Opportunity Gap
We come now to the debate on motion S1M-3477, in the name of Margaret Curran, on closing the opportunity gap, and two amendments to that motion. I ask members who are not staying for the debate to move along.
I am pleased to move the motion in my name, because one of the fundamental imprints of the Scottish budget is how its spending plans are focused on closing the opportunity gap. That not only indicates the Executive's values in relation to our five priorities of health, education, jobs, crime and transport, but, crucially, it translates those values into decisive, systematic, measurable action for which we can be held to account.
All too often, the disadvantaged of our nation have been on the receiving end of much sympathy, compassion and even political rhetoric, but what is most needed is real change on all fronts. We need determined action, innovative policies with the resources to match, action plans that are focused on results and programmes to deliver lasting change.
I will lay out to Parliament some of the actions to which we are already committed, supported by some of the specifics in the Scottish budget. I want to begin with an honest acknowledgement of the problems that we face.
We must all recognise that the challenge is formidable. No one wants to live in a Scotland where poverty and prejudice are allowed to prevail, or a Scotland where a family's potential is determined not by its abilities but by its postcode.
Does the minister agree that it is not sufficient for the Executive to say that tackling child poverty is a priority? We must demonstrate beyond doubt what we are doing to eradicate child poverty and what we will do in the future.
Karen Whitefield is correct in her assertion. I want to talk about how we are tackling child poverty. It is right that child poverty has been the subject of debate in the Parliament on many occasions. As the First Minister indicated a few weeks ago, part of the debate is about laying out the difference between absolute measures of poverty, on which we are making significant progress, and the enduring problem of relative levels of poverty, on which it is clear that we need to take fundamental action.
Will the member take an intervention?
I do not know whether I can take an intervention while I am responding to one.
On you go, Mr Sheridan.
Does the minister accept the definition of child poverty that refers to 60 per cent of median earnings, which the then Minister for Social Justice gave to the Parliament in November 2000? If so, does she accept that the number of children living in poverty in Scotland grew by some 27,600 between 1999-2000 and 2000-01?
Mr Sheridan raises a number of points. I will address two fundamental issues. I accept that definition of relative poverty. I have been straightforward in stating that there is a distinction between absolute measures of poverty and relative measures of poverty. We acknowledge that the relative level of poverty persists, although it has decreased from 34 per cent in 1997 to—I think—30 per cent last year. We are making progress, but I would be the last person to suggest that that progress is enough. We have much work to do. I accept that there is always more to do.
I am determined to ensure that we obtain figures for Scotland that are absolutely accurate. I have been working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions to improve its methodology, which has not given us the full Scottish picture in the past. I am sure that the SNP will back me up on that. The sampling that was done was not appropriate to Scotland. I have held detailed discussions with the DWP to ensure that we obtain accurate figures. I will discuss those figures with members of the Parliament in the context of the social justice annual report. As Karen Whitefield pointed out, today's exercise is much more focused on the action that we must take across all departments. We are determined to tackle poverty in Scotland.
I will provide some examples of the scale of the challenge that faces us. It is not right that 40 per cent of pupils in Kelvin go on to higher education, while only 14 per cent of children from schools in Maryhill do so. I assure members that the First Minister is right—every school in Scotland should be an excellent school. I praise the Minister for Education and Young People for saying that she will drive up standards in all schools. In the past, standards have been driven up only in certain schools. The Executive makes an absolute commitment in that regard.
It is not right that men living in deprived areas are more than twice as likely to die from heart disease as men living in our most affluent areas. Although much remains to be done, much action has already been taken. Through our central heating programme and free personal care for the elderly, we are improving the quality of life of older people in Scotland. Through our investment of £24 million in child care to help lone parents to pursue education, we are making a radical alteration to services, to ensure that they lift people out of poverty.
We are tackling the barriers that have prevented too many people from making the most of their abilities and interests, through educational maintenance allowances, unparalleled investment in the prevention of domestic abuse and in support for its victims, a ground-breaking anti-racism campaign and investment in social inclusion partnerships. The intrinsic elements of closing the opportunity gap are promoting equality, investing significant resources and empowering communities.
We will set out our future direction and will lay out in more detail how our plans will tackle poverty, build strong, safe communities and create a fair and equal Scotland.
The document that is before Parliament addresses all ministerial portfolios, and sets out their objectives and targets to close the opportunity gap. As Minister for Social Justice, I have direct responsibility for policy areas central to that agenda—housing, regeneration, the work of the voluntary sector and equalities. It is also my job to ensure that every part of the Executive concentrates its efforts on closing the opportunity gap and delivers the commitments in the document. We will be rigorous in making sure that the investment achieves our desired outcomes. Resources will be linked to results.
The focus of the document is to extract the budget plans that will deliver on that agenda. It covers all of the Executive's work and addresses the needs of all sections of the community.
Cathy Jamieson has made it clear that all children in Scotland have the right to expect high-quality services but that we owe our most disadvantaged and vulnerable children a particular responsibility. That is why the Minister for Education and Young People is continuing her reforming agenda by extending to 2006 the changing children's services fund to deliver high-quality, integrated services. That is why she is investing an extra £31 million so that sure start Scotland can continue supporting the most vulnerable families with very young children. That is why £250,000 has been committed to a breakfast service fund to ensure that vulnerable children continue to have the chance of breakfast every day.
In the Scottish budget, Iain Gray continues our commitment to reducing the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training. That is why he is investing an additional £25 million to increase the uptake of modern apprenticeships and other training opportunities. By giving young people the skills that they need for today's workplace we will give them a real chance to succeed in a decent and sustainable job.
Iain Gray will extend educational maintenance allowances to cover all of Scotland. That will allow young people from less well-off families the chance to stay on at school or college. Those young people who would have left school at 16 without reaching their full potential are being given a chance that others take for granted.
In social justice, we will continue to tackle fuel poverty and the pay gap between women and men and we will work closely with the voluntary sector to innovate in service delivery.
In Glasgow, we know that the problems of rough sleeping have been exacerbated by wholly unacceptable hostels, which, we are told, are often more frightening and dangerous than the streets. That is why we are committing £47 million to close those hostels, replace them with more appropriate accommodation and put in place effective support and services.
The Executive is targeting unprecedented levels of resources at the most vulnerable section of society. Now we will go further. We will link child care resources specifically to the fight against poverty. We will commit resources specifically to the regeneration of our communities, because the quality of life, both in physical and in social terms, is a vital contribution to environmental justice.
We all know why health has been the focus of so much political attention. The vicious, mutually reinforcing cycle of poor health and poor life circumstances is one that Malcolm Chisholm and the Executive are determined to break, through a combination of investment and reform. We all know that that is about prevention and provision.
We must work with people to improve our nation's health, because a prosperous and fair society depends on everyone being able to enjoy a good quality of life. We must work with families so that children are encouraged to get a good, healthy start in life, because what happens in the early years has a lasting influence on health and well-being later on. We want people of working age to have opportunities for a healthy life, so that they can do the jobs that will contribute to our economy and so that individuals are given the best chance of a prosperous life. We are committed to enabling those who are growing older to enjoy full, healthy and productive years.
Therefore, we have set ourselves challenging health targets, including a target to reduce deaths from coronary heart disease and stroke among the under-75s by 50 per cent between 1995 and 2010. To achieve such targets, we must address the underlying causes of disease. Changing unhealthy lifestyle habits is part of that. That is why the Executive is spending £173 million on an agenda specifically to improve the health of our people. The health improvement fund will focus on health inequality.
Of course, I am giving just a glimpse of the range of actions that will be delivered by the Executive; the document lays out the range of actions.
When the First Minister spoke recently at the launch of the centre for research on social justice at the University of Glasgow, he said:
"Confidence cannot flourish in homes which are cold or damp, in communities which are physically detached from employment opportunities because of inadequate transport, or impoverished by the absence of amenities and the presence of dereliction and neglect."
Driven by the First Minister, we will ensure that all departments work in concert, with a clear agenda to ensure that we deliver the significant commitments in the document. That commitment is truly cross-cutting and has been prioritised by all ministers, as shown by the presence of some of them in the chamber this afternoon.
Poverty remains the greatest of evils and the worst of crimes and we cannot flinch from doing all at our disposal to create a Scotland where all our citizens, whatever their background, share in the opportunities.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes the document Closing the Opportunity Gap: Scottish Budget for 2003-2006, which shows how the Executive's spending plans, as set out in Building a Better Scotland – Spending Proposals 2003-2006: What the money buys, will deliver a better life for the most disadvantaged people and communities in Scotland and agrees that the Executive's social justice spending plans for the next three years will improve outcomes for those people and communities, through investing in their homes and neighbourhoods.
It is nice to be back on familiar territory, and there is no more familiar territory than the failings of the coalition Government.
I want to place the cards on the table right away. We all know that the power to change benefit rates is held prisoner in London. Moreover, the fact that the main levers of economic competence are withheld from us makes it difficult for us to improve employment prospects. We do not even have the chance to play a full role in supranational organisations such as the European Union, because that is a reserved matter. Again, we are deprived of the opportunity to glean the full benefits of membership.
Paraphrasing Wendy Alexander, I should say, "It's the constitution, stupid." If we really want to make a difference in Scotland, are really sincere about improving life chances and want to do more than simply administer our pocket money, we have to agree with Wendy that independence in Europe is the one big idea in Scottish politics.
Does that mean that Linda Fabiani's view differs from that of the leadership of her party, which alleges that it believes that "It's the economy, stupid" not "It's the constitution, stupid"? I am interested to know the SNP's position on that question.
It is basic mathematics: A leads to B, straight down the line. We need independence to improve life chances. In Scotland, we have the choice between the big vision of independence—in other words, the desire to improve the country—and the narrow and blinkered vision that decrees that we are somehow not good enough to run our own affairs and that we must take our lead from London. That is the opportunity gap. We are tinkering around the edges when we could be talking independence to release the country's full potential.
Will the member give way?
No, thanks.
While we await the Executive's Damascene conversion, we will just have to trawl through the latest self-promoting publication and find out what it contains or—more likely—misses. Page 19 of the document is a nice place to start. It says that social justice
"encapsulates the Executive's core beliefs that child poverty is unacceptable and must be eradicated".
I am glad to hear it, because child poverty has continued to rise in Scotland under new Labour and, in fact, is at a higher level now than it was under Thatcher. For example, 30 per cent of Scottish children still live in poverty after five years of new Labour's continuation of Tory rule. Of course, that figure is reached using the international definition of poverty as 60 per cent of the median income after housing costs.
Although we have already heard that absolute poverty is falling in Scotland, we should consider what that term means in the new Labour-Liberal Democrat lexicon. The definition of absolute poverty used in "Social Justice … a Scotland where everyone matters: Annual Report 2001" is living at a level below 60 per cent of the median income of 1996. It is hardly surprising that the level is falling. If we changed the baseline year to 1832, we could wipe out poverty in a flash.
I am glad to hear that the Executive will examine methodology, but it should have done so a long time ago, because it has neither conducted any research into nor accepted any academic findings on the minimum levels of income that are necessary to avoid poverty. As a result, the opportunity gap has widened.
It is time that Government ministers started getting honest with the electorate, told the truth and owned up to what they can and cannot do. I know that it is difficult for new Labour to throw away the crutch of spin and step away from the smoke and mirrors, but I assure it that it would gain far more respect by being open and telling the truth. Indeed, I welcome the minister's honest acknowledgement that poverty exists.
I know that, in certain respects, the SNP wants to move the place where decisions are taken from London to Edinburgh. However, the chamber is interested in hearing the different decisions that the SNP would make if that happened. That is the key issue.
If Robert Brown wants to remit the Government now, we can show him what decisions we would make. If he would rather wait, he will find out after next year's election.
Poverty in Scotland is a national disgrace and there can be no solution to it until the problem is fully admitted. After all, the first action in any therapy has to be an admission that there is a problem in the first place.
Yes, funding for child care is a good idea, so of course the SNP welcomes the £20 million investment in child care for deprived areas, but it is not enough simply to provide child care. That cannot help parents into work where there are no jobs.
Without the ability to create the economic conditions that will grow the potential for employment, we cannot provide the jobs. The sad part is that the Executive does not have the powers that it needs to alter substantially the employment market in Scotland. Worse, it does not even want to acquire those powers. It is interesting that page 21 of "Closing the Opportunity Gap", which details the social justice objectives, gives no targets for increasing employment in Scotland.
There is an unemployment target in the chapter on enterprise and lifelong learning, but it is merely to narrow the division between the worst 10 per cent of areas and the Scottish average. There is no target to increase the number of people in employment. Under milestone 13 of the social justice annual report, the Executive admits that it is not even possible to provide sub-Scottish figures for unemployment. Therefore, we will never know whether the Executive has managed to close the gap, because the figures to measure progress are simply not available.
Never mind that, the target on page 30 of the document is one of the least ambitious time scales ever for creating employment. There is a concentration on project grants rather than on economic growth. Economic growth is the key to raising employment and to raising the standards of everyone in the country. Instead of being able to tackle Scotland's problems and create a vision to be realised, all the Executive can do is trim the fringes. That is like painting a house while it is falling down.
I have no doubt that the Government would like today's debate to be merely a congratulatory pat on the back for having worked out how to spend Gordon Brown's extra pennies, but life is a bit tougher than that. No one in the chamber would argue that extra money should not come to Scotland, but surely we should have the courage to raise and spend our own money rather than rely on someone else. That would mean real responsibility. We would need to take care of ourselves. We would need to raise and spend our own money responsibly and wisely. There is no gain for Scotland in merely throwing money into a pot and hoping that the right result will come out. We need to be sure that the money is spent for the benefit of those whose home is in Scotland.
Sadly, the Executive is not living up to that duty. Child poverty in Scotland is still at 30 per cent, while homelessness is on the increase. Perhaps that is why the income of the poorest 20 per cent of the population rose by only 1.4 per cent during the first three years of Labour Government while the richest 20 per cent saw their income rise by double that rate. The gap between the rich and the poor and between the haves and the have-nots is growing. The situation is growing worse for those in Scotland who live in poverty.
I offer the Executive the opportunity to come clean. The opportunity gap exists and Scotland's opportunities are falling down that gap. When that happens, people in Scotland suffer.
I move amendment S1M-3477.2, to leave out from "welcomes" to end and insert:
"notes the failure of the Scottish Executive to make any improvement in the field of social justice; further notes its inability to close the opportunity gap; agrees that the lack of adequate powers of the Executive and the Parliament perpetuates inequalities, and calls for the return of full parliamentary powers to Scotland."
The minister has asked us to welcome the document. Even at this stage, it seems as if the Executive has all the answers. I do not for one moment doubt the minister's personal commitment to delivering a better life for people in the most disadvantaged communities in Scotland, but when she states that child poverty is unacceptable and must be eradicated, that everybody should have the chance of a decent warm home and that people should be supported in building for themselves strong, safe communities in which to live and work, she is simply stating things with which we can all agree. Nobody would object to the minister's core comments, but the Executive should not profess to have a monopoly on such concerns.
I question whether the minister has examined in close detail the five basic priorities that are outlined in "Building a Better Scotland". Those priorities were health, education, crime, transport and jobs. Does the minister know what we need to make Executive intervention effective? I presume not, judging by the four key targets that are elaborated in "Closing the Opportunity Gap":
"We will give our young people the best possible start in life … We will make our nation healthier … We want our young people to realise their full potential through education and work … We will tackle poverty and disadvantage wherever we find it."
Those are worthy aims, but we all share them. They are so glaringly obvious and so fundamental as not really to warrant a huge amount of document space. We agree on the aims, but they are not backed up by Executive action.
"Closing the Opportunity Gap" states that, by 2010, the Executive wants a 50 per cent reduction in death from coronary heart disease among people under the age of 75. Why then are people waiting for up to a year for a heart operation? It is because the Executive refuses to offer choice to patients and doctors so that they can access quick, flexible and responsive treatments. Our national health service—although we should perhaps rename it our national illness service—will only get worse if we do not reform it. The situation could be every bit as bad in education, as my colleague Keith Harding will illustrate shortly. Instead of all its generalisations, the Executive should perhaps focus on the core mechanisms that help everyone to realise their individual potential.
Perhaps the most important factor in providing everyone with the best possible chance of making the most of their potential is the promotion of a low-tax economy. A low-tax economy reduces deprivation, improves health and creates jobs. Those benefits trickle down to everyone. Conversely, the Executive's policies stunt economic growth and punish the vulnerable people whom they are supposed to help. The best way to pull people out of the poverty trap is to give them the means to get off benefits, get a job and continue to prosper. Poor people are not helped by an explosion of benefits packages, which do more damage than good.
Margaret Curran stated in her press release for this debate that there are
"still too many people claiming benefits".
On that point, I disagree with the SNP. It is the Executive's partners in the Westminster Government who use the increasing number of people on benefits as a measure of success. That is not a measure of success; it is an admission of monumental failure.
Let us consider the Executive's priorities on law and order. Where are we going? In the wrong direction. That is displayed by the crime figures since Labour took office. The Executive aims to reduce serious violent crime by 5 per cent by 2004, but, in reality, violent crime has increased by 24 per cent since Labour took office in 1997.
Crime and the fear of crime—of which the Executive has heard much of late from its own back benches—will fall as sentences and deterrents to criminal activity rise and as appropriate alternatives to custody are used more often by our courts. We discussed that just this morning. After years of reductions, police numbers are finally back up to the levels under Tory Administrations. Because of soaring crime rates under the Executive, we now need even more of a visible police presence on the streets.
We would like to deploy community policemen so that people have a direct contact that would make them feel immeasurably safer. We must have a safe society so that people can go out to work and participate in society without the fear of being attacked or of their houses being broken into in their absence. Social justice can be built only on a foundation of law and order for every community. Without that foundation, we will waste millions of pounds and frustrate the efforts of many.
Our position is that the best way to close the opportunity gap is to maximise opportunities for everybody and not just for a select few, thereby delivering a better life for all. The Executive wants to impose uniform mediocrity; the Conservatives want to offer everyone the chance to reach their individual potential.
I move amendment S1M-3477.1, to leave out from "welcomes" to end and insert:
"notes the document Closing the Opportunity Gap: Scottish Budget for 2003-2006; believes that the Scottish Executive's centralised, target-based approach will prevent the most vulnerable from realising their full potential, and further notes that the best way to close the opportunity gap is to offer vulnerable people real choice and diversity through reform of public services and to promote a low-tax market economy which creates jobs and allows our vulnerable people to lift themselves out of the poverty trap, thereby delivering a better life for all."
The Executive does not want mediocrity; it wants high standards. Margaret Curran stated that clearly in her opening speech.
I suspect that the debate will not make headlines in the popular press tomorrow. It ain't particularly sexy, there ain't a scandal, and ministers are not being pilloried on some spurious allegation of incompetence. There is broad support in the chamber for the objectives—if not always the methods—of the programme.
Few things are more important to Scotland than success in closing the opportunity gap; and few things make me more angry or frustrated than the idea of a young man or woman whose chances in life were blighted at birth by a lack of opportunity.
In passing, I have to say that I am wearily disappointed by the SNP amendment. Linda Fabiani is, if I may so, one of the brightest talents in the SNP, but I do not think that she has risen to her own standards today. The SNP is entitled to put its case for independence, which is after all its raison d'être, but if it wants to be taken seriously it must sometimes accept that whether the decision or the power resides in London or in Edinburgh is less important than what is done with the power, how the SNP would do it differently and what could be done better. I have to say that I think that the SNP is letting Scotland down by turning every issue that is debated in the Parliament into a rather sterile constitutional dispute.
We all want community planning and holistic thinking. Recognition of the importance to individual opportunity of health, education, housing and transport is something that the Liberal Democrats and others have banged on about for years, but there are some cautionary notes. If we are not careful, worthy aspirations can disappear into a bureaucratic farrago of jargon and top-down power, which leads to communities and individuals being more excluded than ever.
The Scottish Executive has invested much expectation and a great deal of funding in social exclusion partnerships. It is difficult to get a handle on those partnerships, as they vary in style, image and success. I have a degree of scepticism about SIPs. They seem to me to be possibly the least accountable organism in the public sector. There is a significant degree of complaint about them from local groups and there is an inherent conflict of interest in some of their decision making. Any organisation that spends public money can hardly help having something to show for it, but I remain to be convinced that SIPs constitute the best or the only way forward. I incline to the view that the proper body to oversee strategic investment of this sort is the elected and accountable local authority—with its voting system reformed, of course.
Robert Brown has made some significant points. We may disagree on whether the social inclusion partnership strategy is right, but I would be interested if he has details of substantial complaints being made about social inclusion partnerships. We examine them rigorously. Communities Scotland has a substantial monitoring programme in place to examine SIPs. I would argue that many SIPs have recorded significant achievements for local people. SIPs are the route for many local groups to get significant funding. I accept that there is a disagreement between us, but I challenge some of the detail of Robert Brown's arguments.
That may be a matter to take up in detail at some other time.
I want to sound another note of caution, about how the success of specific projects is measured. MSPs get glowing reports across their desks from many organisations—not only from the Executive, from councils and from voluntary groups, but others too—about how many people are in employment because of their efforts, how many fewer people are unemployed, how many jobs have been created, how many fewer people are in poverty and all the rest of it. Much of it is—I use the phrase advisedly—self-serving propaganda, so it deserves closer examination. For example, the Executive's fuel poverty strategy—central heating projects and all the rest—is possibly the single best thing that the Parliament has done and is to be commended. However, it does not necessarily follow that the reduction in the number of people in fuel poverty is entirely the result of the strategy when there is, at the same time, a fall in fuel prices. That is a fairly obvious point to make, but it is the sort of point—the linkage of cause and effect—that we sometimes have to be rigorous about throughout the sector.
Having said that, efficient and effective public services are the bedrock of local communities. Adequate investment in core public services in deprived areas is vital. I happened to be in one area the other day when a cleansing vehicle came round; it comes twice a week to collect the big bins from the tenement blocks. It is obvious that for it to come twice a week is inadequate, because rubbish was all over the place and it spilled out of the bins. That has a horrible impact on the confidence of the local community and on the environment. Those services must be improved to make them work.
I will finish, in this short debate, on the point that the debate is about individual and community power. It is about power for local communities to make decisions for themselves and power for individuals and families to have the maximum opportunity to fulfil their potential. That is a classic Liberal Democrat doctrine. I believe that that is also the objective of the chamber and of this sort of policy going forward. We must have longer discussions and debates on these important issues, but the main targets in the document show that the Executive is on the right track, as do many of the procedures that the Executive has set in place to bring about the closing of the opportunity gap. I beg to support the motion.
We have seven speakers, so members may make speeches of four minutes each, plus time for interventions.
Ending child poverty in a generation, ensuring employment opportunities for all, and providing dignity and security for our pensioners are the three pillars of "Closing the Opportunity Gap" and achieving social justice in Scotland and, of course, they are interlinked. It still remains the case that the best way out of poverty is through employment. Many of us in the chamber have seen the results of poverty visited on successive generations, whether it is poor diet, ill health, lack of educational attainment, or long-term unemployment leading to a lack of confidence, low self-esteem and little or no aspiration.
We need to break that cycle of despair. The most effective means of doing so is to eliminate child poverty—giving children the best start in life. I will focus my comments on children and education. It is staggering to think that a child's life chances—their entire future—can be determined by the time that they reach the age of three. If we are going to make a difference, we need to get much better at identifying and supporting the most vulnerable families and their children from the earliest years of their lives. That is why I particularly welcome the Executive's sure start programme, because it has a critical role to play in targeting those who are in most need. The additional £31 million from the Executive to enhance provision in communities will help those children who are most vulnerable.
Another welcome development is the child care strategy. In a short period, we have made sure that every child aged three and four has access to a nursery place—firm foundations on which we can build.
And then on to school: we have a duty to ensure that no child at primary school and no young person at secondary school falls through the net. That they have access to a range of opportunities is important, but even more important is their ability to realise those opportunities. In the past, the focus in education was on equality of input. Little attention was paid to outcomes and results. That simply is not good enough. We need to get better at delivering the best possible outcome for each and every child—every child must be given the opportunity, the encouragement and the support to maximise their potential.
It does not stop at children. We need to encourage parents too, by involving them in their children's and, by doing so, raising their aspirations. The rolling out of new community schools, which provide a much more integrated approach to the delivery of services for children and involve their parents, is welcome. They are at the heart of the community.
Supporting children throughout their lives, and as they make the transition to adulthood, is undoubtedly challenging. Nobody underestimates the scale of the task that lies ahead, but through working with our colleagues at Westminster, the Executive is taking the action that is needed to close the opportunity gap. We have to stay focused on the problem. We need to get better at targeting resources at the substantial concentrations of poverty that exist.
Great political movements have not shirked hard challenges. Great political movements have a clear sense of purpose. Contrast our approach with that of the SNP. I was astonished—not disappointed, because it is consistent—to hear Linda Fabiani admit that the SNP has nothing to offer. "Sorry, we can't do anything," says the SNP. That is not surprising when the SNP is bankrupt of ideas and policies and unable to do more than whinge. Contrast that with our approach. Our purpose is nothing short of delivering full employment and nothing short of eliminating child poverty. That is our mission. The difference between Labour and other political parties is that we will deliver.
The end of Jackie Baillie's speech was a bit rich, given that she represents a party that, according to one of its own members, has not had an idea, good or otherwise, since 1906.
Closing the opportunity gap is an objective that we are all committed to and reducing health inequalities is absolutely fundamental to ensuring equality of opportunity for all. It is a fact that people are more likely to suffer from ill health if they live in poverty or in a poor physical environment. Perhaps we do not need to be reminded of that fact yet again, but rather to do something about it.
Ill health destroys life chances. It reduces a person's capacity to work and learn and therefore to earn and enjoy life to the full. Many thousands of people in Scotland are caught in the endless trap of poverty that breeds ill health that, in turn, breeds poverty. To lift people out of that trap and enable them to release their potential, we face a twofold challenge. First, we must close the accessibility gap. Too often, the quality of health care that a patient receives in this country depends more on where they live than on what is wrong with them. We all know examples of that, such as drugs being available in one area, but not in another, and widely varying waiting times across the country. One of the serious omissions in "Closing the Opportunity Gap" is that it does not mention the endemic problem of postcode treatment, let alone suggest any solutions.
The second challenge that we face, to which Margaret Curran referred, is to prevent people becoming ill in the first place. That means that we must tackle the direct causes of some of Scotland's biggest killers, such as smoking, drinking, poor diet and a lack of physical exercise. However, I must make the same comment about this document that I made about the coronary heart disease and stroke strategy document that was published last week, which is that the document is good at recognising what needs to be done, but it is less good at outlining how we will go about doing it.
I will take smoking as an example. Some may say that the target of reducing smoking by 4 per cent over 15 years is hardly ambitious, but that aside, the question remains of how we are to achieve that target. Five years after it was promised, we have no ban on tobacco advertising. The demand for smoking cessation services outstrips supply in many parts of the country. More and more young people, particularly young girls, are taking up smoking every day of the week. Nine out of 10 smokers start smoking before their 19th birthday, which suggests that we are still not winning the war in relation to our young people. Fresh thinking is urgently needed and there is no sign of it today.
Earlier, Andrew Wilson accused the Executive of not being able to tell the difference between symptoms and causes. Smoking, drinking and all the other activities that we rightly name as causes of ill health are all too often symptoms of poverty. Lifting people out of poverty is therefore fundamental to tackling health inequalities. That is where this document seriously falls down.
I entirely support the comments of Linda Fabiani. A Parliament that has no control over benefits or taxation and has no ability to boost wealth creation or ensure that that wealth is distributed more fairly will always have at least one hand tied behind its back.
When Wendy Alexander, the self-proclaimed brains of the Scottish Parliament, who is no longer in the chamber, suggests that we have to choose between improving economic performance and completing the powers of this Parliament, she perhaps betrays the limitations of her intellect. It is impossible to do the former without doing the latter. We cannot boost the economy and create more wealth for public services without having the powers to do so. That is why I am delighted to support Linda Fabiani's amendment.
I am sure that every member of the Parliament wants opportunities to be extended for every person in Scotland. It is good that we debate how the nation can best achieve that. The Scottish Executive's document, "Closing the Opportunity Gap" is well meaning. However, it fails to see the wood for the trees and its prescription is akin to providing an aspirin for a heart attack.
There is a problem in Scotland regarding the lack of opportunities for our country's most vulnerable people. However, the report, with its arbitrary targets, will not even tackle the symptoms of the problem, let alone the causes. It is perhaps unsurprising that Labour—the party that has not had a good idea for close on a century—has helped to produce such a meaningless document.
The report completely fails to recognise that much of the opportunity gap is caused by how we deliver our most basic public services, including education. The quality of a child's education in Scotland today depends on their postcode. It is only those who can afford to pay twice for their child's education—through taxation and school fees—who can opt to have their child taught as they wish. The children who are left in the comprehensive system are further differentiated by where their parents can afford housing. As my colleague, Murdo Fraser, said yesterday in the chamber:
"If we wanted to design a school system with the express aim of perpetuating social division, it would be hard to see how the Scottish Executive could improve on the present arrangements."—[Official Report, 9 October 2002; c 14488.]
I am sure that all parents in the chamber understand how the system works and make decisions accordingly about their children's education. It is natural that everyone wants the best for their children. The inequality is not the fault of the parents; it is the fault of the system.
However, despite that, the Scottish Executive yesterday re-stated its faith in the comprehensive system that most fails those whom the Executive claims to represent—namely, Scotland's most vulnerable children. Members should not take my word for it. Last week, in a speech to the Labour party conference, Tony Blair said:
"The better-off can buy a better education or move to a better area … Every time the reform is tough, just keep one thing in mind: the child in a school where barely any pupils take "A" levels, where only 20 per cent get good GCSEs and where the majority know that they will just end up as one of the 7 million British adults who can't even read or write properly … If the status quo was good enough, that child would be a figment of our imagination."
How about George Kerevan, former Labour councillor and now deputy editor of The Scotsman? He wrote:
"The ideal of the comprehensive school is of pupils from all classes and abilities being taught together in an ethos of common social purpose. The best encourage the weak. However, like most social engineering, comprehensivisation produced the very reverse in practice. As the middle-class and skilled working-class families departed for the garden suburbs, places like Drumchapel were filled by the council housing departments with one-parent families. Comprehensives became the opposite of what they were claimed to be: one class, low achieving, low ambition."
The Scottish Conservatives recognise that our geographical comprehensive system, which is held up by the left as a guarantor of equality, is one of the main reasons for today's debate. It would be a good thing for Scotland if the Scottish Executive recognised that too. After all, it is not possible to solve a problem until its existence is admitted.
The Scottish Conservatives believe that all parents, regardless of their postcode or income, should have a choice regarding their child's education. I support the amendment in the name of Lyndsay McIntosh.
Many theories exist as to how best to close the gap in our society between those who have most and those who have least. For 18 years, the Tories believed that an unfettered free market would increase the number of wealthy people. They believed that some of that wealth would drip down to the poorest without any Government intervention. Lyndsay McIntosh made that point.
However, as someone who grew up during those Tory years, I am not so sure that the drip-down theory served my community particularly well. Every family in Shotts knew only too well the tragedy of unemployment. Only four pupils in my year were given the opportunity to go to university. If that is the kind of policy that the current Tories are offering for Scotland, the Tory vision is appalling, short-sighted and disgraceful.
Other members subscribe to the opposite side of the monetary and fiscal theory. They say that if only we could tax the wealthiest in our society—100 per cent in the case of some parties—such a redistribution would eradicate poverty. Those members fail to mention the impact that such a policy would have on a generation of wealth in Scotland. Those on the extreme left and right like to create false dichotomies. I am happy to side with Bill Clinton on the issue. In a recent speech to the Labour party conference, he spoke of the need to focus on outcomes rather than ideology.
We do not have to choose between wealth creation and fighting poverty. The Labour party and the Scottish Executive understand that closing the opportunity gap demands concerted effort on both fronts. That is why building and sustaining a stable economy is a vital part of our effort to deliver over 24,000 modern apprenticeships. If we said to those young people who benefited from modern apprenticeships in my community, "There is nothing that the Parliament can do without extra powers", those who are currently in employment would say to the SNP that that is rubbish. That is why increasing educational and training opportunities for all is as important as, and complements, the nurturing of new indigenous companies.
Policies such as sure start and the central heating programme help to ensure that our youngest and oldest citizens, especially those from our poorest communities, are given the opportunities and the quality of life that they deserve. The social inclusion partnerships rightly seek to involve local people in the regeneration of communities. Community planning will complement those efforts and help to ensure that the efforts of councils, health boards, police and other agencies are co-ordinated and that they respond to local needs.
All constituency MSPs in the chamber are aware of the devastating effect that persistent crime can have on local communities. I am pleased that the Executive recognises the need to close the gaps between communities and the varying quality of life enjoyed in them. We must ensure that every effort is made to make our neighbourhoods safe. That is especially true of some of our most deprived communities. Too many people live in fear in their homes and on their streets. Our policies must help to create communities in which people want to live and where they feel safe. I urge the minister to ensure that that remains an Executive priority.
I welcome the ministerial statement on closing the opportunity gap. However, we cannot and must not become complacent. There are still too many children living in poverty; there are still far too many communities in which residents do not feel safe. We have made considerable progress, but we must not say that there is nothing that we can do. The Parliament and the Executive must redouble efforts to ensure that closing the opportunity gap in Scotland remains the primary aim of the Government—just as it has always been the primary aim of the Labour party. I urge members to support the minister's motion.
I suppose that I should give colleagues a declaration of faith that I welcome the ministerial statement and I fully support all the money that will go into our society.
That said, however, if one reads what has been printed in recent weeks in the national broadsheets, it contrasts with what one might read on the front page of the John O'Groat Journal and Weekly Advertiser or the Caithness Courier. Despite the money that is going into the health service, we are witnessing a string of doctors and dentists giving up their professions. It started earlier this year with local general practitioners in Caithness packing up; it was followed by the closure of the Thurso accident and emergency services and, most recently, as I have mentioned before in the chamber, the disappearance of our NHS dental service in Thurso. We cannot understand why that is happening: we see the cash going into the services and the pound signs reported in the newspapers and yet, locally, we see the opportunity gap widening.
Although I did not agree with the general drift of Nicola Sturgeon's speech—it was a good Opposition-style speech—she used a phrase that caught my imagination:
"Ill health destroys life chances".
It seems that people in remote parts of Scotland are losing out, while people in other parts are doing rather better. One cannot deny the fact that geography and climate militate against people. In Thurso we do not have the choice of another NHS practice to go to, as we might have to travel many miles and that is not possible in the Highlands. I make no apologies for mentioning the subject time and again.
"Closing the Opportunity Gap" says, on page 15:
"Key indicators of inequalities in health will be included in the framework for monitoring progress made by NHS boards."
I urge ministers to take that seriously because, despite the best intentions of the Scottish Executive and despite cash delivery, there appears to be a blockage in the system. The outcome is that areas such as Caithness in the far north are seeing health services—vital to people's lives and vital to people coming into the county rather than leaving it—going backwards, not forwards.
I have received representations, e-mails and letters without number from the local trades council, from councillors and from constituents. The single biggest issue in Caithness is that broad, three-pronged health problem of a lack of dentists, GPs and accident and emergency services. Ministers are aware of the problem, as I have raised it many times before, but my patience is running out. There is a continuing silence from the NHS—a silence that is not at all in keeping with what ministers are trying to achieve. I urge ministers to take the lid off the problem and to get in, sooner rather than later, before the damage becomes irreparable.
Many of my points will be made more in sorrow than in anger, because I think that there have been brave attempts by all to try to eliminate poverty. Many views are sincerely held in the chamber, not least by the minister, but we need a holistic approach rather than a sticking plaster or piecemeal approach. Just as we need to integrate housing and social work at local authority level if we are to deal with many problems, we also need to integrate taxation and benefits at national level. We need to have the powers to deal with things, not to be left in isolation or impotence on major issues. That brings us back to powers and vision.
It also brings us back to fundamentals. Great strides have been made, post 1945, on the back of a consensus of social democracy. The great credit for that goes to the Attlee Government, but there was consensus. The father of the welfare state was Beveridge, who was a historic old Liberal, and the Conservatives, in a coalition Government during the war, also signed up to the principles that Atlee delivered. There was a consensus round social democracy about the role of a state and what needed to be done to tackle poverty.
Many mistakes have been made. The legacy of the housing schemes that proliferate round central Scotland is testimony to errors that were not made deliberately but which are seen as errors with hindsight—a great thing to have the benefit of. Great strides and improvements were made, but I believe that we have lost that route path and many of those powers.
I disagree fundamentally with the Tory amendment. I am a child of the 1960s, and I recall that when I went to schools they were new schools, when I went to health centres they were new health centres, or new health centres were being built, and when I went to hospitals, new hospitals were being constructed. That was being done on the back of my parents' and grandparents' generation, who did not clamour continually for lower taxes and more money in their pockets, but who recognised—post war and post two wars—that they had a duty to deliver to future generations. If that meant that they did not get as much money in their pocket there and then, it also meant a better society for their children and their children's children.
It ill befits anybody in our society who grew up in that generation not to recognise that we have a similar obligation to future generations, and we must stop continually striving for a low-wage, low-taxation economy. Some things have to be paid for; those things are fundamentally the responsibility of the state, and the money must be gathered in by the public exchequer.
The consensus was attacked by Thatcherism, and perhaps most of all by Keith Joseph, who was the axis behind it. Social democracy is under attack. According to Pilger on new democracy, the major aspect of globalisation is not the proliferation of Starbucks or McDonalds, but the abrogation by social democratic Governments of matters that were taken for granted as being the responsibility of the state. It was taken for granted that it was the responsibility of society and of the state to deliver housing, health and education, yet we now put those matters out to the private sector. We must get back to the basis of a social democratic consensus if we are to go forward. The fundamental antithesis of that is Toryism and its offshoot in Blairism. The fundamental responsibility lies not with the minister or on the Labour benches, but with her president down in London.
We must have a vision of the society that we want. I do not want to go down the road of having a low-wage, low-taxation economy as manifested in the USA or Australia, with great disparities of wealth and all the consequent problems that they bring. I believe that we should emulate our north European neighbours, and particularly the Scandinavian nations, which have never given up the consensus of social democracy and have maintained the role and duty that are incumbent upon a Government to deliver. Those nations have less poverty, better health, fitter children and lower unemployment. At the end of the day, we require to deliver such objectives.
I support the SNP amendment because, if we do not have adequate powers, we cannot create a consensus to deliver the social democracy that we need and from which we, as children of the 1960s, benefited.
A person does not need to be a brain surgeon to realise that Scotland, and the west of Scotland and my Greenock and Inverclyde constituency in particular, have a history of ill health. In my constituency, a typical man or woman will die earlier than their average Scottish counterpart. In addition, as Margaret Curran said, they will carry the burden of ill health and incapacity with them for many years before they die.
Thankfully, trends are improving, but there is no room for complacency. Average life expectancy is rising, fewer people are smoking and more mothers are breastfeeding. The increased investment to tackle heart disease and cancer is welcome and popular, but there is still a massive job to be done.
We will not win any popularity prizes by trying to encourage Scots to take more responsibility for their own health. Convincing people to stop smoking, reduce their alcohol intake or give up their pudding suppers is a challenge in a country that sometimes seems to be more interested in the health of its national football team than in the health of the nation. However, we must convince people to do such things, as prevention is better than cure.
The programme for action recognises that ill health is the final insult to those who are forced to endure poor housing, unemployment and low pay. Only the Executive recognises that ill health cannot be tackled in isolation. Tackling ill health means improving housing, ending low pay, tackling unemployment and working together in the Parliament and with our Westminster colleagues to ensure that we can and will do better for the people of Scotland.
That approach should be contrasted with the arguments of the nationalists. In Linda Fabiani's amendment and their speeches, the nationalists say that nothing is being done and that nothing can be done. The Tory amendment simply suggests that all that is required of vulnerable people is that they pull themselves up by their bootstraps—that is what the Tories mean. Thankfully, politicians in the Parliament came together as a coalition and put aside their political differences to ensure that the Parliament would deliver for the people of Scotland. I am proud to be part of that coalition and am delighted that, in the document, the Executive has committed itself to improving the lives of the most disadvantaged people in Scotland.
I am happy to follow Duncan McNeil's excellent pro-coalition speech. I am also happy to support the motion and the document, which are excellent. The difficulty lies in turning words into action, but we must do so.
There is general agreement in that we all want to tackle the problems, but there is disagreement about how to do so. The nationalists think that if there is independence, a wand will be waved, all will be well and nobody will be poor. The Tories have the strange idea, which I have not yet fathomed, that if taxation is reduced, public services will be improved.
I have a few positive suggestions about how we can try to deliver. How to get communities to help themselves is a difficult subject. First, it has to be a bottom-up, self-help enterprise. People will make many mistakes, but they will be their mistakes. The same argument applies to communities helping themselves as applied to support for having a Scottish Parliament. We want people to do their own thing and learn from that. We can build up people's self-confidence. I am sure that we have seen people in local voluntary committees who have steadily increased their self-confidence and self-esteem and gone on to do things that they never dreamed they could do.
One particular disadvantaged group in the community is young people and I appeal for recreation facilities for them and for somewhere for them to go. Adults can go to the pub and have a good time, if they behave themselves. Pensioners have clubs and other organisations. However, young people in most areas have nowhere safe to socialise. We must provide more for them.
We must provide far more core funding for the voluntary sector. There is far too much funding for fancy projects and not enough for voluntary organisations, such as the citizens advice bureaux, which must keep going year after year and deliver in their areas. Money has been given for money advice but almost all of that—or three quarters of it—across Scotland has been taken by local authorities and not passed on to the citizens advice bureaux, which are struggling.
We should find ways to help credit unions and other good self-help groups in different communities.
I am afraid that I am not the kind of person who has immediate recall of statistics, but it seems to me that Mr Gorrie's figures about the money advice moneys are wrong. I think that half of that money went to the voluntary sector and half went to local authorities. I am happy to correct that in writing, but I think that Mr Gorrie's information is wrong and must be corrected.
My information came yesterday from Citizens Advice Scotland. I apologise if that organisation has got the information wrong, but I think that CAS probably knows the facts.
We must put more money into early intervention. For example, primary teachers can identify pupils at the age of five or six who will have problems in due course because of their family or other circumstances. Therefore, we must get in early with significant support. We must have better cross-departmental investment and co-operation. It is far easier to get parties to co-operate than to get civil service departments to co-operate. We want a holistic—or whatever the word is—budget and effort so that people will work together to tackle the issue of helping communities that have many problems.
We must copy what works well. There are many good schemes in different parts of Scotland, but they are not properly copied by, or passed on to, other people. For example, councils are often too proud to learn from one another and Government departments have pilot schemes but then never follow them up. We must study what works well and copy it. I am sure that our aims will be better delivered if we do so.
The debate has at least given us the opportunity to compare and contrast political philosophies. We heard first the Executive: the companions-in-misery brigade who want to wallow together in grief and strife. We then heard from Linda Fabiani, who said that if we had an independent Scotland everything would be better. We heard what the Liberals said, which as usual was not very much.
However, there were some refreshing contributions. We heard from Kenny MacAskill, the left-wing conscience of the left-wing SNP and the child of the 1960s, who talked about all the hospitals and schools of that time, but conveniently forgot to remind us that it was probably the Tory Government that built them. We also heard from Karen Whitefield about last week's Labour party conference and the address by ex-President Clinton in which he spoke about his outcomes. I wondered what she meant.
Of course, there is a serious aspect to the debate. I do not for one moment think other than that everyone in the chamber wants to see the outcomes that the minister articulated well in her opening speech. We all want the poorer members of our society to be better off. The argument is about how we achieve that.
The minister is suggesting that the cake should be cut up in a different manner. If we take away all the fripperies and niceties of language, we find that she talks about a gap that she wants to see narrowed. Of course, there is another way of ensuring that the poorer people in society become better off—by making the cake bigger. As our economy grows and becomes a vibrant, forward-looking economy, there will be more money in it. That money will go to all sections of our society. Poorer people will benefit from it proportionately.
Let us see what the Executive has done over the past three and a half years, and what Labour has achieved over the past five years. Let us consider the five priorities that are listed. I suggest to the Executive that one day someone will have to prioritise the priorities, because ministers must be becoming very confused.
I will start with health. Is the Minister for Health and Community Care seriously saying that during his tenure of office and the period of the Labour Government the national health service has got better? Demonstrably, it has got worse. That is clear, no matter how the statistics are presented. Sometimes one is tempted to feel that the only things that are being doctored in Scotland are the health figures.
I turn now to education. Yesterday we heard much about the advantages of the comprehensive education system, in Ayrshire in particular. The Minister for Education and Young People is not being hypocritical personally when she talks about those advantages, but there is hypocrisy in the system. What is happening under the comprehensive education system is a great inequality. If children's parents have money, they will live in a good area and attend a good school. There is nothing wrong with that, but it impacts on poorer areas and poorer schools. That is the problem that must be addressed.
Does Bill Aitken accept that according to the report that was prepared for the Executive—independently, by Professor Pamela Munn, a well-known and respected educationist—following the national debate on education, the vast majority of people recognise that there are problems in the comprehensive system, with which we need to deal, but want the system to be retained? They want every school to be an excellent school and a new community school. We will raise attainment levels by improving the comprehensive system rather than by introducing the sort of system that the Conservative party conference proposed this week. That would mean reverting to a form of vouchers in education, privatisation of the comprehensive system and a return to the failed opt-out that the Scottish people rejected.
I accept that the contents of the report are as the minister has articulated. However, I ask her to compare Drumchapel and Jordanhill in the city of Glasgow—areas that are only a couple of miles apart. In Jordanhill, where parents have been given choice, the system has been better.
The area is represented by a Liberal Democrat.
For many years it had a very high quality of local government representation, until the ward boundaries changed and I moved to Kelvindale.
Will the member give way?
I cannot give way, as I am in my last minute.
Today we are debating yet another anodyne, self-congratulatory motion from the Executive. At the end of the day, we would be reluctant to support it.
This debate has shown that the Executive is devoid of vision and ambition for Scotland. It is happy to accept the crumbs from London's table and unwilling to release our potential by demanding the powers of an independent Parliament. It is not even prepared to demand the powers that are enjoyed by the Isle of Man or Jersey, both of which have zero unemployment.
The unionist parties continue to run Scotland down and to talk Scotland down. They say that we are too wee and too poor, and that we lack the talent. When we are denied self-esteem and self-confidence by being told continually that without London Government we can never achieve anything, it is no wonder that Scotland is in its current economic and social state. Of course the SNP knows that that is nonsense. We have only to look around the rest of Europe to see what smaller nations have shown can be achieved, even with fewer resources.
If the member does not think that the Scottish Parliament can achieve anything to tackle poverty, why did he support it in the referendum?
I do not recall saying that we could not achieve anything. I am saying that we cannot achieve our full potential and I shall move on to that.
A recent United Nations report into child poverty showed that the gap is getting wider, not narrower. The Executive can move the goal posts in how it assesses child poverty if it likes, but it cannot deny that child poverty levels are higher in Scotland than they are elsewhere in the European Union—a shameful legacy of successive unionist Governments. Of course, the SNP is committed to dismantling the obstacles to ensure that we have full control over our economy and the tax and benefits system.
One or two members asked what the SNP would do. I will give some examples of what we could do, so that members cannot mump and moan and grump and groan and say, "You huvnae got any ideas of what you would do." Now that Fiona Hyslop, our vice-convener for policy, has left the chamber I can say things without the prospect of getting a severely spanked bottom for pre-empting some of our manifesto commitments. One of the reasons that my gorgeous pouting assistant, Linda Fabiani, was unable to mention such things in the debate was that the cold stare of Fiona Hyslop was bearing down upon her.
We would of course establish a fund for future generations—a Scottish trust for public investment. We would eliminate the high rate of marginal taxation on pensioners with small occupational pensions. We would disregard council tax and housing benefit when assessing working families tax credit. We would invest in public assets, such as roads, railways, air links, harbours and vacant and derelict land. We would cut corporation tax to stimulate economic growth. We would allow local authorities to undertake prudential borrowing on their housing sector to invest in our public sector housing stock. For most of those things, we would need the powers of an independent Scottish Parliament.
Linda Fabiani talked about the equalities gap and touched on Tom Clark and Alissa Goodman's report, "Living Standards under Labour", which was published in 2001. The report showed that in the first three years of Tony Blair's first Government the average income of the richest quintile in the population rose by 2.8 per cent, while the average income of the poorest fifth of our people rose by only 1.4 per cent. The Tories did better than that. In the seven years of John Major's Governments, the income of the richest 20 per cent rose by 1 per cent per year and the income of the poorest rose by 1.9 per cent. New Labour is doing worse than the Tories did—what an appalling record.
Lyndsay McIntosh mentioned benefits. The Executive has lauded the fall in the uptake of unemployment benefit, but it should consider that in Glasgow alone—a city with a population of less than 600,000—64,000 men are on incapacity benefit, the highest proportion for any conurbation in the United Kingdom. That is the hidden unemployment in our society.
Robert Brown talked about fuel poverty. He did not say that although the Executive is committed to ensuring that tenants have central heating installed by 2004 in 31 of Scotland's local authority areas, in Glasgow the target date will be 2006. Clearly the Executive is not closing the opportunities gap for pensioner tenants in Glasgow.
Jackie Baillie talked about pensioner poverty, but she did not say that the best way to reduce it would be to ensure that the Parliament has control over pensions. Nicola Sturgeon talked about many aspects of health. The suicide rate is at a record level as despair increases in our society.
"Building a Better Scotland" talks about homelessness. It is astonishing that the document says:
"By 2006 we will substantially reduce the number of households becoming homeless more than once a year."
What an ambitious target that is. Of course, this is only a couple of weeks after the level of homelessness applications reached an all-time record. Since the Executive came to power, it has shown itself clearly to be incapable of stopping homelessness levels from increasing, let alone reducing them. We do not say that nothing can be done; we say that not enough is being done.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I am in my final minute.
I apologise to Jamie Stone, because I was slaying dragons on the astral plain while he was talking about the John O'Groats advertiser, or whatever it is called, so I cannot comment on what he said.
Kenny MacAskill—the voice of reason in the Parliament—talked about the holistic approach and touched on the fact that inequalities are widening under new Labour. Members may recall that Tony Blair admitted that during in the Paxman interview.
The apparatchiks, Karen Whitefield and Duncan McNeil, tried to do down Scotland's ambition. They slurred list MSPs by suggesting that, somehow, only constituency MSPs appear to know that there are problems. I hope that the three Labour and five Liberal list MSPs remonstrate with them later, because that was highly offensive.
Time to conclude, Mr Gibson.
It is clear that the Executive cannot achieve all that it wants to achieve. It never will unless we have the full powers of an independent Scottish Parliament, which we will get by voting for Scotland's party—the Scottish National Party.
I say to Kenny Gibson that, no matter how often he repeats the SNP's trivial slogans on releasing potential, he will not move any higher up the SNP list. In all sincerity, I say to him that his remarks about some of his female colleagues explain why women do so badly in obtaining places on the SNP lists. He displayed chauvinism and a disregard for women as equals that was quite shameful and inappropriate to the debate.
The debate should have given us an opportunity to recognise the consensus that exists around our attempts to achieve a better society, as Kenny MacAskill and others said. We should all realise that everyone in our society should have the same opportunity and should be able to achieve their full potential. Unfortunately—but perhaps not surprisingly—SNP members again disregarded the opportunity to say exactly what could be done by the Parliament or to describe the practical measures that could be taken, given the substantial resources that are available to us. Instead, they went on a constitutional rant.
According to Linda Fabiani, we need more powers before we can do anything for people in Scotland and we must change the constitution. She still has to explain to us why embassies in Ethiopia and consulates in Columbia would make any difference to people in the communities that we serve. She said that we should own up about what we can and cannot do. This afternoon, we heard what the SNP cannot do. When it comes to the next election, people should remember that SNP members have admitted that they will not be able to do anything within the confines of the powers of the Parliament, because they do not believe that they are capable of achieving anything with those powers. Nicola Sturgeon also talked about the need to recognise what can be done and said that the document, "Closing the Opportunity Gap", was "less good" at doing that.
One needs only to look at last year's social justice annual report to see the substantial achievements that have been made. That report showed the progress that has been made against the 29 milestones that are dedicated to tackling poverty and social injustice, such as reducing the proportion of children who live in workless households and reducing the proportion of pensioners who live in low-income households. The report showed real progress, based on real evidence, and it is simply wrong to claim that no progress has been made.
Like my colleagues, I know from personal experience that progress has been made. Today, I again had the pleasure of meeting Mr and Mrs Hughes from Liberton in Edinburgh, who are Angus MacKay's constituents. The couple have benefited from that progress through the installation of central heating, and they spoke with real pride about how their lives have been transformed by living in a warm house with affordable heating. I know from talking to people—particularly poorer pensioners—who have benefited from free local bus travel what that policy is doing for people throughout Scotland. Lyndsay McIntosh talked about improving safety in communities. I know that there are more police on the beat in my area. I have spoken to constituents who are desperate for the neighbourhood warden scheme to be extended because of the progress that has been made in their communities.
I have visited communities such as Petersburn in Airdrie, which is in Karen Whitefield's constituency, and have looked at the new houses that are being built by Link Housing Association. I have talked to people who are genuinely proud of the fact that, for the first time in many years, they are able to live in a beautiful home in an area that has been transformed thanks to the efforts of local politicians and the local community. That is what the Executive has delivered.
We have to do more in relation to health. We can consider the success of the Have a Heart Paisley project in my constituency and in Wendy Alexander's constituency, which is tackling chronic heart disease. For the first time, people are being made aware not just of the consequences of their actions, but of decisions that they can take to improve their lives.
From talking to people in communities such as those that Wendy Alexander represents, I know what the health improvement through sport project is doing about getting young people—particularly young people from deprived communities—more involved in sporting activity. I know about the differences that education maintenance allowances, such as those that have been piloted in the constituencies of Margaret Jamieson and Cathy Jamieson, are making to young people who otherwise might not have been able to take advantage of a full education and go on to college and university.
I know that much is being done. We are implementing the recommendations of the homelessness task force, which will mean that by next year no one in Scotland should have to sleep rough. We are investing more than £33 million in our child care strategy and £42 million in sure start Scotland. The warm deal programme will improve insulation. The list goes on. There are those who say that nothing can be done—that is just not true. Plenty is being done, but much more remains to be done.
Several members have pointed to examples of significant progress. Jackie Baillie mentioned the contribution that is being made in community schools and Duncan McNeil referred to what needs to be done to tackle some of the health issues in his constituency, which for too many years was abandoned by the previous Government, and to tackle the economic decline that that Government allowed to take place.
Keith Harding is ignoring the evidence when he says that "Closing the Opportunity Gap: Scottish Budget for 2003-2006" is simply a well-meaning report. When he and Bill Aitken talk about quality depending on postcode and better-off parents being able to access better education, it is clear that they know little about Scottish education. This week, my son started a law course at the University of Glasgow. He went to school with children from areas such as Govan in Glasgow, Moorpark in Renfrew and Gallowhill in Paisley, where all the children were educated together in an excellent school that achieved excellent results. The children were educated together for the benefit of both the individual and the community. Real comprehensive education makes a real difference.
My concluding remarks are aimed at Lyndsay McIntosh and the Tories. Kenny MacAskill made a highly reasonable speech. He seems to be much better when he is not making wild promises and when he is not ranting about independence. A social democratic consensus that focused on improvement developed in Scotland after the second world war. We need no lectures from the Tories. At every opportunity, we should remind people just what the Tories are capable of doing if they are let loose on our society.
We do not need to listen to SNP members, to Liberal Democrat members or, indeed, to Labour members to find out what the Tories would do. We need to remind people of what the Tories have admitted that they are capable of doing.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No, thank you. I am just finishing.
Today's debate should give us the opportunity to put the Tory days behind us once and for all—the Tory days of war on lone parents, as David Willets has said; the Tory days of refusing to discuss domestic violence, as Caroline Spelman has said; the Tory days of glib moralising and hypocritical finger waving, as Theresa May has said; and the Tory days of the hurt that was caused to people in this country, as Iain Duncan Smith has said.
Will the minister give way?
Order. I heard the minister say that he was concluding a minute ago.
We will have no more Tory days. Today's debate gives us the opportunity to move forward.