Scottish Parliament, 5 October 2006

393 contributions from 82 members. The official report.

Official Report 5 October 2006

Senior Citizens

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4901, in the name of Annabel Goldie, on Scotland's duty to its senior citizens.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The new generation of older people in Scotland is worthy of comment and recognition. My Conservative friends and I are only too familiar with the caricature of the blue-rinsed old dear pottering around the house while her elderly husband in skip bunnet is puttering around the allotment, but that image is way off the mark. The majority of today's pensioners simply do not fit into that category.

For a start, many more people survive into their 80s and 90s. In days gone by, a typical 70-year-old might have attempted little more than a walk to the shops and a bedtime story for the grandchildren, but they now fit those pleasures in to a much busier schedule that is sprinkled with surfing the net and cruising the Mediterranean. Indeed, one of them is even standing for President of the United States, and we would not get away with telling him that he is too old to be the leader of the free world. In recent years, there has been a re-emancipation of pensioners, and all power to them.

Today, I ask whether our society does all that it can to acknowledge and reassure those men and women—the neo-pensioners—both the active ones whom I described and the ones who need more care and are not so independent. The answer is that we do not, but we should. Too often during the past nine years, our older people have been regarded as yesterday's business. They have been treated with disrespect and robbed of security and dignity by the Governments in Edinburgh and London.

However, Scotland's Governments north and south of the border do that at their peril, because it is only a matter of time before the older people of Scotland fight back at the ballot box. We saw a hint of that in 2003 with the election to the Parliament of John Swinburne. Although I seldom agree with John on political issues, I take my hat off to him and say good on him for forcing pensioners' issues onto the national stage. He took a stand and showed courage, fortitude and good old Scottish grit and determination to get himself elected, and it is right that we pay tribute to that.

Although I wish John Swinburne the best of luck in the future, it is up to the four major parties in the Parliament to come up with serious policies to address the needs of Scotland's senior citizens. We need a new agenda for a new generation of pensioners and we need to set a new direction.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

As a pensioner, I ask Annabel Goldie whether it is a duty of the Scottish Green Party to join the other parties in that endeavour.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Just as I would never have guessed that Mr Harper is a pensioner, I would never have guessed that the Green party has any substantive policies to offer on the matter, but I await declarations with interest.

We all know which issues dominate our postbags. One of them is the council tax. At the top of the pile are letters about the anxiety and insecurity that arise from the increases in pensioners' council tax. Since 1997, council tax in Scotland has risen by an astonishing 60 per cent. That might be bearable if the state pension had risen by a similar amount, but it has not. Furthermore, those with private pension provision have looked on in sheer anger as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has skimmed £5 billion per year from their funds, simultaneously destroying any incentive to save for old age.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I agree with everything that Annabel Goldie said about the council tax and the state pension, but is it not the case that the state pension would be £30 per week higher if the Tories had not broken the link between the increase in pensions and the increase in wages?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Everyone would agree that when the Conservatives were in Government they supported our pensioners very effectively in a myriad other ways. Mr Neil would be better directing his concern towards the incumbent Labour Government, which has been languishing for almost 10 years, during which time the plight of our pensioners has worsened.

It is little wonder that the number of pensioner households that are spending more than 10 per cent of their income on council tax has gone up by half in the past decade. That situation is simply not sustainable, which is why earlier this week I announced that my party would be going into the next elections to this Parliament advocating an across-the-board cut of 50 per cent in council tax for over-65 pensioner households. That will be administered in addition to the 25 per cent discount that already applies to single persons. It will result in a cut in the average band D bill of almost £450 for a single pensioner and almost £600 for a pensioner couple. I believe that that is achievable and decent, I know that it is properly costed and I hope that it is something around which the chamber can unite.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Will Miss Goldie give way?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I have been generous with interventions and I would like to make further progress, if Mr Muldoon will forgive me.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Will Miss Goldie be generous enough to take an intervention from me?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Even before the charm of Mr Swinney, my generosity has limitations.

A crucial test for this policy—and others aimed at senior citizens—is that it does not unfairly penalise any other group in order to achieve its aim. I am not a modern-day Robin Hood, which is why I have ruled out the idea of a local income tax, as proposed by others in the chamber. I do not dispute that many pensioners would benefit from such a proposal, but they would do so at the huge expense of hard-working families on relatively modest incomes, who would face an income tax increase of 4 pence or more in the pound as a result—that is not for me. If I have a choice between helping older people but punishing their sons and daughters, or helping older people without having to pickpocket the younger generation, I will take the latter any day of the week.

I know that the Executive's retort will be, "We delivered free personal care," but did it? The free personal care for the elderly policy was supported by all parties, and I am glad that my party supported it, because it was the right thing to do. Nonetheless, the concerns that we raised at the time remain valid, and in many cases have come to fruition. I make no apologies for saying that the free personal care for the elderly policy has been only partially a success.

Many people are still being denied access to services to which they are legally entitled, and as my colleague David McLetchie has revealed to our horror, many of his constituents have been paying the City of Edinburgh Council for services that they should have been getting for free. The question for the Executive is this: in how many more areas throughout Scotland is that the case? It is high time that the Executive and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities got their heads together and gave a full refund to everyone who has been wrongly charged. Many of our older people are unable to take on local government bureaucrats to claim back their own money—frankly, they should not have to.

The bottom line is that when the Executive proposed the free personal care policy, it should have ensured that the mechanisms were in place to see it through. Scotland's elderly people who were promised that care by their Government are not in the least bit interested in whether the councils or the Executive are to blame. They simply want access to their legal right, and that they should have.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

I take it from Miss Goldie's contribution that she supports free personal and nursing care. Will she therefore call on her leader to sack Boris Johnson, who said last week that the Scots should not get free nursing care?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I have no responsibility for Boris Johnson and, perhaps more important, Boris Johnson has no responsibility for the affairs of a devolved Scotland, so let us proceed with matters relevant to this Parliament.

When it comes to caring for one of the most vulnerable groups in society, it is simply not good enough for the Executive to dream about the positive headlines that a bold, new policy generates while taking its eye off the ball in implementing it. Too often, the Executive acts with half a heart—I give it credit for at least having half a heart—and half a head, and that has to stop.

That is why I am determined to offer the pensioners of Scotland a positive new agenda. I want them to feel the optimism and hope that they deserve in their advancing years. I want them to feel like an included and valued part of our society. These people have given their all to our society for decades. They have raised families and started businesses. They have paid their taxes and made their contribution. After all that toil and effort, they deserve better than they are getting.

For that reason, far from stopping at this council tax announcement, I will soon launch an entire policy platform for Scotland's senior citizens—our grey-sky thinkers, as I like to call them—

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I cannot wait.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Mr Rumbles says dismissively, "I cannot wait," yet judging by the colour of his hair he will soon join the very ranks of people whom we are discussing. His is precisely the kind of pejorative, dismissive and disdainful attitude that so irritates and angers pensioners.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

rose—

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The member has had his intervention, which he made from a sedentary position. He should be man enough to sit down, shut up and listen to the debate.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Is that not being pejorative?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Not when it is a Liberal Democrat.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Order.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I will call on the skill, wisdom and experience of Scotland's senior citizens and reward their years of effort. I will ensure that they get a fair deal from Government and give them a new voice here at the heart of Scottish politics. Our policy platform for senior citizens will sit alongside, and not at the expense of, my party's platform for Scotland's youth—already spearheaded by a rejuvenated and rapidly expanding Conservative future organisation—and our platform of policies for Scotland's families.

We in the Conservative party are not interested in pitching ourselves at one section of society to the detriment of others. Good policies are those that work for everyone, not just sectional interests. However, I feel particularly strongly about the case for offering Scotland's senior citizens some of the respect, dignity and security that has been taken from them over the past nine years. That is why I am putting forward a new agenda—an agenda fit for the 21st century; an agenda that should unite us rather than divide us; an agenda of which I am very proud.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that our senior citizens represent a valuable and under-acknowledged repository of skill, wisdom and experience and that they should be both respected and, where the need arises, cared for by both society and government to enable them to live in dignity and security in their old age; is therefore greatly concerned that the council tax has risen by 60% since 1997, resulting in many pensioners struggling to pay their bills, and believes that the Scottish Conservatives' proposal for a 50% discount for all pensioner households would greatly alleviate the burden; is further concerned that the policy of free personal care, which was supported by all parties in the Parliament, is still not being universally or timeously implemented throughout Scotland, and therefore calls on the Scottish Executive, local authorities and all other relevant agencies to unite in securing the immediate and complete implementation of this policy in Scotland.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Since its establishment, the Executive has been strongly committed to the interests of Scotland's older people. I shall highlight some of the progress in a moment. We are also planning for the future, so I will say a little about that first.

Since the beginning of the year, we have been developing a strategy for a Scotland with an aging population. Scotland faces unprecedented demographic developments over the coming years, with a change in the balance between youth and age. In 25 years' time, for example, 26 per cent of the population will be over 65 and 44 per cent of the population will be over 50. We see that as an opportunity, not a threat, but it will require us to change our way of thinking about age. We must challenge stereotypes and ageism wherever they are found and recognise the enormous contribution that older people make to Scottish society. That is the starting point of our strategy.

We have consulted extensively and have heard clear and powerful messages from those consultations. Those messages reinforce our determination to ensure that Scotland's older citizens are not marginalised or excluded by their age, but have full opportunities and are valued for who they are. For that reason, I was glad to welcome the new age discrimination legislation that came into force at the weekend. It will empower many older people to make choices about their future that may not have been open to them before. I look forward to a continuing culture change, in which arbitrary age limits become a thing of the past and people's ability to do a job, or anything else for that matter, is based on their actual ability rather than on stereotyped assumptions about age.

We are currently working on the strategy and we will publish it early in the new year. In preparing it, we are taking seriously the messages that we are hearing from individuals, groups and organisations throughout Scotland about issues such as: the need for understanding and mutual respect between the generations; the need for public services that respond to the needs of people as individuals, whatever their age; straightforward and easy access to those services; the importance of housing that meets people's needs and that is linked with the right transport and amenities; and, most fundamentally, judging people by who they are rather than by their age.

I have been impressed by the enthusiasm and interest of people of all ages who have responded to the consultation. It has clearly captured people's imagination and interest. I intend to ensure that that spirit is carried forward in the strategy to help set a future direction for our approach to Scotland's aging population. A key aspect is about supporting people's health and well-being. In the responses to the consultation there was widespread understanding of the importance of keeping mentally and physically well. In that regard, a report last week from the Mental Health Foundation and Age Concern highlighted the negative effect of discrimination on the health and well-being of older people and the positive effect of participation, which reinforces two key themes of our strategy.

The direction of travel for the health service has already been set. David Kerr's report and the Executive's response to it, "Delivering for Health", set out a new vision for delivering services based on focusing on meeting the twin challenges of an aging population and the rising incidence of long-term conditions. That marks a fundamental shift in the way that the national health service works, from being an acute hospital-driven service to one that is community based; emphasises a concentration on preventing ill health and treating people faster and closer to home; and highlights a determination to develop responses that are proactive, modern, safe and embedded in communities.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Does the minister share my concern that the closure of cottage hospitals in places such as the Borders is contrary to the Kerr report and does not allow older people to be treated in the community and provided with the level of care that they need nearer to home?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Obviously, each decision must be made on a case-by-case basis. It is clearly not possible to discuss each case this morning.

Other specific pieces of work have been set in train, notably development of a rehabilitation framework and work on the management of long-term conditions, which are both particularly relevant to older people.

Another exciting new development is telecare, which enables older people to stay at home for longer with the assistance of modern technology. Some members will be familiar with the pioneering work done by West Lothian Council. I was pleased to go to West Lothian in August to announce an £8 million telecare grant scheme, which will help to roll out telecare more quickly throughout Scotland. It is an important new way of enabling people to stay in their own homes as long as they can and wish.

On the two specific issues raised in the motion, we know that there are concerns among older people and others about council tax. We have accepted the need to review the performance of the current council tax system. That is why we have set up the independent review of local government finance, to ensure that the right system is in place to provide funds that local authorities need to carry out their duties. The report of the local government finance review committee is expected by November. I cannot, of course, comment in advance of it.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Is part of the review that the Government is undertaking—aside from the work of the independent committee—an examination of the appalling level of performance of council tax benefit? More than 200,000 pensioner households in Scotland that are entitled to council tax benefit do not claim it.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

We are concerned about that issue and we are looking to address it in partnership with the pension service.

On the motion, I know that this week the Conservatives are very exercised by rebranding, but they must do better than this. Setting aside the issue of whether what they propose is mutualisation or privatisation—in my view it is the latter—the key point is that their proposal would allow only a one-off payment of money; it is not costed for the long term or even for the length of a four-year Parliament. Therefore, the only conclusion that we can draw is that their proposal would result in cuts in services. That is consistent with what we heard from their United Kingdom leader yesterday. We all noticed that in the speech that he delivered he omitted the part about making no cuts to the NHS that was shown on the website, so we know what to expect from the Conservatives, both at Westminster and in the Scottish Parliament.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the minister give way?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Not at the moment.

I am glad that the Conservatives in the Scottish Parliament support free personal care, unlike—as Bristow Muldoon reminded us—one of the members of the UK Conservative shadow Cabinet, who does not even support free nursing care for Scotland. I hope that the person winding up for the Conservatives will do better than Annabel Goldie in condemning Boris Johnson and calling on David Cameron to sack him.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Would the minister care to reflect on the fact that the last party in the Parliament to support the implementation of free personal care was his own party, the Labour Party, which stood against the policy for the first two years of the Parliament?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I will not take any lectures on free personal care from David McLetchie. I was the person who chaired the care development group, which came up with the detailed proposals for the successful implementation of free personal care in Scotland. We promised free personal and nursing care and we have delivered that. Around 50,000 people currently benefit from free personal care.

The Health Committee care inquiry report concluded that the free personal care policy has been a success and has been widely welcomed. It confirmed our belief that the policy has provided greater security and dignity to more older people, and has provided the support that they need to enable them to live in their own homes for longer.

The report made a number of recommendations, mainly around waiting lists for services and funding. Our aim is to evaluate the policy in the light of the inquiry and of our own research, which is due to be published early next year. Meantime, thousands of people continue to benefit from this flagship policy.

We also promised free bus travel across Scotland for everyone from the age of 60 and we have delivered that. Older people across Scotland have welcomed nationwide free bus travel enthusiastically and are benefiting from the opportunities that it provides to get out and about, see friends and family, and play their part in the community. The policy has served as an inspiration and model across the UK and elsewhere, and has contributed greatly to the quality of life of older people in Scotland.

I wanted to say something about free central heating, but I will leave that until the wind-up speech, because I must respond briefly to Annabel Goldie's astonishing comments about pensioners being robbed of security and dignity, particularly her criticism of the level of pension increases since 1997. I am astonished, because when the Tories left office the poorest pensioners had to live on £69 a week and pensioner poverty was greater than it had been for decades. However, there was an average real-terms increase in pensions of 37 per cent between 1997 and 2005, which resulted in more than 120,000 pensioners in Scotland being lifted from relative poverty, which represents a 46 per cent reduction in the number of pensioners in relative poverty. Further, more than 200,000 pensioners have been lifted from absolute poverty, reducing the percentage of pensioners in that category from 30 per cent to 6 per cent. Annabel Goldie's remarks about pensioner poverty are utterly astonishing and the main policy that she outlined is utterly incredible.

I move amendment S2M-4901.4, to leave out from first "believes" to end and insert:

"recognises the enormous contribution that our senior citizens make to Scottish society; supports action to challenge ageism, widen opportunities for older people and ensure that they are treated with dignity and respect; acknowledges the improvement to older people's quality of life through groundbreaking policies such as free personal and nursing care, free bus travel and the central heating programme, and welcomes the continuing commitment of the Scottish Executive to recognising, valuing and supporting Scotland's older people through the development of its Strategy for a Scotland with an Ageing Population."

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I welcome the debate. I learn something new every day from Annabel Goldie. I have learned that I am—I think—an emancipated neo-pensioner. I ask Annabel not to judge everyone's age by the colour of their hair.

I want to give an overview of some issues concerning the older generation. I speak as a politician and as one of the voting army of one million pensioners in Scotland, who range from those who fought in the second world war, such as my nonagenarian father who surfs the internet, to those like me, an ex-mod and Beatles, Dylan and Elvis fan who once wore Mary Quant miniskirts. I do not want members to try to picture that now—ah, gone are the days.

The position is, of course, that we are assets to the country: assets when we are working—whether here or in B&Q—assets when looking after our grandchildren and assets when we are carers of our partners. Many pensioners are carers of their older partners. Colleagues will be able to deal in more detail with specific topics, but I will simply give an overview, because there is so much to deal with.

Let us start with pensioner poverty, which is a phrase that keeps recurring because one in five pensioners lives in poverty. The basic state pension is only £79.50 a week for a single person, and the so-called targeted pension credit has been a complete failure—40 per cent of pensioners who are entitled to it do not claim it. The Scottish National Party would establish a citizens wage of £106 per week for a single pensioner and £161 for a couple, which would be non-means tested. "Ah," it might be said, "you would give money to rich pensioners." No, we would not. Taxation would deal with total income levels, which is a fairer way of dealing with the matter. The crucial phrase is "non-means tested". We would deal with the wealthier pensioners.

Council tax breaks a basic rule of taxes, which is that they should be fair. Council tax is palpably unfair. I will leave John Swinney to deal in detail with that tax. However, pensioners are being penalised for having lived for many years in their own homes, which have gained in value through no efforts of their own. They do not have the income to pay the council tax bills that land on their doorsteps and they now have to make serious choices.

The next issue—which I am racing to—is fuel poverty, which is now well up the agenda for many people. In 2004-05, the number of excess winter deaths in Scotland was 2,760 and 86 per cent of those were victims over the age of 65. Those deaths were not because of the weather: the winters in Sweden and Germany are far harsher than ours, but there are far fewer deaths there, because of housing and living standards. Ten per cent of admissions to hospitals in Scotland are for cold weather-related illness. The central heating programme is supported universally by members and it is welcome, but the criteria must be extended to deal with the anathema of barring from the scheme pensioners with older systems because they do not meet the criteria. We must also consider the fact that Scottish Gas administers the programme. I have concerns that a conflict of interest may arise. The jury is out, but Scottish Gas will be watched closely.

Given the excessive fuel price rises and the lack of a rise in the pension, the winter fuel allowance is completely scrubbed out by the excessive bills that land on mats. My bill is £30 extra a month, which is £360 extra a year—and I am not at home all day long. The pensioner who is on a fixed state pension, who may not be getting their pension credit and who is at home all day, will need to use their heating, but they will not be able to pay the bills. That is against the background of the enormous profits that the power companies make. This year, Scottish Power made a record profit of £850 million, which is up from last year's profit of £675 million.

The minister has told me in parliamentary answers that he has spoken to the power companies on various occasions. However, I do not know what they told him or how far he got in ensuring that Scotland's pensioners do not have to suffer cold conditions. Edwina Currie famously commented that people should wrap up warm and wear a winter hat when sitting in their homes. That is not a joke. Scotland's pensioners will be doing that and moving into one room to keep warm, as they did in the 1950s.

Mr McLetchie was quite right about free personal care. I was the first to propose a member's bill in the Parliament on free personal care for the elderly. The Labour Party was taken kicking and screaming to the very last vote to pass the measure. Labour cannot take credit for the policy. No one in the Parliament thought that we would have people waiting in queues to be assessed for free personal care. What I call the tattie-and-tin test is that, if people cannot open a tin or peel a tattie, they should get help with preparing food. There should be no difficulties with that.

As I do not have much time, I will simply say in passing that one in nine pensioners is reported as suffering some form of elder abuse. The Parliament would do well to examine that.

It sounds grim, but we are a feisty army of grumpy old men and women. I will finish with my favourite poem, which members have heard before:

When I am an old woman, I shall wear purple With a red hat that doesn't go, and doesn't suit me. And I shall spend my pension on brandy and summer gloves And satin sandals, and say we've no money for butter. I shall sit down on the pavement when I am tired And gobble up samples in shops and press alarm bells

And run my stick along the public railings And make up for the sobriety of my youth. I shall go out in my slippers in the rain And pick the flowers in other people's gardens And learn to spit.

You can wear terrible shirts and grow more fat And eat three pounds of sausages at a go Or only bread and pickles for a week And hoard pens and pencils and beer nuts and things in boxes.

When members have a chance, they should take a look at my shoes, which are not so much a fashion statement as a declaration of intent. By the way, I also have a very large red hat at home.

I move amendment S2M-4901.3, to leave out from "is therefore" to end and insert:

"expresses concern, therefore, that free personal care is not being delivered equitably, with waiting lists being operated in some regions, and believes that the Scottish Executive must take immediate action to eradicate these practices; also believes that pensioner poverty cannot be tackled without the abolition of the council tax and its substitution by the fairer system of a local income tax; is alarmed at the devastating fuel cost increases which must lead to increasing vulnerability of our older people to cold-related illnesses and early mortality, and, while welcoming legislation to end age discrimination, calls on the Executive to inquire into elder abuse."

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

Self-evidently, pensioners were not born yesterday, which is why Annabel Goldie's attempt in the motion to pull the wool over their eyes will fail miserably. We are seeing classic Conservative rebranding—the Cameronisation of British politics. In a desperate rush to win back power after so many long years in Opposition, the Tories disown everything they have done, apologise for it and appeal to us to forget all their vicious attacks on working people during the 20 years in which they were in Government. Of course, people can see right through that; they understand that if the party got into power, it would represent the same interests that forced those hated policies on working people in the first place.

People will see the political opportunism of the motion for what it is. Pensioners throughout Scotland will not be taken in by Tory motions attacking pensioner poverty when the Tories did so much to create that poverty in the first place.

Before I develop that point, however, I want to give the Tories credit for one thing. The outside possibility—the spectre—of David Cameron winning the next general election south of the border has begun to electrify the political scene in Scotland. In these pre-post-Blair days, if I can put it like that, the implications of the Tories winning power south of the border, which has been off the cards for so long, while Scotland continues utterly to reject Conservatism, and the re-emergence of the famous democratic deficit that was the catalyst for the establishment of the Parliament, will raise the issue of independence and will lead to wider discussion of the need for far greater powers for this place, an issue that will race up the political agenda.

I make no apologies for raising the matter of the state pension, which, although reserved, falls under the Parliament's consideration as far as the debate is concerned. Pensioners throughout Scotland will not fall for the trick that Annabel Goldie is attempting to play. They will not be persuaded by crocodile tears that the Conservatives give a damn about pensioners' dignity and security in retirement. It was the Conservative and Unionist Party that introduced the hated council tax and severed the link between earnings and pensions in the first place—policies that have brought pensioners to their current position.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I appreciate that Colin Fox is speaking from the point of view of a broken party, but he is three minutes into his speech. Rather than criticising what we are trying to do for pensioners, does he have anything constructive to say about what he might do?

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

Pensioners throughout Scotland are looking for more than warm words and patronising remarks from parties that have done so much to bring them to their current poverty. Millions of pensioners in this country live well below the breadline, ravaged by increased inequality and a distribution of wealth that takes from the poor and gives to the rich.

The member would do well to remember some of the facts and figures in the context of the debate. A European study shows that nearly half of elderly people throughout Europe show signs of malnutrition. According to studies, in 2004 in Scotland, 2,900 people, mostly elderly, died because of the cold. According to Energy Action Scotland in a University of Strathclyde study, poverty is the main cause of premature death among the elderly in Scotland. That is the reality that we are dealing with. My amendment attempts to make it clear that anyone who is seriously interested in ensuring that our senior citizens obtain their inalienable right to dignity, security and employment must accept that the council tax puts an unfair burden on pensioners. If we are going to do anything meaningful about the circumstances in which pensioners find themselves—other than offer the warm and patronising words that they have been offered in much of the debate so far—we must restore the link between average earnings and pensions.

In introducing the council tax the Tories were responsible for introducing a system that is designed to penalise the poor the most and that does not recognise ability to pay. The poor, the low-paid and those on fixed incomes bear the heaviest burden. According to Help the Aged and the Scottish Executive's figures, more than 110,000 pensioners in Scotland live in council tax poverty. In other words, far too large a share of their available income goes in paying that one bill.

No party in the Parliament has done more than the Scottish Socialist Party to draw attention to the circumstances that pensioners find themselves in in relation to the council tax. The SSP has done more than any other party in the Parliament to highlight the outrageous burden that pensioners have to carry in that regard. While parties such as the Labour Party and the Conservatives choose to ignore that and defend the system, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party engage in notorious double-speak, saying on the one hand that they are in favour of abolition and then voting as they did on 1 February this year—the famous February fools' day—when they said that they were opposed to the council tax and wanted to scrap it, then voted to keep it. That is the reality that pensioners recognise in the context of the debate. I will let Stewart Stevenson in to defend that very point.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Does the member agree that a proposal that reduces my tax—rich git that I am—by the substantial amount that the socialists would reduce it by, is not an appropriate replacement? Local income tax is.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

I remind the member that the central part of the SSP's proposal would mean that all people on incomes of £10,000 a year or less—which is the vast majority of senior citizens—would be exempt. Pensioners have clearly understood that message.

If there is one proposal that would do more than anything to restore dignity and long-term security in retirement to our pensioners it is the restoration of the link between average earnings and pensions. It was Mrs Thatcher who abandoned that link, leading to the brutal assault on the standards of living of pensioners that followed.

The Government's white paper, "Security in retirement", accepts the need to restore the link, but does not propose to restore it until 2012—another six years hence—and then only if it is affordable. That is a long wait for 4.5 million pensioners. In fact, it is too long, because not all those 4.5 million pensioners will live to see it. For the white paper to say that it will be done only if it is affordable hardly offers a lead-lined guarantee, given the huge debate and uncertainty over the existing provision of pensions for the baby boom generation of the 1950s and 1960s.

The Scottish Socialist Party believes that the state pension should be set at two thirds of average earnings. Where is the £6 billion to pay for that to come from? Let us look for a start at the £56 billion that has been allocated to pay for the second generation of Trident. Let us scrap Trident and give the money to the people who need it the most—to pensioners. Let us offer them real dignity in retirement.

I move amendment S2M-4901.2, to leave out from "and that they" to end and insert:

"believes that Scotland's primary duty to its senior citizens is to lift them out of the poverty and deprivation that so many endure and that the effect of Conservative policies of the 1980s and 1990s, in particular the introduction of the hated council tax and the abandonment of the link between pensions increases and the increase in average earnings, has meant that their standard of living has significantly fallen; therefore calls for the abolition of the council tax, under which many pensioners pay up to 25% of their overall income on one bill, and its replacement with a system based on ability to pay, where the poor and low-paid are exempt and the tax obligation increases as income increases, and further believes that the restoration of the link between average earnings and pensions would ensure that Scotland's senior citizens do not continue to fall behind the rest of the population and secure the right to live in dignity in retirement."

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

I start by thanking Annabel Goldie and the Conservative and Unionist Party for allocating time this morning to debate this very important issue. I also thank Annabel for her very kind words. They will make no difference to my attitude towards her policies, but I appreciate them nonetheless.

Many senior citizens are fortunate enough to be hale and hearty; indeed, many are still working and contributing to the economic wealth of our country. Sadly, some at the other end of the spectrum are much more vulnerable. Although health is generally the main reason for that vulnerability, the main factor that dictates the quality of their life is poverty. Whether it is relative poverty, Mr Chisholm, or absolute poverty, it is poverty. It is not acceptable to my generation, sir.

Mine is a proud generation; the vast majority of people have worked long and hard all their lives only to find themselves, in their waning years, in straitened circumstances. They believed, rightly or wrongly, that because they had worked hard and paid their dues throughout their lives, they would be looked after during their retirement.

The vast majority of working people in that age group gave little cognisance to the need to take out pension policies. That is largely because their parents rarely lived beyond retiral age and so paid no attention whatsoever to pension policies. The need to augment their income from the old age pension was not a consideration for them. That is not surprising when we see that life expectancy in the early 1930s was as low as 49 for a working man. It is therefore no surprise to me to find that, in Scotland today, a massive 21 per cent of senior citizens live in poverty. Indeed, 170,000 exist on less than £100 a week.

Okay, so pension credits were supposed to go a long way towards alleviating that position, but I urge members to listen and become more fully aware of the grim reality facing all too many senior citizens today. A pensioner couple who apply for pension credits will—after "parading their poverty", to use the words that they would use, during the means-testing process—be granted full pension credits. Brilliant. That is £114.05 a week, which admittedly is a vast improvement on the £84.05 of the full basic pension.

Of course, that amount is not paid to the spouse. Despite the new equality legislation that was introduced four days ago, the wife receives a mere £60, which gives them a household income of £174 a week. Those who are mentally capable of dividing that by two will know that it amounts to a massive £87 a week each to live on. That is tantamount to Government-sponsored poverty.

I turn to an extremely serious issue. On 9/11 more than 2,700 people lost their lives and the world stood still. In the winter of 2004 more than 3,000 Scottish senior citizens died and hardly anybody batted an eyelid. The medical verdict was that they were winter-related deaths, to which I would add poverty as a cause. Far too many people shrugged their shoulders and simply carried on as before.

I am delighted to say that one person took those statistics on board and did something positive about them. It will shock a few people to hear that I am referring to Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who instigated an additional winter fuel payment of £200 to every senior citizen in the land. I am certain that that long-sighted social experiment—I will not call it what the media called it—will result in the first reduction in winter-related deaths among Scottish senior citizens for years.

There were more than 8,000 winter-related deaths in the three years from 2002 to 2004. Our Chancellor of the Exchequer was derided in the media for handing out a pre-election bribe. For my part, I congratulate him on that innovative social experiment. However, I must report that the experiment was not long-term and no additional £200 will be handed out this year, according to Treasury sources.

The Parliament is presented with the unique opportunity to replicate Gordon Brown's excellent social experiment prior to the winter of 2006. All it has to do is order the 32 councils in Scotland to exempt every pensioner household from paying the water and sewerage rates element of the current council tax. That would save every senior citizen household an average of £354 per annum, based on a band D house.

That will benefit every senior citizen household. Remember the pensioner couple who received a miserly £87 a week each after being means tested? Even a pensioner in that position is currently required to pay their water rates. They are means tested, get that minimum amount of money and then have water rates extracted from it. Let us bring an end to that unacceptable anomaly and add to the income of every senior citizen household in Scotland, especially the very poorest, by exempting them from having to pay water rates and, in so doing, implement a new Holyrood social experiment to influence a further reduction in the numbers of vulnerable elderly senior citizens who would otherwise succumb to the national disgrace that is known as winter-related death.

A few points have been raised already. There is no point recriminating and looking back and saying, "He was to blame." A senior citizen asked me who I represent. I said, "senior citizens." He said, "But don't all parties represent senior citizens?" I said, "Yes, but extremely badly." The outcome is the poor pension that they all get. I have to exempt the parties who have not been in power, such as the Scottish National Party and others. However, the Labour Party and the Conservatives, particularly those in power now, are collectively responsible for the abject pension that senior citizens receive.

Under the Turner proposals, we will have equalisation of our pensions in 2012. In the meantime, we have just to tighten our belts and get on with it.

I move amendment S2M-4901.1, to leave out from "is therefore" to end and insert:

"and that the Scottish Executive should immediately take action to increase the income of every pensioner household in Scotland in a legal manner which is entirely compliant with the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 and thereby follow up on that excellent social experiment by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, in 2005 which should result in the first drop in winter-related deaths in Scotland in recent years."

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

On behalf of the Liberal Democrats I oppose the Conservative motion, the terms of which make it obvious that the Conservatives undervalue our senior citizens. Their motion calls on the Scottish Parliament to agree that our senior citizens represent an

"under-acknowledged repository of skill".

I think that we will not do so. The Tories might think that but we certainly do not. The Scottish Executive's amendment says that we recognise

"the enormous contribution that our senior citizens make to Scottish society".

That is a far more appropriate approach to this debate.

The crocodile tears—Colin Fox used that phrase before me and I will reinforce it by using it again—that were shed by Annabel Goldie when she was talking about pensioners earlier were clear. She highlighted the poor level of the state pension. What a nerve, given that it was the Conservatives who cut the link between pensions and earnings. I give her credit for her nerve.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I will give way to Phil Gallie in a minute.

This is a cack-handed motion if ever there was one. It seems that Annabel Goldie, conscious of the valid criticisms that have been levelled at David Cameron this week about the fact that the Conservatives have failed to come up with any policy commitments, is desperate to be seen to be doing something before next year's Scottish elections.

Even Michael Fry, who has been a Conservative candidate in several Westminster and Scottish Parliament elections, said about the Tories' contributions in this Parliament that, apart from

"a bit of ranting about law and order"

they amount to nothing and that

"The cupboard is bare".

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I will give way to Alex Neil.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Could the member also quote Michael Fry on his conversion to the case for independence?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I think that Alex Neil has just done so.

So, what have the Conservatives hit on? They have decided to advocate a 50 per cent reduction in council tax payments for the over-65s. When she was interviewed on radio earlier this week, Annabel Goldie said that this policy was fully funded. When the interviewer asked her to explain exactly where the money would come from, she said simply, "Oh, it'll come from the Scottish Executive." If that is a fully funded policy, Annabel Goldie needs some lessons in basic economics.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way on that point?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

In a moment.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That is what he said to Phil Gallie.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Well, the Conservatives would not give way to me, would they?

On the radio yesterday, I heard William Hague, the Conservatives' ex-leader, talking about Boris Johnson, the Tory front-bench spokesman who said that the elderly should not get free personal care, that Scots should not get free university education subsidised "by us in England" and, speaking about our healthy-eating initiative, that the solution to obesity is not to provide healthy stuff. I would like to ask the Conservatives how they expect anyone in Scotland to take them seriously.

During Colin Fox's speech, a Tory backbencher said, from a sedentary position, that they were offering warm words rather than Colin Fox's cold comfort. I think that that says everything that we need to know about the Conservatives' cynical approach.

Council tax was invented by the Conservatives to replace the equally flawed community charge. We have had David Cameron's apology for the fact that the Tories foisted the council tax on Scotland. Would it be too much to ask Annabel Goldie—or whoever sums up the debate—to admit that that tax was a disastrous error by the Tories in Scotland and to apologise for the damage that was caused?

As I understand it, the Conservatives still believe, as Michael Howard said at last year's election, that the council tax is the fairest form of local taxation. The Liberal Democrats could not disagree more. The fairest form of any local taxation system must relate to a person's ability to pay it. The council tax bears no relation to a person's ability to pay. It is simply based on the capital value of property. What a complete nonsense. The fairest form of local taxation must be a form of local income tax.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Mr Rumbles, demonstrating an over-acknowledged repository of skill, has spent around four minutes criticising the Conservatives. Does he not appreciate that 88 per cent of the money that is gathered to pay for local government services comes from income tax and general taxation, which is related to the ability to pay?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Mr Aitken misses the point. We are talking about the council tax, which is not related to people's ability to pay.

The fairest form of local taxation is a form of local income tax, which the Scottish Liberal Democrats and others have advocated for a long time. I will give one example to illustrate our plans.

Currently, a pensioner couple who live in Edinburgh on a pension of £14,600 in a band D property—the Tories have mentioned such properties—pay a whacking £1,041 in council tax. Under the Liberal Democrats' local income tax plans, they would pay £320, which represents a saving of more than £700.

The Conservatives' motion offers very little that is relevant to Scotland. The Liberal Democrats will gladly fight next year's election on our record in coalition government. We have helped to reduce absolute poverty in Scotland by two thirds. Some 60,000 fewer pensioners are living in relative poverty. We have introduced free personal care for the elderly; indeed, the Liberal Democrats are the only party that wants free personal care for the elderly north and south of the border. The coalition has also introduced free nationwide travel for all pensioners, dramatically cut fuel poverty as a result of the central heating and warm deal schemes and enabled more of our elderly folk to live independent lives. With our colleagues in the coalition, the Scottish Liberal Democrats have a very good record of helping our senior citizens over the past few years.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The member means the Liberal Democrats' present colleagues.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Yes—our present colleagues. We certainly do not need half-baked ideas from the Conservatives that would be underfunded, as outlined in today's motion, which I urge members to reject.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

We now move to the open debate, which is oversubscribed. Therefore, I ask members to stick to six minutes for their speeches, including interventions.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I want to clarify the Conservative party's position on funding our proposed permanent council tax discount for pensioners. The discount will be funded from annual savings in the Scottish Executive budget that will result from the denationalisation of Scottish Water, which is failing its customers throughout this country and performing miserably in comparison with equivalent companies south of the border. Mr Chisholm talks about such funding being one-off funding. If he is looking for a one-off gimmick, he should consider that by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who introduced a £200 council tax supplement last year for the purposes of the election and scrapped it in this year's budget. That was a one-off gimmick relating to pensioners; we propose a permanent council tax discount.

I want to focus on free personal care and the controversy over charges for assistance with meal preparation and to describe my experience in cases that I have dealt with on behalf of constituents.

Recently, the Parliament debated the report on the Health Committee's inquiry into the implementation of free personal care. It was self-evident from that debate that members are no clearer today than they were six months ago about what assistance with meal preparation means in practice. The minister's statements and the letter that was sent to councils in May are masterpieces of obfuscation. Moreover, the practices of local authorities still vary widely on the ground. I am afraid that there is another postcode lottery when it comes to meal preparation: the place of residence determines the service that will be received. Throughout Scotland, the menu is à la carte and sometimes contains precious little, whereas we need a straightforward table-d'hôte approach.

I first raised that issue with the City of Edinburgh Council on behalf of a constituent in November last year. The case was the first of 17 cases that have been brought to my attention. A report to the council last month from its director of social care indicated that 45 requests had been received to date direct from clients or via members of the Scottish Parliament or councillors. In every case in which I have requested a review and the council has completed that review, the council has concluded that charges were being incorrectly levied. Those charges have now been stopped and the council has undertaken to refund charges that were wrongly made. To date, the refunds have averaged nearly £1,900 a head.

The cases that have been decided in Edinburgh are the tip of the iceberg. The council has acknowledged that 1,250 older people in the city currently contribute to the cost of domiciliary care, which includes a meals-related element that might be properly classed as falling under free personal care.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I wonder whether Mr McLetchie can advise Parliament where he believes that the liability lies for retrospective food preparation charges that have been incorrectly charged. I agree with him that the Executive's guidance is woefully confusing and ridiculous. Does the Executive carry any of the responsibility for picking up the tab when councils have raised food preparation charges erroneously?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

In my opinion, the authors of the confusion and muddle are in Victoria Quay, and the responsibility for sorting out the mess must lie with the Executive. If there are—as I believe that there should be—refunds on a wide scale throughout Scotland, it is the responsibility of the Executive to ensure that councils are properly funded for that. After all, we in the Parliament must demonstrate that we mean what we say. People were given a promise that has not been honoured, and many people have been wrongly charged; it is only right and proper that they should be refunded.

What we have at the moment is dither and delay from the Executive and COSLA, a long-running review being preferred to decisive action. We have reached the stage at which, last month, the City of Edinburgh Council resolved to seek a definitive legal opinion on the correct interpretation of the 2002 act. I wish the council luck, but there will be nothing definitive about a legal opinion that has been obtained on behalf of one authority. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that, if all councils in Scotland adopted that approach, we could end up with 32 opinions and 32 different answers. The only definitive legal opinion is the decision of a court; however, as far as I am aware, no test case is on the horizon. In the absence of such a judgment, the solution to the problem lies in the hands of the Executive, as I said in my response to Mr Swinney.

I have described the Edinburgh experience, but there are wide variations in practice throughout Scotland. Scottish Borders Council adopts a far more restrictive approach. Thanks to the efforts of my colleague Alex Fergusson, Dumfries and Galloway Council has resolved to levy no further charges but, regrettably, will not pay out any refunds. The council has taken one step in the right direction, but it needs to go the extra mile.

Members of all parties are proud of the policy of free personal care. It is regularly cited as one of the flagship policies of devolution; however, it is a flagship that has sprung a leak. People out there do not care for tiresome arguments between councils, COSLA and the Executive about funding, the division of responsibilities and legalistic interpretation. They expect consistent delivery throughout the country and the ability to ensure that lies fairly and squarely with the Executive. The Executive should get on and do the job now.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Older people, pensioners, senior citizens, over-60s—there are many names, some of which are probably unmentionable, to describe the group of people whom we are discussing today. It is also fair, in this day and age, to allow people to decide for themselves whether they fit into any category. I see that Christine Grahame is wearing purple today, but I hope that she will not take to spitting. I look forward to seeing her in a red hat.

Assessing the needs of older people is what we are about. Duty and respect are words that are associated with the way in which we should treat the older population; however, the issue for me is liberation of the older classes to live their lives in the way that they want to. At the same time, we must ensure that their health care needs and other needs are addressed, as that is what a civilised society does.

My father, who is 75, burns CDs and DVDs and presses the labels himself. He watches "The X Factor" and "Big Brother" and he shops on QVC—I am thinking of introducing him to Margo MacDonald. Of course, I think that he is unique, but he should not be. That is one thing that I agree with Annabel Goldie about: in the 21st century, we should liberate the older classes. We should empower older people to live the kind of lives that they want to live and care for them when they need it. As the minister said, under a Labour Government we have lived up to our responsibilities and have incorporated measures to prevent age discrimination into our law. That will benefit not just young people, but older people.

We are being accused of acting with half a heart. However, we were not half-hearted when we introduced the winter fuel allowance, free television licences for the over-75s and pension credits. We are not half-hearted about pensioner poverty; we know that more needs to be done, and more will be done under a Labour Government. I take issue with the idea that, overall, older people are not benefiting from a stable economy and the investment in housing. After all, they, too, care about such matters.

Under the devolution settlement that we are managing, we have added to the record of care for older people. Indeed, those very people were instrumental in bringing about devolution.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the member give way?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Ten seconds—and that's all you're getting.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I thank the member very much. Does she think that it was helpful that a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer's first fiscal act was to take £3.87 billion out of Scottish pensioners' pension funds and, in effect, create financial disadvantage?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

We on this side of the chamber know what our responsibilities are. Independence for Scotland will simply give the country's stability a knock and not guarantee pensioners' future. This Labour Government has been serious about introducing, for example, free bus travel throughout Scotland. The Scottish Executive is committed to that measure and has funded it year on year. Moreover, the central heating programme, which is universal and not based on income, is a good policy and I urge ministers to continue its expansion.

As for free personal care, which has been discussed this morning, we must not underestimate the challenge that it represents. It is one of our most expensive commitments; it is not easy to implement, but a serious Government has to be serious about delivery. This morning, the Opposition parties have tried to unpick the detail of a broad policy that has been extremely successful. They can pick away if they like—after all, we should seek to improve the scheme—but I tell them that it is simply not enough to have policy, policy, policy; what we need is delivery, delivery, delivery. The general public know that we are committed to free personal care. After all, figures show that the number of those in receipt of such care has increased and, as more of the population gets older, that trend will continue.

The Tories say that they are not pitching to any particular section of society. That is true; indeed, we can safely say that David Cameron is attempting to court all the sections of society—the women's vote, the green vote, the youth vote and the pensioners' vote—that the Tories have previously failed to appeal to. However, the idea that the NHS is safe in Tory hands is an absolute misconception, and washing one's dishes in public on a webcam will not persuade people otherwise. [Interruption.]

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Order.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

There is certainly no talk on webcameron about how pensioner poverty will be dealt with.

We have heard the Tories' commitment to fund a reduction in council tax, but David McLetchie is wrong to think that the people of Scotland will let Scottish Water be privatised in order to fund such a policy.

Older people clearly want more from devolution. Although investment in housing has begun fundamentally to improve the quality of life in Scotland, I want more houses that are suitable for older people. Furthermore, I have already spoken in the chamber about the need for more bus regulation, because older people bear the brunt of service withdrawal or the lack of adequate services. I hope that more will be done about that in the next parliamentary session.

As far as this matter is concerned, we should not allow ourselves to be distracted by constitutional arguments about, for example, independence. Labour will not be distracted from focusing on older people and will keep doing the same things that it has been doing over the past few years. Older people are safe in our hands, not in Tory hands.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

No matter whether Gordon Brown becomes the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and no matter what the historical assessment of his tenure will be, I have absolutely no doubt that he will go down in history as the chancellor who created the pensions crisis in this country. I remember his decision in the early days of the 1997 Administration to abolish tax relief on advance corporation tax. That very move is now causing problems in numerous pension funds across the country.

Labour members can scoff all they like, but, despite all the fine talk about measures to help pensioners, the basic income that many pensioners receive from their pension funds has been damaged for all time by the chancellor's systematic annual raid on those funds. That is an absolute scandal, which will come back to haunt Gordon Brown in years to come.

I welcome the debate that the Conservatives have initiated today, and there is a great deal in the Conservative motion with which I and my colleagues can agree, although there are obviously some points of disagreement, which I will come to later.

First, I would like to say some words on free personal care. Pauline McNeill said that we should not be distracted by the details of the policy, but that we should concentrate on "delivery, delivery, delivery". All that my constituents who have been charged for food preparation have received from the Government is the delivery of one bill after the delivery of another bill, after the delivery of yet another bill, and so it goes on. Local authorities are now saying that they do not think that they are entitled to charge that food preparation levy and that they will not charge it any longer.

In our debate on the Health Committee's excellent report into free personal care, I raised the issue of the quality of the advice that has been given by Scottish Executive ministers to local authorities about charges for food preparation, and I read out an example of that advice. It is utterly bewildering and beyond comprehension. Mr McLetchie is absolutely right to say that we are now about to get 32 legal opinions, which will cost the taxpayer a fortune, because the Executive will not provide the clarification that is required to clear up the issue and to settle it once and for all.

I will move on now to talk about what I really intended to talk about—the council tax part of the motion. I welcome the fact that the Conservatives have some different ideas, but those ideas are not too different from what the Conservatives talked about in the 2005 election campaign, when they proposed a council tax pensioner discount. Just a year ago, they costed that at £133 million, but the figure has now risen to £200 million, so the costings were obviously not right a year ago, which leads us to the conclusion that they are not correct today, either. My calculation for the proposal shows that it is much more likely to cost £364 million, rather than the £200 million that the Conservatives have calculated. Mr McLetchie talked about the revenue implications of mutualising Scottish Water, but I have absolutely no idea how £200 million can be made into £364 million. It will be another of the black holes in public funding that are so regularly created by the uncosted programmes of reckless political parties.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

rose—

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I can see that Mr Brownlee is about to explain how the weight of such recklessness can rest on such young and wise shoulders.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I am rather confused by what Mr Swinney has said, as only last week we heard that the SNP proposed to fund an on-going revenue commitment out of one pot of Treasury money that would rapidly run out. Would he care to reflect on the contrast?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The point that I made to Mr Brownlee last week was that we recognise that there are short-term opportunities to fund specific programmes before a future spending review at which we will set our own priorities. The more I hear about the headroom created in the Howat review to fund public spending commitments, the more I think that there is an opportunity to make Scottish taxpayers' money go much further than the sloppy Liberal and Labour Executive has managed to make it go in the past.

My party firmly supports the concept of a local income tax that is based on ability to pay. One of the compelling reasons why I support a local income tax is that I have visited countless pensioners who are deeply concerned about the significance of the council tax as part of their on-going financial commitments. In some circumstances, individuals who may have lived for 50 years in the house where they brought up their kids, welcomed their grandchildren and had many happy times are having to sell their property and downsize because of the size of the council tax bill. We are supposed to be in this Parliament to improve people's quality of life. In a civilised society, it should not be necessary for people to have to sell their houses.

Under the SNP's proposals, 538,000 Scottish pensioners would pay no local income tax at all, which contrasts with the fact that, for many pensioners, the proportion of their income that has to be allocated to pay for council tax has increased significantly year on year since the current Executive came to power. That is a problem that Parliament has to address. I look forward to the challenges of addressing it after the May 2007 elections, when the SNP will be in a position to introduce a system of taxation that is fair, local and related to the ability to pay.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Bob Hope once quipped:

"You know when you're getting old when the candles cost more than the cake."

Speaking as one whose candle bill is racking up each year and who is now the proud holder of a bus pas—thank you, Executive—and a senior citizens rail pass, I have increasing reason to take an interest in old age and in the way in which our country treats its senior citizens. I am grateful to the Tories for bringing the issue to the chamber.

The motion speaks of the "respect" that senior citizens are due, which all too often is lacking in their lives. It is axiomatic that how we treat the elderly is how we deserve to be treated when we become elderly. We should perhaps feel a little uncomfortable about that, given the number of elderly people who live in straitened circumstances. As members have said many times in the debate, pensioners face financial hardship and have difficulty heating their homes. All too often, they live in low-quality housing, increasingly without much support from family or the state.

I agree that senior citizens

"represent a valuable and under-acknowledged repository of skill, wisdom and experience"

and recommend to the chamber the retired and senior volunteers programme that CSV established a few years back. Senior citizens can be active—we can make a contribution to society. That said, older people are worthy of far greater respect and dignity than they get even now. Saying that is easy, but addressing the problems is a great deal more challenging.

The answer to many of the issues is simple—indeed, it has been referred to many times in the debate: pensioners need more money. What the mainstream parties are doing for pensioners is far from simple. Their policies involve means testing, winter fuel allowances and the hugely complicated benefit system. As Christine Grahame said earlier, the complexity of the system means that, each year, billions of pounds of benefits go unclaimed by pensioners.

The Green party's proposal for pensioners may represent blue-sky thinking, but it is the result of considered thinking and continuous refinement.

We believe that, from the cradle to the grave, everyone should be entitled to a citizens income. We propose a non-means-tested, non-taxable entitlement that would allow people to meet their basic needs. For those who have trouble in getting their heads around the idea, the citizens income can also be thought of as a negative income tax rate. Pensioners, as well as the disabled and those with chronic illnesses, would be eligible for a supplement to the basic income—an income that they could claim irrespective of other pensions or income.

We recognise that the Scottish Parliament is not yet in a position to introduce such a policy. In the meantime, we will continue to campaign for a decent pension: one that is uprated annually in line with the price of goods and services or with average earnings, whichever—and this is very important—is the greater. As we have heard in many contributions to the debate, successive UK Governments have overseen a steady erosion in the value of the state pension, yet all the time those Governments have protested about how much they value pensioners.

Pauline McNeill mentioned poor housing. I agree that there is a clear causal link between hard-to-heat housing and ill health. Several members have referred to the 3,000 or more winter deaths that happen in Scotland each year among the over 60s. That figure is, of course, completely unacceptable. Pauline McNeill also talked about "delivery, delivery, delivery", but that is not happening—not nearly enough money is being put into or focused on helping the elderly. For example, it is about time that we enacted legislation to compel building standards for all homes that are occupied by pensioners to be raised. We need to do that retrospectively, and it needs to apply to all such homes across the board. A level of support must be embedded into improving the heating and insulation of pensioner homes.

I am not sure whether members are aware that today is national poetry day. It was a lovely surprise when Christine Grahame read from Jenny Joseph's poem "Warning". The rest of the poem goes like this:

You can wear terrible shirts and grow more fat And eat three pounds of sausages at a go Or only bread and pickle for a week And hoard pens and pencils and beermats and things in boxes.

But now we must have clothes that keep us dry And pay our rent and not swear in the street And set a good example for the children. We must have friends to dinner and read the papers.

But maybe I ought to practise a little now? So people who know me are not too shocked and surprised When suddenly I am old and start to wear purple.

If members look at Christine's feet, they will see that she also has on a pair of purple shoes.

There is a lesson in the poem. Perhaps the Parliament should focus more regularly on the subject of this morning's debate and give more thought to our pensioners and older people.

I finish as I started, with a quote from the United States. Abraham Lincoln said:

"In the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."

It is up to us to ensure that our senior citizens have life in their years, so let us get on with it.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I apologise to members for the fact that I will depart the scene after speaking because I have to meet an important person about the Procedures Committee debate this afternoon. I hope that all members who are present will take part in that debate because it is their chance to have their say on how things are run in the Parliament.

The debate has focused to a considerable extent on council tax and local income tax. It is well known that the Liberal Democrats in the UK and in Scotland support a local income tax. We pressed for that within the partnership. Quite a lot of Labour people are not so keen on the idea, but the matter is being seriously examined and we will continue to press for it during the election campaign and in the next session of Parliament, however Parliament is configured.

There has been a lot of discussion about free personal care and some serious criticisms of how it is being handled. I am sure that the minister will take those on board and try to clarify the rules as soon as possible. The policy of free personal care explores new territory. Sometimes, the civil service is not very good at exploring new territory, and it takes a while to clarify what people think. However, I always worry about the use of the phrase "postcode lottery" in politics. If we have local democracy, local councils will do things in different ways and we will not get uniformity. There should be a basic level of support and there should not be wildly different interpretations, but we have to accept that local democracy is about local decisions. We hope that, under the new voting system that we are going to have, there will be better local decisions.

As the minister said, the Executive has achieved a lot for older people—free travel and central heating, and improvements to personal services—but there are a lot of things that we could do much better. We should consider supporting older people so that they can make the contribution that they are capable of making. If we get an old person who is lonely involved in a voluntary organisation, we will remove their loneliness and they will make a positive contribution to the organisation. That will help them and it will help the local community.

We can do things better. For example, there is a tendency for meals-on-wheels to be provided by commercial organisations that use frozen food, instead of the Women's Royal Voluntary Service visiting people and having a chat every day. That is bad. The council might save some money, but that approach ruins older people's health and their lifestyles. In such cases, we could have more civilised policies that take account of the non-financial aspects.

We need to work out a system whereby older people have an opportunity to use their talents, whether through voluntary organisations or through working. The concept used to be that people worked until they were 65 or whatever and that they did not work for money after that, but that concept is wrong. People can ease off from working. An older person can still make a considerable contribution without necessarily working a 40-hour week, or whatever it might be. We can create a set-up in which older people can really get stuck in and organise themselves, which they are well capable of doing. They can co-operate with younger people and give them the mentoring that more and more organisations now recognise is important. Older people do not have to contribute in a heavy Victorian-auntie style; they can do it sensibly by giving their life knowledge to younger people, who can help to enliven older people. There can be benefits in both directions.

There is an opportunity for us all to contribute more positively as we get older. I certainly intend to do that. My whisky bottle is half full, not half empty, or perhaps I should say that there is still a lot of petrol in my tank. When I depart from this place, I hope that I will have more time to annoy more people of importance and really pursue the causes in which I believe. Retired people can still make a real contribution by agitating for all sorts of good causes, not only to help older people but to help young people and to campaign for sensible overseas policies, for example.

Our older people are a huge resource. The Executive has made a start in harnessing that resource but I am sure that, although we can fight about local income tax, all parties can get together to create a climate in which older people have a real opportunity to contribute. Then we will make Scotland a better place.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Presiding Officer, it will come as no surprise to you or to the minister that I congratulate our leader Annabel Goldie on her bold initiative to cut annually council tax for pensioners by 50 per cent across Scotland. Of course, that will cost money, and my colleagues have dealt with the funding of the scheme. However, the proposal is a direct response to the failure of Government to provide adequately for our pensioners, which, despite the promises of the Labour-Liberal coalition, it is becoming clearer by the day that they have no real intention of doing.

It therefore falls to the Conservatives to come up with real solutions to help our elderly people. Nowhere are those solutions more required than in my own area of South Ayrshire, which has a significantly greater number of older people than the national average.

With larger-than-average numbers of elderly in our local population, the fact that pension funds are unable to reclaim tax on dividends—costing those funds £5 billion annually since Gordon Brown introduced the measure—hits harder in South Ayrshire than elsewhere in Scotland. The fact that council tax benefits are so difficult to claim, with low uptake among the elderly—to which John Swinney, I think, referred—hits harder in South Ayrshire than elsewhere in Scotland. The fact that the number of pensioner households that spend more than 10 per cent of their gross income on council tax bills rose by 37.5 per cent between 2000 and 2005 hits harder in South Ayrshire than elsewhere in Scotland. The fact that the cost of living for pensioners is rising 50 per cent faster than the Government inflation figure hits harder in South Ayrshire.

I could go on and give further examples of how Government policy is failing our elderly, but I would like to highlight the Executive's underfunding of free personal care in South Ayrshire. Specifically, and most quantifiably, when free personal care was introduced, the Executive provided funding for 233 people in care homes, but South Ayrshire Council had to fund 283 clients. The funding has now been increased to provide for 276 clients, which is still below what the figure was on the very day that the scheme started. However, South Ayrshire Council has this year been required to fund 358 care home places at a cost of £895,000 to the local council tax payer, who has had to fund the gap between the budget provided by the Executive and that which is needed to deliver the policy as it was intended. In addition, there is a list of 17 clients awaiting placements in care homes.

That issue has been raised with the Executive since day 1 of the scheme because of South Ayrshire's demographics, but nothing has been done. South Ayrshire Council raised the issue through COSLA, and Pat Watters has taken up the case. It is a prima facie case of long-term direct underfunding of the scheme that penalises not just the pensioners of South Ayrshire but local council tax payers, many of whom are elderly themselves, as I have already outlined.

Further, the number of home care hours that are provided each week has increased from 7,172 when the free personal care policy started to 12,419 at the end of 2005-06. Although we cannot quantify how much of that increase is due to the introduction of free personal care, it is clear that the increased cost of home-based care packages has been huge.

Furthermore, prior to the introduction of free personal care, the service that South Ayrshire Council provided comprised 80 per cent personal care and 20 per cent non-personal care. That is still the case but, since the introduction of free personal care, South Ayrshire Council has lost the ability to charge for the 80 per cent of care for which it would previously have charged. Because of a Scotland-wide misallocation of free personal care funding that took no account of the age profile of the different local authorities, South Ayrshire Council, which was originally in the forefront of providing care for the elderly, has been penalised by the inflexibility of a scheme that assumed a much lower split of chargeable care.

The minister can see the problem but, as I am sure he is aware, the problem does not stop there. Infrastructure costs have also increased markedly, due to the need to allocate a caseworker to self-funding clients, whose needs must be regularly reviewed. Like other hard-pressed councils, South Ayrshire Council has appointed reviewing officers from outwith the free personal care allocation to allow all possible funding to be used for the provision of free personal care. Generally, ministers have claimed that free personal care is fully funded across Scotland, including in South Ayrshire—such claims have been made specifically to me whenever I have raised the matter in the Parliament—but that is far from being the case. In South Ayrshire, the underfunding of the social work budget is £2.36 million for this year alone. In large part, that is due to the inadequate funding of free personal care. For South Ayrshire Council, the cumulative cost over the past five years of providing for self-funding clients in care homes is £3.664 million over and above the grant-aided expenditure allocation. That cost has had to be funded by South Ayrshire's council tax payers.

The specifics of the situation in South Ayrshire illustrate why the Health Committee took the view that a full review of each local authority's position is required to justify either an across-the-board increase in funding or a reallocation of existing funding on a more equitable basis among local authorities. A mechanism should be developed to predict the long-term levels of financing that will be required to provide free personal care in each local authority. Such financing must, at the very least, be linked to inflation. Adequately funding free personal care would also reduce bedblocking throughout Scotland. That would be a much more humane and cost-effective way of looking after the 1,200 or so of our elderly who are languishing in hospital when they could and should be looked after elsewhere.

The problem has been building up over many years. It has been highlighted to the Scottish Executive on numerous occasions but, regrettably, no action has resulted. Further delays and underfunding are no longer acceptable. It is time for action to give our elderly people the standard of care to which they are entitled.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

I welcome the fact that the Conservatives have chosen to use their debating time to discuss Scotland's duty to its senior citizens. I also welcome the fact that they have given a full morning to the debate, rather than following Opposition parties' usual practice of splitting their debating time so that no proper analysis can take place in the debate.

Scotland's older people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect and I am sure that all members would agree that we should aim for that. Most of us are living longer and we are enjoying healthier, longer and more active retirements than people did in the past. As Donald Gorrie pointed out, older people can continue to make a contribution both in work and in the wider community.

The issue of council tax, which is central to the Conservative motion, is important. Council tax can have a big impact on pensioners' budgets, especially if they have an income that is just above the level that would allow them to qualify for council tax benefit. I will return to that issue later in my speech.

Miss Goldie's criticisms of the implementation of free personal care would have more credibility if she had more clearly called on her leader, David Cameron, to sack Boris Johnson from his position in the shadow ministerial team after his outrageous attack on this Parliament's decision to deliver free personal and nursing care to Scotland's elderly. Mr Johnson's continued presence in Mr Cameron's shadow ministerial team confirms that, contrary to all Mr Cameron's spin and gloss, the Tories remain at heart the anti-Scottish party.

On the record of the Tories in government, I agree with Malcolm Chisholm that aspects of Annabel Goldie's speech were astonishing. The Tory Government completely failed pensioners in the 1980s and 1990s. In 18 years, the Tories only once increased the basic state pension above the rate of inflation and on that occasion they did so only to compensate for their decision to impose VAT on fuel.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

How does the member react to my comment that an uncle of mine who voted Labour all his life told me shortly before he died that he had never been so well off in his entire life as he was under Maggie Thatcher?

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

I am sorry to hear of Nanette Milne's uncle's demise, but I suspect that his experience of being better off under Margaret Thatcher is unique among pensioners. The truth is that the Tories failed pensioners in Britain and in Scotland. When the Tories left office, the poorest pensioners had only £69 a week to live on and only a Labour campaign in 1995 stopped their proposals to increase VAT on fuel to 17.5 per cent. High inflation in the 1980s and 1990s eroded the incomes and savings of pensioners, and older people were among the worst affected by the Tories' neglect of public services. When the Tories left office, many older people were having to wait more than 18 months for operations.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Will the member give way?

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

I want to make progress.

The Tories' record stands in stark contrast to the measures that Labour in government has introduced to improve the lives of older people. We have introduced measures to help the poorest pensioners—first, the minimum income guarantee and now the pension credit. We also introduced the winter fuel payment, which the Tories opposed, and we have reduced VAT on fuel.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

I want to make progress.

Among the most important measures that the Scottish Parliament has introduced have been those aimed at improving the lives of Scotland's pensioners, such as the warm homes and free central heating initiatives, free bus travel—now delivered throughout Scotland—and free personal care.

In local government, there are examples of good practice in the way in which older people are cared for and supported. I welcome the recognition that Malcolm Chisholm gave to West Lothian Council's record of using smart technology to support older people in their homes or in residential settings.

I will now address Annabel Goldie's major policy initiative. I have acknowledged that the impact of council tax, in particular on pensioners just above the benefit level, is an issue. I also acknowledge the issue that John Swinburne raised of the impact of the water rates that people pay along with their council tax. I have raised the matter within Labour's policy-making process and I am exploring with colleagues the best way that we can tackle it in order to make council tax and water rates fairer to pensioners.

The Conservatives' proposals suffer from two problems. First, the very poorest pensioners would not benefit at all because they already receive council tax benefit. However, the far bigger flaw in the Conservatives' proposals is the fact that they are underpinned by the plans to privatise Scottish Water. The Conservatives have learned nothing from their decade in opposition. They abandoned their plans to privatise the water industry in the first place when they were in power, when they panicked at the result of the Strathclyde referendum. The people of Scotland rejected the privatisation plans then and I am sure that they would do so again today. Their proposals on privatisation are based on the false premise that private companies are inevitably more efficient.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

They are.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

The Tories should reflect on the privatisation of the rail industry, which resulted in the private rail industry requiring about three times the subsidy of the nationalised rail industry, which the Tories dismantled. That has cost the taxpayer billions of pounds more per year.

Scotland's pensioners will not be fooled by the Conservatives. They know the record of the Tories in government. The Tories neglected older people and neglected the public services on which older people depend.

The Parliament has made good progress so far in addressing the needs of Scotland's older people. Of course, we need to do much more. I am sure that Scotland's older people recognise the substantial difference for the better that has been made to their quality of life by the decisions made by the Parliament and by the Labour Government at Westminster.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

Bristow Muldoon rightly said that there is much more to do. I will highlight a sector in which there are significant concerns about the services that are offered to some of the more vulnerable sections of our society: sheltered and very sheltered housing. The recent introduction of charges for warden and other services is causing considerable concern. There is anecdotal evidence that those who would benefit from going into that type of accommodation are choosing not to do so because of the charges.

I certainly take the view that people who choose to rent housing, whether through councils or other public sector providers, will probably stay in such housing throughout their lifetimes. The charges that are specifically levied for services that people get directly from sheltered and very sheltered housing ought to be spread across the whole of local councils' housing revenue accounts for those who are council tenants; the charges should not be concentrated on those who directly benefit.

In the cycle of life—at least, this is how it used to happen—people might start out living in a flat, they might get a house as the family grows and then, as life moves on, they might wish to live in amenity housing or high-amenity housing such as sheltered or very sheltered housing. The costs that are associated with the latter types of housing can quite properly be shared among all of us; costs related to specific services in sheltered and very sheltered housing should not be concentrated on those who directly benefit.

Councils are being driven not just through cost pressures but through Government policy to an extent—and in particular through the policy of Communities Scotland—to withdraw sheltered housing warden services. There has been a significant move to do that and we have seen warden services being diluted or withdrawn. Sheltered housing wardens would typically take in people's messages or accept the delivery of prescriptions and give them to tenants at an appropriate time. However, a number of warden services are being more than actively discouraged by councils or are being withdrawn by them. Therefore, as well as paying higher charges, tenants are getting poorer services.

I recall that a report that was of the type that Audit Scotland and the Accounts Commission produce said that the costs of services that were peculiar to sheltered and very sheltered housing should be borne by the tenants. However, I think that we need a policy change. If we are to be genuinely concerned about and supportive of the most vulnerable sections of our society, and if we wish to continue to see people have collective responsibility and, indeed, enjoy the benefits of shared living while still being independent, we must accept that policy issues have to be addressed. We have that responsibility and I believe that we can do that and that it would not cost us more.

Traditionally, we accepted that the total cost of delivering services should be spread across the housing revenue account on the basis that it is reasonable to assume that, in the cycle of life, those who start off in flats might well end up in very sheltered housing. The Government should seriously consider that approach as a no-cost item. I do not believe that it is right and fair that, at a time when people are vulnerable, additional charges are loaded on to them as a consequence of what I think is a flawed analysis that was given to the Government.

I would appeal to ministers to look at this situation, which is not unique to council housing. Certainly, when Aberdeen City Council considered some of its housing provision and, quite rightly, tried to get rid of and replace the bed-sit type of accommodation, which is not adequate these days, it found itself unable to do that directly; it had to find a voluntary sector provider because Communities Scotland would not give the council the finance that would have allowed a warden-type service to be put into a replacement facility. I think that that is wrong. We should be able to deliver housing locally and councils are an appropriate vehicle for doing that. In no way do I deny that housing associations can do that, too. However, the costs that are associated with warden and other services for sheltered and very sheltered housing ought to be borne by the housing revenue accounts. I commend that idea to the minister.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I speak as someone who is anxious not to be retired prematurely next year, at the age of 52.

If I were to be uncharitable about the motion, I would reflect on the fact that senior citizens comprise a significant proportion of the electorate who bother to vote in elections, which may be why there is a concentration on trying to woo the votes of older people. However, I will not be totally negative about the motion. I am not averse to reform of the council tax system to provide more assistance to people, including pensioners, who are on low and fixed incomes but who do not qualify for council tax benefit and who therefore may have difficulty paying their council tax bills. However, I would not go along the road that the Tories have taken on the matter.

We should consider the effects that the Tories' proposals would have in Dumfries and Galloway. A pensioner couple who live in a band A property, which means that it was valued at less than £27,000 in 1991—I cannot imagine any property being worth less than that these days—would get a discount of £457.54. However, a pensioner couple in a band H property, which in 1991 would have been worth more than £212,000—it must have been a heck of a mansion to retail for that sort of price in Dumfries and Galloway back then—would get three times the discount, at £1,335.75. That couple would pay much the same council tax as people on a fairly modest income in a band D house would pay. Despite the reassurances that Mr Cameron offered during the Tory party conference, the proposals seem to be the same old Tory policy of cutting tax and rewarding the better off.

There are some unanswered questions about the policy that I ask the Tories to address. First, what will happen to the 25 per cent discount for single persons who live on their own? Would that be abolished or would it be on top of the proposed new discount?

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

Because I have limited time, perhaps that issue could be addressed later.

Is the reduction of the council tax benefit revenue from the Treasury to the Executive included in the £200 million price tag? As other members have asked, how will £200 million be raised from the mutualisation of Scottish Water? I accept that the proposal is for mutualisation, not privatisation at the moment. Scottish Water's annual report for last year shows that its net borrowing was £162 million and that it raised £49 million from other capital projects, such as the disposal of assets. The rest of its revenue, which was more than £1 billion, came from charges to customers. The report shows that £142 million of outgoings went on the repayment of loans. The money was lent—not given—by the Executive. Therefore, the minister was correct to say that the Tories' proposal would be a short-term measure.

If the Tories do not believe us, I ask them to reflect on a couple of opinions on mutualisation. First, although the trade union movement is generally in favour of mutualisation and the co-operative movement, Unison, the union that represents most workers in the water industry, has noted that the water and sewerage industry is capital intensive and that Scottish Water would therefore become dependent on private financial institutions, as happened with Welsh Water, on which the Tories base much of their proposal for Scottish Water. In 2003, Unison stated:

"the so-called mutual option is in reality a token representation for customers on a board overseeing a wholly privatised Scottish Water."

Secondly, although Digby Jones is, as one might expect of someone who is ex-Confederation of British Industry, in favour of the total privatisation of Scottish Water, in June this year in response to proposals from Ian Byatt, he argued that mutualisation would not raise funds for the Executive. Bearing in mind that Scottish Water receives borrowing consent and that higher interest rates are paid to private sector funders, would not water rates rise under the Tory proposals? That would injure pensioners and small businesses, of which the Tories often like to see themselves as the champion.

The Tories say that council tax rose by more than 60 per cent in the past nine years. The figures that I have seen show that the minimum income guarantee for pensioners has risen in absolute—not real—terms by 65 per cent. I do not say that that is anything like enough to look after pensioners on lower incomes.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Will the member give way?

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I am sorry—I only have a minute left.

The Tories broke the link with earnings and Labour intends to restore that link in 2012. Colin Fox said that we would do it only if we could afford it, but we would be damn stupid to do it if we could not afford it. My husband is 54 today, so in six years' time he will be eligible to receive some of the benefits of a pension. However, people such as he and I, because of the generation to which we belong, have put money aside for our pensions. We will be better off. The fact that many of us had the opportunity to invest in our futures should be factored into any calculation about the way in which we support poorer pensioners.

Christine Grahame mentioned energy bills, which have risen by more than 50 per cent in one year. The energy bill for an average household is now comparable to the council tax. That is why I consistently argue for a sensible and balanced energy policy.

I would prefer the Tories' approach to the issue to that of those who talk about local income tax. Local income tax does not reflect ability to pay for young couples who perhaps have two or three children and have mortgage repayments, credit card repayments or student loan repayments to make. It is a tax on employment and on families. I would prefer the reform of the council tax system to take account of some of the problems.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

At the most recent census, in 2001, there were 514,682 senior citizen households in Scotland, 220,868 of which were in rented accommodation. In the rented sector, 80 per cent were in receipt of housing benefit which, by and large, also took care of their council tax. That makes everyone feel good because we are all doing our bit for the elderly with our tax contributions.

However, as I mentioned earlier, water rates have somehow eluded the caring legislation and they affect every home owner. If someone's income is less than £100 a week, they simply cannot afford to pay hundreds of pounds per annum for water rates, and many vulnerable pensioners quickly fall into arrears. Sadly, there is no hiding place for those good people and their water rates arrears are deducted at source from their benefits. Good heavens, we do not even do that to collect the millions of pounds in unpaid fines that go uncollected each year. Please, those pensioners are good, law-abiding people. The others are those who have broken the law and been fined but choose to ignore the courts and fail to pay their fines. Surely it is high time that we collected unpaid fines at source. It is certainly long overdue for society to sort out its priorities.

No doubt the cry will go up, "Where will the money come from to exempt senior citizens from having to pay water rates?" That is a legitimate consideration. There are many ways of saving money, but one method that would be popular with people of my generation would be as follows. Means testing is an abomination and, as I said earlier, it is insulting to require elderly people to parade their poverty to obtain a pittance from the state but, if that is deemed to be good enough for pensioners, why not apply it to criminals? That would bring about an instant saving of the reported £59 million that has been laid aside to compensate prisoners for having to go through the degrading process of slopping out. On receipt of a claim for compensation, the response should be, "Yes, you are entitled to £3,000 for having to slop out for the past year but it has cost the taxpayer £30,000 to have you incarcerated for that year. Okay, we will do a little contra and deduct your £3,000 from the £30,000 that you owe to the taxpayer. You therefore now only owe us £27,000." There are many other ways of saving taxpayers' money. If they were adopted, the necessity to means test good elderly citizens, who have worked hard and contributed positively to society, would no longer be required.

The Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party had the shortest manifesto of all those taking part in the Scottish elections of 2003. It was as simple as ABC: A, to abolish poverty for pensioners by paying a pension of £160 a week; B, to banish means testing; and C, to replace council tax with a fairer system of taxation. It is good that other parties are beginning to realise that the grey vote will have a huge influence on the outcome of the 2007 elections. Slowly but surely, all the parties are tentatively starting to embrace the policies of the SSCUP. I do not give a jot which party adopts our policies; the only important thing is that my generation feels the benefit.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

You have one more minute, Mr Swinburne.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

I like the 50 per cent reduction in council tax for pensioners that the Conservative motion proposes for 2007, but I would prefer the council tax to be replaced with a tax that is fairer for all. I also like the call for the full implementation of the free personal care policies. Malcolm Chisholm has highlighted the new modern care facilities in pensioners' homes. They are admirable and would enable many more senior citizens to remain in their own home. On that subject, I wish to see an end to a situation that affects a mere 4 per cent of pensioner households. I refer to the stubborn determination of the Executive to retain its right to steal the homes of single vulnerable pensioners who find themselves in need of residential care. Although only 4 per cent of pensioner households are affected, the other 96 per cent of us have a constant niggling worry about the possibility of having to face that sad, sick situation ourselves. Any political party that bites the bullet and deals with that situation in its manifesto in 2007 will receive a ringing endorsement from every senior citizen home owner in Scotland. There were 293,814 of us in that category in the 2001 census and by now that number will have increased considerably.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

You should be finishing now, Mr Swinburne.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

As I suggested earlier, I care not which party adopts our policies. In the fullness of time, they will inevitably become accepted as the only fair way to treat our senior citizens. Until that comes to pass—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am sorry, Mr Swinburne, but I have to turn your microphone off. We are very short of time.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

The debate has certainly reminded the Conservatives how fresh in the memory is their record in government as far as pensioners were concerned. They might want to reflect on that and tell David Cameron that he has many more apologies to make before people will forget that record. However, the Conservatives are entitled to remind us that the Scottish Executive is now responsible and that there is a pressing need to improve pensioners' circumstances.

I fear that senior citizens in Scotland will welcome many of the warm words in this morning's debate but will feel in danger of being patronised. They will fear that there has been precious little recognition of the urgent need to improve radically the living conditions that all too many of them face. People want action more than words.

I welcome the breath of reality that Mr Swinburne brought to a debate that was otherwise too stale. The debate has often been academic and predictably detached. John Swinburne highlighted the need to abolish the water and sewerage charges that pensioners are burdened with. The approach of the Conservatives would be to privatise the water industry. Bristow Muldoon was right to chastise them for believing that privatisation leads to the better management of public services. His claims about the rail industry were absolutely correct, but why does Labour not support bringing the rail industry back into public ownership, where it was run much better than it has been privately?

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Will the member take an intervention?

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

I have to move on.

On a positive note, the Conservative motion at least accepts that there is a problem with the council tax. However—in a classic case of milking the cow and kicking over the bucket—they accept that there is a problem but fail to address it adequately. Members of all parties are well aware that the proposal to abolish the council tax has widespread support the length and breadth of the country. The Scottish people are beginning to lose patience, because they see far too little progress being made on it.

On the restoration of the link between pensions and earnings, Dr Elaine Murray took me to task for suggesting that I am in favour of something even though we cannot afford it. The point that I was making was that the Government's white paper says that it will not restore the link between pensions and earnings until 2012, which is in another six years. It clearly will not do so at all if it loses the election. Even if it wins the election, it is hardly giving a cast-iron pledge to restore the link, because it will not do so if it is not affordable—in other words, there are any number of avenues out of the commitment in the white paper that the Government might seek to take. Pensioners throughout the country will hardly feel reassured, given that something that is six years away might never happen anyway. The lack of a link between pensions and earnings is responsible for a severe deterioration in their standard of living.

Bristow Muldoon said that when the Tories were in power the pension worked out at £69 a week. The Government's white paper makes it clear that, as things stand, by 2012—if the link between pensions and earnings is not restored—the pension will be worth just £71 a week in current terms. There is hardly a great deal of improvement after 30 years when the average wage is approaching £400 a week and the pension would be £71 a week.

Pauline McNeill talked about the need to liberate the older classes. As a socialist, I do not consider older people to be a class. There are the working class and there are the rich and, given that division in society, many working-class pensioners find themselves in straitened circumstances. In her own city of Glasgow this winter, one in 36 pensioners over the age of 65 will die a winter-related death. Glasgow has the highest level of low-income pensioners in the whole of Britain. The fact that the restoration of the link between pensions and earnings will not happen for another six years—and indeed possibly never will—will probably make them colder still.

Hundreds of thousands of working-class pensioners throughout Scotland are calling out for help today. Progress has been made—it would be churlish to say otherwise—but there remains an acute problem that the Parliament has to address.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance about courtesy to members. The leader of the Conservatives, who led the debate, is not present, nor are any of the speakers from the Conservative benches. Ms Pauline McNeill, Donald Gorrie and Robin Harper are not here for any of the summing-up speeches. I seek your guidance as to whether that is discourteous to members and whether it will be taken into account when other members are excluded from debates.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

That is not a point of order, but I have taken note of it and I will deal with it later.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

On the same point, I am not surprised that Annabel Goldie has skedaddled from her own debate. She disappeared after the opening speeches and did not bother to stay and listen to the debate. This is a Conservative debate and it really is scandalous that she left. Not only is it a discourtesy to other members, the Parliament, the people of Scotland and the elderly people whom the Conservatives purport to report, it is a charade. The Conservatives seem to have warm words for our pensioners, but they offer little more than cold comfort. David McLetchie—who is not here either—let the cat out of the bag. When we asked where the money will come from when the Tories look at their council tax proposals, he said—wait for it—that it would come from efficiency savings and the mutualisation of Scottish Water.

Dave Petrie (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I would take an intervention from David McLetchie if he were here. He had the nerve to criticise others about gimmicks and yet he came to the chamber to propose a gimmick.

Pauline McNeill is not in the chamber either, but I cannot let her get away with her comments without saying that the means testing of pensioners by the UK Labour Government allows thousands of elderly folk to fall through the safety net that we all agree should be in place. That results in pensioner poverty. It is not good enough to say that we have put in place a system that should end pensioner poverty if that system does not address those people who fail to claim, for whatever reason. It is no good blaming the pensioners for failing to claim their benefits; some people simply do not claim them. The only way in which to attack the issue comprehensively is to introduce a citizens pension. The UK Labour Government does not have a good record.

I want to focus on issues that we can affect. Free personal care has been a huge success, as has been accepted across the chamber and in a report that was produced by the Health Committee. I have heard people say that the programme is extremely costly, but, in the grand scheme of things, it is not. It is far less than 1 per cent of the Scottish Executive's budget. I wonder why the Conservatives and the Labour Party do not want free personal care south of the border. I do not believe that it can be to do with expense, given the amount of the Scottish budget that it represents. The success of the free personal care policy reminds me of the saying that success has many fathers and failure only one. Free personal care is, undoubtedly, a success.

I do not know how anyone can argue that the council tax is fair, but that is what Labour and Conservative members do quite often in this chamber. Elaine Murray—I am delighted to say that she is in the chamber—argued that just this morning. Almost everybody pays council tax out of their monthly income. What nonsense it is to say that a person's ability to pay a tax that is collected on a monthly basis should be related not to their income but to the nominal value of the house that they happen to live in. No one likes to pay tax, but the fairest tax must be related to a person's ability to pay it. A local income tax is the answer.

John Swinburne was right on one point: pensions means testing is an abomination. What we need is a citizens pension without means testing. The coalition Executive has, over the past seven and a half years, delivered change for our pensioners—free personal care, free national bus travel and the free central heating programme. I only wish that we had the power in this Parliament to affect pensions. The Liberal Democrats would deliver much better citizens pensions for our senior citizens in Scotland.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I will start by doing something unusual and agreeing with Mike Rumbles on three points. First, like my colleague Christine Grahame, he was absolutely right to draw attention to the Tories who are in absentia. When it comes to election time, the Tories will be judged not by warm words but by their track record, which, on pensions and pensioners, is nothing short of abysmal.

Secondly, Mike Rumbles was right to point out the dubiety that exists about Labour's commitment to the policy of free personal care. Down south, despite the recommendation of the Sutherland commission, which covered the whole of the United Kingdom, Labour has refused to implement the policy. It cannot commit itself to free personal care for our elderly but, during the past three years, the Government has given what Gordon Brown described as a "blank cheque" to the illegal war in Iraq, which has cost £4.5 billion.

The third point on which I agree with Mike Rumbles relates to local income tax. Elaine Murray's comments about the unfairness of local income tax were absurd. If we applied those daft arguments to local income tax, we would also have to apply them to national income tax. Of course, income tax is one of the most progressive forms of taxation that we have.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Will the member give way?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Since Mr Muldoon has waited behind, I will give way to him.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Will Alex Neil, who supports progressive taxation, publicly disagree with his leader, who has described Mike Russell's plans for a flat tax as relatively harmless?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I think that Bristow Muldoon has—not for the first time—misinterpreted our leader.

Pensioner poverty is the most important issue that our pensioners currently face. According to the Scottish Executive's figures, around 19 per cent of pensioners lived in pensioner poverty in Scotland in the year in which Labour came to power. In that year, around 170,000 pensioners were officially described as living on incomes that were below 60 per cent of median Great Britain income before housing costs. However, after nine years of a so-called Labour Government, the figure is 21 per cent. More pensioners are living in poverty today than when Labour came to power. That is the Labour Party's track record on pensioner poverty. I will return to how we should tackle such poverty towards the end of my speech.

Fuel poverty, which has been grossly exacerbated by the monumental rise in energy prices, must be tackled as a priority. The Labour Government in London has frozen not only old people, but the winter fuel allowance. That allowance started at £200 and stayed at that amount, despite the fact that fuel prices have nearly doubled. A test of the Labour Government's commitment to older people and its desire to get rid of fuel poverty will be whether it increases the winter fuel allowance without waiting for next year's budget. In that context, it is amazing that the Executive has no target for reducing cold weather deaths among our pensioners.

Pensioner poverty is a crucial issue. In particular, the number of women in pensioner poverty must be considered—that issue has not yet been touched on. Fewer than 30 per cent of women receive a full basic state pension in their own right. On average, women in this country receive only 75 per cent of men's hourly earnings, only 50 per cent of men's incomes and only 33 per cent of men's pensions. When we talk about pensioner poverty, we must focus on women in particular.

We have heard from the tired old parties in London that we cannot afford to do much more than is currently being done or to move at a faster pace. In that context, I point out two things. First, the 40 per cent tax relief on private pensions costs around £21 billion a year, and the vast bulk of that money goes to very rich individuals who use the money as a tax break rather than for saving for realistic pensions. Why should they be given that 40 per cent tax break? That money should help today's pensioners. Secondly, our system of national insurance contributions is extremely regressive. A person who earns £30,000 a year pays much more proportionately in national insurance than a person who earns £100,000 a year.

There are two simple messages from the debate. First, we must deal with pensioner poverty because such poverty has increased rather than decreased in the past 10 years under Labour. Secondly, Scotland and Great Britain are rich nations and can well afford to end pensioner poverty once and for all.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

It has been a good debate. I particularly liked Pauline McNeill's description of what we are trying to do. She said that we are trying to liberate the older classes to live the lives that they want to live while ensuring that their health care needs and other needs are met.

Meeting need has been the main focus of the debate, but I re-emphasise the centrality of opportunity and contribution. Robin Harper referred to the programme that the Executive funds for retired and senior volunteers. We have committed £330,000 this year alone to develop and promote older volunteering. Many older people are already volunteers, and I pay tribute to the valuable role that they perform in that area as in many others.

The main subject of Christine Grahame's speech was fuel poverty. Our central heating programme is the best targeted intervention in the United Kingdom for reaching people who are in fuel poverty. Many thousands of older people throughout Scotland are benefiting from warm, comfortable homes and lower fuel bills as a result of the central heating programme. The Executive has spent more than £290 million on fuel poverty measures, providing central heating systems to more than 73,000 homes.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

In a moment. I must make some progress.

Applicants who are aged over 80 can receive upgrades and replacements of partial or inefficient systems. Christine Grahame called for the extension of that provision. From January, everyone who is on pension credit will be entitled to that as well.

Christine Grahame expressed concern about Scottish Gas. However, I point out that, as the new managing agent, Scottish Gas represents best value for money. As a result, thousands more people will benefit from the programme. She also asked about my meeting with the fuel companies. Of course, I put pressure on the power companies to do more for the poorest customers and I call on them today to reduce their prices quickly, notwithstanding the time gap between the buying of gas and its use.

Finally, Christine Grahame highlighted elder abuse. Existing legislation on adults with incapacity and mental health offers some protection to the frail elderly, and we augment those measures with financial support for the Scottish helpline for older people and for Age Concern Scotland in order to raise awareness of the issue and to provide people with advice and assistance when they need it. We recognise, however, that we need to do more. The Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Bill, which is presently before Parliament, will help to limit all kinds of elder abuse by offering greater support and protection. The bill provides new powers to investigate suspected abuse; to assess the person and their circumstances; to intervene to manage the risk of abuse; and, in exceptional circumstances, to remove the victim to a temporary place of safety and to exclude the perpetrator. It is important that the Parliament passes that bill in due course.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I will take interventions if I have time at the end of my speech. Many points were made in the debate that I have to respond to.

Colin Fox majored on the state pension and the restoration of the link between average earnings and pensions. As Elaine Murray reminded us, there will be a higher, fairer state pension that is again linked to earnings, as announced recently by the Westminster Government. Also, we will ensure that the least well-off continue to share in the growing wealth of society by increasing the guarantee credit in line with earnings in the years ahead.

John Swinburne said that poverty was not acceptable to his generation; it is not acceptable to me, either. As Pauline McNeill put it, we are not half-hearted about pensioner poverty. Bristow Muldoon explained in detail what we are doing to address that. I will not repeat the figures that I mentioned in my opening speech, but I advise members that £10.5 billion more will be spent on pensions in 2006-07 than would have been spent if the 1997 policies had continued. That figure is nearly £7 billion more than it would have been if we had simply restored the link with earnings in 1997.

I refute Alex Neil's assertion by repeating the figure that I gave of a reduction in relative pensioner poverty from 30 to 16 per cent since 1997. Of course, the absolute reduction is a great deal more than that.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I have only two and a half minutes left, and I have many more points to make. I will take an intervention if I have time when I have addressed all the other issues.

David McLetchie raised the issue of food preparation, which was one of the most complex areas that the care development group dealt with. A letter that was issued in May to all local authorities stated that it is up to local authorities to assess people's needs and to decide how to deliver the services that are required. The letter also stated that we expect local authorities to provide simple tasks free of charge when there is an assessed need. We would expect a local authority to consider whether it has an obligation to make any refunds to people whom it might have incorrectly charged for any service.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Will the minister give way?

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Will the minister give way?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I have only two minutes left and I still have many points to address. I cannot possibly deal with the points that were raised in the debate and take interventions at the same time.

John Scott asked about funding. Local authorities have been given more funds to implement the policy than have been spent. In 2006-07, £85 million has been allocated to provide services that were already free to people before the free personal care policy was introduced. People forget about such services. In addition, the funds that were provided for the policy were agreed with COSLA in the previous spending review.

John Scott raised the issue of council tax benefit. We are working with the pension service and COSLA to address that matter.

Bristow Muldoon and Elaine Murray were right to highlight problems of council tax for pensioners who do not receive council tax benefit. As they indicated, we are exploring the best way of dealing with that matter. However, we are not pursuing the local income tax line that John Swinney supports. As Elaine Murray reminded us, such a mechanism would increase tax on hard-working families. Moreover, we would lose £300 million from cuts to benefit spending, and every pensioner in Scotland would be faced with the bureaucracy of filling out Scottish National Party local income tax return forms.

John Swinney made an interesting remark about the uncosted programmes of reckless political parties. Although he had the Conservatives in mind, he must unconsciously—or perhaps not so unconsciously—have meant the SNP as well. Of course, it is not such a problem for the Conservatives, because they would simply make cuts to take the strain. Even the master of rebranding, David Cameron, let the truth slip yesterday when he omitted the line that had been trailed in his speech about never jeopardising the NHS by cutting its funding and instead said:

"We will always support the NHS with the funding it needs".

As Pauline McNeill said, the idea that the NHS is safe in Tory hands will never be true—and the idea that pensioners are safe in their hands will never be true either.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

As someone with a long-standing involvement in the NHS, I take exception to Malcolm Chisholm's remarks about our commitment to the health service. There is no way that I would have been a member of this party if it had not always had such a commitment—indeed, it will always have it.

I note that, despite Mike Rumbles's rantings, he was until only a few minutes ago the only Liberal Democrat member in the chamber. That has been the case the whole morning.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

But it is a Conservative debate!

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

All we can conclude from that is that the Liberal Democrats must be very interested in the elderly, must they not? [ Interruption. ]

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Order.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

On the whole, the debate has been interesting and has highlighted a number of issues of great importance to an increasing number of people in Scotland as more and more of us live into and face the challenges of old age. I should say that, even at my age, there are challenges.

Demographic change and the outlawing of age discrimination in employment mean that more of us will work well into old age, and screening for conditions such as hypertension, bowel and breast cancer and diabetes will allow many of us to live healthily with chronic conditions that in the past would have killed or at least enfeebled us as we approached our senior years. Although more could be done to improve older people's health, particularly on screening for prostate cancer and early diagnosis and proper treatment of the growing number of people with osteoporosis, there is no doubt that more of us will be able to lead an active, healthy live for longer than any previous generation.

In recent years, the focus of society has been on younger people but, as the population ages, it has become clearer that the skills, wisdom and experience of our senior citizens are resources that should be respected and utilised. When older people reach the stage in life at which they need help, that help should be available to give them the dignity and security that they need and deserve.

The motion under debate highlights two of the main barriers that today's pensioners face in that respect. A reduction in the burden of council tax and proper implementation of the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Act 2003 would make an enormous difference to the lives of many people. Our proposal to introduce a 50 per cent council tax discount for all pensioner households would lift a huge burden from people who are faced with an ever-increasing erosion of the value of their pensions, especially with many of them finding that more than 10 per cent of their gross income is going on council tax bills. The poorest, who should be in receipt of council tax benefit, are put off by the complexity of the application forms and the take-up rates are far too low. Our proposed discount is a simple, straightforward way of relieving a financial burden that threatens the security of a large number of today's pensioners.

I remind those in the Labour and Lib Dem parties who are critical of our proposals on the pretext that they are uncosted that, unlike the SNP, which promises utopia for all, the Conservative party has a great deal of experience in Government and knows better than to issue policy proposals that have not been costed.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will Mrs Milne take an intervention?

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am not taking any interventions. Mr Rumbles has said enough.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Will the member take an intervention?

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I have no time. Members who are trying to intervene are wasting my time.

We are confident that we can indeed bring council tax relief to all pensioner households, paid for by central Government, as David McLetchie spelled out earlier. To clarify matters for Elaine Murray, I can confirm that our discount would be on top of the existing discount for single pensioner households.

As for the derogatory attitude of Malcolm Chisholm, Pauline McNeill, Bristow Muldoon and Elaine Murray to our proposals to mutualise Scottish Water, why do not they listen to their own Sam Galbraith, who has said that the public model is not working? Why do not they listen to Jo Armstrong, a former adviser to the First Minister, who has concluded that the current state-owned model must end and that privatisation or mutualisation is the correct way forward? Their own people are advising them to go for mutualisation or privatisation.

With regard to the Parliament's flagship policy of free personal care, we know from the Health Committee's recent care inquiry report just how patchy delivery of that policy is across the country, with three quarters of Scotland's councils failing to provide an appropriate care package based on assessed need as and when it is required by their clients. The on-going blame game between councils and the Executive is doing no good to those people who need help. There is a legal right to free personal care and the Executive must ensure provision where and when it is required. Whatever the Lib-Lab Executive says about free personal care being fully funded, we have heard from John Scott about the problems in South Ayrshire. Other councils, such as Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council, are spending double the resource that was allocated to them for that service. The outcome of the Executive's review of the funding for free personal care cannot come too soon, because it is clear that either the funding available is too little or its allocation is inequitable across councils.

It is alarming that some councils are still wrongly charging their clients for food preparation. David McLetchie highlighted that issue today, using examples from his Edinburgh Pentlands constituency; he is to be commended for the work that he has done to ensure that his constituents are refunded the charges that have been wrongly levied in the past. In the interests of fairness, charging for food preparation should cease immediately across Scotland. All cases in which charges may have been wrongly levied should be reviewed and, where appropriate, full refunds should be made, regardless of how much that would cost. It is simply not acceptable to confer a right with one hand and take it away with the other.

Christine Grahame gave a vivid description of fuel poverty among pensioners, which is a real issue. The Executive's central heating programme has much to commend it, and we support it, but it is clear from the number of complaints that have been made over the past five years that its management has been less than perfect, and it has failed many older people. It is to be hoped that the Executive will ensure that Scottish Gas succeeds in delivering the effective service that our pensioner households deserve. Time will tell.

I have two brief things to say on the national concessionary fares scheme, but first I must declare an interest: like Robin Harper, I am the holder of a bus pass. First, many pensioners in rural areas, such as parts of rural Aberdeenshire, cannot take advantage of the scheme, because there simply is no bus service for them to use; many of them would dearly like to have that opportunity. Secondly, I trust that the Executive has taken note of Audit Scotland's comment that higher-than-expected usage of free travel may exhaust the new scheme's budget. I hope that that will not result in the same sort of problems that are besetting the free personal care policy. If the fares scheme ran into trouble, many pensioners throughout the country would be deeply disappointed.

We have had a good, wide-ranging discussion about issues that are of major concern to our elderly population, and I am happy to commend to the Parliament the motion in Annabel Goldie's name.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Question 1 is withdrawn through illness.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it ensures that judicial processes remain independent of government. (S2O-10772)

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I am firmly committed to the principle that Scotland should have a strong independent judiciary that is able to discharge its functions free from external influence. In our consultation paper, "Strengthening Judicial Independence in a Modern Scotland", which we published in February this year, we set out a range of proposals for legislation to strengthen the independence of the judiciary.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

I assure the minister that I had no advance notice of the Lord Advocate's intended resignation. The debate on the position will be on-going over the next few weeks and months.

Will the minister reaffirm the Executive's position that any prosecutions, whether they are made in the criminal courts or through a local authority seeking an antisocial behaviour or other civil order, should remain free from Executive influence, either overt or covert? Trust in the system at community level depends fundamentally on there being no political interference in the judicial process. Will she take the opportunity of reaffirming that the Executive has no intention of changing that approach?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

It is important that we have an independent prosecution service. With that independence comes recognition that it is not for politicians to intervene in decisions that are taken by independent prosecutors. When decisions are taken that people do not like, they can find them hard to understand, but independence is a fundamental feature of the judicial process.

Jeremy Purvis mentioned antisocial behaviour. Again, it is important that local authorities and others examine all the information that is available to them. No one should take the view that they will not use the appropriate legislation to deal with the problem of antisocial behaviour.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

An independent judiciary is one of the pillars of our democracy. However, does the minister agree that members of the judiciary are also public servants who are paid out of public funds and are subject to the relevant legislative processes? No one would seek to impinge on their ultimate right to determine a sentence, but surely the Scottish Parliament also has the right to expect members of the judiciary to adhere to the broad sentencing guidelines that it has laid down for particular crimes? Does the minister also agree that the general behaviour of members of the judiciary should be subject to scrutiny without recourse to the nuclear option, which is the only option that is available to us at present?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I am sure that Mr MacAskill will continue to make those points in responding to the proposals in our paper and engaging in the work that is to come. On sentencing, it is important to recognise that we now have the Sentencing Commission for Scotland report, which recommends the possibility of moving towards some kind of sentencing council or committee that would consider guidelines. At the end of the day, it is important to stress that there is no suggestion that anyone will interfere in the right of the judiciary, having considered all the facts that has been put before it, to decide on a sentence that is appropriate to the circumstances.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Does the minister accept that the independence of the office of the Lord Advocate was compromised by Colin Boyd's being a member of the Cabinet, in which he shared collective Cabinet responsibility, and the head of Scotland's independent prosecution service? Does she agree that the Lord Advocate's resignation provides the ideal opportunity to end that dual role?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I do not accept that the Lord Advocate was unable to carry out his role as the independent head of the prosecution service in Scotland. I believe that Colin Boyd has done a tremendous job in the modernisation of our justice system. Some of the attacks that were made on him yesterday were completely unfounded and unnecessary. I hope that Parliament will acknowledge the good work that he has done. There will be opportunities for debates on the post of Lord Advocate in the future. The suggestion that the Lord Advocate was unable to carry out his duties as the independent head of the prosecution service is unwarranted.

Dave Petrie (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive, in light of a report to Highlands and Islands Enterprise stating that an extra £1.3 million was generated for the Islay economy through the initiative to increase the number of ferry crossings during the summer, whether it has any plans to extend the initiative to cover the full duration of the Caledonian MacBrayne summer timetable. (S2O-10719)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

We are considering the scope for including some service enhancements in the final service specification for the tendering of the Clyde and Hebrides ferry services. Decisions will be announced shortly when we issue the invitation to tender for the services.

Dave Petrie (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Does the minister agree that the trial clearly illustrates the major benefits to the island economies of an increase in ferry crossings? Bearing that in mind, will he consider similar trials for other crossings, such as those in the Western Isles?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I confirm that, following representations from many individuals and organisations in the islands—and, indeed, from George Lyon, who is the local MSP—we are considering lengthening the period of the two-vessel operation on the routes to Islay as one of the enhancements. We will take the matter forward when the service specification is produced and we issue the invitation to tender.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer, George Lyon is not the local MSP for the Western Isles.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

You have got that on the record, although I think that the minister probably indicated that.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to improve disabled access at railway stations. (S2O-10782)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Through the access for all programme, which was announced in August, we will provide up to £12 million during the next three years for Network Rail to improve access at stations. In addition, the First ScotRail franchise includes an annual minor works programme of £250,000 per year for small-scale work to improve disabled access at stations.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The minister will be aware that I wrote to him recently about disabled access at stations in my constituency of North East Fife—in particular, there is no disabled access to the southbound platform at Cupar station. When will stations such as Cupar be able to bid for the access for all money to gain disabled access? If they are unable to introduce disabled access through that fund, are there any other funding opportunities that can be considered? I am sure that the minister appreciates that creating such access will cost more than £250,000 at most stations.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I appreciate Iain Smith's point about Cupar station, which is similar to the arguments that are being made about many stations on Scotland's rail network.

Transport Scotland is considering the selection criteria, including the potential number of passengers who would use the facility and the importance of transport interchanges, and I hope to receive its advice on the matter by Christmas. That will allow us to progress investment in a number of stations. We have available a funding package of some £12 million over the next three years, but given the weight of concerns on the matter, and in the interests of achieving the most from public money, I will look to augment that with different funds—for example, through the regional transport partnerships—if possible.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

The minister will be aware that it is mainly old rural railway stations that have little or no disabled access, including Gleneagles station in my constituency, where there is none. Can the minister assure us that, in future discussions about possible station closures, lack of disabled access will not be used as a justification or an excuse for closing a railway station when alternative investment should have been made?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The simple answer is that we do not have any plans to close railway stations; indeed, we are expanding the rail network across Scotland. We are opening stations and augmenting the railway network across the country, so I would be surprised if Ms Cunningham was trying to suggest that we are closing stations. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I take Ms Cunningham's point about Gleneagles station and I assure her that it will be assessed as part of the overall programme. As I said to Mr Smith a moment ago, we hope to be able to take matters forward by the end of the year.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Does the minister agree that it is unacceptable that disabled residents in Shotts are denied the opportunity to travel independently by rail because access to the eastbound platform of the station is at the bottom of a steep set of stairs? Will he assure me that Transport Scotland will, as a matter of urgency, work with Strathclyde partnership for transport and First ScotRail to ensure that the proposed disabled access, which has been talked about for the past 18 months, becomes a reality?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I respect Karen Whitefield's point. It is clear that the situation that she described is unacceptable, so we need to find ways to move things forward. As I said, we are using not just the access for all fund, but Transport Scotland's small rail projects fund, the First ScotRail franchise and major project funding to seek to move the matter forward. I certainly undertake to look into Karen Whitefield's point about Shotts station to see whether we can find a solution to the problem, which has clearly existed for some time.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to improve health services in Clydesdale. (S2O-10747)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I have recently approved plans, with a number of additional requirements, for modernisation of health services across Lanarkshire. I have required that the provision of a community casualty unit in Lanark be brought forward, and other planned changes include the replacement of the health centre at Carluke and investment in a new purpose-built community hospital to serve the Clydesdale area.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

I thank the minister for his answer and assure him that my constituency welcomes the investment. Will the minister assure me that changes to the health service configuration in other parts of Lanarkshire will not be put ahead of the much-needed services in my constituency, and that a balance will be struck to ensure that all patients in Lanarkshire get the services that they deserve? In particular, can he assure me that a community casualty facility will be equally able to take away from the front door of Wishaw general hospital people who do not require that high level of accident and emergency service?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

The intention of the proposals and the additional requirements is that the best quality health service will be provided for residents throughout Lanarkshire. Part of that will be that the five community casualty units, including the one at Lanark, will take the majority of people who currently present at accident and emergency units, and that those CCUs should be providing that service before any change to the configuration of the existing accident and emergency services.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to encourage incorporation of renewable energy based heat and power systems and rainwater capture systems in both existing and new-build housing. (S2O-10790)

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The Executive has committed to producing a renewable heat strategy for Scotland by the end of 2007. However, we are already taking action on several fronts. Communities Scotland is encouraging the use of sustainable design principles in all housing developments. For example, 100 homes in Aviemore will have heating and hot water provided by a new biomass energy centre.

The Scottish Building Standards Agency is developing an online guide to sustainability in home improvements, which will include advice on energy generation and on the collection of rainwater for use in the garden. SBSA is also proposing a revision of Scottish building regulations to encourage the use of low and zero-carbon technologies in new dwellings.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the minister for her answer. Recently a member of the public in my region attempted to build a house with a rainwater capture system but was refused planning permission on the basis that the system might not suit the preferences of future occupiers of the house. Although I do not expect the minister to comment on an individual application, does she think that that approach tallies with the Executive's commitment to ensuring that our planning laws work to improve the environment for all? How will she ensure that planners share her commitment to environmentally friendly buildings?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Members will know about our planning modernisation proposals and I hope that they will find it in their hearts to support them. They are designed to liberate the planning system from the grind that many planners experience between communities and developers. We are liberating planning so that it can address such questions, use modern technologies, consider the way in which communities want their buildings to be more effective, and give planners the time to do all that.

Obviously I am not able to comment on individual cases. The member will know that Scottish planning policy 6 deals with renewables and microrenewables and she will know that I do not have to persuade the planners within the Executive or elsewhere to work in that way. We are working on planning proposals that will liberate their intelligence and capacity to ensure that the imaginative ways in which people and communities want to address renewable heat and so on will be progressed.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

In her first answer, the minister said that she was going to review guidelines to encourage greater use of the heat and power systems that were mentioned in Eleanor Scott's question. Does not she believe that there is a compelling case for going much further than that to ensure that the planning regulations and building control advice that are issued by the Executive are mandatory, in order to encourage much wider improvement in the housing standards that are applied for renewable energy purposes?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

We know that people who are persuaded by an argument are more likely to be committed to a course of action than those who are forced to it. A balance has to be struck between voluntary commitment and mandatory action. We have struck that balance through the Scottish Building Standards Agency's on-going work to encourage people to use sustainable design, and through the good advice that is given by Communities Scotland. We will continue to keep under review whether sufficient has been done, whether people have engaged with the issue fully and whether mandatory approaches might be necessary. However, as I said, we are mindful of the fact that engaging and persuading people is far more likely to be effective. Certainly, the Scottish Building Standards Agency's sustainability guide to home improvements seeks to capture the energy that people have shown for working in this area.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is aware that the Renewable Devices Swift Rooftop Wind Energy System is available in Australia but not in Scotland and, if so, whether it is content with this situation. (S2O-10787)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The Swift Rooftop Wind Energy System has been installed in a number of locations with support from the Scottish community and householder renewables initiative. I understand that refinements have been made to the system and that it is currently being monitored in a number of locations across Scotland before being made more widely available.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

As the minister said, the Swift turbines have already been approved for SCHRI grant funding and are successfully generating electricity in numerous locations, so why is Scottish and Southern Energy plc apparently still telling people that the system is not yet available? Given that public money has been invested in Renewable Devices, is the minister prepared to intervene to ensure that the 26 direct green jobs and up to 500 indirect green jobs in this fledgling Scottish industry are protected?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

As Robin Harper points out, this is a success story. The Executive provided Renewable Devices with funding through the small firms merit award for research and technology— SMART—and support for products under research—SPUR—schemes. The company was named the best new business at the Scottish green energy awards. It has now entered into a contract with Scottish and Southern Energy, which expects to place approximately 2,000 orders for the system, worth up to £9 million. At the moment, the key issue is the testing of the equipment and the resolution of issues between SSE and Renewable Devices, but those are not issues on which I should comment. However, I believe that the product will be a major success story for Scotland and that we will start to see Swift systems not only in their current locations—in Fife, on Berwickshire Housing Association and Canmore Housing Association buildings and at the Scottish Seabird Centre—but on many public buildings and private houses throughout Scotland and the United Kingdom and, increasingly, around the world.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether funding the new Forth valley hospital at Larbert through a public-private partnership is an example of privatisation of the national health service. (S2O-10726)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

No.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

It comes as no surprise that the minister should give that answer, but is he aware of the wide-ranging concern that has been expressed even by Labour members in Forth valley and by trade unions about Forth Valley NHS Board's decision to privatise the jobs of some 700 soft-furnishing staff when they move to the new hospital at the Larbert site? Is he also aware of Forth Valley NHS Board members' concern that the Executive's guidance on the financial modelling of the new hospital is heavily in favour of a private finance initiative outcome?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I am unaware of the curtain and soft-furnishing arrangements inside the new hospital. The Scottish Executive makes decisions on behalf of patients. The 860-bed hospital for that community will be delivered in a way that is controlled by the public sector. We decide how many beds it should have, the clinical mix and all the rules around the provision of the hospital.

The member suggests that money grows on trees—that is not surprising given the SNP's economic policy—but I remind him that, in relation to traditional capital, the Executive has put in more than £2.1 billion over three years. The amount has increased from £136 million in 1997 to £532 million this year. That suggests to me that health boards have a choice available. If the case stands up in terms of good value for public funds and good value for patients, I expect them to explore that route. However, I remind the member that he has referred to only one part of our financing of the NHS. The vast majority of resources that go into our health service are public funds in the traditional manner: patients benefit from those, too.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

Will the minister confirm that any transfer of soft-service jobs in the new hospital will be done under Scottish Trades Union Congress protocols to ensure the terms and conditions of the workers involved?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Of course the employees—this is the way that we work in the health service in Scotland—will be involved in a partnership process. The workforce would have wanted the tender to be won in-house, but there was a sizeable—multimillion pounds—difference between the bids of the in-house workforce and the private sector provider.

Of course, the SNP would take those millions of pounds outwith the national health service, not spend it on patients and not spend it effectively. As I say, there is a balance of resources available to the NHS. The STUC protocol, which was pioneered here in Scotland, protects workers' employment and conditions. They will benefit from the sizeable terms and conditions of employment in the NHS. Their own personal circumstances are not at risk.

First Minister's Question Time

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2476)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. As you know, later this afternoon I will propose a motion to Parliament to nominate a new Lord Advocate for Scotland and a new Solicitor General for Scotland. At this stage, I want to put on record my thanks to Colin Boyd. He has been an outstanding servant of devolution and of Scotland in his time as Solicitor General for Scotland and as Lord Advocate. He has modernised and reformed our criminal justice system in a way that has been of direct benefit to victims and witnesses and to the confidence of the whole of Scotland in it. We wish him all the very best in whatever he chooses to do now. [ Applause. ]

We will, of course, discuss matters of importance to Scotland.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

We will all want to wish Colin Boyd every success in the future.

The murder of a young Polish student last week in Glasgow has shocked the country. Our sympathies are with her family and her friends. Of course, the case cannot be commented on directly as it is subject to a police investigation, but does the First Minister agree that it has raised general issues about the operation of the sex offenders register? These are not party political issues, and they are extremely important. Does the First Minister know how many people on the sex offenders register the police have lost track of in the last year and how many are currently unaccounted for?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I do not have those figures, but I have an absolute commitment—preferably on a cross-party basis, as Nicola Sturgeon suggests—to ensure not only that the operation of the sex offenders register but the way in which we deal with sex offenders and potential sex offenders is as effective as it possibly can be. That is why, for example, this year we brought to this Parliament new provisions in the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, which were agreed here, that will ensure much more effective monitoring and placement of those who are in the community and far more effective monitoring of those who are in custody and who may eventually end up in the community at some stage. I am happy to go into that in some detail, but also to talk about the future.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

We fully support the reforms that are being made, but I am slightly surprised, given the events of the last week, that the First Minister has not made inquiries to find out the answer to my questions.

In the past 24 hours, my office has asked both the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and the Scottish Criminal Record Office for information on the number of people on the sex offenders register who the police have lost track of, but we have been told that they do not hold that information. Does the First Minister agree that in the interests of protecting the public we should know how many sex offenders are off the police radar screen and that the fact that we do not know represents a worrying gap in our knowledge about sex offenders that the public would expect to be filled? Will the First Minister agree to obtain that information as quickly as possible and thereafter maintain it regularly?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

It is for precisely that reason that I do not have the figures in front of me today.

I share Nicola Sturgeon's concern: it was the first question the Minister for Justice asked when the information, or potential information—we have to be careful what we say—about this case appeared to come to light.

We have been surprised to find that more detailed information is not available more quickly. We are working with the system to ensure that that information becomes available, but the information of itself is not the complete picture; it is important to ensure that the police and other agencies do the right thing with it and, in particular, have available to them more effective powers to monitor the current position of people who are on the register. That is why we introduced new provisions this year that, for example, allow the police greater access to the homes of those who are on the register, to check whether they are there and how they are conducting themselves. It is also why we are considering the key recommendation of the Irving report, which is that in each and every case there should be a constant assessment of the person on the register and if that person is not making themselves available or they are starting to breach the conditions that apply to their position in the community, the police should have additional powers both to inform people in the community that that is happening and to take action against the individuals.

It is important that we have the information to which Nicola Sturgeon referred and I share her concern about that. The Minister for Justice has made inquiries about that matter this week and we will of course pursue it. However, having the information is only the start of the story; we intend to do something with it and that will be even more important.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I thank the First Minister for his answer. My fundamental concern is not that he does not have the information available today but that, according to my inquiries, no one in Scotland holds that information—I think that that is what is unacceptable. I certainly hope that the First Minister will do something about that.

I will move on to a related concern, which is what happens when a particularly high-risk sex offender goes missing. It seems, from the events of the past week, that no special procedures are in place after a warrant is issued for someone's arrest. Given the particular dangers posed by sex offenders, will the First Minister look at that matter? Will he consider new procedures that ensure that missing sex offenders are tracked with urgency and priority, and that consideration is given, where appropriate, to notifying the public and, for example, issuing photographs?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am sorry if Ms Sturgeon did not hear all my previous answer clearly enough or if I was not being clear enough. A key recommendation of the report we commissioned from Professor George Irving is precisely to ensure that when someone is breaching conditions at a local level, not making themselves available or in any way hiding from the authorities, in addition to the police being able to take additional action against that individual, there is a system in place, on a case-by-case basis, if someone is considered to be a danger to the public, to provide information not only to a range of organisations, neighbours and those who may come into contact with the individual, but to the local authorities who would need to know.

That recommendation has been made and we have committed to implement it. Of course, detailed discussion is required to get the provision right—we want to ensure that we know where sex offenders or potential sex offenders are and that they do not go into hiding in a way that makes them unlikely to be detected. It is of course the case that the police across Scotland, when charged with implementing a warrant for someone's arrest, particularly when that person is a danger to the public, take immediate and urgent steps to do so. I do not know whether Ms Sturgeon has any particular examples to suggest of individual police officers or police forces not showing a sense of urgency. If she has, I am sure that we would be happy to pass them on to the chief constables to ensure that action is taken against those who are in dereliction of their duty.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

There have been instances in the past week that have given rise to that concern, which is why I think it is important that priority is given to such cases.

Can I say finally that I thank the First Minister for his replies? He will recall that he said in this chamber that it was a priority to

"deliver better public protection through closer supervision of sex offenders in the community".—[Official Report, 25 November 2004; c 12292.]

Just for clarity, will the First Minister say whether he agrees that that is difficult to deliver when we do not know how many sex offenders are evading supervision or how many sex offenders, currently, the police have lost track of? Also for clarity, will the First Minster undertake today to obtain that information and to make it available to this Parliament? How many of the 3,230 people on the sex offenders register do the police currently not know the whereabouts of?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I will reiterate the actions that have been taken, because I know that there will be people watching First Minister's questions who are very concerned about this issue and it is important that they are reassured that this Parliament has taken their concerns very seriously. We passed in the past year an act that came into force on 1 September that requires convicted sex offenders in Scotland to provide the police with more information about themselves, including details of their passports, bank accounts and credit cards, to prevent them from adopting aliases.

We have also required sex offenders to provide a DNA sample to the police when one was not provided at the time of charge or conviction. There were people in this Parliament who voted against that provision and who were not in support of a key element of our ability to detect where people are and what they might be up to.

We have also given the police additional powers to enter and search sex offenders' homes for the purposes of risk assessment, monitoring or checking information that is held on the register. Those provisions are designed to ensure that the police can implement the register more effectively, that they know where people are and that they can take action if someone breaches the conditions that apply.

Although the information that Nicola Sturgeon mentioned and which Cathy Jamieson has inquired about this week does not appear to be held nationally by the police or by other agencies in Scotland, it certainly should be held by police forces at the local level and it should be possible for chief constables to compile it into one set of national data. We will pursue that matter but, more important, we will pursue our policy of putting the right laws and procedure in place to reassure the public. We will do so even when members in the Parliament are prepared to vote against such measures.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

One constituency supplementary question fits best here.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

As Nicola Sturgeon said, the tragic murder of Angelika Kluk has shocked all people in Scotland and has had a serious impact on the local community that I represent. I will meet police officers later this week to discuss that impact.

I have two questions for the First Minister on issues that are in addition to those that have been raised. There has been a lot of media speculation, although I am sure the First Minister will resist the temptation to criticise at this stage, without knowing the facts. First, will the First Minister consider whether the procedures for identifying individuals in any type of inquiry, including missing person inquiries, are the right ones? Secondly, does the First Minister agree that it is vital for us to pass the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill in its amended form, to remove the duty of police officers to deal with means warrants so that they can concentrate their efforts on warrants for serious and violent offenders, particularly sex offenders? The bill, if passed, will make a great difference to the resources that are available to the police.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I thank Pauline McNeill for her question. I have three comments in response. First, of course we are prepared to consider the procedures for identifying individuals. Although those are largely operational matters, it is important for people to have a good look at them and report back to ministers if improvements can be made. Secondly, it is important that the Parliament continues to modernise and reform our justice service from top to bottom. The provisions that Pauline McNeill mentioned are an important part of that modernisation.

Thirdly, as this may be the last question on the subject today, I say to the thousands and thousands of Polish people who have come to live in Scotland in recent years that this is a good and welcoming country where people by and large live safely in their homes and at their work. We all feel real pain about what happened to the young girl and for her family back home and her friends in Scotland. I hope that what has happened will not deter those hard-working decent people from coming to our country and making their contribution.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2477)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Perhaps the next time the First Minister and the Prime Minister have the mutual pleasure of a meeting, they might nestle round the fire for a little chat about something of interest to both of them: retirement. In the past nine years, many older people in Scotland have been fraught with anxiety and uncertainty about that. Frankly, Labour's annual pensions tax raid and the First Minister's council tax hikes have made the lives of the elderly people of Scotland very challenging. With reference to council tax, will the First Minister say how he plans to lighten the load on pensioners, who are barely getting by because of his council tax hikes?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I do not want to go over old ground too much and disappoint Jamie McGrigor, who was clearly smiling behind Annabel Goldie at the mention of retirement—he is looking forward to it with some glee. In relation to the council tax, we commissioned an independent review into local government finance and taxation, which we expect to report before Christmas, that covers payments by those on a fixed income—primarily pensioners. We should await the outcome of that review before we make any further deliberations.

We have rightly maintained pressure on local authorities over recent years to ensure that council tax increases in Scotland post devolution have been lower than those in every one of the final years of the most recent Conservative Government, and lower than they have been elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The increases in Scotland have not been as low as everyone would have liked, but they have been distinctly better in the years of devolution than they were before it, and they have been distinctly better than those elsewhere. Our policy is clearly having some impact.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

No, that is not good enough. If I understand it correctly, the First Minister's mantra is, "Don't blame me; I've given the councils all the money they need." Councils do blame him, because he is ring fencing that money. Does the First Minister not realise that when the council tax bill drops through the letter box, Scotland's senior citizens do not give a hoot who is to blame—they just want it to be smaller? The Scottish Conservatives have a fully costed proposal to reduce council tax—[ Interruption. ] I can understand the dismay of my opponents, as they have nothing else to offer.

My party has a fully costed proposal to reduce council tax for pensioners of 65 and over by 50 per cent. Scotland's seniors want a 50 per cent cut in their council tax. Is the First Minister with them or against them?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

A proposal is not fully costed unless it is properly paid for every year. I will be happy to have a debate on the future of the council tax and specific provisions for pensioners and others in Scotland when the independent report is published before Christmas. I am sure that we will all be happy to debate that issue between now and the election in May, but if the Scottish Conservatives are going to be taken seriously in that debate, I have to point out to them that it is not possible to pay for a discount every year into the future on the basis of a one-off payment from the sale of Scottish Water, as they proposed this week. That is not a fully costed proposal, it is not a serious attempt to enter the debate and they will have to do better.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The First Minister is deliberately distorting the funding mechanism for our proposal, which works on an annual basis, involves the mutualisation of Scottish Water and therefore spares the Executive from an annual outgoing of nearly £190 million.

Let me get this straight: not only is the First Minister not interested in cutting council tax bills, he is not interested in cutting water bills either. That may be very brave, First Minister, but it is not very clever. I shall do what the First Minister does not want me to do: get back to the question at issue, which, as is his custom, he has failed to answer. I shall have a bit of fun by asking the First Minister a simple question that requires a simple yes or no answer. Will the First Minister cut council tax for pensioners by 50 per cent, yes or no?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

First Minister's question time is meant to be difficult for me, not for those who are asking the questions. It would be better if supplementary questions were not prepared questions that are read out and do not respond to the answers that have been given.

It is absolutely the policy of this devolved Government to have council tax increases as low as possible and to improve the system of local government finance and taxation. It is our policy to have an independent review into that system, for it to report this year, and then, I am sure, for there to be a healthy debate about its conclusions.

It has also been our policy to ensure that charges for water and council tax are kept to a minimum. That is one of the reasons—along with the hard work of others—why council tax increases in the years of devolution have been less than they were in all the final years of the Conservative Government. Miss Goldie made a brave effort in those days to defend that Government, but it was difficult for her. Water increases are also lower now than they were then, and there has been additional investment in our water supply that is at last making water across Scotland clean and able to be used safely—unlike the situation during all those years of the Conservative Government, when underinvestment made our water supply the laughing stock of Europe.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

We have one constituency supplementary question, from John Scott.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The First Minister will be aware that the board of NHS Ayrshire and Arran decided yesterday to close the accident and emergency unit at Ayr hospital. That facility is much used by my constituents. The First Minister knows the geography of Ayrshire, Arran and south-west Scotland; does he agree that lives will be put at risk if only two accident and emergency units remain in south-west Scotland—one at Crosshouse in Kilmarnock and one at Dumfries?

Does the First Minister further agree with the 55,000 petitioners and the 5,000 street protesters that the geography of south-west Scotland demands that the accident and emergency unit at Ayr should be kept open, to compensate for the huge distances involved in time-dependent emergency situations?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I say to the good people of Ayr and south-west Scotland that they should not be scared by the scaremongering of John Scott and others in this campaign. It is vital that ministers make balanced judgments on the proposals that come from the health board. They will do so. They will treat the information objectively and make a judgment objectively on the outcome.

I also want to state clearly that Ayr hospital will benefit from new investment of more than £40 million as a result of proposals that are coming forward. A new specialist minimal invasive surgical unit will be installed; stroke rehabilitation services, which are needed in that area, will be developed; neurorehabilitation services will be developed; and a new 50-bed unit, medically led and providing subacute care, will be developed, particularly for elderly patients. Furthermore—and this is of particular interest to me, as John Scott knows, given what has happened recently in my family in Ayr and elsewhere in the area—a new cancer unit will be developed in the hospital. That, I think, will be welcomed locally.

I hope that when people see the overall package, and when ministers make an objective decision, people will agree that it is the right decision.

Jean Turner (Independent, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Executive is taking to help national health service patients with chronic conditions to improve their quality of life and return to work. (S2F-2478)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The chief medical officer is developing a national strategy for the management of people with long-term conditions, working closely with groups who represent those who are affected.

A number of schemes are already in place to assist people to return to work, including programmes to help people tackle barriers to work, pain management programmes and pre-employment training.

Jean Turner (Independent, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I would like the First Minister to consider one particular chronic condition. Is he aware that we urgently need to change the way in which the NHS treats the thousands of people who live with chronic pain and therefore cannot work? There is a cost of millions of days off work, and millions of pounds are paid in benefits and drug bills. Those people also require 20 per cent more general practitioner appointments because they receive inadequate pain control.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

It is precisely because of the importance of the issue that the chief medical officer is looking at the long-term plan. I absolutely agree that there are ways in which the health service can assist people—even those in chronic pain—to take up some form of employment. That will require close working among local agencies in addition to the support offered by the health service. I have every confidence that the work that is currently underway through the chief medical officer will lead to good recommendations that we will be able to support.

Jean Turner (Independent, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

In October 2004, the World Health Organisation stated that pain relief is a human right. I am sure that the First Minister agrees that it is. I know that we are working very hard to improve things, but is the First Minister aware that if pain is treated inadequately, it may cause suicidal thoughts, depression, helplessness, isolation and family breakdown? Will the First Minister use his power to restore quality of life to thousands of chronic pain sufferers by accelerating the introduction of nationwide chronic pain clinics backed up by adequate funding and resources for the health boards? Please.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

That is a serious proposal and I am sure it is the kind of proposal the Chief Medical Officer will look at. Chronic pain is one of those issues, developments and concerns that have become more prominent since this Parliament came into existence. That has been a healthy aspect of having our own Scottish Parliament: many of the conditions that were not perhaps a priority in the past are now receiving more priority attention from politicians throughout the chamber.

I am sure that Jean Turner will agree with me when I say that one of the key reasons for having reorganisation of the health service at a local level is to ensure that we are able to deal with such new developments, that we do not have a health service that is focused only on treating acute conditions, and that it supports people with chronic pain and other problems. That is why the reorganisation of our health service at a local level throughout Scotland is so important.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

To ask the First Minister what steps are being taken to improve the provision of physical education in schools. (S2F-2481)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We are committed to providing a minimum of two hours of good quality PE to every pupil in Scotland. To improve both the quality and quantity of PE in schools, we will provide for 400 additional teachers by 2008 and we have already increased entrants to the postgraduate PE qualification from eight in 2002-03 to 80 today.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

I welcome the Executive's commitment to increasing the amount of PE that pupils experience in school. As a parent with three sons who participate in competitive sport, including football, tae kwon do and golf, I agree with the First Minister's comments, which were reported at the weekend, that competitive sport does a lot to stimulate the brain, make young people more alert and give them a sense of achievement. How does the First Minister aim to take forward those aims and ensure that young people have more opportunities to experience competitive sport in schools?