Supporting Families
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-5112, in the name of Elizabeth Smith, on supporting families.
On 24 September, in Labour's debate on child protection measures, the Scottish Conservatives submitted an amendment that made abundantly plain our firm belief that the family is the most important building block in society. That amendment received unanimous support, so the importance of the family unit to helping our young people through a loving, caring and supportive environment clearly struck an important chord with every party in the Parliament. From the Scottish National Party, we heard that children do best in a strong and supportive family environment; from Labour, we heard about the need for a coherent strategy to enhance the quality of life for our families; and from the Liberals we heard that it is no doubt the best option to support children living with their own families.
So there is cross-party agreement, but just as was the case in the drugs debate, the next stage will be the real test. That is when we will find out whether we can lift the debate to another level, away from warm words and into meaningful action, however difficult and challenging it might have to be. As with the drugs debate, the problem that we are considering is hugely complex and pervasive and there will be many pitfalls along the way. My party would never pretend that we have all the answers—it would be grossly naive and arrogant for anyone to assume that they do. However, we have the courage of our convictions that we cannot stand by and do nothing. This morning, we issue a challenge to every member of the Parliament to stand together to address a matter that threatens to further destabilise the broken society that exists for far too many people and which costs the United Kingdom more than £20 billion a year, while the resulting burdens on family relatives, social work services and our justice system go much deeper than just the money.
The extent of the breakdown was never more obvious to me than on the day in 2002 when I was present when lain Duncan Smith made his first visit to Easterhouse. Like him, I heard for myself the harrowing accounts of the broken relationships, poverty, substance abuse and psychological turmoil that affected some of the families whose lives were described by Bob Holman and Sandy Weddell from the Easterhouse community. I saw the emotion on lain Duncan Smith's face and I heard the conversation in the car thereafter. In his words, it was a political journey that had hurt. We saw a community that was so remote and so far removed from any hope that it was tempting—so very tempting—simply to cross the road and walk away. lain Duncan Smith committed himself that day—no one can doubt that that commitment is real—to the fact that the issue goes well beyond party-political boundaries and that it will never be addressed by a simplistic solution or in the absence of consensus on the way forward.
I will set out some of the things that we have to do, beginning with the most important issue, which is parenting. Although it is right to acknowledge that the majority of parents in the country provide caring and effective support for their children, we must also acknowledge that there is a growing minority of parents who genuinely find it difficult to pass on parenting skills to their children because they are the children of parents who did not possess those skills. That is not their fault, but neither is it acceptable simply to say that they are a sad reflection of modern society. Those parents, particularly those whose problems stem from alcohol or substance misuse, need our help and they most often need that help from within their immediate communities.
That is why it is important that we make more effort to support those who work in the voluntary sector—the unsung heroes who are often best placed to change lives for the better. Our voluntary sector is outstanding, but at present many groups are under threat, partly because of funding issues, but also because they feel that their future is uncertain. I appreciate just how tight budgets are and the pressures that that brings, but we cannot accept some of the hindrances that are placed on the philanthropists and charitable foundations that are potential donors. An example is the crippling effect of the change from advanced corporation tax to tax on revenue income, which has reduced the available funds for some of Scotland's biggest foundations by £0.5 million a year. Another example is the gift aid system, which is plagued by expensive and time-consuming bureaucracy that diverts resources away from good causes.
The Conservatives are determined to solve those issues with new policies that will remove the barriers, improve the uptake of gift aid from its very low take-up rate of 34 per cent and enshrine the principle that charitable giving should be made out of untaxed income. We will also reform the national lottery, so that it returns to its roots as a supporter of good ideas from within communities, rather than being a vehicle for directing voluntary income into Government priorities and one that is often disproportionately skewed towards the public sector. We have plans to put in place a voluntary action lottery fund, which will replace the Big Lottery Fund and be completely independent of Government.
Beside that, we will put on the table policies that will end the perverse financial incentive against couples who choose to marry and end the part of the benefits system that penalises married couples. As other countries have done, we must structure our tax and benefits systems to end any financial disincentives and an overdependence on the state. A large part of that is about creating better employment opportunities and a single back-to-work programme for everyone who is on out-of-work benefits to replace the complex and inefficient current system. The Scottish Conservatives have got major commitments out of the Scottish Government—on lowering the burden of business rates, a town centre regeneration fund and the freezing of the council tax—but we also want a business dividend fund to encourage local authorities to be better placed to support new business start-ups. We want far more flexibility on child care and the provision of nursery school facilities.
We must also provide help in the home and at school. The Scottish Conservatives have made a £20 million commitment to begin the introduction of a universal health visitor service for under-fives, so that parents get regular professional help with looking after their children's health and welfare from the earliest possible stage. Nothing could be more important than trying to break down some of the health barriers that exist in the lives of too many young children. Those barriers often mean that the children encounter other social and educational difficulties. In many schools, pupils learn about the social and financial responsibilities that come with being a parent, and we are keen for that good practice to be developed in all schools throughout the country.
I return to the main reasons for the debate, which are that 137,000 children have no parent in work; that 200,000 children in Scotland live in poverty; and that 60,000 children live with parents who are addicted to drugs and maybe as many as 100,000 live with parents who are addicted to alcohol. It is not rocket science to recognise the extent of the problems. We are setting out on a difficult and probably tortuous journey, but not to make that journey would be to deny our responsibilities as elected members and to deny many of our young people the right to be part of a loving, caring and supportive family. We have no choice, so I will move the motion in my name.
I move,
That the Parliament considers that the family is the natural building block of our society; notes the significant pressures facing families in Scotland today arising from relationship breakdown, poverty, unemployment and substance abuse; regrets that one in four Scottish children is growing up in a single-parent household and that 137,000 Scottish children have no parent in work, and believes that action is required to improve parenting support, to expand the role of health visitors, to fully harness the voluntary sector in this work and to recognise marriage in the tax and benefits system.
I am, of course, happy to contribute to a debate on how we might best support Scotland's families, particularly at a time when many of them face hardship and difficulties through no fault of their own. In that context, I regret the faintly moralising tone of the Conservative motion and I question the demand for preferential treatment for certain categories of families in the tax and benefits system. We should not forget that the process of phasing out the married couples income tax allowance started under the last Tory Government, so we will take no lectures from members on that side of the chamber.
All families need support, but some are more vulnerable to poor outcomes. It is vital that our policies recognise that and promote actions that support our people. Last year, we published "Achieving Our Potential: A Framework to tackle poverty and income inequality in Scotland", which sets out our ambitious approach to tackling poverty and income inequality. Together with the social policies in the early years framework and "Equally Well: Report of the Ministerial Task Force on Health Inequalities", it represents a comprehensive and co-ordinated attack on the poverty and inequality that disfigures Scottish society.
We are determined to break the cycles of disadvantage that have blighted the lives of too many families for too long. With our partners, we are pursuing a range of actions to make a real difference on those deep-seated and difficult problems. Although the current devolution settlement limits what can be achieved for our people, the Government has a new level of ambition for Scotland and is determined to deliver real lasting change. Together with our partners, we are committed to a programme of work to improve outcomes for all Scotland's children. That is being achieved through the implementation of key change programmes such as getting it right for every child and the early years framework, which place children and young people's needs at the centre of what we do.
We want to help parents to improve outcomes for themselves and their children by providing support at the earliest possible stage to stop problems escalating. We have some great support for families in the early years—midwives, health visitors and community nursing teams who support parents during pregnancy and early parenthood are known, valued and trusted. We want to build on that by bringing a greater focus on parenting skills and capacity, and by developing care pathways to ensure that parents who have different types and levels of need are given the right support.
The role of building relationships between parents is crucial, which is why we fund voluntary organisations such as Scottish Marriage Care and Relationships Scotland, as well as family mediation services based in local authorities throughout Scotland. Such services work to reduce conflict and heal relationships where possible, while valuing marriage and the family relationship. However, where parental relationships have broken down irretrievably, those organisations also support parents to create a stable environment for their children.
Some families face particular challenges, recession or no recession. Tackling parental substance misuse is a priority for the Government. We want to ensure that more people recover from drug and alcohol problems so that they can live longer, healthier lives, realise their potential and make a positive contribution within their families and the wider community. Our early intervention approach will mean that young people do not start down that road in the first place.
The Scottish Government recognises the important role that is played by grandparents and other kinship carers in providing secure and stable homes for children. Extended families who take on that responsibility provide a valuable service and should be supported in carrying out that role. The Scottish Government is determined to do what it can to help improve their situation. One of the problems that we face in providing financial support for kinship carers is that the United Kingdom benefits system does not interact well with the allowances that local authorities pay to kinship carers. That is particularly true for kinship carers of looked-after children, who are not entitled to child benefit, and where the allowance that is intended for the child can affect other benefits that the carer would otherwise be entitled to.
I accept what the minister says and the fact that there is an issue around the benefits system. I understand that Jim Murphy and others are looking at that question. What is the Scottish Government doing to address the disparity between local authorities in Scotland in the funding that is being made available to kinship carers at the moment?
I am pleased to hear that the Secretary of State for Scotland is taking up the issue. As the member knows, we engage regularly with local authorities through the concordat mechanisms so that we can ensure that those commitments are fulfilled.
From August this year, all pupils whose parents receive maximum child tax credit and maximum working tax credit are now eligible for free school lunches, thus extending entitlement to an additional 44,000 pupils. In addition, legislation has been passed to enable local authorities to provide all primary 1 to primary 3 pupils in Scotland with free school lunches from August 2010, meaning that, from then, around 40 per cent of pupils in Scotland will be entitled to free, healthy, nutritious school lunches.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No, the minister should be winding up.
I am sure that hard-pressed families—in my experience, most parents with young families are hard pressed—will be particularly grateful for such support.
I must ask you to close please, minister.
I firmly believe that early and effective intervention and helping parents to help themselves and their families must be at the heart of building a more successful Scotland, and that is what we are trying to deliver.
I move amendment S3M-5112.1, to leave out from "regrets" to end and insert:
"believes that the Scottish Government should focus on addressing the impact of the recession and take steps to ease the burden on families; recognises that long-term relationships provide stability in many families and acknowledges the status of marriage in society, and believes that the needs and best interests of the child should always be at the centre of policies to support and promote stable families and reflect the reality of family life in Scotland."
Thank you. From now on, all speeches should be of around four minutes. I call Des McNulty to speak to and move amendment S3M-5112.1.1, which seeks to amend amendment S3M-5112.1, in the name of Adam Ingram.
I am glad that it was you who had to say that, Presiding Officer.
The question that we need to ask ourselves during this debate is how we can best support families with children. I am talking about all types of family, not the kind of family we ideally want to see. Although relationship breakdown can be a cause as well as a consequence of stress on families, it is not our role to prescribe how people should live, or to moralise about single-parent families. As a society we have to deal with the consequences of poverty, unemployment and substance abuse, especially as they affect children and whether those things occur in one or two-parent families. For that reason, I have reservations about the tone as well as some of the substance of the Conservative motion.
The job of Government, as the SNP amendment rightly states, is to provide support where it is needed and, in particular, to act in the best interests of children. We need to consider whether the services that we provide for all families with children are adequate and appropriate, as well as providing targeted support to the most vulnerable families. Research shows that targeted interventions, such as those that were pioneered by the Dundee families project, have benefited parents and children in the most difficult of circumstances. There has been some roll-out of such provision, but the organisations involved in supporting our most needy families are clear that more places are needed.
However, for many families the kind of wraparound support that is provided in the Dundee project would not be appropriate. For them, some form of parenting support or support package to deal with identified needs might be sufficient. Needs vary and the inflexibility of provision is often the barrier to uptake. The most pressing requirement for many families is child care support, which was identified as a priority by the incoming Labour Government in 1997; arguably the most significant policy interventions of the early years of Labour's period in government were the substantial expansion of child care support and its tailoring to the needs of parents and their children.
Will the member give way?
No, I will not take an intervention.
That took slightly different forms north and south of the border, but the changes that were introduced between 1997 and 1999, which have been continued by all the devolved Administrations subsequently, have made a huge difference.
It is remarkable that the Conservatives, whose support for families was miserly and half-hearted throughout the dark days of the Thatcher and Major Governments, should suddenly make the family a policy priority. David Cameron wants to swing his axe on public spending and George Osborne is positively slavering in anticipation of the opportunity to slice budgets across every part of the public sector, yet we are asked to believe that the Conservatives, in the unlikely form of lain Duncan Smith, have been converted on the road to Damascus. Apparently Easterhouse was an important way station on the route. My concern is that his Conservative colleagues want to take us down a via dolorosa, with vulnerable families likely to be particularly disadvantaged not just by cuts in services, but by Tory proposals to reform tax credits and other benefits on which those families rely.
It is true that there are too many Scottish families with no parent in work and that up to a quarter of all children are growing up in single-parent households. For those families, nothing could be more destabilising than the removal of financial support by changing the benefits system to their disadvantage. During the previous Conservative Government, the more right-wing ministers argued that high unemployment was a good thing because it broke the culture of dependency. These days, the language has changed and latterly we hear more about so-called compassionate conservativism, but behind the spin the Conservative party has not changed the fundamentals of its political philosophy. It is still wedded to a blame culture that sees social problems as the fault of the people who are the victims. Its core instinct is to minimise contributions through taxation, while the rest of us believe that society has to shoulder its responsibilities.
The amendment in my name highlights the need to ensure that we provide the support that families need to survive the economic pressures that we face as a consequence of the economic downturn. There is a broad consensus for that in the other parties, the Conservatives aside. The pressures are unevenly distributed and many families with children are on the edge, financially. At the very least, we should not be tipping them over the edge.
I move amendment S3M-5112.1.1, to insert at end:
"and urges the Scottish Government to prioritise support for parents and extended families, ensuring that evaluation of these services is geared towards improving the quality and range of support that can be offered."
I call Margaret Smith to speak to and move amendment S3M-5112.1.2, which seeks to amend amendment S3M-5112.1, in the name of Adam Ingram. If she could do that in about the same time that it has taken me to call her, I would be very grateful.
I welcome the debate on supporting families. As a Liberal, I might argue that I see the individual as the essential building block of society. Nevertheless, I have no hesitation in agreeing that strong individuals are shaped in strong, happy families where they experience love and respect. For me, stable family life represents undoubtedly the best start in life for our children.
Sometimes, however, families need help. That is why we pay tribute, in our amendment, to the work that is done by the voluntary sector in supporting families. That sector is under pressure from the effects of the concordat, tendering, single outcome agreements, increased demand for services, the tight financial settlement for local government and the reduction in revenue in the teeth of a recession. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations is absolutely right when it says that it is caught in a "perfect storm". It is crucial that the Scottish Government considers how it can support the voluntary sector in every way possible.
The Parliament, too, can do a great deal to support families. For some, such as the 40,000 to 60,000 children who are affected by parental drug misuse, that will mean a great deal of state intervention in their lives. For many, it will mean the possibility of the state assuming the corporate parental role; for others, that is only right and we should not be afraid to do that in good time. It is clear to us that the protection of our children is one of the paramount challenges that the country faces. It is a challenge that we must and will face together, learning the lessons from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education, properly assessing risk for every child and then properly supporting that child.
Most families need access to a comprehensive range of services, from flexible child care options to local schools and the national health service that underpins our lives and our families' wellbeing. Most families want a Government and a Parliament that enable each child to grasp opportunities with both hands and enable each family to achieve its potential. Only last week, the Parliament came together to support independent students and students with children in taking up the opportunities of higher education. That was only right.
Right now, there are a number of threats to Scotland's families. We have heard about drug and alcohol misuse, but chief among those threats are the difficulties that are brought about by recession. That is why we agree with the Government that our primary focus must be Scotland's economic future. The spectres of unemployment, homelessness and poverty hang over too many Scottish homes, bringing with them relationship difficulties, stress and uncertainty. We need to foster the range of strategies that will keep people in work, and we must train people for work and reskill those who have lost their jobs.
Too many of our children grow up in poverty. The lack of affordable, available and flexible child care is the single biggest barrier to improving parents' employability, especially that of lone parents. There must, therefore, be greater levels of support for vulnerable and disadvantaged parents as they enter and pursue employment, education and training. We welcome the Government's willingness to accept the calls of the Opposition parties last week to increase by £2 million the child care funds that are available as part of the increased student support package.
Sometimes, however, it is not about funding. Time and time again, when I deal with constituents who are looking for council houses, I see that little or no notice appears to be taken of family support networks and the ability of relatives who live nearby to assist parents in holding down jobs. The allocation of council houses never seems to take those human, family factors into account.
It is vital for Scotland's future and families that we get the approach to early years education right. Increasing the provision of early years services is good not just for families, but for the economy. Pound for pound, it is a better use of resources to put funds into pre-school education than it is to put them into tertiary education. All members will know, from their constituencies, the fantastic work that is being done in breakfast clubs, after-school clubs and homework clubs throughout the country, which is having positive impacts on children and families.
We want working families to be able to hold on to more of their earnings and to be able to make the best choices about how they use their money. Our top priority is fairer taxes for those who are on lower and middle incomes. We would aid the poorest and most disadvantaged families by ensuring fairer taxes that would lift the burden on ordinary people. We would lift the tax threshold to £10,000, which would provide an incentive to work and save. It is surely wrong that people on the minimum wage should be dragged into tax. Successive Governments have built up a benefits system that makes it virtually impossible for many families to work their way out of poverty and improve their way of life. The cash that is given to help families, such as tax credits and council tax benefit, is taken away when they start to earn above a certain amount. We think that that is fundamentally wrong.
We know that we have a challenge ahead of us in supporting families in Scotland, but we are absolutely committed to rising to that challenge.
I move amendment S3M-5112.1.2, to insert at end:
", and notes the valuable role of the voluntary sector in the delivery of services to children, parents and families, particularly those in vulnerable or disadvantaged circumstances."
Tellingly, in her opening speech, Liz Smith observed that the real test is whether we can turn the warm words that so often accompany cross-party agreement into meaningful action. I will concentrate entirely on applying that test to the future of health visiting.
Yesterday, I visited a relatively new medical centre in Glasgow Springburn. I sat below a flashy brass plaque that informed me that the opening ceremony had been performed by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing. Yet, as I sat there in the shiny new briefing suite, I heard how, despite its being one of the 85 Scottish general practitioner practices that feature in the top 100 GP practices that serve the most disadvantaged communities anywhere in the United Kingdom, it is supported by just one health visitor. That is almost too staggering to accept. Eighty-five of the 100 GP practices that serve the most disadvantaged communities are in Scotland, and in Springburn—a practice that serves some 7,000 patients in one of the most disadvantaged communities of all—there is just one health visitor. It gets worse. In the Possil practice, which is regarded as the GP practice that serves the most disadvantaged community anywhere in the UK, there has been—almost unbelievably—no health visitor at all for four weeks.
When the Parliament first met after the 2007 election, we debated the need to tackle inequality. The Scottish Conservatives expressed reservations at that time and have done so ever since about the piecemeal approach that is being taken on health visiting throughout Scotland. There are as many policies on how to deliver the service as there are health boards. In Glasgow, despite a petition calling for the health board's plans to be halted and changed, which attracted more than 20,000 signatures, the whole profession of health visiting—the very fabric of any service at all—is in chaos and is disintegrating before our eyes.
The Government can no longer adopt a hands-off approach. The Scottish Conservatives called for an independent scrutiny panel to be appointed to review the major changes in this area of the health service that seek to jeopardise both our universal health visiting service and to experiment with the lives of the most disadvantaged. There may not be a shiny building of bricks and mortar to stand and pose outside—health visiting is not visible in the way that an accident and emergency department is; it is a service that is built entirely on the hard work of dedicated people—but the changes have had a profound effect, which is proving wholly detrimental. Our request for an ISP was rejected, but such a review is needed more than ever. We repeat our call for an ISP now and as a matter of urgency.
One GP wrote to me to say:
"We have had a near meltdown in SE Glasgow CHCP. In my own practice we now have 4 days cover instead of 6 after 8 months of virtually no cover. I can give countless tales of woe. The problem is we are just too tired to complain any more".
A GP in Nicola Sturgeon's constituency of Glasgow Govan told me:
"I think children are more vulnerable in Glasgow now because of the deficient HV numbers and the inevitable move away from being GP attached. … The situation is entirely the result of the realignment of the service".
Alarmingly, the GP continued:
"I have a fear that paradoxically there may be an improvement in the child protection statistics because children will essentially be invisible under this restructuring".
There is now a widespread shortage of health visitors. Just as we forecast, lack of consultation has fuelled resistance to the proposals and has led, in turn, to many older and experienced health visitors feeling hopelessly undervalued and leaving the service. The move away from health visitors being GP attached has led to the loss of vital whole-practice intelligence. New recruits are being brought in on lower pay bands and with less experience—if they are being recruited at all. To add further to the collapse, the health visitor team leaders who were recruited just a year ago, mostly from among the most experienced health visitor corps and on the basis of their posts being 50 per cent clinical and 50 per cent managerial, have returned all their casework files within the past month following the announcement that their posts are now to be 100 per cent managerial.
The team approach that is being implemented has led to a breakdown in the excellent working relationships that were established over many years—relationships that were built on trust between GPs, health visitors and patients. We must call a halt to that. There is no point in taking credit for new legislation or grand advertising schemes that are aimed at tackling obesity, alcohol and drug addiction or smoking cessation if we are dismantling the most effective prevention scheme of all—the direct intervention with every family on behalf of every child at birth.
The Scottish Conservatives said that the Government's approach would not work and we were right. Warm words will no longer do. There is a crisis right now, and it is damning the future of some of Scotland's most disadvantaged communities. It is the Government's duty to deal with it and I hope that all members will unite in demanding that it do so.
In the short time that I have, I will focus on the scale of the problem, particularly regarding drug and alcohol misuse.
The background is fairly clear, but I will remind colleagues of our record in Scotland. We have, annually, more than 50,000 referrals to the children's reporter. A United Nations Children's Fund report has stated that children in the UK fare less well and feel worse about the quality of their lives than children in almost any other industrialised country, which is surely a serious and shocking situation. This year, research by Professor O'Connor that was based on schoolchildren in Stirling and Glasgow showed that 14 per cent of children aged 15 are self-harming and that a further 14 per cent have thoughts of self-harm. Surely that reflects a damaged situation. We have much work to do to repair it.
In the 30-odd years between 1973, when the report on Maria Colwell hit the ground, and the recent reports on Victoria Climbié and, in Scotland, Kennedy McFarlane, we have had more than 70 reports on problems associated with child care. Some are related to the deaths of children, and others to problems in child care and residential accommodation. The scale of the problem that we face is massive, as is indicated by the reports that have appeared. Despite all those reports, we have been unable to amend the situation to make it satisfactory. The recent report on Brandon Muir shows that we still have problems.
Most of the reports are based on the deaths of children. Over the past few weeks, Iain Gray has been trying to make the valid point that, for every child who dies and every report that we produce, there are many other children who stagger through their childhood being increasingly damaged, and who reach a point of damage from which there is no return. We, as a society, are paying for the consequences of that in the increasing number of people who are admitted to our prisons, which has grown by more than 40 per cent in the past 25 years.
Projects such as the Dunedin project, which followed children from their birth in 1973 into their adult lives, show that children who will have significant problems in adulthood can be identified at age three. Obviously, there is overidentification—many children who are identified at that age as people who may have problems will turn out to be excellent citizens, who are fully developed and who achieve their aspirations. Such overidentification should not, however, prevent us from focusing on those children.
Jackson Carlaw was right to say that what we have done to the health visitor system over the past few years in trying to introduce the review of nursing in the community has put a planning blight on the development of health visiting. Without early identification, we have a major problem. Drugs and alcohol are part of that problem. It is thought that more than 100,000 children are living in families with drug or alcohol-misusing parents. We need more antenatal projects, to provide families with support at that early stage. The Edinburgh PrePare project is one, but its funding is short term.
We need multidisciplinary teams involving midwives, nursery officers, community mental health nurses and health visitors in order to achieve early identification, to assess the extended family's capacity for parenting and to put in place the necessary supports. If we fail to do that, as Harry Burns said in his excellent report last year, by the age of three many children will be damaged and beyond repair. For that reason, we need to have a new strategy and inquiry into child care in Scotland. It should look not at systems and structures—which were tackled in Jack McConnell's report—but at what we are doing on the ground. If we do that, we may be able to support some very vulnerable children and families.
The family is indeed the natural building block of our society and there is no doubt that it has, over the past 40 years or so, faced unprecedented pressures. How has that come about? There is no single cause: a host of factors have combined to produce the situation that exists today. Let me outline some of them.
Over the years, we have lost much of our sense of community. In the immediate post-war era, a nation that had been conditioned by years of working towards a single goal continued to work as a cohesive unit. There was not only mutual and intergenerational support within the family unit; there was also community support, even though social conditions were often appalling.
What happened to change things? The benevolent urge to provide better-quality housing led to the building of huge and impersonal housing estates, often on the fringes of cities or towns. Natural communities were broken up, natural safe play areas were destroyed and community facilities were either non-existent or in short supply. Above all, the people who were moved into the houses were often the poorest of the poor. A centrally heated home is not much use if one cannot afford to pay the electricity bill. Combined with that was an increase in relative poverty. If people are all in the same boat, they can be fairly happy sharing whatever is around, but when every night the television is advertising expensive lifestyles and toys that are valued in hundreds of pounds, the sense of alienation that is experienced by the people who cannot afford such lifestyles is exacerbated. Also, with the parents and grandparents now living far away, the help that they were able to give in previous years is no longer so accessible.
Those factors, combined with the development of an "every man for himself" society, have helped to lead to the breakdown of vulnerable family units, to substance abuse, to alcoholism and to all the social ills that plague us today.
Some unkind souls blame much of that on the self-centredness of the Thatcher era, but out of respect for the party that has initiated today's debate, I will not go into that territory. I simply point out that 18 years of Conservative Governments did nothing to solve the problem. Between 1979, when Mrs Thatcher came to power, and 1997, when John Major's Government fell, the number of divorces in Scotland rose by a massive 38.5 per cent. Between 1997 and 2008, the divorce rate actually fell by 6.5 per cent. Figures for single-parent families are not so easily accessible, but the household survey shows us that between 1981 and 2001, all but four years of which were under a Conservative Administration, the number of households containing one adult and one child went up by a staggering 280 per cent, whereas from 2002 to 2007 the rise was only 6.2 per cent. Something in our society went seriously wrong during those years under the Conservatives—the party of the family, which is moralising today.
So, what are we to do? There are no easy answers. They include the dispersal of the monolithic housing estates, the creation of a social mix that results in benefits from schooling, and the provision of shops and leisure facilities. That is already happening. We need much more active intervention, with help during pregnancy and intensive support for mothers and children in the very early years. There should be more males in primary teaching, organising clubs and sporting activities so that the thousands of male children without male figures in their homes have some sort of role models to copy. We must also open up schools and playing fields out of hours, so that young people have somewhere to go in the evenings and at weekends.
We need to increase job opportunities, but we need also to supply benefits where they are needed. A welfare system in which anyone who works always reaps a financial benefit would be a start. Although we recognise the benefits of marriage, we must also recognise that there are thousands of happy families outside the bounds of that institution, and that there is sometimes much misery within it. I support the Government's amendment.
This is a fascinating debate in which to take part. I do not mean to be facetious, but we would all accept that sometimes we take part in debates on issues that we have never experienced. However, all of us have been or are part of a family. Those families vary in how they are constituted—I suggest gently to the Conservatives that they need to avoid being judgmental about that—but they are our families and they shape our lives.
I want to give credit where it is due: I am glad that the Conservatives have realised what damage unemployment does to a family. As Des McNulty and others have mentioned, during the 1980s and 1990s unemployment was used as an economic tool, with no thought for the individuals who lost their jobs. Unemployment is damaging. That is why the present Labour Government is doing so much to help people to stay in or to retrain for work during the economic recession. Although the motion suggests that Tories in the Scottish Parliament have learned a lesson, I am not sure that Mr Cameron would have done anything to sustain employment, although I am thankful that he was not in a position to do so.
In the short time that I have, I want to mention three aspects of family life: carers, family support services and children in poverty. I will start with carers. As members of families, all of us take on caring roles for one another, but that caring sometimes becomes more onerous, especially when it is for a sick parent, child or sibling.
On Tuesday this week, I attended the annual general meeting of Carers of West Lothian, in my constituency. The organisation consists of wonderful people—staff and volunteers—who work to support those who take on challenging caring roles. I want to mention young carers, in particular. Through Carers of West Lothian, a project is on-going to work with schools to identify young carers and give them support. Some of them were able to take part in the young carers festival in West Linton in August, which was organised by the Scottish Government. Again, I give credit where it is due by congratulating the minister for progressing that project.
I am concerned, however, that we assume that young carers are okay if we just give them a few days out. I am uncomfortable about young people taking on the burdens of caring. We should properly fund projects throughout Scotland to identify young carers and provide them with support and respite, and we should not be dependent on money from sources such as the Big Lottery Fund—there should be core funding through local authorities.
I turn to family support services. I thank Aberlour Child Care Trust for its briefing today. Its national parenting development programme is a fine example of how we can support people in carrying out what is probably the toughest job that many of us are asked to do, which is to be parents. We need to put the child at the centre, whether it is through programmes such as sure start Scotland, which provides help in the early years, through programmes that are run by Barnado's Scotland for teenagers, or through Capability Scotland, which helps families with disabled children.
On other occasions in Parliament, I have supported the role of marriage in society, but I cannot accept that we would be promoting it by reinstating it in the tax system. We should offer financial support to children, which is what the UK Government is doing. Unfortunately, marriages do break down. We have previously in Parliament debated the role of family contact centres and family mediation services, and the minister referred to them in his opening statement. I hope that he will give us further reassurance in his closing statement and that, out of the debate, we will get action rather than just warm words.
In the short time that has been allotted to the debate, we have raised a number of pressing problems in many aspects of society. It is unfortunate that we have so little time in which to debate them.
Elizabeth Smith was right to point to the vast range of instruments that we need to address. However, I want to follow up a point that was made by my colleague, Margaret Smith. Although we in the Liberal Democrats acknowledge that the family is a unit in which support, love and care can be given to children, we have as a society to be careful that we do not continue to deal with people simply as cohorts. At the heart of the family are individuals, so our solutions must be aimed at those individuals—whether that individual is the parent who has suffered unemployment or the parent who has problems with substance abuse. Whether poverty plagues one individual in a family or the whole family, we must move away from trying to deal with people as cohorts. The Liberal Democrats firmly believe that if we concentrate the solution on the individual, we are more likely to find a solution for the family unit as a whole.
Much has been made of the role of the tax system in aiding people who are in poverty and disadvantage. That is correct, and it is why the Liberal Democrats, as a party at Westminster, are keen to simplify the issue by raising the threshold to the point at which those who are on the minimum wage are not—as Margaret Smith said—caught in a tax trap. I very much wish that Elizabeth Smith's tax proposals would be beneficial to families. However, as I understand it, they would benefit only those families in which one member works, but would not benefit the families who are in most need.
The issue of kinship carers was addressed earlier. While I am pleased to hear from Labour members that the Secretary of State for Scotland is addressing the unfortunate mismatch between the benefits system and local authority allowances, I am also rather disappointed that that came as news to the minister. Perhaps the minister and the Westminster Government could work together on that.
The issue of kinship carers is linked to that of volunteers. From 2010-11, the fairer Scotland fund will be rolled into local government. I am concerned that there appears to be no read-across between the assistance that is to be given to kinship carers and volunteer organisations, and the concordats. That is regrettable, and makes it difficult for those who operate in the voluntary sector and those who provide kinship care to have certainty about where they will go in the current troubled times.
Jackson Carlaw raised a key point about health visitors. In addressing such issues, the Liberal Democrats are clear that we should consider fundamentally those who are most at risk and most vulnerable. I share the view that was expressed by Richard Simpson: it is regrettable that we can identify as early as age three those who will have severe difficulties as a result of their families.
I think all members recognise that we all have choices to make as we enter more straitened financial times. If we are going to give the right support to families and deal with deprivation, we have to address the small number of individuals who most need our support—that is where we should concentrate our resources. That is the basis of the Liberal Democrat amendment, and it is why I support that amendment.
This is an interesting and important debate. The central issue for all our children is their entitlement to live in safety and security in a loving home, and to be nurtured. It is not just in poor families that children are denied those things. I would be concerned by any implication that poverty means that children are denied a healthy and happy upbringing. In my constituency, there are families who, despite their financial circumstances, could teach us all a lesson about how to parent. As a parent, I often have grave anxieties about my capacity to find a safe place to rear my children. I am concerned at the implication that the issue is one for "them out there" and not for all of us as a society. In that context, a financial incentive to marry is entirely irrelevant. The issue that is of concern is the extent to which we value children and families.
Elizabeth Smith talked about Iain Duncan Smith's Damascene conversion in Easterhouse. He may have wished to reflect on the issue a little earlier, in the 1980s, when people were telling him what was happening in communities throughout Scotland and beyond.
It is not enough to create the impression that poverty is a plague in which no political decisions have been made. People live in difficulty because of political decisions—we should reflect on that.
The motion
"regrets that one in four children"
lives in a family in which there is a lone parent. First, there are parents who are widowed who actively choose to spend the rest of their lives bringing up and focusing on their children. The implication that that is the wrong choice is cause for concern. Equally, for some people it is a courageous decision to leave a marriage to protect their children, especially given the financial implications for women of making that choice. There is a dichotomy at the heart of the issue. When we talk about domestic abuse, how often do we hear the question, "Why doesn't she leave?" However, when she leaves, it is implied that she is creating problems for her children.
One of the problems for lone parents is not the fact of lone parenthood in itself but the way in which we support them financially and give them economic opportunity. When I was a teacher, there were a number of occasions on which youngsters were disturbed by the periodic reappearance of their father, who caused mayhem in their homes. One young boy could not, when his father was at home, sleep for fear of what would happen to his mother and could not, as a result, learn the next day. The Tories ought to move away from the glib suggestion that lone parenthood in itself is the problem.
If we wish to support families, we need to address how inequality and disadvantage are experienced, and how we can create economic opportunities, safe communities and safe families to allow people to thrive. Yesterday we got information on a skills strategy, which did not reflect that. The enterprise strategy contains no responsibility for place or people and does not address the inequality that disproportionately leaves women as carers in low-paid jobs, with no recognition of their needs.
We need an education system that talks about more than buildings and class sizes, and which recognises that some of our children cannot even access education because of what is happening in their wider life.
We need to understand the particular pressures on different kinds of families, such as the families of disabled children. I regret that the Scottish Government did not step up to the mark in addressing the transformational change that is required to support those families and which would allow those children and their siblings to achieve their potential.
On kinship care, there is an issue with the benefits system, but the Scottish Government has a responsibility to address the huge diversity between what is offered to kinship carers in different parts of the country. It has to recognise that the issue is as much about children's rights as anything else.
The SNP Government needs to recognise the vulnerability of funding to the voluntary sector, which will have a consequence for families. There ought to be no sacred cows—nothing should be off-limits. There should, rather, be proper reflection on what is happening, in order that our families can be protected.
It is clear from this morning's debate that there is, within and beyond the chamber, a great deal of commitment to supporting families throughout Scotland in order to give children the best start in life and to help families escape from the disadvantage that is bred by educational, health and income inequalities. We have also recognised that addressing such major challenges over the long term depends on a strong spirit of partnership—if not the wartime spirit that was evoked by Ian McKee.
Our national and local policies must recognise the multiple and complex needs that are the reality for some families, and the types of holistic and integrated services that can improve their circumstances. Although I respect Richard Simpson's perspective, the situation is not all doom and gloom; I believe that we are making progress.
Although it is too early to point to long-term improved outcomes, the getting it right for every child pathfinders can point to significant early indications of better outcomes for children. Families are reporting that it feels as though one team is supporting them and their children. Practitioners feel able to make more holistic assessments of the child because they have better information, greater trust has been built with colleagues and they can build better capacity for early intervention. There is evidence of progress across all indicators of wellbeing in children. That is clear evidence that getting it right for every child is making a positive difference for Scotland's children. We are committed to rolling out its implementation across the country.
The formal evaluation report on the pathfinders in the Highland Council area has just been received by the Scottish Government and we are arranging for the report to be published. I am keen to provide an opportunity for colleagues in Parliament to debate the findings, so I will pursue that through the usual channels.
The action that this Government is already taking that has assisted families during this difficult time includes extension of eligibility for free school meals and investment in parenting and relationship support organisations. I say to Mary Mulligan that a letter is today winging its way to those organisations, which I hope will reduce some of the uncertainty about their future funding.
We have also invested £435 million through the fairer Scotland fund to assist community planning partners in regenerating disadvantaged areas, tackling poverty and increasing sustainable employment.
We all know that families with children are much more at risk of being in poverty, and that that is particularly true of lone parents. Although we recognise that, for many, work is a route out of poverty and that many lone parents would like to work, we are concerned that more lone parents may, simply to avoid the threat of benefit sanctions, be forced into low-paid, low-skilled jobs that they cannot hope will lift them permanently out of poverty.
We want to continue the joined-up approach that we are taking with local government and the statutory and voluntary sectors to help families during this difficult time.
Will the minister give way?
I am sorry, but I am just finishing up.
That approach will be all the more important as we seek to protect Scottish families from the cuts that will be imposed by Westminster, as promised by all the parties that are seeking power at the next general election.
This debate on supporting families has allowed us to explore the issues and challenges that impact on almost all of us who live in Scotland today. It is important that we discuss and give time to these issues, and address how we will continue to support the family unit.
For the vast majority of us, the family is where we learn fundamental skills for life. Physically, emotionally and socially, it is the context from which the rest of life flows. However, family stability in Scotland, and throughout Britain, has been in continuous decline for many years. Increasingly, adults and children face the challenges of families that are fractured, fatherless and dysfunctional.
Today, families in Scotland face a range of pressures: unemployment, debt, substance abuse, crime and relationship breakdowns, to name just a few. One in four children in Scotland is growing up without a father and some 200,000 Scottish children are growing up in poverty. Between 40,000 and 60,000 children in Scotland are affected by their parents' drug use and, according to a new report out this week, 137,000 Scots children now have no parent in work.
As my colleague Liz Smith stated at the start of the debate, we believe that the family is the most important building block in society. We can no longer stand by and do nothing while that important institution is allowed to be undermined. Governments should not dictate to people how they should lead their lives or tell them what to do, but they should encourage what is good for society, address what is negative and support what is positive.
Today's debate has been about considering what needs to be done to support the stable family formation. Where do we go from today? What is the state of the family unit, particularly in Scotland but also throughout the United Kingdom? Scotland is not alone in having to tackle this problem, but we seem to be alone in western Europe in believing somehow that marriage is just another family formation and that it is not relevant or important. Everybody else out there thinks that it is important enough to recognise and celebrate, so we are unique in our approach.
Also unique to this country is the incredibly high level of family break-ups—it is way beyond the level anywhere else in western Europe. We have more families breaking up, more lone parents and more teenage pregnancies. If we are doing something right, I would love to know what it is, because nobody else wants to copy what we are doing. I do not believe that anyone here wants to promote that record. It is clear that something is going very wrong.
The Labour members and others in this chamber might not want to think that it is their problem. However, we are not alone in highlighting these concerns. Tom Harris, the Labour MP for Glasgow South, recently stated on his blog:
"I can no longer pretend that the army of teenage mothers living off the state is anything other than a national catastrophe … Such young women see parenthood as one way of achieving a level of independence and self-worth. And they're right, because that's more or less what they get: a flat and therefore some privacy, an income for the first time in their lives."
We all know that the problem has been getting steadily worse during the past decade, yet Governments here in the Scottish Parliament—and the Westminster Labour Government in particular—have failed to stand up and take the action that is required to address it. In fact, Labour has the proud record of making the poorest poorer, of creating greater inequalities and of raising youth unemployment.
So, what would we do about it and what should Government, both here and at Westminster, do about it? My colleague Liz Smith has spoken about the importance of improving the parenting skills of parents who need help, and of the need to support the voluntary sector in its work in that area. Believe it or not, some things are better done by the third sector than by the state. She also spoke about the need to improve people's chances of getting back to work by re-energising the jobs market and the economy.
We heard from Jackson Carlaw about the importance of universal health visitors.
Perhaps one of the most important ways we can help the family unit is by recognising marriage and civil partnerships in the tax system. When people make a public commitment to support each other for better or worse, it is right for the tax system to recognise it. The family structure and process matters. A lifetime commitment can make a significant difference to the behaviours, attitudes and lives of our children, but our tax system does not recognise that or the importance of interdependence between family members and the way in which it, in turn, benefits wider society. The couple penalty in tax credits discourages low-income couples from making the move from simply living together to making the commitment of marriage, thus implicating the welfare state in the rise of family breakdown. Indeed, comparative European research indicates that welfare benefits can drive up the number of lone-parent families and encourage solo living. Some countries treat people only as individuals for income tax purposes but most advanced western countries—such as Germany, France and the United States—recognise the benefit that marriage brings and reward it in their income tax system. This country should be no different.
We continue to let down each new generation by not ensuring that those values are carried forward. Our job as politicians is to ensure that we allow our society to respect and encourage the family unit. If we do that, our society will be better off as a result.