Make Poverty History
The next item of business is an independents group debate on make poverty history. I call Dennis Canavan to open the debate. Mr Canavan, you have five minutes.
Last year, more than 250,000 people took to the streets of Edinburgh to demonstrate their support for the campaign to make poverty history. It was the biggest demonstration that the city has ever seen, and the participants travelled from all over Scotland and Britain—indeed, from all over the world. The aim was to get the message across to the G8 leaders at Gleneagles that it is an international scandal that, in the 21st century, more than a billion people on our planet live on less than $1 a day and more than 200,000 people die of preventable causes every week. Ordinary people on that demonstration demanded action on aid, trade and debt. The public declaration that emerged from the Gleneagles summit was a step in the right direction, but those fine words have still to be translated into effective action.
The problem of debt is a millstone around the necks of many people in developing countries. During the past 30 years, we have been living off the backs of Africans. For every £1 that rich countries such as ours have put into Africa, we have taken out £17—much of that in debt servicing and repayments. The G8's deal on debt should be worth up to $1 billion a year for the 18 qualifying countries, but that is small beer compared with the $10 billion a year of debt cancellation that is required to help developing countries to achieve the millennium development goals. Of course, much of the debt relief is tied to conditions that impose economic policies that make the eradication of poverty more difficult, if not impossible—policies such as the privatisation of water and cuts in expenditure on essential services such as health and education.
A similar situation exists regarding policy on international trade. At the World Trade Organisation negotiations, the British Government and other rich countries seemed more concerned with market access for multinational companies than with allowing developing countries the flexibility to decide their own policies. For example, the European Union has proposed that industrial tariffs should be decided by a predetermined formula that may suit developed countries but which could mean, for developing countries, the erosion of their industrial base, increased unemployment and more poverty.
The G8 summit also signalled an extra £48 billion a year of aid by 2010. If that promise is kept, millions of lives could be saved. However, the aid pledges that have been made this year are not of the scale that is needed to make poverty history, and progress is too slow on meeting the United Nations target whereby countries should spend at least 0.7 per cent of their gross national product on development aid. Fifteen member states of the European Union have now committed themselves to reaching that target by 2015, but that is still nearly a decade away. Between now and then, many people will die of poverty and disease.
It is more than 30 years since the UN set that target of 0.7 per cent of GNP. It is also more than 30 years since Willy Brandt's commission referred to the obscenity whereby spending on international development was only a tiny fraction of what was spent on the international arms trade. The arms race is still one of the biggest threats to the human race, and our Government is one of the biggest participants in it. It is sheer hypocrisy for Tony Blair, Jack Straw, John Reid or anyone else in the Government to lecture countries such as Iran on the dangers of nuclear power when the British Government is plotting to spend billions of pounds of taxpayers' money on the replacement for Trident. What an example to set for the rest of the world.
We should show a lead to the rest of the world by spending more on the eradication of poverty and spending less on weapons of war and mass destruction. We should invest in ways to save human lives instead of in ways to destroy human lives. If such priorities were pursued by our Government and other members of the G8, we would have at least a chance of making poverty history and ensuring an end to the appalling situation whereby, since the start of the debate, more than 100 children have died as a result of poverty. That cannot and must not be allowed to continue.
I endorse and adopt Dennis Canavan's fine words. Alongside the G8 summit, the W8 was set up in the Scottish Parliament early last year to offer practical assistance to African women, one in 13 of whom is likely to die in childbirth or pregnancy. We had a presentation on that yesterday, which was extremely emotional, and I am sure that women in the Parliament will take that issue forward in practical terms.
My colleagues will deal with international aspects of poverty. If the independents will forgive me, I will focus on poverty that is close to home, among Scottish pensioners. The minister this week launched a consultation on our aging population. That is welcome, but I wonder what effect it will have had seven years down the road. If any pensioner in Scotland is asked what their concerns are, they raise three main concerns: the state pension, council tax and fuel bills, about which the minister will do nothing.
The basic state pension is currently £82.05 a week. Only 17 per cent of women qualify for it, because most of them have not made sufficient contributions. The minimum income guarantee is just under £110, and many people could live on that in Scotland today. However, targeting the pension credit has been a complete failure, as some 40 per cent of pensioners who are entitled to pension credit simply do not claim it. It is reckoned that, United Kingdom-wide, £1 billion in pension credit is not collected.
There is a simple solution. The Government should give people a decent state pension—which would mean that those with small occupational pensions would not subsidise the state pension—and should tax people at the top, such as me. I claim my state pension and I am taxed; that is how it should be. That is what should happen for pensioners in Scotland, and it would immediately release them from some of the poverty that they face. There is no pensioner in Scotland who would not put that at the top of their list.
The second issue is council tax. Just because the house that someone has lived in for years has now become valuable, they face a swingeing council tax. Again, there are targeted benefits, but they simply do not work, with 40 per cent of those who are entitled to claim council tax benefit not claiming it. That is not the Scottish National Party's figure; it is the figure from Age Concern Scotland. I cannot understand why we are not moving towards a local income tax, a service tax or something that is based on ability to pay. What we hear from the Labour Party are the words of revaluation—words that may come back to haunt it. With an election in the near future, the Government is reviewing the situation while pensioners are worried sick about paying their council tax bills—and pensioners pay up; they pay their bills timeously.
The third issue is fuel costs. I do not need to remind members that we have recently experienced an increase of nearly 30 per cent in fuel costs. It is reckoned that, for every 5 per cent increase in the cost of fuel, 30,000 people return to fuel poverty. Many of them are single pensioners living in their own homes, who choose between eating and heating. The warm deal central heating programme has its faults, but it is welcome; nevertheless, there is no point in someone having central heating if they cannot switch it on. It is reckoned that many pensioners sit in one room with a fire and do not put their radiators on because they cannot afford the bills.
In Scotland, we have one of the highest rates of excess winter deaths—deaths from hypothermia; let us give it its name. It is reckoned that there were 3,500 excess winter deaths in Scotland last year. Other countries that are much colder, such as Sweden and Germany, do not have so many excess winter deaths, yet we live in an oil-rich country.
Does the member agree that one of the reasons why those two countries have a greater amount of cash flowing through the system, which can go to pensioners, is the fact that they do not spend around £20 billion a year on nuclear weapons?
Margo MacDonald will get no resistance from me on that point.
I fully recognise the dreadful picture that Dennis Canavan has painted of poverty throughout the world, to which, I realise, the poverty here does not compare. Nevertheless, I believe that, although we have a duty to those abroad, which we must recognise here—I hope that, one day, when the Scottish Parliament is independent, we will be able to play our full part in that—we must not forget the poverty that exists on our own doorstep.
Poverty is a wide-ranging issue with many causes and consequences, and it is impossible to do justice to all of them in such a short time. However, the Scottish Conservatives are very pleased to support keeping poverty on the political agenda.
As Christine Grahame was speaking, she made me think about a letter that I received this week from a lady whose mother is in a care home. My constituent's mother saved all her life so that she could look after herself in her old age but because she is a self-funder, she pays £143 more per week than others in the care home who are partly or fully funded. I have written to the minister about that situation, but if we are talking about poverty, we also have to think about giving people the incentive to save so that they can look after themselves in their old age without being penalised by being ripped off in a care home.
Yesterday Christine Grahame, Shiona Baird, Rosemary Byrne and I heard a presentation from the charity Safe Hands, which is raising funds to help and support women in Africa—specifically, Ethiopia—to give birth safely. It is not appropriate to go into detail about that today; I will say only that whatever is said on the subject of poverty today in Scotland, the situation here cannot be compared to the plight of women in Africa who have to give birth with no trained person to help them and, when complications set in, who have no money to pay for transport to hospital. That leaves many women crippled and incontinent for life, and many stillborn children. My colleague, Nanette Milne, will discuss health issues further.
As Dennis Canavan said, last year was clearly an historic year for the make poverty history campaign. There was an unprecedented level of campaigning to end global poverty that gained enormous public support and raised understanding of the many issues involved. On a political note, I welcome the input and involvement of Sir Bob Geldof as an adviser to the Conservative anti-poverty group. The results are already to be seen in David Cameron's document "Built to Last", which states:
"It is our moral obligation to make poverty history."
The Scottish Conservatives welcome that commitment, as well as the commitments to free and fair trade, to increase international aid and to press for further debt relief. The problem can be summed up in one statistic: although more than 40 per cent of the world's population live in low-income countries, those countries account for only 3 per cent of world trade.
Today we can focus on poverty in Scotland. Help the Aged Scotland has highlighted the yearly increase in winter deaths among the elderly, to which Christine Grahame referred. Although the central heating initiative and improved insulation are certainly helping, much more needs to be done to improve energy efficiency in our homes so that the elderly are not frightened to switch the heating on.
Does Mary Scanlon agree that although we welcome the central heating and insulation initiative, delivery in some of our constituencies is rather patchy, and that, despite the best intentions of the Scottish Executive, we are not quite getting there?
I could not agree more, and I do not think that there is a member of this Parliament who has not heard from someone who has had a very bad experience. Elderly people find the experience quite traumatic and I am not sure that all the fitters are fully trained.
Poverty has no age barrier and can affect the youngest of children as well as the oldest of people in our communities. Young people are, however, wholly dependent on their parents' lifestyle and choices. We hope that the cross-party review group that was announced by the First Minister recently will help to support the many children with substance-abusing parents.
One group that should not be forgotten is the increasing number of working adults without dependent children who live in income poverty; their number has increased by 100,000 in the past decade. They appear to be the forgotten ones in Chancellor Brown's tax-and-spend regime.
In 2004, almost 3,000 young people left school in Scotland with no qualifications—hardly preparation for the world of work. Further education colleges offer a second chance and many come back into education and training in their 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s, but it is unfortunate that colleges such as Inverness College are faced with cutting another 25 lecturing staff, which reduces the number of courses available and thereby the training, education and career opportunities for many in the Highlands.
I welcome this debate and agree with almost everything that Dennis Canavan said. Eradicating global poverty requires commitment across the United Kingdom. Although foreign policy and international development are reserved matters, all levels of Government can and must contribute to eradicating global poverty. The Scottish Executive must continue to support the principles laid out by the make poverty history campaign.
Every day, 50,000 individuals die unnecessarily because they live in poverty. How many people have died since this debate started? More than one in four individuals lives in extreme poverty on less than $1 a day. As a developed nation, we must help our fellow citizens worldwide to achieve a higher quality of life. Britain has already committed to cutting in half the number of people who live in extreme poverty by 2015, but we can do even more.
As part of the three-pronged approach presented in the make poverty history campaign, the United Nations has announced the target of 0.7 per cent of national income that countries should commit to spend on foreign development and aid. The Labour Government in London has promised to reach that target by 2013, but I suggest that that promise is not good enough. The Liberal Democrats advocate achieving that important landmark by 2011, and we should be at least at 0.5 per cent now. We are still falling far short.
Fifty billion pounds more in donations is needed to help to eradicate poverty worldwide, and Scotland must play its part.
Will the member give way?
I will finish my point.
Of that £50 billion, £25 billion could come from not building a new Trident submarine.
I entirely agree with the member about Trident.
Does the member agree that the Scottish Executive and Parliament are perfectly able to make up the shortfall between what would be spent on our behalf on international aid if we met that target and what is being spent at present?
As I have already said, we can all do more. Of course, the Scottish Executive has already committed £3 million to work in Malawi and Africa, but I am sure that we can all think about how we can improve on that.
Public opinion is on our side. The make poverty history march in Edinburgh in July 2005 drew 225,000 people, making it the UK's largest demonstration against global poverty. As the MSP for Edinburgh South, it was wonderful for me to see the streets of my constituency filled with coaches and buses from all over the UK. The huge sea of white that was created on the Meadows, which all who were there that day will remember, spoke volumes. Additionally, 800,000 people campaigned online to eradicate poverty, and 8 million across the UK wore the white make poverty history band to demonstrate their support. The public strongly supports a full commitment to eradicating global poverty and the Scottish Executive must do the same.
The Scottish Executive has been able to provide funds to alleviate poverty in countries such as Malawi, which I visited again recently and on which I will speak in tonight's debate on the Commonwealth. We must continue to support the principles of the make poverty history campaign.
It is also important to note that we have made progress. Focusing on Malawi, to which Scotland is historically linked, the Executive has set up the Scottish Malawi appeal fund, giving £1.2 million for projects fighting AIDS and establishing the co-operation agreement to provide practical help in Malawi.
We have already started down the path of playing an important role in the eradication of global poverty and we must continue to follow that path. It is up to the Scottish Executive to take a leading role and advocate a full commitment to fighting poverty worldwide. The principles that have been laid out by the make poverty history campaign are the right ones, and we must continue to ensure that they are carried out. We must do everything within our power to fight the catastrophe that is poverty and to protect the rights of individuals worldwide. The Liberal Democrats, as the true internationalist party, will continue to press for that to be done.
Last week, I attended a memorial service for Hugh McCartney, the former Labour MP for Clydebank and Milngavie and, before that, for Dunbartonshire East. Hugh is an example of somebody who fought against poverty all his life. He had the opportunity to work through the trade union movement and in the parliamentary Labour Party, whose 100th anniversary this is. Despite what Christine Grahame has said, I am in no doubt that the Labour Party is the party that has constantly fought for social justice. It was the Labour Party that introduced the national health service and all the other mechanisms that are designed to address poverty.
Will Des McNulty take an intervention?
Members of Christine Grahame's party could not even be bothered to turn up to Parliament when the minimum wage was introduced. They constantly opposed family credit, which has provided significant gains to poor people in my constituency, where unemployment has been halved since 1997. Members will be aware of the substantial improvements that have been achieved through tackling child poverty; the Labour Party bows to no one in its efforts to deal with poverty.
However, I do not want to engage in party politics for too much longer, because there is an argument that we all need to make and it needs to be shared by the whole Parliament. It is the question of how we tackle third-world poverty, debt and trade, and on that matter we should be working on a consensual basis. I certainly appreciated Dennis Canavan's speech this morning and I appreciate his long-term commitment to tackling those issues.
If we look at the issue from outside the confines of the party-political cockpit of the Parliament, we see that it is Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and Hilary Benn who stand at the international forefront of the drive to take those issues into key areas such as the European Union's central chambers and the G8 summits, promoting the commission for Africa and trying to secure the support of other nations. They have been bringing to George Bush's attention the plight of the third world—not always successfully. I recognise that there is much more to be done, but there has been massive public mobilisation around the issue, which represents a step change from what we have experienced before.
When Gordon Brown made his speech at the 40th anniversary of the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund last October, he made it clear that the key issue is tackling trade. Unless we give people in Africa reasonable conditions of trade and an opportunity to sell their goods, the plight of those in consistent and spiralling poverty will worsen. That change in trade is not one that can be achieved without there being a cost to us, and it will not just mean the price of supermarket goods increasing. We have to stop using the share of the world's resources that we are currently using. Anybody who has been to Africa, seen deforestation and asked where the resources gathered in Africa are actually being sent to and used will recognise that we in the west are living on the backs of the poor countries and the poor people who live there. We cannot do that, and we must explain to people that we cannot continue to do it.
We cannot simply rely on capitalism to change itself from the inside. We have to change the way in which we are governed and the way in which we operate to deal with poverty in our society. Those are big questions that my party wants to address, and I hope that other parties also want to do so.
I really enjoyed listening to Dennis Canavan opening the debate. It struck me that he had so much to say and so little time to say it in, which is a mark of just how big the poverty agenda is, both nationally and internationally.
Dennis Canavan made the important point that, although we can have respect for Hilary Benn and for others who are doing some good work, there is fundamental bottom line, which is that we do not contribute the 0.7 per cent that we said we would contribute. Other countries that are comparable to ours manage to do so, but we do not, and until we meet that commitment we have no right to be parading about saying just how wonderful we are.
Patrick Harvie mentioned that it would be possible for this Parliament to do something, and indeed it would. We welcome the £3 million that was announced for international development, and it is wonderful that this Parliament is taking a stand, but other devolved legislatures—in the Basque Country, for example—use a portion of their income for international development. I would like the Government in Scotland to say that that is something that it wants to achieve, and it is something that would gain cross-party support in this Parliament.
There are lots of different issues that could be mentioned, but as there is not enough time to cover them all, I want to highlight the hypocrisy of the developed countries in the European Union, whose own commissioned studies have come to the conclusion that trade liberalisation harms poor communities and environments, yet which still push ahead with the agenda of pressing developing nations to agree to ambitious market targets. We have to stop pushing those poor countries, through the world trade talks, to open their economies in ways that suit us, and we must respect their right to decide their trade policies so that they can end poverty and protect the environment.
That is not a naive view, because I also recognise that there are highly inappropriate forms of democracy in some developing nations. Governance is a really big issue, so we also have to fund governance measures in a lot of those countries to ensure that the people who are worst affected actually help to make the decisions on how to move their countries forward. We can sometimes be a wee bit smug when we look at some of the things that we are achieving, and we tend to think that things are working well when the reality is often different.
I am going to say something about Malawi, because I was there last week and it is freshest in my memory. It may look on the surface as if we are doing really well with HIV/AIDS programmes in which there is take-up, and people are quite positive about how things are moving forward, but there is also evidence that there is not equality of access to treatment in some of those health programmes, because the poorer people are not getting the treatment. There are cultural reasons for that, so education at grass-roots level is needed in communities, so that they can grow and blossom into something that will help the country to make progress.
We talk about the fact that some African countries have achieved 100 per cent primary school education. That might be the law, and it is wonderful, but there are a heck of a lot of orphans out there who cannot get to school because they are looking after younger siblings and trying to earn money to keep the family. There are about a million orphans in Malawi alone, which will be a huge issue for the future, and it is something that we must consider if we are serious about moving the country forward.
I am not knocking what people are doing, but I caution all of us not to get too carried away with what we see as good results on paper. Let us be a bit more objective when we look at what we are actually achieving, and let us recognise that social organisations as well as Governments need to be funded. I hope that such organisations in Africa will blossom and move up, as happened in Latin America. I hope that what comes down from the top level will help to create a better future.
It must be a matter of concern to any civilised society that poverty is still a global problem in the 21st century, and I would like to touch briefly on a few of the health problems that arise from it. Whether as a result of natural disaster, conflict or corrupt government, there are still huge numbers of people suffering from severe malnutrition. Maternal, infant and child mortality rates are unacceptably high in many countries, and life expectancy is very short in much of sub-Saharan Africa as a result of the modern scourge of HIV/AIDS.
Scotland's involvement with Malawi has brought home to us the seriousness of the health problems that face such impoverished countries. With more than 65 per cent of its people living in poverty, and a further 27 per cent in extreme poverty, Malawi is among the 10 poorest countries in the world. Almost unbelievably, life expectancy there has fallen by 10 years since 1990—from 48 down to 38—due to causes that are largely preventable. Maternal mortality in Malawi is the third highest in the world and cultural behaviour, coupled with a lack of resources and economic opportunity, makes women particularly susceptible to poor health.
An annual population increase of 2 per cent in a country that is short of midwives, obstetricians and equipment has resulted in an infant and child mortality rate that our society can scarcely comprehend. The steps that the Scottish Executive has taken in recent months, following last year's launch of the Scottish Malawi appeal fund, are to be commended, but there is still a long way to go.
The improvement of maternal health is a millennium development goal of the United Nations, which aims to reduce maternal mortality by 75 per cent between 1990 and 2015, but huge effort is still required if that is to be achieved. It is estimated that reproductive health care is needed for 200 million women worldwide who have no access to safe contraception, and more resources and trained medical staff are badly needed in many developing countries. The necessary services will not be provided without significant help from the world's developed nations and it is our moral duty to provide at least some of the help that is required.
As we have heard, poverty is not confined to third-world countries. Even in Scotland, the impact of poverty—albeit relative—on our nation's health can be observed. We can all point to areas of deprivation in Scotland today and we know that there are pockets of severe deprivation in rural and even in affluent communities. It is shocking that eight out of the 10 authorities in the United Kingdom with the lowest male life expectancy are here in Scotland. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report "Monitoring poverty and social exclusion 2003" showed that, proportionately, there are more premature deaths in Scotland than there are in the rest of Britain; that mortality rates among the under-65s in Scotland's most deprived districts are twice as high as they are in the least deprived districts; and that, at the other end of the age spectrum, Scottish five-year-olds have an average of two and a half missing, decayed or filled teeth, whereas children in the south-east and the west midlands have just one such tooth.
Everyone was quite shocked by the map that was published last month that showed the postcode differences in the incidence of cancer in Scotland. Men in some areas are almost three times more likely to develop lung cancer than those who live in other parts of the country. The rate in Glasgow, where 145 out of every 100,000 men have lung cancer, is the highest, whereas the rate in Shetland is just 54 per 100,000. Those figures—it is clear that they are related to the high prevalence of smoking in deprived areas—are a stark example of the need to encourage lifestyle changes in today's Scotland. Thankfully, we do not have the problems of extreme poverty that are found in third-world countries, but we still have a long way to go in tackling the health inequalities that prevail in early 21st century Scotland.
I commend the independent MSPs for choosing to debate poverty.
I repeat some remarks that I made at a Fairtrade event in Glasgow last week. Fundamentally, poverty is not a law of nature; overwhelmingly, the poverty that exists in our world is the result of choices that have been made. The Fairtrade movement is composed of people who are not content to wait around for their Governments to make better choices on their behalf and who understand that, through their choices, they have the power to make a difference.
An argument that received an extremely positive reception at the event in Glasgow was that free and fair trade is a meaningless concept because free trade and fair trade are incompatible. Governments and corporations are either free to exploit other people or they are not, and the exploitation of others is not compatible with fairness. I certainly hope that Mr Geldof explains that to my Conservative colleagues.
Does the member think that Mr Geldof, who ran the Conservatives' election campaign, would ever take an advertising account from the Conservatives again?
I do not propose to speculate on Mr Geldof's motives in relation to the Conservative party.
The rest of my remarks will deal with issues that were raised by our guests at an international conference that was hosted partly by the Scottish Parliament; the guests included parliamentarians, representatives of non-governmental organisations and others from around the world. The inter-European parliamentary forum on population and development—I admit that that is not the snappiest title an organisation might have—seeks to promote sexual and reproductive health and rights, the lack of which is deeply linked to poverty. In extreme cases, more than 30 per cent of a country's population might be HIV positive. The approach of some Governments in promoting the idea that it is wrong to use condoms is not morally defensible and has huge economic, as well as social and human, impacts.
In other developing countries that do not suffer from that particular chronic problem, the extent to which people have sexual and reproductive health and rights has a profound impact on poverty. We all acknowledge that the status of women in society is connected to poverty and is an important factor in a country's development. The issue is not just a matter of education. The right to make choices about how many children to have, when to have them and with whom is fundamental. The power to exercise that right is fundamental to women's position in society and the development of society. It is not a coincidence that most women in developed countries are accustomed to having such rights and take them for granted.
It was important that the European forum hosted the conference that I mentioned, which took place before the G8 summit at Gleneagles. The aim of the conference was to influence the summit agenda, because there are countries—such as America—and institutions that go around the world attacking the idea that everyone should have sexual and reproductive rights; they seek to deny those rights to people in developing countries and even threaten to remove them from people in developed countries.
In the light of that international dynamic, it is essential that countries that are committed to sexual and reproductive health and rights advocate their position with clarity and consistency. I hope that members of all parties—those who think that the future lies in independence and those who think that it lies in devolution—will support the idea that the Parliament should play a greater role in international development; after all, many other devolved institutions are capable of exercising such a role.
How do we define poverty? Rather than take an international perspective, I will be parochial. The official definition is that any household whose income is less than 60 per cent of the median income is in poverty. That is good political doublespeak. Let me make myself clear: people do not need politicians to define and explain poverty. Quite simply, when someone cannot make ends meet they are not only in poverty, but they are bang in trouble.
A university study concluded that the minimum amount that would be required simply to keep body and soul together—for anyone, far less for a pensioner—was £160 per week, which would allow for no luxuries at all.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I have only four minutes.
Next month the level of pension credits will be raised to £114 per week and means testing will apply. However, only the master of the house will receive that sum; the spouse will receive the usual 50 per cent of her husband's pension. Is that equality? Quite frankly, I am of the opinion that the average politician—perhaps I should say median rather than average—could not even spell the word "equality". Ladies gain such equality only when their partner dies. The good news is that pension credits will be index linked until 2008. The UK spends between 5 and 6 per cent of its gross domestic product on such things as pensions. In other, more advanced, European countries the figure is as high as 15 per cent.
I look forward to a time when there is no need for organisations such as Age Concern and Help the Aged to exist because our Government is doing what it was elected to do. Those worthy organisations must be praised for the great work that they do, but surely our policies at the top level should aspire to do more than provide a level of charity care for the elderly who have served their country well and contributed to it all their lives.
How can anyone be expected to live on the paltry sum of £114 per week? It is a fact that 83 per cent of women pensioners do not receive a full pension, which is only £82.50 per week. It is a fact that £600 a week is the cost of keeping prisoners incarcerated; they are not means tested and there is no clawback, which is not the case with students. It is a fact that 35 per cent of pensioners do not apply for pension credits. When the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Andrew Smith, introduced his green paper on pension credits at Westminster in December 2002, he admitted that the Treasury had budgeted for only a 66 per cent uptake. So far, that is the only estimate that he got right.
The forecasted increase in the number of pensioners in the next few decades must cause considerable disquiet, even among politicians who are most adept at burying their heads in the sand.
One minute.
In this life, we get only what we pay for; all politicians have to face up to that reality. If we are to fund future pensions, which must be paid without means testing, we must opt for a realistic increase in national insurance contributions. No matter how unpopular it would be, NI should rise to a compulsory minimum of 6 per cent of total salary.
If pensions are means tested, pensioners who have other sources of income would see their citizens pension of £160 per week reduced through income tax. For example, my citizens pension would be reduced to £96. The big fear for political parties is that the introduction of such a measure would be electoral suicide for the party that proposed it. The media have brainwashed political parties into thinking that any commitment to tax increases equates to political failure at the ballot box.
It is essential, therefore, that the benefits of tax increases are marketed to the public to make them more acceptable to voters. For example, sabbaticals could be introduced into the equation: on reaching the age of 50, people could take time out on a sabbatical of six months or more. The time that they took would automatically be added to their working life—in effect, a sabbatical would act as an extension to someone's retiral date. Sabbaticals would allow people to take quality time in the prime of their lives when they are at their fittest and able to fully enjoy a break from the daily treadmill. According to medical experts, such sabbaticals are beneficial to life expectancy.
I must hurry you, Mr Swinburne.
A recent study forecast that the life expectancy of a child who is born today is 97 for a female and 93 for a male. When the retiral date was reduced in 1920, from 70 to 65, life expectancy was a mere 49 years.
You must close, Mr Swinburne.
We must do away with means testing, which is not only an abomination but acts against saving. By all means, we should give all possible help to alleviate the circumstances of the poor in Malawi and other parts of Africa, but we must not forget those at home who are suffering—
I am afraid that I have closed down your sound, Mr Swinburne. You are more than a minute over your time.
Caring about poverty issues at home and abroad must be key to and at the heart of any politician's raison d'être. When Labour came to power in the United Kingdom in 1997, we found that child poverty had doubled since we were last in power. It is now falling significantly; indeed, it is falling faster in this country than it is in any other country in the European Union. However, we want to make progress and we must make progress.
It is not acceptable for any child in this country to grow up in poverty in this day and age. That is why it is right that we have set ourselves the objective of eliminating child poverty. In 1997, we found that 4.2 million children were living in poverty and almost 5.5 million people were living on benefits—almost 3 million more than in 1979. We also found that the number of people who were claiming unemployment benefits had risen by 50 per cent and that the number of those who were claiming lone parent benefits and incapacity benefit had more than tripled.
Again, in 1997, we found that 2.8 million pensioners were living in poverty; many of them were expected to live on as little as £69 a week. People had been condemned to a life of dependency on benefits; they had been written off. Families were suffering intergenerational poverty; they had little expectation of work. Communities had become breeding grounds for despair and low aspiration. In partnership with the Westminster Government, the Scottish Executive has made it a top priority to tackle that legacy. By raising aspirations and breaking cycles of deprivation, we have made a difference.
Patrick Harvie rightly said that we should develop fair trade. I would couple that with the development of co-operatives and mutuals. I declare an interest as an MSP who is sponsored by the Scottish Co-operative Party.
Instead of being at the bottom of the league tables, the UK is now close to the European average for child poverty. We have made the biggest improvement of any EU country. More people are now in jobs than was ever the case in the past—the figure is more than 2.3 million higher than it was in 1997—and the number who are on benefits has fallen by around 1 million. With almost three quarters of the working-age population in work, our employment rate is the highest of the G8 countries.
Pension credit has made a real difference for millions of pensioners: in the last year alone, the number of pensioners who are in relative poverty has gone down by 15 per cent. The Government has provided additional support for all pensioners; I am thinking of the above-inflation increases to the basic state pension and £200 winter fuel payments, with £300 going to households that include a pensioner over 80. I am also thinking of the one-off payments that the Government has made to those over 65, including the extra £200 payment to help with council tax, and the free eye tests for all pensioners and free television licences for those over 75. Most help has been targeted at those pensioners who need it most.
Pension credit is helping a large number of pensioners. In November 2005, figures showed a fall of 1 million since 1997—from 2.8 million to 1.8 million—in the number of pensioner households living below the 60 per cent of median income threshold. That is a remarkable achievement, which comes at a time when median incomes have risen quickly thanks to the success and stability that we have seen in our economy.
In December 2005, pension credit was uprated to £114 and that uprating will continue in line with earnings until at least 2008. In November 2005, the Department for Social Development published figures that showed that annually £221 million of pension credit goes unclaimed by many thousands of pensioners across the country. That is an important issue and all of us hope that our colleagues in Westminster will address it.
In 2005-06, as a result of the measures that it introduced, the Government spent an extra £11 billion on financial support for pensioners. The Government has targeted the increase at the poorest of pensioners, which means that almost half of the spending—over £5 billion—has gone to the poorest third of pensioners. They have seen big improvements in their circumstances.
Since 1996-97, the number of pensioners on absolute low incomes has decreased by more than 2 million, from 2.8 million to 700,000. Housing costs are taken into account in those figures.
I, too, welcome the debate. When we had the G8 in Scotland last year, a quarter of a million people demonstrated in Edinburgh, more than 9 million people bought the make poverty history wristband and 360,000 people e-mailed Tony Blair on the issue. It is absolutely clear that the people of Scotland and Britain wanted their Governments and the G8 summit to make poverty history. Did the G8 summit make poverty history? No; that was a complete and utter illusion—the G8 was a magician's trick.
Some members did not buy in to the Government-sponsored protest and spin. Did the G8 leaders have the power to make poverty history? Yes. Could they have implemented the policies that they said they would implement? Yes. Did they do so? No—because they are the bag carriers for the neo-liberal free market capitalism that benefits the multinational companies.
I cannot agree with Des McNulty that the Commission for Africa is such a good thing and that all of us should pull together to support it. It fills me with fear that the Commission for Africa is supporting, and will work with, Business Action for Africa, a body that represents the African interests of companies like Halliburton, Exxon Mobile, Coca-Cola, General Motors, Microsoft, Shell, De Beers, Diageo—the list goes on. Poor countries are trying to protect their economies and maximise their resources including their agriculture, oil, diamonds and minerals and, all the time, those vultures are circling on the sidelines.
Poor countries are trying to do that, yet the most important decision that the G8 and the World Trade Organisation could take was to state their intention to force indebted and poor countries to open up their economies to multinational investment. The G8 and the WTO want to stop protection and force through the privatisation of health and education in the poorest countries. It is as if they think that the multinational companies have no agenda for profit or exploitation. Is the main concern of those companies, or the reason that they are involved in Business for Africa, a desire to lift out of poverty all the poor children—the starving masses—whom we see on television? No, it is not.
The G8 and Blair and Brown's central neo-liberal agenda causes world poverty, yet they cannot even guarantee that their agenda works. Brazil adopted neo-liberal free market capitalism, and that country crashed and burned. Argentina adopted it and it, too, crashed and burned, as did the south-east Asian economies that adopted it. There are no guarantees that neo-liberal free market capitalism will work for Africa.
Some Governments around the world are fighting poverty; their policies are making poverty history. Last year, Hugo Chavez's socialist social justice programmes lifted 3 million people in Venezuela out of poverty. He is also working to help his neighbours. He will hand over 150,000 barrels of diesel every month to Bolivia, which is one of the poorest countries in South America. Hugo Chavez has said that he will not accept a cent from Bolivia and that it can pay in agricultural products.
Evo Morales is the new president of Bolivia. In Bolivia the privatisation of water was prevented by a general strike and mass protests and riots in the street. Bolivia will provide us with a model for the eradication of poverty, because Morales says that he will eradicate poverty in Bolivia by nationalising the country's oil and gas resources and by working with other partners in South America. The nationalisation of energy reserves is the key to eradicating poverty.
The good news for the 9 million people who bought make poverty history wristbands and for the 360,000 people who e-mailed Tony Blair is that there is an alternative. The Parliament should support protest movements and Governments throughout the world that are gaining more support every day because they have put socialist issues on their agendas and are eradicating poverty and making it history.
The debate has been interesting and thought provoking. I will briefly comment on as many speeches as I can and try to draw out common threads in the debate.
I congratulate Dennis Canavan on a fine speech. He told us that a billion people live on less than $1 a day. Such statistics certainly make us think. Ours is one of the richer nations of the world and Dennis Canavan brought that home to us. He and other speakers referred to the iniquity of the arms race and my colleague Mike Pringle—and others—mentioned Trident.
Christine Grahame rightly drew our attention to poverty at home. It is a sad, almost tragic aspect of society that benefits are not taken up by people who are entitled to them. We must tackle that problem.
Mary Scanlon made a good point about incentives to save. I am co-convener of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on tackling debt, which has begun to consider evidence that some banks appear to be less than scrupulous in their approach to debt. People can get into a tragic debt trap, in which one debt leads to a bigger debt that must be paid back at a higher rate of interest. I hope that the cross-party group will consider the matter in the Scottish context, but perhaps the international banking system should consider how it operates.
Mike Pringle talked about the role of the Scottish Executive and rightly drew attention to the £3 million that is being sent to assist with the situation in Malawi. Given the contact between Scotland and Malawi, such aid is appropriate. Like many members, Mike Pringle talked about the extraordinary demonstration—that sea of white—that we witnessed in Edinburgh last July. Although I agree with all speakers that much work remains to be done, the number of young people who turned out to demonstrate that day gives me cause for optimism. I am no longer young, but young people are better at getting involved in the issue than we or our parents were. Involvement seems to have grown organically among young people. I do not know why that has happened but I welcome it, because it is a positive indicator for the future.
Des McNulty started his speech by making political points but then pulled back and made a fine speech—I look forward to Brian Monteith's summing up. Des McNulty pointed out that work is being done via the Scottish Executive. Notwithstanding the poverty in this country, which members mentioned, we should consider this country's GDP and the fact that people who are in employment can spend amounts in supermarkets every week that their parents would never have dreamed of spending. People in work have more disposable cash than has ever been the case. If we calculate the amount of money that is needed to end poverty as a percentage of world GDP, it is clear that poverty could be eliminated with a click of our fingers. We must not forget that it would be easy to eliminate poverty.
The member says that people in work have more disposable income than has been the case at any time in living memory. Does he accept that the working poor account for the biggest growth area in poverty? Does he agree that being in employment is not enough and that people must be well paid?
Tommy Sheridan's comment reflects the good thing about this debate. Unlike many parliamentary debates, this is a proper debate because we are attempting a philosophical discussion and examination of the issues. The range of comments that have been made gives me hope that, collectively, we can tackle poverty. If the debate does nothing else, it will surely prod our collective conscience. As every speaker said, we should follow up the debate with work outside the Parliament.
I am sorry that I do not have time to talk about the speeches that Nanette Milne, Patrick Harvie, John Swinburne, Helen Eadie and Frances Curran made, but I echo Frances Curran's comment that the people of Scotland turned out to demonstrate in Edinburgh because they care. That is wonderful. I mentioned problems to do with the central heating programme in an intervention during Mary Scanlon's speech.
As members said, there is no doubt that the fair trade movement is a huge contributor to the eradication of poverty. It is fascinating that the movement has evolved, just as young people's engagement has evolved. If we can build and deliver on that, we can do a great deal.
The debate has been wide ranging, as members have said. Members have talked about poverty at home and in the international context.
Dennis Canavan kicked off the debate by referring to the international situation and identifying three issues: trade, aid, and debt. A number of speakers offered statistics that underline the problem. Every year, 10 million children die of hunger or preventable disease—one child dies every three seconds. Some 25 million people in sub-Saharan Africa are infected with HIV/AIDS, according to the official figures. In Malawi, which I visited recently with other members, the official infection rate among adults is 14 per cent—in reality the rate is probably higher. HIV/AIDS is probably the most serious problem in sub-Saharan Africa. As Nanette Milne reminded us, in many countries life expectancy is falling. For example, in Malawi life expectancy has fallen by about 10 years. The situation is deeply worrying.
What can be done? A number of members called for measures that could improve the situation. We should consider our trade rules, as Des McNulty and others said, because the rules militate against access to our markets by third-world traders. When we were in Malawi, Mark Ruskell and I visited sugarcane producers who access the fair trade market, which is of considerable benefit to them. However, the producers that we met were hampered by European Union quota rules, which prevent them from exporting to the EU as much of their crop at market rates as they should be able to export. If the markets were open to them they could create wealth and deliver prosperity to their country. They are not able to do so, simply because of the international trade rules.
Does the member agree that the common agricultural policy and system of subsidies should be dismantled as soon as possible?
I would not call for the wholesale dismantling of the CAP at this stage, but we must reform the policy. It is nonsense and an abuse of EU taxpayers' money that, for example, we subsidise farmers in Italy and Greece to grow tobacco.
Members mentioned the valuable fair trade movement, which has grown in leaps and bounds. Consumers in this country exercise choice and decide to support producers in the third world. This week I was interested to receive a letter from Marks and Spencer, which said that its shops stock more and more fair trade products as a result of consumer demand.
I apologise to Patrick Harvie, but I have only five minutes for my speech and I will not be able to make all the points that I want to make if I take more interventions.
Foreign aid has grown exponentially in recent years. In particular, there has been an explosion in personal giving during the past two decades. Of course Governments are giving more, but often the direct aid that individuals give to charities and non-governmental organisations is more effective, because there is more control over how the money is spent.
Governance is the key to many issues to do with poverty in the third world, as Linda Fabiani said. There must be democratic structures and the rule of law. There is nothing complicated about the elimination of poverty; countries that enjoy political stability and enforce the law prosper. The problem is that basic elements of good governance are not in place in many countries. Uganda, which I visited some years ago, provides an interesting example in that regard. For 10 years Uganda enjoyed political stability and had a legal system that was generally regarded as free and fair. During that period the country was able to deliver much higher levels of economic growth than could be delivered by many of its neighbouring countries. It is sad that the situation in Uganda has gone into reverse, but the example shows what can be done if the basic structures are in place.
I do not have time to address many of the other issues that I would like to. However, I will comment briefly on poverty at home, which Christine Grahame and other members mentioned. Scotland has the worst life expectancy in the United Kingdom—in some parts of Glasgow, the figure for males is 53.9 years. Those utterly depressing figures are worse than those in many third world countries and they are getting even worse. The big-state approach has failed. Instead, we should create new community groups and aim to build up the voluntary sector through a new compact. That is the way to make poverty history, abroad and at home.
I congratulate the independent group on using its time to debate poverty. As others have done, I pay tribute to the quarter of a million people who marched in Edinburgh last July to highlight the issues of poverty and to show support for the move to eradicate it worldwide. Many of the people who marched live in poverty in Scotland and I will touch on local as well as international issues. We accept absolutely that there is no comparison between levels of poverty in Scotland and those in Malawi and other areas but, to people who live in deprivation in a country that is as rich in resources as Scotland is, their situation is very real.
It has not yet been mentioned that the real reason for poverty is inequality in the distribution of wealth. Once we sort that out, I hope that we will start to eradicate poverty, not only in Scotland, but worldwide. It angers and saddens me that, as members have mentioned, my city of Glasgow has within its boundaries 17 of the poorest areas in Scotland, including the 10 most deprived areas. In Glasgow, 41 per cent of households live in poverty. Glasgow has three quarters of Scotland's poorest areas and one third of Scotland's worst council wards.
Murdo Fraser mentioned life expectancy. Scotland's average male life expectancy is 64 years, which is lower than that in Bosnia, Lebanon, the Gaza strip, Iran and North Korea. I make that point particularly for Des McNulty and Helen Eadie. Labour has been in control in their areas and in Glasgow for decades. I ask the Labour members what they plan to do about the terrible figures that I have just mentioned. They cannot pat themselves on the back for their efforts to get rid of poverty in Glasgow and the rest of Scotland.
I turn to the bigger issue of world poverty and the make poverty history campaign. I sincerely thank and pay tribute to Jubilee Scotland and the trade justice movement for their continuing work to ensure that the issue is kept on the agenda of all Governments, particularly ours. The issue is not only for Westminster; as has been mentioned, we can do a lot in Scotland. Jamie Stone mentioned the money that we have spent but, as Linda Fabiani said, the Basque Country and Catalonia give money directly to tackle world poverty, so the Scottish Parliament could do more.
As various members have mentioned, debt relief, increased aid and trade justice must be paramount. As Patrick Harvie said, Governments have choices, but, unfortunately, people in the poorer countries simply do not. It is not acceptable that countries that have been brought to their knees by poverty are even more disadvantaged as a result of the strict criteria that developed countries have put in place. Dennis Canavan mentioned some of those countries—the UK, the other EU countries and America are among them. Many members have mentioned trade justice, although perhaps we should rename it trade injustice. I concur with all the comments that members have made on the issue. How can it be right that rich countries such as ours, and America and the EU, use subsidies to dump their products on poor countries and so stifle those countries' economic growth? Countries end up in a cycle of never-ending debt and borrowing, which leads to the collapse of their economies.
All too often, western Governments blame the people and Governments in poor countries. As Linda Fabiani said, we must examine certain Governments, but not all Governments of poor countries are corrupt. We could say that some of the actions of our Government are corrupt, too. We must stop the spiral that is created when western countries set strict criteria on trade and debt relief. Rich nations have a duty to ensure that justice is delivered in poorer countries. We should continue our campaign, collectively and individually, to ensure that we bring justice and make poverty history.
As Helen Eadie said, addressing poverty at home and abroad must be central to the raison d'être of every politician. Today's debate has touched on international and domestic issues. To start with the former, I am delighted to have the opportunity to pay tribute to the make poverty history campaign, particularly the Scottish organisations that play a leading role in the global fight against world poverty. The Scottish Executive strongly supports the aims of the make poverty history coalition. The Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, who has responsibility for the matter, recently met representatives of the coalition and committed to continue to do so regularly.
Every fair-minded person would agree that the UK Government demonstrated leadership during the G8 summit and worked hard to deliver significant steps towards debt cancellation and more and better aid. However, as Dennis Canavan emphasised in his excellent and passionate speech, there is clearly a great deal more to do. Continued pressure is needed to ensure that the promises that were made during the summit are delivered and that much more is done, particularly on trade, an issue that Des McNulty emphasised.
The Executive believes that, to make poverty history, everyone must play a part in achieving the millennium development goals. As has been mentioned, through our international development policy, we are committed to supporting international development. The first round of awards from our international development fund was announced last November. Almost £5 million over three years will benefit 34 projects that are based in Ghana, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Tanzania, Sudan, Malawi and Sri Lanka. The application period for the second round of funding closed last month. Again, the response was overwhelming. Within our broad sub-Saharan Africa priority, there is, as members know, a particular focus on Malawi. In that context, the focus is on education, which Linda Fabiani emphasised, health, which Nanette Milne emphasised, civic government and sustainable economic development.
Christine Grahame and Mary Scanlon emphasised the crucial role of women. As Patrick Harvie reminded us, the status of women in society is connected strongly to the level of poverty and is important in development matters. That is why our international development fund gives additional weight to projects that promote women's equality and empowerment.
The debate has focused on fair trade. How will the Executive's international development fund support fair trade by supporting the capacity of producers in developing countries such as Malawi to access markets and the demand in Scotland that arises through public procurement?
As I said, the fund has a focus on sustainable economic development. However, we all accept that the international trade talks are crucial. We certainly need to press for a great deal more progress in opening up markets to the poorest countries.
On domestic issues, John Swinburne highlighted the definitions of poverty. The international definitions that we use rightly focus on relative poverty, so that the threshold becomes higher as wages rise. It is right that I remind members of the figures that came out last week on child and pensioner poverty. Compared to 1998, in 2004, 100,000 fewer children lived in relative low-income households—100,000 children have been lifted out of poverty and prevented from being held back through lack of opportunity. The 2004 figure is a reduction of 34 per cent from the starting point and it exceeds significantly our first-quarter target towards our goal of eradicating child poverty by 2020.
The final point that I have time to mention is pensioner poverty, which has featured strongly in the debate. Clearly, more work needs to be done, but we should recognise that, according to last week's figures, compared to 1997, 120,000 fewer pensioners are in relative low-income households and, since then, more than three-quarters of those who were in absolute poverty have been lifted out of it. Through the pension credit and initiatives such as free central heating, free personal care and free bus travel throughout Scotland, we are maximising Scottish pensioners' disposable income. It is regrettable that Christine Grahame did not recognise that and that she launched an attack on the strategy for older people, which will astonish older people's organisations. That strategy clearly focuses on much broader issues and is crucial to Scotland's future.
My time is up. I congratulate Dennis Canavan and the independents on securing such a good and important debate.
I sum up the debate as a member of the independent group. Being a member of that group means being independent not only of parties but of each other, so I am sure that Dennis Canavan will understand if I do not entirely agree with his passionate speech. Not agreeing with the opening speaker for my group is something that I am used to.
The debate has been wide ranging, but I want to focus on international aid, debt and trade. It is important to distinguish between disaster relief and economic aid, which have different purposes. It is entirely understandable and commendable that people—individuals in particular—should put their hands in their pockets and make vast donations to help people to tackle natural disasters, but that is different from economic aid, which members have discussed. I am referring to aid that is given from one state to another, or Government-to-Government aid.
I recommend to members the work of the economist, Professor Peter Bauer, who studied the effects of economic aid and found that
"Aid is the process by which the poor in rich countries subsidise the rich in poor countries."
He found that, in general, intergovernmental aid is pernicious and damaging and does not help the poor in poor countries—in fact, such aid is often the reason why tyrants, bullies and autocrats stay in power. I argue that politicians who advocate giving greater and greater economic aid are as addicted to the guilt release that it provides them, as the many tyrants who receive such aid are dependent on it. Advocating greater and greater economic aid makes politicians feel good, although more difficult reforms need to be tackled. The profits from tobacco, maize or lignite—which used to be ample in his country—do not keep Mugabe in power; it is the economic aid from Libya and China that ensures that he can maintain his grip.
Members have rightly referred to debt. Aid is often tied to debt, which can ensure that democratic Governments that replace tyrants are trapped in the past regime's debts.
Does the member agree that if there is a tyrannical regime in a country that receives aid, the best way of dealing with matters is not necessarily to stop all the aid, but to ensure that it is channelled through non-governmental organisations rather than through the Government?
I happily accept that that is a preferred route, but the point that I am making is that intergovernmental aid is normally beyond the democratic accountability that we would like there to be.
Will Brian Monteith therefore congratulate the socialist Republic of Cuba, which has not received a single penny in aid from any country for 47 years, but has eradicated poverty and delivered fantastic health and education systems?
That is a fallacious point because Cuba received aid from Moscow. As the member knows, I am in favour of ending the trade embargo on Cuba because trade would bring liberty to people in Cuba.
I must move on. Trade is crucial to the future of the poorest countries. Members have mentioned that the European Union is the greatest obstacle to improving trade conditions for the poor of Africa. Murdo Fraser referred to the fact that the European Union erects tariff barriers to protect European sugar beet farmers. The European Union dumps surplus crops, which have sometimes been subsidised—I refer to Italian tomatoes, for example—in Africa, which ruins local markets through which poor farmers are trying to improve their lot without aid. The European Union's tariffs and export subsidies also ensure that the United States of America does not liberalise its trade. Europe could take the lead. Tariffs and dumping are only two examples. In the summer, I was at a conference at which a Kenyan delegate said, "Give us justice, not generosity." He wanted access to markets.
There are two options. We can abolish—not reform—the common agricultural policy; if we cannot do so, we can leave the European Union and trade freely with the world's poor. The obscenity of trade injustice cannot continue. Free trade is fair trade. At the moment, we have neither.