introduction

Pensioner Poverty

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-1020, in the name of John Swinburne, on pensioner poverty, and on three amendments to that motion.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

All political parties are starting to worry. The hitherto placid pensioners are on the move. Grey power is sending out the message, and pensioners are starting to realise that they are capable of exercising political power. That will increase year after year, as the demographic time bomb keeps ticking.

During this parliamentary session there will be 1.18 million pensioners. The Scottish Executive must therefore do the right thing and eliminate pensioner poverty, or it will pay the price at the ballot box. In all caring societies, the elderly are held in high esteem. Indeed, their influence and guiding hand is greatly appreciated. Unfortunately, that is not the case in modern Scotland. All too often, pensioners are regarded by those in authority as an ever-growing drain on public resources. My generation still has a great deal to offer. On reaching retirement age, we do not automatically become incapable. For example, it is estimated that in excess of 76,000 carers in Scotland are over 65, and 27,000 of them are over 85.

The fact that the Parliament has agreed to debate pensioner poverty is a small step in the right direction. At the same time, it is also an indictment of this and past Governments for failing to anticipate the present situation. Research by the Family Budget Unit recommends that a straightforward, across-the-board increase in the basic state pension from £77.45—which represents only 17 per cent of average United Kingdom earnings—to £160 a week, index-linked to earnings, would solve that problem and would eliminate the need for costly means testing. The money should be paid to men and women—the practice of giving 50 per cent to the spouse is unacceptable. A weekly payment of £160 equates to only £4 per hour for a 40-hour working week, which is less than the minimum wage, yet still I hear the cries of "impossible" and "impractical".

A university study arrived at £160 as being the absolute minimum that a pensioner would need simply to keep body and soul together. It would not allow for any luxuries whatever. Due to the low wage structure during their working life, the majority of today's pensioners simply could not afford to save for their retirement. The right to buy has meant that many thousands of council tenants are owner-occupiers, with the consequential demand to maintain their properties. On current pensioner income, such maintenance is not viable, resulting in a deterioration in pensioners' homes and an increase in the poor health of their inhabitants. There is insufficient affordable accommodation for rent for the numbers who require it. Sheltered housing caters for more than 34,000 pensioners, while nearly 16,500 amenity houses are provided by local authorities. Those figures represent 5.3 per cent of the pensioner population in Scotland. For private sheltered and retirement homes, of which in excess of 5,500 presently operate, the future is bleak, as can be observed by the recent and continuing closures due to inadequate funding.

Not all senior citizens are poverty stricken. Five per cent are very well-off, and 45 per cent are comfortable; it is the bottom 50 per cent that gives me cause for concern. The bottom 25 per cent live below the Government's poverty level. Fortunately for them, they receive council tax relief, rent relief and access to full pension credits, which, from 12 April, will give them £105.45 a week. Using the Government's own terms, they have been lifted from absolute poverty into relative poverty. The next 25 per cent of senior citizens are caught in a poverty trap. Their state pension, plus their works pension or savings, takes them to above the £139.10 threshold. They are on their own. They get no help from the state and are required to pay full council tax—the same amount as the house next door, which could easily have a household income well in excess of £1,000 a week.

The Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition deems the council tax a fair and equitable way for local authorities to raise their income. The coalition says that the system must be property-based to some degree. That is why I welcome the Scottish National Party's paper on local income tax, which is a mirror image of the Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party's election manifesto pledge. The problem and the solution are currently reserved to Westminster, yet the UK Government allocates only 5.1 per cent of its gross domestic product to pensions, and Gordon Brown has stated that that will fall to just over 4 per cent. The UK spends less on pensions than nearly every other country in Europe, and its projected spending will decrease when compared to hugely increasing commitments—nearly 16 per cent—by France and Germany.

Pensioner poverty is a fact of life. As politicians, it is our duty to relieve that iniquitous burden on those who have contributed so much to our well-being. Fiscal autonomy would give the Parliament the power to do that—the sooner it comes along, the better.

There was an interesting item in the newspaper yesterday. The Adam Smith Institute proposes a doubling of the pension, which would take it to roughly £155. The only thing that I do not agree with is its proposal to raise the pension age to 68.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that pensioner poverty must be eradicated.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

I call Mary Mulligan.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I will move the amendment formally and make comments after I have heard the debate.

I move amendment S2M-1020.3, to insert at end:

"and congratulates the Scottish Executive for closing the opportunity gap for Scotland's poorest pensioners; welcomes Executive policies that are helping pensioners to save money on heating their homes effectively, providing assistance with bus fares and continuing free personal and nursing care, and supports the Executive in encouraging pensioners to claim benefits that are rightfully theirs, such as council tax benefit, through the central heating programme, and through disseminating information to local authorities and old people's organisations."

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I welcome this morning's debate and thank John Swinburne for bringing such an important topic to the Parliament.

John Swinburne has already outlined some statistics, but the one that sticks in my mind is that one in five pensioners lives in poverty—a ridiculous and unacceptable situation in a country such as Scotland, which has so much potential and is so energy rich. However, to make those resources work for pensioners in Scotland, we need control over the real levers of power that can affect pensioner poverty, such as pensions, tax and benefits. Without that control we can only tinker at the edges of pensioner poverty, but with it we could do so much to tackle the real issues. The Parliament could begin to address those, such as restoring the link between pensions and average earnings. It is somewhat ironic that the Conservatives now want to restore that link, given that they broke it in the first place.

I suppose that the Conservatives are at least trying to make amends, which is more than Labour has done. Labour has well and truly ditched its manifesto commitment to restore the link between pensions and average earnings. The SNP will hold true to its commitment to restore that link, but the Parliament requires the powers to be able to do that. If the situation is not turned round, we will be heading for a pension crisis, with many more thousands of pensioners living in poverty. The situation will be made worse by the failure of the Pensions Bill at Westminster to give compensation to employees whose pension fund has collapsed—an opportunity well and truly missed.

As John Swinburne has already alluded to, another important issue that will impact on pensioner poverty is the abolition of the council tax. The council tax has been the bane of many pensioners' lives. Thousands of pensioners end up being caught in the poverty trap. They lose out on council tax rebates and have to pay full whack, perhaps because they took out an occupational pension. They thought that they were doing the right thing, but they have ended up being punished for that. We want to end that situation by abolishing the council tax and bringing in a local income tax that is based on the ability to pay.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

It is estimated that the council tax raises £1.8 billion and that the local income tax that the SNP proposes would raise only about £1.5 billion. How would the SNP address that shortfall? Would it further cut services to the very pensioners that it is trying to protect?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

The minister should read our policy for herself instead of believing the spin that comes out of her department. Our proposal would replace, penny for penny, the money that the council tax raises, but it is based on the ability to pay. That compares with a system that punishes pensioners. Our system would take half a million pensioners out of local taxation and help to end pensioner poverty—it would replace the unacceptable and indefensible council tax system, which the minister is obviously happy to try to defend. I look forward to hearing her defend it in her concluding remarks; her defence of it will be of great interest to Scottish pensioners.

I would like the Parliament to focus on ending pensioner poverty, but in order to do that we need powers over pensions, tax and the benefits system. When we have those powers I look forward to joining John Swinburne and doing something to end pensioner poverty.

I move amendment S2M-1020.2, to insert at end:

"and that this can only be achieved if the Parliament has a full range of powers including control over pensions, tax and the benefits system."

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I suspect that the reason why I was asked to open this debate for the Conservative group is that I am its youngest member and therefore the furthest away from retirement, so I could not be accused of having a partisan interest.

I am pleased that John Swinburne has given us the opportunity to debate pensioner poverty this morning. Despite the Executive's fine words and its usual self-congratulatory amendment, its record is not a happy one. Between 1997-98 and 2000-01, the number of pensioners in Scotland who live in households with less than 50 per cent of mean income rose from 170,000 to 180,000. That figure represents 20 per cent of all pensioners in Scotland. We know that free personal care is being underfunded, with gaps in certain areas, and that hospital waiting lists are getting longer in many cases. Health is a major consideration for older people, so those problems impact disproportionately on their quality of life. However, we cannot say that we are going to eradicate poverty, as Mr Swinburne's motion does, without proposing some measures for doing so. Our amendment seeks to do that.

We recognise that many of the issues that relate to pensioner poverty are reserved to Westminster. The Labour chancellor, Gordon Brown, has dramatically increased the use of means testing. According to the House of Commons library, when the pension credit began in the autumn, 59 per cent of pensioners were eligible for means-tested benefits. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has calculated that the proportion of pensioners on means-tested benefits is expected to grow to 73 per cent by 2025 and 82 per cent by 2050. As Mr Swinburne acknowledged in his opening comments, that extension of means testing brings its own problems. Many pensioners are reluctant to claim means-tested benefits as they regard it as demeaning to do so. Therefore, pensioners end up losing out and living in unnecessary poverty.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The member mentioned several statistics to back up his argument. Is he aware that it is estimated that only 52 per cent of pensioners claim pension credit, which means that the remaining 48 per cent, who are entitled to do so, do not claim it?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That is a fair point from Mr Rumbles.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Unusually.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

My colleague ungraciously said "Unusually", but I will not share in that comment.

We must reduce means testing and consider pensions being paid as of right. A higher basic state pension would be the single most effective weapon in helping to reduce pensioner poverty. That is why our colleagues at Westminster have a policy to re-establish the link between pensions and earnings, which would be of direct benefit to every pensioner in Scotland and the United Kingdom.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Will the member take an intervention?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am sorry. I am very short of time this morning.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

It is a tight debate.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As Mr Swinburne acknowledged, it is interesting that the Adam Smith Institute, the free-market think tank, said yesterday that it proposes a substantial increase in the state pension, albeit funded by an increase in the pension age, which we do not find quite so acceptable. Clearly, that increase has a cost, but it is generally acknowledged that it is much less desirable to have means-tested benefits than to have a basic state pension available to all.

The great majority of those who retire—some 90 per cent—do so with some sort of private or occupational pension. In the past few years, those sectors have been under constant attack from the Labour Government. A huge part of the problem was Gordon Brown's decision in his first budget to levy a £5 billion per year tax on pensions by abolishing dividend tax credits. The result of that was to make private pensions much less attractive and, accordingly, people are stopping saving for their retirement. When that is added to the increase in means testing, it is little wonder that the savings ratio is at an all-time low. The take-up of stakeholder pensions since their introduction has been poor. We must encourage people to start making provision for their old age again, and we must make it attractive for them to do so. Otherwise, pensioner poverty will continue to be a problem.

Fundamentally, we should not consider pensioner poverty in isolation from questions of the wider economy. It is only by having a strong and growing economy that we can provide wealth for all in our society, including our pensioners. Conservatives believe in a free economy with a light touch in the form of regulation and lower business taxes. That is the way to close the opportunity gap and to make our society wealthier, healthier and happier.

I move amendment S2M-1020.1, to insert at end:

"; acknowledges that the increases in means testing for pensioners introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, adversely affect many pensioners who are reluctant to claim the benefits to which they are entitled; supports the re-introduction of a link between pensions and earnings as proposed by the Conservative Party at Westminster, and recognises that a growing, dynamic economy through lower tax and regulation is the best way to address the problem of poverty for all, including pensioners."

John Farquhar Munro (Liberal Democrat, Ross, Skye and Inverness West)

I must declare an interest in the topic at the outset because, like many other people, I am a pensioner. I congratulate John Swinburne on bringing forward this debate on behalf of his party. The fact that the people of central Scotland decided to elect him to the Parliament is an indication of the importance of pensioner issues. Perhaps it is also an indication of the need for the Government to address pensioners' needs much more fully. In other parts of the world, the grey vote is given far greater priority than it is given in Scotland, but I hope and believe that political parties will recognise senior citizens' needs more fully in future. Should they not address pensioners' problems, it will be at their peril.

The figures that Mr Swinburne mentions in his motion are scandalous. It is estimated that more than 2,500 elderly people die each year because of cold-related illnesses. That is reprehensible—after all, we are living in the 21st century, not the 19th century. The motion is right to welcome the free central heating programme and I agree that more must be done to improve and expand the service. In my constituency, I have heard about too many cases in which a poor level of service has been given by those who are employed by the Eaga Partnership to carry out the work. Many people are kept waiting for a surveyor or for the work to be carried out. Pensioners are often told that a contractor or surveyor will turn up on a certain day, but they do not. That is disrespectful, to say the least, and it is frustrating for those who are waiting. In many cases, it will increase the feeling of helplessness and isolation that is often felt by those who are poor, old and vulnerable. I ask the minister to make representations on that issue to the Eaga Partnership after this morning's debate.

In rural parts of Scotland such as the Highlands, much of the problem with the delivery of the central heating programme stems from the lack of—

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Mr Munro, I think that you are beginning to stray into this morning's second debate.

John Farquhar Munro (Liberal Democrat, Ross, Skye and Inverness West)

The problem stems from the lack of skilled technicians to do the work. Like everywhere else in Scotland, there is a shortage of trained plumbers, electricians and carpenters. That problem cannot be addressed quickly or easily, and the Executive must give it further thought. It is a shame that such a positive programme has been marred by problems that could be solved. However, I give credit where credit is due, and the reports that have come back from those who have benefited from the central heating programme are positive.

I am sure that many speakers will mention another problem that pensioners face, which is how to pay their council tax, because many old people are on a fixed income and council tax increases affect them disproportionately. The Liberal Democrats, the socialists and now the SNP all support changing from the council tax to an income-based tax—a local income tax, which I, too, support. That is a fair tax, because it is based on the ability to pay. It will benefit not only pensioners, but all those who are on low incomes. I am confident that the independent review of local government finance will find that local income tax is the best option. Not only is it based on the ability to pay, but it maintains local accountability.

It is galling in this day and age, and in a new Scotland, that many pensioners cannot afford to pay vast tax bills when their pensions rise only by 2.9 per cent, while people who can afford to buy a second home receive an immediate 50 per cent discount on their council tax. That is not acceptable or fair.

I am sure that everybody realises that, as politicians, we will be judged on the level of provision that we secure for our senior citizens. We must all ensure that they can enjoy their years of retirement in comfort and dignity.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Time for the open debate is very tight. We have time only for a short speech from Mark Ballard.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

Like others, I congratulate John Swinburne on initiating the debate. Nobody should doubt the severity of pensioner poverty in Scotland. We should recognise that we need radical solutions to tackle the deep-seated and endemic problems. Such radical solutions to deal with our pension and tax systems can be achieved only when the Scottish Parliament has the power to implement them.

How will we lift pensioners out of poverty? What radical solutions do we need? One of the main problems is the non-integration of our tax system and our benefits system. I agree with Mike Rumbles and Murdo Fraser that having a means-tested benefits system for pensioners is a major problem. On top of that means-tested system are the complexities of the minimum income guarantee and other measures. It is no wonder that a huge number of pensioners do not take the benefits to which they are entitled, as Mike Rumbles said.

The radical solution that a Scottish Parliament with full powers should adopt is integration of the tax and benefits systems through the introduction of a citizens income that is available to all citizens who are over 18. A citizens income would give pensioners and others in society the flexibility to continue to work, to retire or to use the savings that they have accrued over a lifetime of work without the fear that means testing would reduce or eliminate their savings. A citizens income that was available to all citizens would allow pensioners who wish to retire early to do so. Why do we need an arbitrary retirement age of 60 or 65? Some people want to retire earlier and some, like John Farquhar Munro and John Swinburne, wish to continue to make a contribution to society by working hard.

Such a measure should be supported. A citizens income would guarantee that we lifted pensioners out of poverty while enabling them to enjoy their savings and allowing those who wish to continue to work to do so. We should be mindful of the contribution that all in society can make and we should be grateful for the work that pensioners have done and are doing. We should ensure that they do not suffer poverty as they enjoy their old age. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

That brings us to winding-up speeches.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I will speak about the latest stealth tax that has been imposed on pensioners in the Highlands. They are being forced to pay for chiropody care that they received for free in the past. Conservatives believe that if people pay their taxes and wish to pay for private treatment, that is their choice. However, we do not believe that people should be forced to go private when no regard is had to ability to pay.

In the past two years, NHS Highland has reviewed chiropody care. That has resulted in cuts in chiropody care for people who are in care homes; for people who have Alzheimer's disease and cannot state their needs or communicate their pain; for elderly people who have diabetes; for people who are registered blind; and for people who have arthritis and cannot even hold scissors, who are told that they must take care of their own foot care. Many people have been removed from the treatment list and the number of appointments for those who receive chiropody care has been halved at best.

I commend Alex Bochel of Nairn, who was 82 this week. Many elderly people feel very vulnerable and do not wish to speak out, because they are frightened that they might be picked on. They are frightened of going back to the NHS as they feel that they might be victimised.

Another war veteran—a Normandy veteran—came along to my surgery in Nairn this week. Like Alex Bochel, he has worked all his life. He fought in the war and paid his taxes and national insurance. He desperately needs chiropody care to be mobile and independent; to prevent him from falling; to save the health service from providing him with community care; and to reduce the need for him to receive NHS acute care in hospital. Nairn is a very social place and offers a good life for those who play bridge and golf. That gentleman told me that in one week, he had spoken to about 50 people who have had their chiropody care cut or have been removed from the list altogether. He said that they are being forced to go private, irrespective of their ability to pay.

Mark Ballard talked about radical solutions. NHS Highland came up with a radical solution for that gentleman. In the vein of Marie Antoinette, it was suggested that he and his friends should have a party. He was told, "Never mind bringing your own bottle. Why don't you all bring your own toenail-clippers?" That shows the arrogance and complacence in NHS Highland's treatment of elderly people. I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and to describe the respect that the Executive has for our war veterans and many others. It asks people who have Alzheimer's disease or diabetes, who are registered blind or who have arthritis to have a toenail-clipping party. That must be the height of arrogance, complacence and heartlessness. The fact that NHS boards are being forced down that road reflects much of the Lib-Lab Executive's direction.

I thought that I had two minutes for my speech, but I was given four minutes, so I will finish early.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Like many others, I congratulate John Swinburne on initiating not only this debate, but the subsequent debate, because they concern important issues. I share deeply the concerns that he described in his speech. I have been involved in such issues for about three decades, having been the Scottish National Party's social security and pensions spokesperson at Westminster. I assure members that understanding social security and pensions legislation is not an easy task.

Many of the forms that are presented to our population are complex and people find them very difficult. We must remember that demographic changes in our society mean that not every pensioner has close at hand a loyal member of the family to assist them with those complexities. As it is a reserved matter, one issue that Westminster should deal with is simplification of the forms that are presented to our elderly population.

It is amazing how much money the Treasury saves from the lack of take-up of the benefits that are available to our pensioner population. People do not fill in the forms because they are so complex. Another factor is the attitude of a generation that believes strongly in the concept of independence.

I remember my brother and I trying to persuade my mother, when she had been widowed, that she should apply for housing benefit from the council. However, she said that she did not want charity. The only way in which we could persuade her to apply for housing benefit was to take along our pay slips and say, "See these deductions, mum? That is our contribution to looking after people such as you. This is not charity—people like us are working and are willing to support you." As members of the Scottish Parliament, we can only advise and provide information to pensioners. I hope that in her response to the debate the minister will say what representations she is making to the Executive's pal Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the streamlining of the social security system.

It is amazing that Murdo Fraser, of all people, should have spoken about the breaking of the link between pensions and earnings. Somewhere in the grey recesses of his mind must be the knowledge that the link was broken by a Conservative Government. He should not argue the case in the way that he did when the problem is the Conservatives' fault.

I look forward to hearing what the Liberal Democrats will say about fuel poverty, as we have heard part of it already. However, as we know, last year John Farquhar Munro received the award for being the free spirit of the year. He said that the SNP now supports the introduction of a local income tax. I have been a member of the party since 1966 and believe without hesitation that the introduction of a local income tax has been our policy since that time. It has taken some of the other parties a wee bit longer to wake up to it. We have always believed that taxation should be based on the ability to pay. Fergus Ewing and I live in Lossiemouth, where we are surrounded by a small community. Nearly all our neighbours are widows or widowers, but we are all in the same council tax band. Our household has two salaries coming in, but other people do not have that luxury. For me, ability to pay is critical.

Pensioners are a great asset to Scotland and to our communities. As grandparents and great-grandparents, they help with our children. They deserve our respect and to be involved in our society. A bus pass does not mean redundancy from life and a pension is not a passport to oblivion.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I welcome the opportunity to speak this morning on this issue and I am glad that John Swinburne chose it for debate.

The Executive is delivering changes that are making a real difference to our older people; they are reducing poverty among older people and improving their quality of life. Since 1997, 80,000 pensioners—almost a third of pensioner households—have been taken out of relative poverty. More than 170,000 pensioners—more than two thirds of pensioner households—have been lifted out of absolute poverty. Those are real improvements that are making a real difference to the lives of the poorest pensioners. On average, Scottish pensioner households are £1,400 a year better off as a result of measures that have been introduced since 1997.

How have we made that progress? A number of initiatives have been introduced and actions taken. There have been above-inflation increases to the basic state pension, and a new pension credit that ensures a minimum income for all pensioners and rewards those who have saved has been introduced. More than 200,000 pensioner households in Scotland have claimed the credit so far and uptake continues to increase. I say to Mike Rumbles that the introduction of the credit has been deliberately phased. However, no one will lose out on their entitlement, even if they are in the later stages of phasing. I hope that that reassures him that pensioners will not lose out.

The winter fuel payment is a £200 payment that is made to all people of pension age. In the winter of 2004, the UK Parliament increased the payment by £100 for the over-80s. Free TV licences have been introduced for the over-75s and fuel tax has been cut from 8 per cent to 5 per cent. That tax was introduced by the Tories, who tried—fortunately unsuccessfully—to increase it to 17.5 per cent. What effect would that have had on our pensioners?

The Executive will continue to ensure that all pensioners claim their full entitlement to benefits. Because we listen to them, we know that poverty is not just about income.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

Will the minister acknowledge that this year the Executive will claw back £259 million in Scotland because of means testing? In the United Kingdom, the figure is a massive £2.56 billion. Does she acknowledge that as long as there is means testing, there is no way the Executive can deliver what it wishes to deliver? The forms are too convoluted and complicated.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I will come on to form filling and how we can assist with that. Through means testing, we are able to tackle the problems of the poorest, the most vulnerable and the neediest first and because we live in the real world and have limited budgets, it is important that we address first the needs of those who are most in need.

We listen, and the partnership agreement tries to respond to issues that we have heard about. The agreement commits us to reducing fuel poverty further and to extending our central heating programme and the warm deal, with initial focus being on the over-80s. We will introduce free local off-peak bus travel for all pensioners, which will benefit more than 1 million disabled and elderly people throughout Scotland.

We have already introduced free personal care and nursing care. By the end of 2006, we will have committed £450 million to the scheme since it began. However, we still hear criticisms from the likes of Murdo Fraser. I say to Mr Fraser that, had we been in the economic situation in which the Conservatives left us in 1997, we would not have been able to introduce the scheme.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister give way?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

No—I do not have time.

We will continue to invest £30 million a year for three years to tackle the problem of delayed discharge and we will provide 1,000 community and convalescent care places for people leaving hospital. I say without hesitation that we are reducing pensioner poverty, providing public services for pensioners and improving the lives of older people, but we know that we need to consider complex solutions.

Yesterday we had an excellent debate about issues relating to antisocial behaviour; we know that older people can be affected disproportionately by the sense of fear and alarm that antisocial behaviour causes. That is why we are building respect in our communities. We want to ensure that people of all ages have a decent quality of life. Through the supporting people programme and the quality of life initiative, local authorities are providing about £290 million of extra services to older people in their homes, which enables them to remain independent in their communities. The services include community care-and-repair schemes, housing adaptations, sheltered housing wardens and installation of security devices.

I return to the point that John Swinburne made. I am aware that people sometimes have difficulty claiming benefits. It has been brought to our attention that provision of assistance and advice would be valuable in ensuring that people are able to claim what they are entitled to. Today I am delighted to announce that we are providing £125,000 to Age Concern Scotland, with the aim of giving better information and advice to older people. Age Concern Scotland will develop a consortium-led approach, working with a range of organisations—including older people's organisations—to get for older people the answers that they need as quickly and easily as possible.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The minister has mentioned £125,000 that will be given to Age Concern Scotland, which all members welcome. Has an assessment been made of how many people the money will affect?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I do not have those figures at the moment, but we have made a start on developing an advice and assistance service that will respond to the needs of the people to whom Mrs Ewing referred in her speech. It is important that we get it across to people that benefits exist as their entitlement, that benefits do not represent charity and that people should claim what is available.

Pensioners do not make up a homogeneous group and their needs are diverse. The Executive is tackling pensioner poverty and we are improving the lives of older people who need it most. Through UK Government policies, we are delivering real reductions in poverty. We are increasing incomes and investing in and reforming public services that pensioners in Scotland need through a range of targeted and universal services. We have always recognised that it might take time to bring about change, but we will bring change. We acknowledge that we still have much to do, but it is our ambition that pensioners will live in a Scotland in which everyone matters.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I will set the context for the debate—we are the Scottish Parliament in lobbying mode. We cannot do anything about getting fair pensions because we do not have that power, but I suspect that we will hear less about our lack of power in that respect than we heard yesterday about our shameful lack of power as regards the three men who are dying in Glasgow.

In exercising Parliament's power as a lobbyist, we have to persuade Gordon Brown that he is taking the wrong tack. I say that regretfully because I accept much of what the minister said about the improvements to the lives of perhaps 50 per cent of UK pensioners since the Government changed. However, that is not enough—what about the other 50 per cent? Let us not forget the figures that John Swinburne produced—50 per cent of pensioners' income is below the level that we consider to be reasonable and acceptable in this day and age, and 25 per cent live in real poverty.

The minister cannot defend the current system: she can defend what the devolved Scottish Executive has tried to do to ameliorate the shortcomings of the present system, but it is not enough. Until the Scottish Parliament exercises sovereignty over a combined tax and monetary policy, we will not get things right. We must harmonise our tax system with our benefits and if we do not, we will only ever be putting a sticking plaster over the wounds that John Swinburne's speech exposed.

We should accept that pension levels are not an argument in favour of fiscal and monetary union with England. As well as lobbying for the pensioners who are suffering today—in particular the 25 per cent of them who concern Mary Mulligan as much as they concern me—we should also be looking wider, longer and broader. We should look to see how we can harmonise our tax system with our benefits system.

I commend to the minister the Pensions Policy Institute report that was published only yesterday. It draws on experience from New Zealand, where there is no attempt to target, or to differentiate between, pensioners. Every pensioner in New Zealand, depending simply on their age, is paid the set, basic state pension. It is obvious that some people make private arrangements and will therefore have an income that might comprise the state pension plus their private pension, on which they will be taxed. Therefore, rich pensioners pay more and poor pensioners who either do not have private savings or who have much smaller private savings pay less in tax. That seems to be a much more equitable system. I say with all due respect that if the Tories were able to forget the idea of trying to induce people to save, they could adopt the New Zealand policy, too. It would be much simpler to administer and would not involve the 39 pages of form filling that is currently required if people want to claim their entitlements.

What can we do to improve the quality of Scottish pensioners' lives? We know that we cannot do much about their basic pension at the moment. We have tried and I commend the Executive for that, but we could do more. To do more, we must ensure that local authorities are given more money than they have at present to operate, for example, free exercise schemes. Now that I have won my campaign to get physical education teachers into schools, I warn the minister that I am going for the golden oldies. I want proper exercise facilities and regimes in place at local level—depending on local facilities— and I want them to be funded and free for pensioners.

Television is an absolute requirement for providing information and advice in today's world. When one gets to be over 75—a lot older than I am, anyway—one can have a free television licence. For goodness' sake, why cannot people get a free television licence when they stop working? I do not see why there should not be free licences for those who are not working because that aspect should also be brought to bear on the judgment.

The Government's policy of targeting the poorest people is not working. If it were, we would not be having the debate today. The Executive has to be much more universal in its approach to benefits and it must use the time-honoured system of clawing back through the taxation system from people who can afford to pay their way. All sorts of notional payments can be levied from local and national services, but I will not go into that now. I would like to bang the drum for local authorities to be given much more freedom to ensure that older people make full use of existing services. I assure the minister that, if she went right now to the Edinburgh royal Commonwealth pool—where I should be instead of here—she would meet many ladies of my age, all of whom exercise two or three times a week in the pool. The pool is open to swimmers anyway, so it would not lose out on the paltry sum that we pay because we are not paying an economically viable sum anyway. I want free exercise to be available.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

If Margo MacDonald went to my constituency in West Lothian, she would be able to go swimming for free. Does she accept that local authorities should be given the right to make decisions on such issues?

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I agree totally. Local authorities should have that freedom, but they also need the money. Although you could not get me out of Edinburgh with a knife and fork, Presiding Officer, I pay tribute to West Lothian and what it has tried to do. However, because of the financial structures of leisure services here, the City of Edinburgh Council cannot do the same at present, although I want it to be able to do so.

We also have to consider the part that health boards play in enhancing or diminishing the quality of life for older people. Mary Scanlon's story about chiropody in the Highlands was absolutely scandalous. I realise that we in the Scottish Parliament do not give order to such matters according to budget alone, but elderly people should not pay for chiropody—it is part and parcel of keeping them up and going and ensuring that they contribute to the economy so that they are not a drain on health services. I ask the minister to take seriously what Mary Scanlon said.

I conclusion, I ask the minister to use her influence—I realise that she does not have the power—to open a debate with the chancellor and the Government at Westminster on a flat-rate pension that would allow every old person to retire in dignity and comfort.

Winter Cold-related Deaths

George Reid (None, Ochil)

We move to the second short debate of the morning, which is a debate on motion S2M-1021, in the name of John Swinburne, on winter cold-related deaths and two amendments to the motion. I invite those members who wish to contribute to the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

I thank you again this morning, Presiding Officer. Many serious issues badly affect the people I represent, but I am most conscious of the growing number of senior citizens and vulnerable members of our society who die each year from cold-related illnesses. Every winter, thousands of early deaths and extra hospital admissions occur because older people cannot afford to heat their homes adequately.

During the winter of 2002-03, the number of deaths that were caused by cold-related illnesses rose by 700 to 2,510 and in the years from 1997 to 2002, Scotland registered 16,600 excess deaths of people over 65 in the winter months of December to March. The death toll is comparable to that in 10 major air disasters, yet there has been no comparable response from the Government. Is not it disgraceful that pensioners are more likely to die of cold in Scotland than they are in Finland, Canada, Norway and even Siberia, where temperatures can plunge to -32°C?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I recognise that Mr Swinburne is trying to imply that pensioners in Scotland are more likely to die because of the cold, but he must accept that there are more complex reasons for the figures. If we consider the mortality figures, we see that the figures in Scotland are very similar to those of Italy, Spain and Portugal, which are not particularly cold.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

I believe that those figures are due to excessive wine drinking in those hot countries, but I assure the minister that the cold kills people in Scotland.

Recent research by Energy Action Scotland and the University of Strathclyde showed that excess winter deaths correlate to multiple deprivation. The researchers concluded that the majority of such deaths are premature and could be prevented if the elderly could be kept warm in their houses in the winter months. It would therefore be churlish not to acknowledge the excellent pledge that the Scottish Executive made in 2001, when it allocated £350 million to install central heating systems in an identified 141,000 houses in Scotland—I am sorry to present members with so many statistics, but facts are chiels that winna ding, as Rabbie said.

The central heating programme is an excellent scheme on paper, and would be excellent in reality if it were fully implemented. However, since the launch of the initiative, it has been difficult to determine the numbers, costs and completion dates of installations. In a recent reply to a written question that I asked, the Deputy Minister for Communities indicated that only 39,520 households had had central heating systems installed.

From what I can glean, some £108 million has been spent to date on the programme. Completion dates for installation are reminiscent of those for the Holyrood building project, as dates range from 2004 to perhaps as far ahead as 2007. That means that, by 2004, heating systems will have been installed in 28 per cent of the houses that were originally identified, at a cost that will represent 38 per cent of the original budget. I am aware that some applicants for central heating systems do not qualify under the programme, but I cannot believe that 72 per cent of the houses that were originally identified are ineligible. In December, Communities Scotland stated that the Scottish Executive had lowered its targets. I cannot accept the Executive's stance, given that there was an excessive number of winter deaths last year and that that trend is likely to continue.

I receive letters constantly from senior citizens throughout Scotland whose applications for central heating have been turned down on the ground that the authorities believe that their homes are already adequately heated. The Executive might think that one open fire—or gas or electric fire—and a 42-year-old electric storage heater represent an adequate heating system, but I do not and nor do the pensioners who are forced to live in the one room in their home that has any source of heat.

Energy Action Scotland and Age Concern Scotland have stated that the central heating programme should be extended to target frail elderly people in harder-to-reach households. I think that the Executive has acknowledged that and is doing something about it and I am delighted to hear that. Energy Action Scotland and Age Concern Scotland have also called for the extension of the grants programme for people in the private sector who have partial central heating. I support those calls for an immediate extension to the programme. It is imperative that the Executive tell members clearly and precisely the number of households in which free central heating systems will be installed, above the 39,520 that have already been identified. It is important that the central heating initiative continue and be expanded in order to prevent unnecessary deaths.

Winter fuel payments must be better promoted and the Executive's fuel poverty forum should intensify its efforts to ensure that the main energy companies use the priority service register to target people who are fuel poor. Fuel poverty can be eradicated by more efficient insulation and heating systems.

Energy costs are another factor. Despite the fact that Scotland is 2°C colder than England, our death rate from hypothermia is three times that of England. The report into comparative energy costs by the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets showed that household costs are approximately £22 per year higher in Scotland. There were 458 disconnections in the first half of 2003, compared with 218 in the whole of 2002. For many people, disconnecting their energy supply is like shutting down their life-support system. I am seriously concerned that the problem will be exacerbated as energy prices continue to rise, and that there will be more disconnections as pensioners increasingly struggle to pay their fuel bills. Pre-payment meters undo all the good of Scottish Power's moratorium on disconnecting power to pensioners between October and March, because if a pensioner cannot afford a pre-payment electricity card, their supply is automatically cut off. That needs urgent attention.

I ask members to examine their consciences and to help my party to promote an extension of the central heating programme, which is an exceptionally good and worthwhile initiative.

I move,

That the Parliament notes with extreme concern recent figures that show that there were 2,510 deaths from cold-related illnesses during the winter of 2002-03, the majority of those being elderly people, an increase of nearly 700; condemns such statistics as reprehensible in Scotland in the 21st century, and, while welcoming the Scottish Executive's free central heating programme, recognises that the delivery of such programmes must be improved and extended to reach all senior citizens in need as soon as possible.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I move amendment S2M-1021.2, to leave out from "with extreme concern" to end and insert:

"the recent figures on winter cold-related deaths; recognises the decrease by half in the number of fuel-poor households in Scotland; welcomes the Scottish Executive's extension of the central heating programme to upgrade or replace partial or inefficient central heating systems for the over-80s in the private sector, and reaffirms the commitment to eradicate fuel poverty as far as reasonably practicable by 2016 thereby combating the threat of winter cold-related deaths."

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank John Swinburne for bringing this important debate to the Parliament. The subject is exceptionally close to my heart; I think that I have spoken in every debate on fuel poverty in the Parliament since 1999. On behalf of the Scottish National Party, I also thank Margaret Ewing for the work that she has done over three decades, both in this Parliament and at Westminster, to ensure that fuel poverty is on the political agenda.

Excess winter deaths are calculated by comparing overall mortality statistics in the period from December to March with average death rates in the previous and subsequent four-month periods. The figures for excess winter deaths in Scotland are a disgrace to a civilised country. Every winter, what can best be described as a cull of elderly people takes place. It is important to remember that we are not talking about statistics; we are talking about people. Of course, the death certificates do not say, "Died of hypothermia" or "Died of cold", but that is why those people have died. Stirling Howieson, of the University of Strathclyde, says:

"These additional winter deaths are mainly in the elderly population and about 90 per cent are registered under heart, stroke and respiratory diseases, all of which are known to be exacerbated by cold living conditions. These deaths are essentially preventable if the elderly live in warm, dry homes."

That is the challenge for all of us. When we talk about excess winter deaths, it is important to remember that warm, dry homes will prevent those deaths.

As John Swinburne rightly said, between 1997 and 2002, Scotland registered 16,600 excess winter deaths among the over-65s in the period from December to March. However, we do not need research to tell us that; we just need to read the columns upon columns of death notices in our local newspapers in winter.

Why do people die of cold in winter in fuel-rich Scotland? We do not have particularly harsh winters; Sweden, Germany, Finland and even Siberia have harsher winters but fewer excess winter deaths than Scotland. All those countries, however, have higher standards of housing and a better quality of life.

I am grateful to Energy Action Scotland for its continuing work on fuel poverty. Fuel poverty is age related. Some 31 per cent of people over 75 are officially fuel poor, compared with only 5 per cent of people who are aged between 25 and 39. That is why today's debate is so important. The Government claims—and the minister claimed earlier—that the causes of excess winter deaths are complex and uncertain. However, there is consensus that poor heating and insulation and low income are the major factors.

The amount of money that it takes to heat a house varies considerably in different parts of the United Kingdom. It costs 41 per cent more to heat a house in Aberdeen, and 28 per cent more in Edinburgh, than it does in Bristol, yet the pension is the same wherever people live in the United Kingdom. I acknowledge that the Executive has made strides forward with the central heating programme, but that is only one part of the equation in tackling fuel poverty.

In a recent debate, the Executive claimed that the number of people in fuel poverty had decreased; that claim is replicated in the Executive's amendment today. During that debate in December, I pointed out that the central heating programme was only one aspect and that we had to take into account household income and fuel prices. Within a week, fuel prices in Scotland went up: Scottish Gas put up gas prices by 5.9 per cent. I asked the Executive in a written question what impact that 5.9 per cent increase would have on the number of people in fuel poverty. The answer began:

"The information requested could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 13 January 2004; S2W-4886.]

I acknowledge that the Executive has made strides forward, but let us not pretend that the central heating programme is a panacea. We can eradicate fuel poverty but we have to be able to support income and pension levels. Excess winter deaths are caused by poverty. We need to tackle poverty, and this Parliament needs the power to do so.

I move amendment S2M-1021.1, to insert at end:

"and that fuel poverty in Scotland will not be eradicated until the Parliament has the full range of powers, including control over the pension and benefit system."

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I congratulate John Swinburne on bringing these debates to the chamber this morning. Whether we like it or not, our population is aging; we must show respect to those who, without necessarily seeing much gain for themselves, have made life for us as easy as it has been.

One thing that jumps out from the statistics is that the incidence of winter deaths is rising faster than the increase in the age of the population. We have to consider the factors that have caused that. They fall into four main categories—heating, nutrition, health and wealth. Dealing with a combination of all four of those factors may help to solve the problem.

The Eaga Partnership's website states clearly that the central heating programme contains no provisions for the upgrading of existing inefficient systems. In our surgeries, we have all heard people saying, "The radiators are there but the boiler's inefficient. I'm told it's only got 20 per cent efficiency but I can't get a new one." In her amendment, the minister talks about upgrading systems "for the over-80s". In general, would it not be simpler to use heating systems that are already in place, because it would cost less to upgrade existing systems that are not working or are inefficient? Upgrading such systems might encourage people to use them.

When my mother was quite elderly and getting close to her death, we put her into a new house and I put in central heating for her. She wanted to turn it all off because of an instinctive desire not to waste money or heat. I had to get an engineer to put pins in all the thermostats so that there was a minimum temperature in the different rooms. Bless her—she never caught on to that. We knew then that she would at least get heat.

The biggest contributor to affordable fuel was the privatisation by the Conservative Government of the utilities. Reports by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and by UK Energy point out that privatisation reduced domestic energy costs in real terms by 18 to 20 per cent for electricity and about 16 per cent for gas. Power became more affordable. The next stage will be to get people to be more fuel efficient in their homes.

The Labour-Liberal Government in Scotland had a target in 1999 to eliminate fuel poverty by 2007. The Government has now been more realistic and has moved that target to 2016. I am not castigating the minister for that change, which simply reflects reality. However, we now have to say that that is the final cut-off date. We must have no more extensions, because we can all work towards the 2016 target.

The Conservatives had a home energy efficiency scheme that has rolled on into the warm deal. I congratulate the Labour Party on taking up where we left off in 1997. That has to be welcomed.

I turn now to health issues. Bedblocking is a huge problem and care homes are underfunded, so some people have nowhere to go and have to stay in their own homes. The NHS Quality Improvement Scotland report in February 2004 says that many people in hospital should not be there and that less than a quarter of trusts are achieving admission within two hours of someone being seen at an accident and emergency department. We have to consider such points.

We need to offer regular, pre-winter health checks to elderly people, to ensure that their health is properly assessed before winter starts. People at risk need to have regular checks, whether by means of phone calls or by means of people knocking on their doors. We must encourage good neighbourhood schemes to support people and keep a watchful eye on them. Following on from what Margo MacDonald said this morning, I believe that community facilities and luncheon clubs—and the transport that goes with them—help to keep people alert and awake.

We have not mentioned carers at all this morning. I hope that the minister will say how we can help them to look after the elderly.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

This is one issue on which the Executive at least has a pass mark. As always, the report could say, "Could do better," but, in the previous session of Parliament and in this one, the Executive has genuinely tried to address the problem of cold affecting old people.

The coldest that I have ever been was when I was a wee boy, in the very severe winter of about 1940. At school, we were sent for a brisk walk in the first period every day so that we got mildly warm, the school had time to warm up a wee bit and, in particular, the ink in the old-fashioned inkwells had time to unfreeze. I have not been so cold since, but cold is a serious problem for many elderly people and we have to address it.

Three issues arise. First, there is a good insulation programme for houses to prevent loss of heat, but more effort could be put into it. In Scotland, we have a great many well-built old houses but, unfortunately, they were built in the days before central heating and many of them still do not have proper heating systems or insulation. Our ancestors put up with draughts much more than we are able to.

Secondly, after the second world war, we built many houses that, to be quite honest, are rubbish. We are still dealing with the resultant problems. In respect of insulation, our houses are much worse built than are Scandinavian houses, for example. More effort has to go into our work on insulation and central heating. As others have said, we have to get systems delivered locally. Bureaucracy must not get in the way. We have to improve existing central heating systems as well as putting in entirely new ones. The minister and her predecessors can take credit for doing quite a lot, but more could still be done.

The third issue is income and the cost of fuel. Some issues are not within the control of this Parliament but we could still address them better. There would be no point in giving every household in Scotland a motor car when half those households could not afford the petrol to run it. We have to consider people's income as well as providing a central heating system or other method of heating.

In the earlier debate this morning, pensioners' income, or lack of it, was discussed. Most such matters are reserved to Westminster. However, we could consider how we can help those who have received the benefit of central heating. We could perhaps subsidise their fuel payments. Intelligent government must be able to find some way round things, to crack the system and thus ensure that more old people benefit from the things that we have done for them or that they have done for themselves. People should be able to afford decent heating, because that is an integral part of life. The older we get, the more we need it. I commend the Executive for what it has done so far, but there are issues on which we can improve.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am afraid that there is no time to call anyone in the open debate, so I call the minister to respond.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

Excess winter deaths are a serious issue and I welcome the opportunity to discuss the matter again following our debate in November. The issue is not simply about living in a cold climate or in a poor house. We are doing our utmost to tackle the causes of cold-related and increasing death rates. Pensioners' incomes are being increased and we are improving people's homes. We know that we are having some success. Fuel poverty figures have plummeted since 1996—they are down by more than a half—and we are meeting all our warm deal insulation programme and central heating programme targets.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister not acknowledge, even at this stage, that fuel poverty relates to three things: house conditions, household income and fuel prices? Fuel prices were held steady for a long time and that helped in no small way to bring down fuel poverty levels. A 5.9 per cent increase in fuel bills inevitably means that the number of people in fuel poverty will increase. The central heating programme has had an impact, but not the kind of impact that the minister is trying to suggest that it has had.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

The programme has indeed had an impact. I will come to the issues that Tricia Marwick raises, but, as she has intervened, I should refer to what she said earlier about a lack of information on fuel price rises. We did not have the figures when she wrote, but in our response in the fuel poverty debate later in the session we will try to bring together figures that will show the impact of fuel price increases.

We are not complacent about the impact that the central heating programme has had. We know that we must remain vigilant and that, although some of the easy-to-treat homes have been treated, we will be challenged by the expensive-to-treat homes. We know that some people need a higher income or cheaper fuel. We encourage people to find out whether they are getting all the benefits and tax credits to which they are entitled and we encourage them to switch fuels or suppliers if they can get a cheaper deal.

The central heating and warm deal programmes are making significant inroads to eradicate fuel poverty. Cold and damp housing can have serious health implications. The benefits of those programmes ensure that the most vulnerable households have warmer homes and lower fuel bills.

The central heating programme started in 2001. Since then, we have installed 31,730 central heating systems. Homes now benefit from central heating where none previously existed. Our warm deal programme also provides the most vulnerable with a package of measures to help to insulate their homes. In the current year, we expect approximately 30,000 homes to benefit from those insulation measures. So far, we have insulated more than 180,000 homes.

In the fuel poverty debate in November, the Minister for Communities said that she was concerned about the high number of disconnections. Since then, she has raised that issue with the energy companies. Last week, I was pleased to see that the disconnection figures for the last quarter of 2003 were significantly down on the figures for the previous quarters. I agree with John Swinburne that we must encourage pensioners to register on the priority services register for added protection.

The cumulative effect of our measures and actions is that a substantial number of people now benefit from warm and comfortable homes. A sign of a civilised society is that it looks after its elderly citizens and our achievements illustrate our commitment to, and the importance that we place on, the health and welfare of our senior citizens.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

Much of what has been said has been illuminating. I do not in any way disparage the Executive's excellent central heating scheme, which is absolutely marvellous. We know many recipients of the scheme who are enjoying its benefits. However, the scheme does not quite go far enough or fast enough. Tricia Marwick mentioned rises in fuel prices. I know people who have had central heating systems installed in their homes but who cannot afford to turn them on. That is wrong. There is bound to be some way in which we can enhance their living standards by considering that problem.

David Davidson's contribution to the debate was excellent. He mentioned the over-80s. The chancellor is looking after them, you know. Only last week, I received a form that told me about my pension. A little footnote said that, when I reach 80, my pension will automatically be increased by 25p. The increase does not need to be applied for and there is no means testing. I do not know what I will do with that 25p. If I give it to any of my grandchildren as pocket money, they will laugh at me. Perhaps I will save it up and buy a stamp or something like that with it, once the money accumulates.

Donald Gorrie took me back down memory lane. I, too, have been in school when the inkwells have frozen up. We would be taken outside for a class ramble until the inkwells thawed out and a fire heated up the room.

Mary Mulligan made a genuine defence of the excellent central heating programme. The fact that the figures are rising is interesting. I know that she will take on board my point that we are not doing enough fast enough. Unfortunately, everything is not in the Executive's control. Some councils are doing excellent work, but other councils are dragging their feet. I mentioned earlier a gentleman who wrote to me saying that he had three electric storage heaters that were manufactured in 1965. If he put them on, he would go bankrupt trying to keep them going—the meter would start going round.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

Does the member accept that all local authorities will have completed the installation of central heating systems this year? If anybody in their stock does not have a system, that will be because they are not aware of the programme. We need to advertise the service to ensure that people come forward. The issue is not that people are being ignored, but that people do not know about the systems.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

I say to the minister that the figures do not add up. We can locate only 39,520 homes that have had central heating installed in them, but 141,000 homes were originally identified as requiring central heating installation. The figures do not equate. There is a huge disparity.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

That is because the figure that we used initially was from the 1996 house condition survey. During the period from 1996 to 2001, when the programme started, a large number of local authorities installed central heating. That is why the figure came down.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

That is one explanation that we can look into further. However, it does not solve the problem that 141,000 houses required upgrading and only around 40,000 have been upgraded. There is something amiss.

The debate has been interesting. It is good that, for once, my generation is in the forefront. We are a quarter of the electorate. If a quarter of the electorate are ignored, they can ignore people when it comes to putting a big cross on the ballot paper.

Council Tax

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-984, in the name of Tommy Sheridan, on the council tax, and one amendment to the motion.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

It is right and fitting to debate such important issues in the chamber this morning. We have just debated pensioner poverty and the scandal of winter cold-related deaths. We will now debate the council tax and the just case of Scotland's nursery nurses, about which my colleagues Frances Curran and Carolyn Leckie will say more. I simply say that it is a fact of life that the majority of poor pensioners are women. That is because women have been low paid for longer in their lives. Scotland's nursery nurse work force predominantly consists of women. They are fighting the scandal of low pay and deserve 100 per cent support from the people of Scotland.

Another major factor that contributes to pensioner poverty is the unfair Tory council tax, which, in the past 10 years, has increased by 80 per cent. The council tax was introduced as a knee-jerk measure by the last Tory Government to try to save its skin after the poll tax rebellion. Ten years on, we have a tax that pampers the well paid and the wealthy, but punishes the pensioner household and the ordinary worker. The company director whose income is 100 times that of one of his employees will only pay a maximum of three times more in council tax. Millions of households throughout Scotland—particularly pensioner households, but also working households—can now hardly afford to pay the rising council tax bills. They are having to sacrifice other items, such as holidays, clothes and decorating their homes; because of the council tax, families are having to sacrifice things that many of us take for granted.

Today's debate is not about alternatives to the council tax. In that respect, I applaud the Scottish National Party for not lodging an amendment to the motion. We in the Scottish Socialist Party have our proposal, the Lib Dems have their proposal, the SNP has its proposal and the Greens have their proposal. There is no doubt that there is time and a need to debate the alternatives. We believe in an income-based alternative. Whether our scheme is better than those of the Lib Dems or the SNP, time will tell, but today's debate is about whether members agree that the council tax should be scrapped. We are asking members today to agree that the council tax should be replaced with an income-based alternative, not that it should be replaced with any particular income-based alternative. I expect the Tory party to vote to defend its scheme, which is unfair and which punishes pensioners and the ordinary worker.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Does Tommy Sheridan agree that a parliament is differentiated from an assembly by its ability to raise finance? Of course we could use the 3p tax-varying power to fund things such as free school meals, but that power is a blunt instrument. Income-based local taxation would ensure that there is progressive taxation and redistribution and it would allow the real problems of poverty and deprivation to be tackled. However, does he welcome the review that has been called for, to which we can all submit our comments?

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I welcome both those points. First, I welcome the fact that it is recognised that with an income-based tax we will redistribute wealth in Scotland—we will tax the wealthy and the well paid more and the pensioner and the ordinary worker less. Secondly, I welcome the idea of a local government finance review. The only problem is that, nine months after the commitment was made, we still do not have the review.

The people of Scotland can wait no longer, which is why we are asking members today to unite around the single issue that the council tax should go. Let us contribute to the review as it takes place, but let us at least unite today to ditch the Tory council tax and send some relief to Scotland's millions of pensioners and ordinary workers.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the council tax should be abolished and replaced with an income-based alternative.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I move amendment S2M-984.2, to leave out from "council tax" to end and insert:

"forthcoming independent review of local government finance should be asked to conduct a thorough examination of a range of local taxation systems, including the various proposals for an income-based system and reforms to the present council tax system and encourages all those who wish to make meaningful contribution to the review to submit proposals when called upon to do so."

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

During the election, I well remember seeing some SSP posters displayed on the odd lamppost around the place. Those posters did not say, "Vote SSP for our service tax." They said, "Scrap the council tax." I may be wrong, but I do not think that even the Conservatives at the last election had a manifesto of cutting taxes so, in effect, they were outflanked on the right by Mr Sheridan and his comrades, who made—

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Not just yet. [ Interruption. ] I accept that I am not as far to the right as Tony Blair.

Mr Sheridan and his comrades made their plea not on the basis of their proposals, but to arouse the instincts of people who want to pay less tax. That was a revealing campaigning technique by the SSP during the election.

The SNP has produced a set of proposals that serious commentators in the press have acknowledged as well thought out and detailed. They are based on a fundamental principle that local government taxation should be based on the ability to pay.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Will the member give way?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Too early, Iain. I have just started.

Our proposals, which are set out in a paper, are based on replacing the council tax with a local income tax. They would bring an end to the situation where pensioners are paying up to 25 per cent of their net available income on the council tax. In some cases, that means bills of £2,500 a year. Surely we must all recognise that the current system, which is based on property valuations, is unfair. We must recognise that the valuation of one's house is not the same thing as one's ability to pay. We must also recognise that the valuations for the council tax were carried out in 1991, which is 13 years ago, and that there should be a revaluation. If the Labour Party and its friends in the Conservative party, who are thirled to the council tax, believe that the current system should continue, they must acknowledge that there will be a revaluation.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Is Fergus Ewing therefore making the case for us that, in the proposed review, the valuation bands should be examined and their scope perhaps broadened? Is he saying that, basically, the valuations that were made under the old rates system should be reintroduced?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Not in the slightest. If there is to be a revaluation, a house in Leith, for example, that is currently in band B would, because of the increase in property prices, go up to band D or E. That would mean a further increase of around 40 per cent for people who might be on low incomes.

Let us face it: the days of the council tax are over. We saw the days of the Conservative Government come to an end because of its unfair poll tax. I believe—and it is the view of my party—that the days of the Labour Party in government will come to an end because of its unfair council tax.

We have produced proposals on which no one has laid a glove. Our proposals recognise, for example, that the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy has concluded that a local income tax would be fairer and easier to administer. I look forward to the campaign ahead. I am confident that our proposals will gain massive support among the people of Scotland, who consider that the council tax is inherently unfair.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will cut to the chase: there is absolutely no doubt that the council tax is becoming more unpopular in Scotland almost daily, or certainly every spring, when council tax rates are set. We must ask why that is so. I propose that it is because council tax increases have been so great.

Simply to allege that the council tax is unfair and that all other forms of taxation can be fairer is to fail to see what we need to do to ensure that local authorities have adequate resources to deliver crucial public services. We need to recall that 80 per cent of council spending is funded from general taxation, which is based on income tax and consumption taxes, such as VAT and duties. Under those taxes, people who are earning high salaries make significant contributions—often greater contributions as a percentage or in real terms. Therefore, to suggest that only by replacing the council tax with yet another income-based tax will we solve the problem is entirely misleading.

An income-based tax could mean that a group of people would not have to pay a contribution to local services, even though those people might be capital rich and asset wealthy. Surely those people, who use libraries, local theatres, social work services and other amenities that are funded by local authorities, should make a contribution.

The answer lies in making the council tax far fairer than it is at present. I welcome the suggestion in the minister's amendment of a review. Of course we should have a review to ensure that the council tax is applied fairly. However, to suggest that some form of income-based tax might be a solution is seriously to mislead people.

The SNP's proposal is flawed. There is no doubt that the Parliament has powers to vary income tax, to abolish council tax and to be responsible for local authority funding, but whether the Parliament has the powers to vary income tax at more or less than 3p in the basic rate remains to be seen. The SNP seeks to turn the council tax issue into yet another constitutional question.

In the past, the SNP has been a great supporter of the removal of the 50 per cent discount on second homes. Where does that suggestion lie in relation to the introduction of a local income tax? Owners of such properties may live outside the local authority area and perhaps even outside Scotland. The argument is that the holidaymakers or second-home owners use services, but how will those people contribute to local services if they cannot be taxed through the local income tax?

As well as the suggestion that a local income tax would be fair, it is argued that we need economic growth. Economic growth must be generated by small businesses and self-employed people. However, under such a tax—unlike under a corporation tax—those people would be penalised more unfairly than the large corporations would be. There are serious flaws in the suggested replacements for the council tax. We support a review and we will support the amendment.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

It is a truth universally acknowledged that the ability to tax and please is not given to men, or in my case, to women. Nobody likes paying tax.

Any local tax system must have four key elements for success. It must be visible—people should be able to see what they are paying for. It must be accountable and as fair as possible—I think that Lord Camden said that taxation and representation are inseparable. It must be as simple as possible to administer and collect. Finally, it must be difficult to avoid and it must produce as much revenue as possible for services.

A property-based tax is almost impossible to avoid. I find it strange that those members on the benches opposite who claim to be socialists are against a tax on property. Council tax collection rates are more than 90 per cent and rising. In my authority, the figure is more than 97 per cent and the target for next year is 98 per cent, which is as near to full payment as possible.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

rose—

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

I am very tight for time.

The proposal is a complicated, difficult-to-administer and easy-to-avoid tax that will not provide the link with local elected representatives.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member give way?

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

No, I am going to finish my point.

The proposed tax would be ducked by the wealthy, who could find a way round it; it would hit working families on lower wages harder than the council tax does; it would put at risk the £300 million in council tax benefit that the Department for Work and Pensions currently pays; and it would be a nightmare to administer.

I invite members to think for a moment about a small firm in the Levenmouth area of my constituency, which might employ folk from Fife, Perth and Kinross, Angus and Clackmannanshire. As that firm does not have a computerised payroll system, it would have to identify any local income tax or Scottish service tax separately from other taxation elements. What sort of burden would that produce? What difference might that make to the company's viability? How would such a system endear local government to those who were affected?

I do not agree with Tommy Sheridan that the council tax should be abolished. However, I agree that all parties should support the proposals for the review of the current system, including the consideration of alternatives, but also the consideration of widening council tax bands to take account of the rise in house prices. The trouble with Tommy's Trots is that they are deceitful as well as populist. To pretend that there is a fairy at the bottom of a mythical garden in every locality who will happily pay so that everybody else does not have to is a despicable myth. The problem is that, with those who currently pay for local services through the council tax—as with those who buy lottery tickets—credulity is always in fashion. They want to believe Tommy Sheridan, but he is deceiving them. He is despicable.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Come on, Presiding Officer.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The member might reflect on that last comment.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

I am happy to withdraw that remark.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

That is appropriate.

I regret to inform the four members who had hoped to take part in the open debate that I must now go to Tavish Scott's winding-up speech.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I will deal with the main arguments that have been presented today. I listened carefully to what Mr Sheridan said: he argued that we should scrap the council tax today. In the real world, we cannot scrap the council tax today; we could not scrap any taxation system that we have today. Local government and the agencies that it supports through its funding system must have a mechanism to ensure that the funding continues. That is why a review is the right way in which to proceed and why the Executive has lodged the amendment in my name. It is wholly untrue that we can today make the changes that Tommy Sheridan suggests.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Will the minister give way?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

No. I am going to deal with the member's wider points.

The SSP has had five debates on the Scottish service tax, but the main point that we have learned about it is that it has been rejected by five of the seven parties that are represented in Parliament. Curiously, Mr Sheridan has found a tax that is even more unpopular than he would have us believe the council tax is. He keeps telling us that his option is the favoured one, but the Local Government Committee in the previous session of Parliament was robust in its destruction of the Scottish service tax. It is important to consider closely what that committee said. I quote directly from that committee's report on the issue:

"having examined in detail the proposals for a Scottish Service Tax, the Committee sees no merit in this option because the proposal as outlined in ... written evidence to the Committee would replace Scotland's only local tax with a new, national tax; leave councils in Scotland wholly dependent on central government for their funding; and would, in the Committee's view, destroy local accountability for councils' spending decisions."

I rather suspect that that is why five out of the seven parties in the Parliament reject Mr Sheridan's proposals.

Mr Sheridan has been comprehensively defeated every time he exposes his tax, but today he seeks to portray himself as a bringer of consensus to local government, which is a curious concept indeed. Unless Mr Sheridan has abandoned his proposals and converted to either a local income tax or the council tax, he is not part of any growing consensus about a solution. By telling people to run up long-term debts through not paying their council tax, he seeks only to add to the sum of human misery.

Mr Ewing made an interesting speech, although I would find anything interesting after reading his profile in Holyrood magazine. I am sure that many colleagues would like to reflect on the content of that article. The SNP runs hot and cold on the subject. To be fair, the SNP's 1997 manifesto contained a proposal for a local income tax, but it had gone off the idea by 1999—the proposal was not in the party's manifesto in that year, although the party called for a wide-ranging review of local government finance. The SNP was completely silent on the subject in 2001.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Will the minister give way?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Let me complete the litany, if I may.

In 2003, the SNP was a little vague. The manifesto commitment was to an independent review of local government finance and a fairer system based on the ability to pay. It would be helpful if the SNP was clear on the issue.

The SNP has now produced proposals, but Mr Ewing must be careful about how he articulates them. In the article in Holyrood he appeared to me, in supporting George W Bush on a number of issues, to be close to supporting a flat tax. Indeed, he nearly supports Mr Monteith on the reintroduction of the poll tax.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

rose—

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I am in my last minute and we have heard Mr Ewing already—we all enjoyed what he said, but we have heard it.

Iain Smith, Christine May and others will have the chance to develop their proposals and alternatives and to discuss the structure of the council tax as part of the forthcoming review. The Executive is committed to establishing the review as part of the partnership agreement. The review will be extensive and will represent the most serious examination of local taxation ever undertaken in Scotland. All taxation alternatives will have to be compared against agreed tests of fairness, economic impact, ability to pay, collection and cost of implementation.

Mr Sheridan has a short time today to decide whether to stick with his isolated position of banging on about a tax that has been rejected by five of the seven parties or to shift his ground to try to be part of our consensus.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. An aspect of debates that worries me is that a rule appears to be developing that no interventions are accepted in the final minute of a member's speech. It is not my understanding that such a rule is written into the standing orders. The final minute of a speech is being used by many members, including the minister just now, to make personalised and political attacks.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There is no such rule in the standing orders. It is a convention to allow for the smooth handling of debates. I draw to the attention of members the fact that Mr Swinburne took two interventions in his final minute and managed to finish his speech just three or four seconds over his allocated time. If members are prepared to absorb an intervention in their last minute, that is their choice. In a debate with a tight timescale, I cannot allow members to take an intervention in their last minute and then take more time than they have been allocated. We are now losing time quite seriously.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

Is it appropriate under the standing orders to have a debate in which no opportunity is given for an open debate? I refer to the fact that no opportunity has been given to members from one of the parties in the Parliament to contribute to this important debate.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Mr Ballard should be aware that the standing orders do not cover such issues. The authority for having the debate is that it was approved in a motion put by the Parliamentary Bureau to the Parliament and passed by the Parliament. That is the basis on which the debate is proceeding, regardless of the unfortunate consequences that follow from it in terms of the allocation of time. We are now behind the clock again.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Presiding Officer, you would think that highly paid ministers such as Tavish Scott, who earns over £80,000, would be able to read the motion before us, which is:

"That the Parliament agrees that the council tax should be abolished and replaced with an income-based alternative."

I have asked people to vote on that motion today.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

rose—

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I am sorry, but would the minister mind behaving himself? That is hard, when he represents a party that fights an election on a commitment to abolish the council tax but then goes into government with a party that has no intention of abolishing it—Christine May stated that clearly.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Is that not entirely the point? If a vote is taken tonight on Tommy Sheridan's motion without amendment, it will go down. Two parties in the chamber have come together to form a majority that can defeat Mr Sheridan's motion. The amendment will be passed tonight because we have an opportunity to change the council tax by consensus.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

The problem is that we are a wee bit behind the ordinary people of Scotland, who have expressed their opinions in two opinion polls. In 2001, 73 per cent of Scots wanted the council tax to be replaced by an income-based alternative. When the same question was asked by System 3 last month, 77 per cent of Scots said that they wanted the council tax to be replaced by an income-based alternative.

I remind Labour Party members such as Christine May who are trying to deceive the people of Scotland about what we are talking about in this debate that we are not talking about people not paying for local services. We are talking about those who can afford to do so paying more for local services so that pensioners and low-paid workers can pay less.

I am not surprised that the Parliament has rejected the Scottish service tax because, under our proposals, MSPs will pay an average of £3,000 a year. That is about £2,000 more than they are now paying. The minister will pay significantly more because he can afford to do so. That is the reality. People such as the minister and chief executives across the country—

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

rose—

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I am sorry, but the minister did not see fit to let me in so maybe he can sit and listen now.

The Parliament needs to recognise that the council tax is no longer acceptable.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The people will not vote for the SSP's alternative.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

It is not good enough for Mike Rumbles to come here nine months after the review was promised. I wanted to intervene when the minister spoke earlier about "today, today, today". I will allow him to speak if he can tell me today who is on the review of local government finance. When does it meet?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Mr Sheridan should know the answer to that question because it has been answered earlier. We will announce the review when we are ready to do so.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Sit down.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

No, Mr Sheridan should sit down and I will answer his question.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Order.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I have taken his intervention.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Order. Mr Sheridan, you gave way to the minister.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I am asking him to sit down because he has finished.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The minister can make his point.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

He has got nothing to say.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The Parliament is aware that we are discussing this with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. If Mr Sheridan does not like that and does not like local government, he should make that clear.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

That was an interesting intervention. The minister said that he is in discussions with COSLA, but maybe it would be better if he discussed the nursery nurses' dispute with that organisation.

The minister has discussed the review with COSLA for nine months. He has refused to act on the wishes of the people of Scotland, who want council tax to be replaced by a fairer system. I invite him to come to Glasgow on 24 April to march with those who are opposed to council tax. [Interruption.] It is difficult for me to ignore Fergus Ewing's cheap shots because I do not think they befit the maturity of the debate. I hope that the SNP, the SSP, the Greens and others can unite to ditch the council tax. We should put our political differences behind us and put the interests of Scotland's ordinary workers and pensioners first. That is what the minister cannot do.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Before I proceed to the next item of business, I wish to make a point for the benefit of the public gallery, which is unusually full today and where people have sat politely and quietly through a considerable amount of business this morning. This is a meeting of Parliament; it is not a campaign rally or a public meeting. Persons in the gallery should be aware—if they are not, I will make it clear now—that they are expected not to applaud or to call out. I hope that they will sit and listen to the next debate with the courtesy and common sense with which they have listened so far.

Nursery Nurses

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-985, in the name of Carolyn Leckie, on nursery nurses, a just claim, and two amendments to that motion.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

I welcome all the nursery nurses who are in the Parliament today and those who are lobbying outside at the moment. [ Applause. ] We are allowed to clap.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

You are.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

Some of us have no problem with applause from the balconies.

I would like to declare an interest in the debate. I am the parent of a four-year-old who is affected by the dispute. I make it clear that like many other parents I support the nursery nurses 100 per cent in their just claim for decent pay and a decent career structure. I think that I speak on behalf of other parents when I say that I appreciate the time, energy and care that nursery nurses invest in my son and thousands of other children each day. My son thrives in his nursery, which is a lovely place and a great environment. The children who attend the nursery learn many things, including social skills. Some nurseries can have 80 children. When I return in the afternoon to collect my son, I am aware that a great deal of energy has been spent by nursery nurses during the day. I could not do their job and I am sure that neither could many other MSPs. We should recognise that it needs a certain commitment and a certain type of person.

Nursery nurses have a huge responsibility for the future generations. The Executive thinks so too, because it has given nursery nurses more and more responsibilities. Their job has changed completely since their most recent pay review. They are responsible for the three-to-five curriculum, assessing students, serving children, liaising with other professionals such as speech therapists, health visitors, psychologists and occupational therapists, and assessing special-needs children. It is not widely known that nursery nurses who work with special-needs children work with pupils aged up to 18. They are in schools working alongside teachers, but there is a massive difference in their pay. They have to work with young people with complex learning needs and keep up to date with research on conditions such as autism. All that is packed into their job.

Who is giving them all that responsibility? The Parliament—the Executive was responsible, but the Parliament voted for it, so we have given them all that responsibility. The MSPs who will vote on the motion—the vote is not until 5 o'clock this afternoon—never had any problem putting up their hands and voting for an early-years education system to be proud of. They never had any problem putting up their hands and voting to give nursery nurses more responsibilities when they are in the nurseries day in, day out. However, when they are asked to put up their hands and say, "We believe that you should have a national career structure and that you are worth £13,000 to £18,000 a year," they say, "Oh no, it's nothing to do with us. No, no, no, we don't even have a view on it. That is up to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. That is up to local government. That is up to somebody else." That is double standards, it is rich and it is utter hypocrisy.

I know that some MSPs took part this week in a special edition of "University Challenge". It is a big secret who won, but we will no doubt hear on the grapevine. They competed against a group of MPs from Westminster—sorry, I have just been reminded that it was against members from Wales; I wonder who would have won had it been MPs.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

What was their starter for 10?

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

I was just about to say that I will give those who did not have the opportunity to take part a starter for 10. Who said that the Executive would recommend tying funding for local authorities and Scottish Enterprise to their promotion of equal opportunities, such as enforcing equal pay for men and women? The answer is Margaret Curran, the Minister for Communities. Monday was international women's day. The Executive trotted out all the statistics that we hear year in, year out—the annual list on the difference between men's pay and women's low pay. We know why there is low pay for women. It is because women workers are concentrated in jobs involving cleaning, child care and caring. Those jobs are underpaid and undervalued by society and the nursery nurses are a case in point; they are undervalued by Parliaments, politicians and society as a whole.

I appeal to all the women on the Labour benches, especially those who signed the motion on international women's day—some of them would even call themselves feminists—to stand up for what they believe in and put their money where their mouth is. Ordinary MSPs are sitting here on £50,000 a year and ministers are sitting on £77,000.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

We take half our wage. The difference is that I think that the nursery nurses are worth £18,000. I put my money where my mouth is and I am out on the picket line supporting them.

I am asking Labour women today to come off the fence and vote for the motion to say to COSLA, "Get to the negotiating table, negotiate a just claim and give the nursery nurses a national deal." I ask them to say openly to the nursery nurses, "We've got confidence that you are worth £18,000." Give them the money now.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the nursery nurses have a just claim and that there should be a fair, nationally negotiated settlement to their current dispute.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I state from the outset that the Scottish Conservatives believe that the issue of nursery nurses' pay is primarily between COSLA and Unison. We believe that a review of nursery nurses' pay has been needed desperately, because of the increased duties and tasks that they have taken on over the years. Furthermore, we are in favour of national guidelines, with the final pay and conditions set by the local authority, which would better reflect local circumstances. For example, Aberdeen City Council has agreed an annual contract for a 36-and-a-quarter-hour week, with a salary starting at £17,340 and rising to a top level of £19,029, which is more than £1,000 more than the top rate that Unison is demanding. Our party believes that Aberdeen City Council has shown a way forward in settling the dispute—indeed nine of the 32 councils have settled.

I echo the concerns of the Scottish Independent Nurseries Association, the representative group of private nursery nurses. SINA understands more than most that nursery nurses are undervalued, but it fears that there will be repercussions for the private sector if Unison achieves its demands. It estimates that fees at independent nurseries will rise by about 30 per cent in order to match the wages offered to local authority staff. The independent and voluntary sectors have been at the forefront of development in pre-school education, offering a more flexible service than do local authority pre-school nurseries. The independent sector offers a full 10-hour day, which is essential for some working parents who require pre-school education to offer facilities for longer hours than those offered by local authority nurseries. Therefore, if COSLA meets in full Unison's pay demands, the parents who depend on the flexibility of the independent nurseries could be hit hardest.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

What James Douglas-Hamilton said is entirely consistent: the Tories do not believe in national pay bargaining or the public sector. That is fine, but does he accept that the nine councils that have settled cover a minority of Scotland's nursery nurses, more than 4,000 of whom are still on strike?

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Yes, of course I accept what the member said. However, I make to him the obvious point that the Labour councillor Frank Russell made on 5 March. He said:

"There cannot be a single agreement for nursery nurses Scotland wide. This is simply a non-starter as the job is different in different parts of the country. In addition COSLA believes that it is unjust if the agreement does not take account of the fact that school nursery nurses are working only 39 weeks in the year whilst others are working 48 or 52 weeks a year. Annual salaries must reflect these differences."

It must be remembered that the national child care strategy stressed that pre-school education must be affordable. However, Unison's demands for a national settlement could have the opposite effect on independent nurseries to that which is intended. I stress strongly that David McLetchie called on Unison to make a special dispensation for children with special educational needs. I repeat that call and look forward to an enlightened response from Unison.

Many have said that the issue is not just about low pay, but about inequality. The allegation is that nursery nurses are not paid a higher wage, because the profession is made up predominantly of women and the job is seen as women's work. As I stated, the local deal agreed by Aberdeen City Council is a beacon of light, pointing the way to solutions for other councils. It is our conviction that nursery nurses are not recognised for the fundamental work that they do in teaching children in their early years. We believe that underlying attitudes must change towards nursery education so that genuine recognition of nursery nurses' work and a salary that reflects that can come about.

I move amendment S2M-985.1, to leave out from "agrees" to end and insert:

"supports local pay bargaining; welcomes the settlement by nine local authorities, but calls on UNISON to make a special dispensation for children who have special educational needs due to the severe impact that the strike has on them and their families."

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I will just move amendment S2M-985.2 at the moment, to give other members a chance to contribute. I will speak later.

I move amendment S2M-985.2, to leave out from "agrees" to end and insert:

"recognises the importance of the pre-five sector to securing the best possible start to life for Scotland's young people and the priority the Scottish Executive has given to pre-five provision; welcomes the significant progress in pre-school education entitlement for three and four-year-olds achieved over recent years; emphasises that nursery nurses and others in the early years workforce should receive pay that is fair to them and is financially sustainable; notes grading settlements made to date; urges COSLA to do all it can to support a resolution to the current dispute; further urges the local authority employers and unions to continue negotiations, and encourages the Executive to push forward with plans to secure improved workforce planning, qualifications structure and career pathways for the early years workforce as a means of securing recognition of the commitment and professionalism of pre-five workers, greater opportunities and equality in the workplace for this predominantly female workforce."

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

The debate about nursery nurses' pay has been going on for far too long. The first motion on it in the Scottish Parliament was debated in July 2001. My former colleague Mike Russell lodged a motion that called on the Executive—which has a role to play today, in spite of its rather woolly-worded amendment—and COSLA to review the low levels of pay that nursery nurses receive.

I think that that call, which is almost three years old, is still valid today. However, I do not think that we should be only at the stage of reviewing nursery nurses' pay; I think that we should be at the stage of having a settlement. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton rightly pointed out that there have been a number of settlements across the country and highlighted one in the city that I represent. I welcome the fact that the dispute has been resolved in some areas. However, I regard those local resolutions as interim solutions. There is no doubt that much of what nursery nurses do today is decided by the standards that are set at a national level. I believe that COSLA is abrogating its responsibilities by dodging the issue and hiding behind grading revisions.

As someone who represented another group of staff at a national level for many years in the national health service, I was always aware that there was grade drift between local authorities. That did not detract in any way from the value of having a national settlement that meant that people were delivering the same services to the same standard across the board. That situation firmly applies to nursery nurses. It is high time that we resolved this matter.

I am disappointed that the Conservatives and the Executive have lodged amendments to Carolyn Leckie's simple, straightforward and easily supported motion. I have no hesitation in offering the full support of the Scottish National Party to the motion.

The Conservatives' reliance on local pay bargaining is disappointing but at least consistent. Across a range of public sector areas, the Conservatives do not believe in national pay bargaining, largely on the basis that they think that they can buy people off in the areas in which there is high unemployment and no great demand for what I suppose we might call a commercial solution.

More disappointing than the Conservative's position is the Executive's attempt to rewrite history in its amendment. Buried in the middle of the amendment is a phrase that I find quite concerning. The amendment calls for a pay settlement that is fair to nurses and "financially sustainable". That is Governmentspeak for, "We're nae gaun tae gie ye onie money because we don't think we can afford it." I am not sure why that phrase is in there unless it is to give an appearance that the Executive parties are supporting the nursery nurses while saying to COSLA that the Executive has no more money to give local authorities to ensure that nursery nurses are given a fair wage.

It is also disappointing that the Executive makes reference to nursery nurses being a predominantly female work force. The Executive almost uses that fact as an excuse for not paying them a fair and proper wage.

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I declare an interest, as a member of Unison and a mother of a qualified nursery nurse.

In our previous debate on the subject of nursery nurses, I asked the minister to do all in his power to ensure that COSLA resolves the dispute by entering into meaningful negotiations with the trade unions that represent early-years educators in Scotland. The following day, 25 September 2003, I asked him to give further consideration to the speeches that members had made the previous evening on the need to bring about a resolution to the dispute.

Here we are, six months down the road, and nursery nurses are on an indefinite strike. I ask the minister whether he has had any discussion with COSLA during that time or whether COSLA has treated him in the same shabby way as it treated the trade unions representing the nursery nurses.

It is unacceptable for COSLA to hide behind the cloak of job evaluation schemes when the parameters have not been published and will not be binding on the 32 Scottish councils. That begs the question of how some local agreements stack up.

In 1996, the European Commission network on child care set quality targets for services for young children, which covered wages, basic training, continuous training and the right to be a trade union member, and stated that 20 per cent of the work force should be male. Has COSLA considered its obligations in relation to those quality targets? Does it know that they exist?

The Scottish Executive has invested heavily in child care to the tune of £928.5 million and COSLA has never been slow to accept the money. In 2000, we published "Working with Children: A guide to Qualifications and Careers in Early Education, Childcare and Playwork" and a follow-up action report that was supported by a further £3.9 million for 2000 and 2001. We have paid for expansion and for staff training and development. By financial resolution, we have also paid for the provisions of the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001. However, COSLA continues to ignore the rightful claims of nursery nurses.

We have a professional work force in the early-years sector. That will be further demonstrated later this year when nursery nurses are required to register with the Scottish Social Services Council, demonstrating their qualifications and their continuing professional development, if they are to be allowed to practise in Scotland.

All those issues will also be considered when inspections take place. I hope that the inspectors will rattle the cage of those local authorities that have paid no heed to their obligations.

The members of the Executive parties value nursery nurses. We cannot allow the pay gap between men and women to continue. I welcome Joe Di Paola of Unison's statement in an interview last Sunday that consideration is being given to lodging claims for equal pay for work of equal value.

It is time for Pat Watters and COSLA to stop the slagging and to get round the table to negotiate a settlement with Unison that involves national grading and national pay. That will allow our nursery nurses to return to the job that they are qualified to do: providing our children, who are our future, with the best start in life.

I support the amendment in the minister's name.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am afraid that the clock has beaten us. I express my regrets to the members who had hoped to take part in the opening debate but we must now commence the closing speeches.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. We have debated this subject in the Parliament before but we have to be honest and recognise the limits of our authority. We have to recognise the difficulties that confront the employers and the union negotiators in this matter and consider what the Executive and the Scottish Parliament can do. That is what the Executive amendment does.

The position that we are in has been reached partly because of the decision on the single-status agreement. I do not always automatically argue the trade union case in the Scottish Parliament; I do not see that as my job and I know that every union member who takes industrial action is confident that their position is the correct one. However, in this case, I think that the issues are so important that the Executive and the Parliament must consider what we can and should do to resolve the dispute. I believe that the Executive amendment offers a way forward.

I cannot overstate the importance of the pre-five sector and nursery teachers, nursery nurses and other workers in that area. Much of the increase in work and responsibilities in the sector has come about because the Scottish Executive, the Labour members of it and the Labour women MSPs are so committed to the key role of the sector in supporting social inclusion and tackling poverty.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I am happy to debate the issues but I have only limited time for my speech.

The pre-five sector is particularly important to women who want to work, especially lone parents. We also acknowledge the crucial role of the sector for children in vulnerable and chaotic families. Every day, nursery staff reach out and support those vulnerable children.

The dispute impacts disproportionately on women. It impacts on the women who predominate in the sector and on those who are now juggling their commitments as a consequence of the dispute. One of the issues around the dispute is the fact that the consequences are hidden, which might be why it is not being taken as seriously as it should be.

The heart of the issue is low pay and the pay gap that women experience, which is a structural problem. I have asked before whether women predominate in the nursery sector because it is low paid or whether those crucial jobs are low paid because women are doing them. We must grapple with that problem by working with the local authorities and others. It is essential that nursery nurse pay is sorted out, because of the importance of the job, because of our commitment to social inclusion and the best start for all our young people and because of our commitment to closing the pay gap.

We understand that we are where we are in the dispute. The Executive has a role in delivering a national review of the sector. Carolyn Leckie's motion is fine; the Labour amendment adds to it because it creates not an aspiration but a way forward.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Will the member explain why she is willing to remove the key sentence in the SSP motion, which is about the fact that there should be a nationally agreed pay settlement? The Executive amendment removes that.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Because a national review of the sector would create a national set of pay conditions, which would sort that problem. I believe that there should be national grading for the whole of the nursery sector, and a national review would deliver that. The review would expose the gap between what we expect women to do and what we pay them for doing it. It offers a more serious way forward than the aspiration in the motion.

I hope that members and the Executive acknowledge that our amendment will not just get us by today; it is a serious attempt to consider how to resolve the dispute, whether we pay proper respect to those who work in the sector, and how we do the hard job of negotiating how to close the pay gap and give proper remuneration for a central job in our local communities.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am extremely unhappy with the way in which the speeches have been taken. Euan Robson gave up the opening speech to allow other members a bit more time for a ridiculously short debate. The SSP chose the subject for a debate of three quarters of an hour, when it could have given it the whole period of debate if it had wanted to. The result is that there has been no Liberal Democrat opening speech. That totally distorts the balance of representation in the Parliament and is entirely unsatisfactory. I ask for your views on that.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I have no view. My position is to defend the standing orders and the resolutions that the Parliament has passed. If the member is unhappy with the outcome of the procedure, he has two options: he can raise it through his party representative on the Parliamentary Bureau; or he can raise it with the Procedures Committee, which may choose to take up the matter with the bureau and recommend a change to standing orders.

I can only express my regret at the amount of time that has been lost. The longer we prolong such exchanges, the more time I have to take from other members. I already require to take a minute from the members who remain to speak.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

On a further point of order, Presiding Officer. The fact remains that there was no opening speech for the Liberal Democrats. That is not in accordance with standing orders and is not conducive to a balanced debate in the chamber.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The member is wrong. Mr Robson had an opening speech. He chose to move the motion formally, and that is within his rights. That is what he chose to do.

We are burning away time that we do not have.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

It is difficult to sum up a debate of this type and duration, but I will try to do so.

In her opening remarks, Frances Curran made some points with which we agree. She highlighted and spoke eloquently about the increased duties that nursery nurses have had imposed upon them in recent years. That point was well made. However, she failed to realise that her argument that there is an attitude in the Parliament that the matter is nothing to do with us has no validity. Strictly speaking, the issue is nothing to do with us because it is a matter for Unison and COSLA. If we carry on introducing to the chamber debates that are not strictly within the Parliament's remit, we will lose more time in which to get on with what the Parliament should be doing. That is why I found Frances Curran's argument lacking in credibility.

Brian Adam's opening remarks were correct when he said that the dispute has gone on for far too long. There is no one in the chamber who wants it to be prolonged or for the settlement to be other than fair and just. However, it is spurious to suggest that the settlement should be based on a nationally agreed format. Clearly, there are different responsibilities, pressures and duties in different parts of Scotland. The Aberdeen negotiation has resulted in a settlement well above—

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

rose—

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I am genuinely sorry that I cannot take any interventions, but I do not have the time.

All new Labour purists will have regarded Margaret Jamieson's speech as being decidedly off message. She seemed to excoriate COSLA, Pat Watters in particular and the Labour Executive. I found it extraordinary that she said in her closing remarks that she would support the Executive's amendment. Given her contribution, that seemed to be, at best an exercise in completely misguided thinking or, at worst, sheer hypocrisy.

COSLA and the union should be seeking to bring the dispute to the earliest possible conclusion in the most favourable possible circumstances for all concerned. That will not be done on the basis of national negotiations.

I support Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's amendment.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am pleased to confirm that the SNP will support Carolyn Leckie's motion. We believe that the case for a national deal for nursery nurses—providing decent pay and a proper career structure—is incontrovertible. None of us, least of all the nursery nurses, wanted the current situation to arise, with hundreds of council nurseries closed, thousands of dedicated workers on indefinite strike and many more children and their parents suffering disruption to care and education routines.

Unlike other members in the debate who want to pass the buck to COSLA, I do not believe that anything less than direct intervention from the Executive will bring about a lasting settlement of the dispute. The mantra that ministers have adopted of non-intervention, frankly, is no longer credible, if it ever was.

The Executive has made great play of the major investment that it is making in early-years education, laying down national strategies, care standards and curricula. I do not understand how ministers can fail to see that all those plans will come to nought if they continue to undervalue and demotivate the skilled work force that they need to deliver all that.

Hiding behind the single-status agreement between COSLA and the unions just will not do. All too often, COSLA betrays an offensive and patronising attitude, which we have heard again today from the Tories, who have said that the nurses work for only 39 weeks per year and that their job is different in different parts of the country. The comparators cited are non-teaching staff such as school secretaries and administrators. The real comparison should be with teachers and the McCrone deal. There is overwhelming support for that view among parents, which explains, in part, the huge sympathy for the nursery nurses among the public at large.

Let me illustrate my speech with an example from South Ayrshire, where a nursery nurse who had done two years' study and had five years' experience ended up teaching a probationary nursery teacher how to teach in a nursery school.

The fact is that a probationary teacher's salary is 1.5 times the salary of a nursery nurse. That illustrates how badly nursery nurses are undervalued and the lack of recognition and respect that they are afforded by their employers. Ministers, who know that to be the case, should be ashamed of themselves.

I urge all members to support the nursery nurses by voting for the motion.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I call Euan Robson to close for the Executive. You have five minutes, but I cannot extend that in any way.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

We have heard some thoughtful contributions in this short debate.

Let me be clear that the Executive believes that nursery nurses and others who work in the early-years sector carry out an extremely important role. Indeed, by taking action to invest more money in pre-five provision, the Executive has expanded the sector dramatically and put it on the map, such that today the sector comprises more than 26,000 workers, or 1 per cent of Scotland's work force. Nursery nurses work with our children at a crucial stage in their development and help them to meet their full potential. Without the dedication and quality service of our nursery nurses, we would not have had such progress in providing pre-school education entitlement for all three and four-year-olds.

Like all members, I want to see our early-years work force being paid a fair salary at a sustainable level. The dispute has gone on too long. Both sides need to get together to sort it out. I urge them to do just that.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Will the minister join me in condemning the shameful actions of Dundee City Council's Labour-Lib Dem administration, which phoned the parents of children with special needs to encourage them to go to the press to criticise nursery nurses for going on strike? Does the minister agree that that is a shameful action for a local authority to take during the dispute?

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I have no knowledge of that local situation, but in a moment I will mention what SNP councils have done.

The Parliament should be aware that, in 1999, the unions and employers agreed and signed the single-status agreement, which was designed to create a fairer method of determining pay. Under the single-status agreement, the responsibility for setting the pay of staff in their areas who are covered by the agreement rests with local councils. To date, nine councils have settled their disputes. In areas where the dispute has been settled, the predominantly female work force has received a pay increase.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Will the minister give way?

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

No, I want to deal with the SNP.

The SNP is negotiating at local level in Angus and in Falkirk. In Highland, the SNP member who is education chairman is negotiating locally and is likely to settle the dispute locally. Do not listen to what SNP members say, but look at what they do.

Over the years, the work of our early-years work force has changed and it will continue to develop. To recognise the importance of the work force and to help it to meet the demands of 21st century early-years services, the Executive wants to get on with a number of measures that are aimed at development and reform. Over the next two years, we will allocate £12 million of work force development funding to local authorities to help workers to gain access to the qualifications that they will need to register with the Scottish Social Services Council and to deliver the high-quality services that we all expect.

I agree that the status of the sector should be higher than it currently is. Registration with the Scottish Social Services Council will go some way towards helping that, but we will also consider ways of establishing clear career structures for workers in the sector.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Regardless of the single-status agreement, there is a clear need for a national framework for the pay and conditions of nursery nurses. Will the minister accept that there is a need for an independent review of nursery nurses' pay and conditions similar to the review that was given to the teaching profession and that the Executive has a duty to lead on that?

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

No.

Other professions provide—[Interruption.]

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Order.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The position is quite clear. Under the single-status agreement, it is for local authorities to negotiate with their work forces. If there are further developments that we can take after the dispute is settled, we will consider those at that point in time. However, let me say quite clearly that we want the status of the profession to rise. As I said, we believe that registration with the Scottish Social Services Council will go some way towards helping that, but we will also consider how clear career structures might be established for workers in the sector.

Other professions provide opportunities for career progression and for lateral movement, so that people are given scope to develop in a different direction within a broad professional grouping. A career in early education and child care should be no different. To achieve that, we need a rationalised and modern qualifications framework that takes proper account of our integrated children's services agenda.

We want to get on—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The minister must close now. There is simply no further time.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Well, okay—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I apologise.

I call Carolyn Leckie to close for the SSP. I can allow her an absolute maximum of five minutes.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

I welcome all sister members of Unison who are in the public gallery. In particular, I welcome Joan and all the nursery nurses from North Lanarkshire, as well as all the special needs nursery nurses who are present. Like Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, I recognise the special job that they do. That is why they deserve more pay, which should be paid on a national basis. That is the reason why they are on strike.

It is an absolute disgrace that, after 16 years without a review, 10 months of intermittent strike action and two weeks of all-out strike, nursery nurses still do not have decent national pay for a highly skilled, professional, national job.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

I have limited time. I apologise.

I do not have time to go into all the details, so let us get to the crux of the issue, which is today's vote on the Executive amendment to my motion. The Executive amendment would leave out "just claim". Why? I believe that the nursery nurses have a just claim, but does the Executive believe that?

The Executive amendment would not require COSLA to settle the dispute nationally, which is the very source of the impasse. The Executive has been prepared to set a national early-years curriculum and to establish a care commission that sets and enforces national standards in care and education, so why does it remain silent on the issue of a national pay and careers structure for the people who deliver those standards? No matter where in Scotland nursery nurses work—from Wishaw to Dundee—they should have the same pay and careers structure.

The Executive amendment

"urges COSLA to do all it can to support a resolution to the current dispute"

and

"further urges the local authority employers and unions to continue negotiations".

However, COSLA has been willing to participate only in local negotiations. The Executive amendment is saying, albeit creatively, that the Executive opposes a national settlement. The Executive amendment is like junk food: it is empty calories; it has no substance; it has no real meat; and it certainly offers no sustenance to nursery nurses.

Teachers, the police and nurses all have national pay for doing national jobs, albeit in different schools, police stations and hospitals. Councillors even want national pay for themselves. When Pat Watters gave evidence to the Local Government and Transport Committee to demand £25,000 a year for councillors, he was asked whether councillors in Glasgow and Edinburgh perhaps did a different job from councillors in Inverness and elsewhere. "Absolutely not," he said, "we need national pay." If national pay is good enough for Pat Watters, it is good enough for the nursery nurses.

And what about MSPs? We are all on national pay, yet we represent different local employers, who are the voters. If we were to put our pay out to local negotiations in our constituencies, how much would Bill Aitken or Euan Robson receive?

I appeal to the many people in the chamber who have trade union history and support and to those who shout about pay discrimination and the way in which women are undervalued. I am being serious. Even if the full claim was won, nursery nurses would still be a full £7,000 a year behind the average male wage. The claim is just. All members know fine well the duty of solidarity. They know that if there is no national settlement to the dispute while the nursery nurses are all on strike, they will be consigned to low and unequal pay for a very long time—they know what a strike means.

A review is double-speak for defeat. I urge members to vote for substance, not empty calories. I urge them to ask how the nursery nurses would want them to vote. They know what the issue is and they know how they would vote: they would vote for the SSP motion, unamended. We must not let them down. Victory to the nursery nurses!

First Minister's Question Time

George Reid (None, Ochil)

It is 12 noon and time for questions to the First Minister.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Unless it is absolutely essential, may I take your point of order at the end of First Minister's question time, Mr McNulty?

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

It is to do with the rights of members, but I am happy to leave it until the end of First Minister's question time.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Thank you. That is helpful.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to raise. (S2F-707)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

When I next speak to the Prime Minister, I am sure that we will discuss this morning's events in Madrid, where more than 100 people have died and more than 400 have been injured as a result of a series of bombs on trains. I am sure that the whole Parliament will join me in expressing our utter condemnation, our anger and our disgust at that despicable act by whatever group is responsible.

I spoke with the consul general of Spain this morning. I have expressed our anger and disgust, but also our sympathy and our condolences for the victims, for their families and for the people of Spain, who have managed in 30 years to go from fascism to democracy and who do not deserve that kind of mindless terrorism. [Applause.]

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I associate the Scottish National Party unreservedly with the comments made by the First Minister in relation to the incidents in Madrid this morning, and I express our sympathy with the people of Spain and the families of those who have been killed or injured in that atrocity.

Given that the First Minister will appoint the chairman of the forthcoming review of local government finance, that he will appoint the members of that review and that he will establish its remit, is it not the case that the First Minister's remarks on Friday, dismissing out of hand the concept of a local income tax, have prejudiced that independent review before it has even started?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am sad that Mr Swinney does not enjoy robust political debate. I am happy to have that debate on systems of local government finance. I am also happy to criticise what I think are badly thought-out proposals, not because they are an alternative system but because I do not believe that the calculations have been done properly or that they take full account of the costs. I think that the proposals are flawed in an attempt to be populist, and I hope that they have failed.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The First Minister knows from our long experience of debating together that I, too, am all for robust debate. However, the First Minister told me a fortnight ago in the Parliament:

"If an independent review of local government finance is established, I have a duty as First Minister not to prejudice its outcome and I have no intention of doing so."—[Official Report, 26 February 2004; c 6079.]

I had asked the First Minister to express his view on the council tax—the system that he supports—and on whether he would argue for that system in the review of local government finance. He told me that he was not in a position to argue for that, because he could not prejudice the outcome of the review. On Friday, when we announced our proposals for a local income tax, the First Minister and his ministers were falling over themselves to rubbish the proposals that we made and to undermine the commitment that the First Minister made to the Parliament not to prejudice the review.

Will the First Minister tell us who will chair the review of local government finance, what its remit will be, and when it will start, in order to guarantee to the Parliament that the review will be truly independent and not just another political fix?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am awful sorry that I upset Mr Swinney so much. However, to publish proposals that are portrayed as an alternative system of local government finance, but which do not take into account the increase in water charges that would result from the transfer of administration to Scottish Water, and which do not take into account properly the current situation with council tax benefit, was a deeply flawed response to the debate on local government finance systems.

I have made clear previously in the chamber, and I make it clear again today, my personal view that there is a role for property taxation in any democracy that wants progressive taxation systems. That view is not shared by all parties in the chamber, but it is, I hope, a view that is honestly expressed. Mr Swinney's party published proposals last Friday that do not stand the test of scrutiny. I am disappointed that Mr Swinney does not even want them to be subject to robust debate.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

In the answers that he has just given to the Parliament, the First Minister has neatly contradicted himself. He told me a fortnight ago that he could not comment on the council tax because he would prejudice the review. He has just argued for the council tax, which undermines what he said a fortnight ago. He says that he cannot comment on other schemes because to do so would prejudice the review. Is it not the case that we now know that the independent review of local government finance will not be an independent process? The First Minister cannot tell us who will be on the review or when it will start. The review has been in the making for more than 10 months and its outcome has been prejudged. Is it not the case that the review is not independent? It is simply a political fix to allow the Liberal Democrats to dump their principles and Labour to dump the agenda of fairness in Scotland.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Dear, oh dear. There will be an independent review of local government finance. It will take place within the four years of this parliamentary session. It is right that that should be the case. The review will be established properly, with an independent chair and a proper remit.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

When?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

When the Executive is ready.

The independent review will not be prejudged. It will consider all the systems on offer. I look forward to the debate that will take place around its discussions.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I echo the sympathies and condolences that have been expressed by the First Minister and Mr Swinney about the terrorist outrages in Madrid. I thank the First Minister for the communication that he has sent, through the consul general, to the Government and the people of Spain. It is entirely appropriate.

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-719)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The next meeting of Cabinet will discuss our progress towards implementing the partnership agreement.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I hope that the Cabinet will discuss the current industrial action affecting nursery schools. Does the First Minister agree that parents of children in our nursery and special schools will be bemused that, while local pay settlements have been reached in Aberdeen, East Renfrewshire, Falkirk, Highland and five other councils, there is an on-going strike elsewhere, which is disrupting the care and education of thousands of children throughout Scotland? Does he further agree that, if settlements that are satisfactory to councils and their nursery nurse employees can be reached in nine council areas, there is no reason why they cannot be reached elsewhere? Will the First Minister confirm that the Scottish Executive will not intervene to impose a national deal, which would undermine the settlements that have already been reached?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have said previously in the chamber at First Minister's question time, and ministers have said in the chamber on other occasions, that we believe that the resolution to the dispute lies between the employers and the nursery nurses. The Executive believes strongly that nursery nurses in Scotland deserve better pay and that they do an excellent job. It believes, however, that it is for employers and trade unions to negotiate a proper settlement and for the nursery nurses to receive the pay settlement that is agreed. That should be the case. The Executive again urges those who are responsible to negotiate round the table and to ensure that there is a resolution to the dispute as quickly as possible.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I agree with the First Minister that it is important that, for the sake of the children and families who are caught up in the crossfire of the dispute, councils and nursery nurses and their representatives reach agreement as soon as possible.

Does the First Minister accept that undermining the principle of local pay bargaining by imposing a national deal would be not only wrong in principle, but unfair to tens of thousands of other council employees, such as classroom assistants, auxiliaries and secretaries, whose pay is negotiated in the same manner?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The arrangements between local authorities in Scotland and their employees, who are represented by the trade unions, are a matter for those local authorities and trade unions. It would be entirely wrong for the Scottish Executive to seek at this stage to impose on nursery nurses, on any other group, or on local authorities, an alternative method of determining pay settlements. That is at the core of the issue. The local authorities and the unions that represent the nursery nurses need to negotiate a settlement that is fair to the nursery nurses and within their agreed procedures.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Mr McLetchie may ask a quick third question.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The First Minister said that to impose alternative methods would be inappropriate "at this stage". Does that mean that he envisages that there could be a stage at which the Executive would intervene in the on-going negotiations?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

No, not in this instance, but I did not want to rule out forever any possibility that we would intervene in any dispute in Scotland, for public safety reasons or any other reasons. There has been one example in the life of the Parliament in which such a threat was made by the Executive—that was in the negotiations around teachers' pay in 2000, when we said clearly that if the negotiations could not reach an appropriate settlement, we would be forced to legislate to impose one.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

There is one immediate constituency issue.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

I know that the First Minister is aware of the statements that were made yesterday by divisional commander Tom Buchan of N division of Strathclyde police, but is he aware of the comments of community police officers and other senior officers in N division on the need for additional powers to tackle antisocial behaviour? In particular, is he aware of the comments of former superintendent John McKelvie of ND division, which covers Bellshill? He said that, in 30 years as a police officer, he often felt that he had a screwdriver to deal with the issue and that he would much rather have had a toolbox, which is what the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill will give police officers.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Yesterday's comments by the named police officer, who is also responsible for policing in my constituency, which is an important part of Scotland, were regrettable, and I think that he is wrong. It is vital that the police in that area, as well as in other parts of Scotland, reinforce confidence in their actions in local communities. The best way to do that is to deal with antisocial behaviour rather than to stand against the powers that local people want him and his officers to have.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Will the First Minister condemn the actions of Dundee City Council's Labour and Lib Dem Administration, which, in its comments to parents of children with special needs, encouraged them to go to the press to criticise nursery nurses who are in dispute? Does the First Minister believe that such action will lead to the dispute being cut short, or does he believe, as I do, that it will prolong the dispute and make it last longer than it needs to?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have no intention of inflaming a dispute that has already gone on for far too long by commenting on either an individual council or the actions of the trade unions that are involved, although I think that the trade unions and the local authorities need to realise that there are parents and children out there who deserve the best possible quality of service. I have no intention of commenting on Dundee City Council and anything that it might have said, on any Unison branch and anything that it might have said, or, for that matter, on SNP local authorities, who are reaching local settlements outwith the demands of the union for a national settlement.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

I remind members that this slot is for back benchers, in particular, to raise matters of an immediate constituency interest, and that it should be so used.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive has approved the commercial planting of genetically modified maize in Scotland. (S2F-731)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The commercial planting of GM maize in Scotland is not simply a matter for the Scottish Executive. Part C consent for the release of a genetically modified organism is a collective decision of European Union member states, which is based on an assessment of the risk to human health and the environment. Chardon LL received that consent six years ago.

However, Scots are uneasy about GM crops and there is little support for their early commercialisation, so we will take action to protect the interests of Scottish consumers and to ensure consumer choice. We believe that a statutory co-existence measure should exist to prevent cross-contamination. Compensation that is funded by the GM industry will be provided for any cross-contamination that occurs in Scotland. In areas where GM maize could be grown, we wish to establish GM-free zones.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Does the First Minister agree that all that could be preparing the ground for GM crops? Everyone in Scotland knows that the Labour-Lib GM Executive has caved in to Westminster and that it has consented in principle to GM maize commercialisation throughout the United Kingdom. Is the Executive engaged in a public sedation exercise, by introducing a set of measures that is based on a dubious co-existence proposition and unworkable voluntary GM-free zones, to prepare the ground for GM commercialisation in Scotland?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

No. The proof is in the statement that I just made. Chardon LL has received European Union approval and the scientific evidence shows not only that it does not harm the environment, but that it improves biodiversity rather than adversely affecting it. We have taken the appropriate steps with our decisions to ensure that our regime is robust and can protect Scottish consumers.

A statutory co-existence regime will be created and a regime will be established for penalising GM companies should any cross-contamination occur. If we can work closely with farmers in the relevant areas, there will be voluntary GM-free zones so that Scottish consumers who are not at all convinced about the products are protected. Consumers will be able to make the choices that they want to make when the new labelling regime that we have been at the forefront of advocating is adopted in April.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Does the First Minister recognise that half the Parliament remains sceptical, that the Lib Dems should be uncomfortable, that the Westminster Environmental Audit Committee thinks that his decision is irresponsible and that the public do not want GM? Does he reject or support the seeking of an independent legal opinion on whether he has fully used the powers that are available to him?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We are always careful to ensure that we have legal opinions on the decisions that we take. My response to Robin Harper is that I believe that almost all members of the Parliament are sceptical about GM crops. I am sceptical about GM crops. That scepticism is why we insisted on putting in place the regime that I described, why we take the precautionary approach and why we ensured that the two crops that showed harm to the environment were rejected.

We will continue to take that sceptical stance not only in our debates and decisions in Scotland, but in our discussions at the UK level, in which we will push that case, and at the European level, where the decisions that led to today's position were made—some of those decisions were made back in 1990.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Does the First Minister agree that every attempt by a member state or devolved Administration to impose a blanket ban on GM has been unsuccessful? Does he agree that, faced with the same scientific evidence and advice, it is not surprising that the Scottish Executive and the other devolved Administrations reached the same conclusion as the UK Parliament did? Does he further agree that through action here and supportive action in Europe we should prioritise measures to ensure and protect consumers' ability to make an informed choice?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Of course I agree with that. I emphasise that when the UK Government and the Scottish Executive reach a consistent position, it is not always the UK Government that has persuaded the Executive of its position. More often than not, the situation is the other way round. In this case, we were clear about our position. We wanted to ensure that a clear precautionary principle was at the heart of our decisions and that, despite the scientific evidence and the legal position, as restrictive a regime as possible was put in place to protect Scottish consumers. Not only did we achieve that in Scotland, but we persuaded the UK Government to introduce the same regime across the Scottish-English border. We should be congratulated on that, not castigated.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will give the First Minister a further opportunity to answer the question that has been asked repeatedly over the past couple of days. Will he confirm that the agreement on GM maize was a collective decision by Westminster and the devolved authorities? Is it not the case that if the Scottish Executive had said no, it would be talking today not about so-called voluntary agreements but about a total ban on the commercialisation of GM maize in Scotland—yes or no?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The decision to approve Chardon LL maize was taken six years ago at European level. That is the context within which we are operating. As I explained to Nora Radcliffe—I will try to explain again—we managed to convince our colleagues in the UK Government to take the line that was announced this week. The arrangement that has been announced is the most restrictive that we could have put in place. We made that decision because we understand that people in Scotland are sceptical about GM crops. However, we are not prepared to defy completely the science, the evidence, or the law as it applies in Scotland and elsewhere in Europe.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

To ask the First Minister what action can be taken to help reduce the number of racially motivated attacks in disadvantaged communities, particularly against refugees and asylum seekers. (S2F-722)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

As all of us have made clear in the chamber on a number of occasions, Scotland is not prepared to tolerate racist attacks or harassment. To tackle those who might carry out such attacks, we need to encourage cultural and behavioural change and to support the increased efforts of Scottish police forces to respond effectively to attacks when they occur.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I am sure that we all support tough action against all those who are convicted of carrying out racially motivated attacks and harassment.

The First Minister will be aware of a deeply disturbing report that was published earlier this week by Positive Action in Housing, which revealed a rise of 75 per cent in the number of complaints about racial harassment in the year to the end of March 2004. That harassment is carried out by a despicable minority, but their actions can be devastating. Does the First Minister agree that there are some excellent examples in Glasgow from which we can learn of community policing and joint working with other agencies, including Glasgow City Council, to create the inclusive communities that we all seek, in which asylum seekers and refugees can all be made welcome?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We have supported the admirable work that has been done in recent years in Glasgow to improve community relations and to ensure that those who seek asylum and are granted refugee status in Glasgow are welcomed into the community and can make a contribution. Such people make a massive positive contribution to local schools and communities.

Key individuals have been involved in that work. I am particularly delighted by the discovery that I made on Monday night at the Scottish Police College at Tulliallan. The police officer who was at the heart of the rebuilding of the community at Sighthill in Glasgow, and who was responsible for the community festival that I attended two years ago, is giving training to police recruits and other police officers from throughout Scotland to ensure that they learn positive lessons from that experience. That is the right way for the Scottish police forces to respond and we should support their efforts.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Everyone agrees that racist attacks are a particularly repugnant form of criminal activity. The First Minister referred to our Scottish police forces. Is he satisfied that there are enough community policemen on the ground to deter such vile activity? It is not disputed that at any one time only 140 police officers are in our communities, on the streets. Is the First Minister satisfied that that is an adequate safeguard?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The member cites a silly statistic that we have debated in the chamber in the past. In reality, there are now significantly more police officers on the street in Scotland than was the case last year or the year before that, and there will continue to be more because of the reforms that we are pursuing.

I note the Conservative party's opposition to some of the reforms that are proposed for our courts and I hope that it will review its position. We want to see police officers on the beat carrying out the duties that they signed up to carry out, instead of wasting time sitting in courtrooms dealing with cases that have been delayed unnecessarily.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive intends to respond to the issues raised in the report by Professor Arthur Midwinter and the Scottish Parliament information centre, "Key Trends in the Scottish Budget 1999-2003". (S2F-713)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Professor Midwinter says that his report is

"a background paper with limited information at the beginning of a comprehensive budget review exercise rather than a fully developed assessment of recent performance".

However, I found his report very interesting.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

So did I.

Did the First Minister note Professor Midwinter's comments on health? Is the First Minister satisfied with the Scottish Executive's stewardship of the NHS when, according to Professor Midwinter, the NHS received 15 per cent extra funding between 1999 and 2003, yet it gained only a 5.3 per cent increase in staffing? Does the First Minister believe that that represents good value for money, given that we have more people waiting for treatment and fewer people being treated in the NHS and that we therefore desperately require more staff to tackle those problems?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

That is the third different position that the SNP has taken on the subject in the past week.

Consistently during the past year, we have heard perfectly understandable calls from the Scottish nationalist party for increased wages in the national health service for nurses, doctors, consultants, allied health professionals and everybody who works in the health service. Then we heard from Fergus Ewing last Sunday, after the publication of Professor Midwinter's report, that the SNP's finance spokesperson thinks that the way in which the Executive puts together its budget, together with a point that Professor Midwinter made about increased wage costs in the public sector in Scotland, shows that we are spending money on the wrong things. The SNP's finance spokesperson does not agree with the calls for increased wages.

Today, we hear from the health spokesperson that we should not be spending in the way that we are in the health service. The situation is getting absolutely ridiculous. I do not mind if the SNP calls consistently for increased spending and justifies that by advocating increased taxes. However, doing that at the same time as calling for increased spending and lower taxes—or saying, as the finance spokesperson did, that he is in favour of cutting public sector budgets rather than using the tax-and-spend approach, as detailed in Holyrood magazine yesterday—throws the whole SNP policy into tatters. The SNP needs to review its policy.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will the First Minister consider augmenting future versions of Professor Midwinter's report by adding comprehensive reporting of outcomes for all public functions—for example, clear statements of measurable and tangible public good that has been achieved from Government spending, as suggested by Nicholas Crafts of the London School of Economics in his exceedingly well-received lecture this week?