Poverty Framework
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-6581, in the name of Alex Neil, on the poverty framework.
15:25
I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak about the actions that the Scottish Government is taking to tackle the important issues of poverty and income inequality in Scotland. We are determined to provide opportunities for all to flourish and to tackle the injustices of poverty in Scotland. There is no doubt that we all face major challenges in the current difficult economic climate, but that makes it more, not less, important that we focus our efforts on helping those who are least well off in facing the impact of the downturn.
Today, about 17 per cent of Scots live in relative poverty. Overall, poverty rates have remained the same for too long, although we are pleased that pensioner poverty has fallen significantly in the past year. However, there are no grounds for complacency. Currently, the poorest 30 per cent of households receive 13 per cent of Scotland’s income, while the richest 30 per cent receive more than half the income. In the past 10 years, no progress has been made on tackling income inequality. The Government wants us all to live in a fairer nation as well as a wealthier one, which is why we set our ambitious solidarity target, to increase the proportion of income that is received by the poorest 30 per cent of households by 2017.
The fact remains that too many people live below the poverty line, and radical action is required to address that. We are especially concerned about those who are caught in persistent poverty—the people who are most scarred by the experience of living in poverty and who lack the opportunities and resources to escape its clutches.
We know that there are concentrated geographic areas that suffer from multiple deprivation and where people live in, or at very high risk of, poverty. Many of those areas have been in deprivation for a long time. Entire communities as well as households can suffer the effects of persistent poverty. Of the data zones that were in the bottom 15 per cent in the Scottish index of multiple deprivation in 2004, 83 per cent were still there in 2009.
The consequences of living in poverty extend beyond material deprivation. One example is the striking relationship between imprisonment and deprivation. A 2005 study showed an almost perfect correlation between risks of deprivation and levels of imprisonment. We know that 45 per cent of all prisoners come from the 15 per cent most deprived areas in Scotland. There are many other examples of the negative consequences of people living in poverty. It impacts on educational attainment, health outcomes, aspirations, employment levels, benefit dependency and overall quality of life. The Government is determined to do what it can to address the root causes of poverty once and for all and to bring about the change that the nation deserves.
On educational attainment, does the minister recognise the assertion by the Educational Institute of Scotland in its document “Poverty and Education” about the role of the education maintenance allowance in producing positive outcomes by allowing people to stay on in school? Does the minister regret the fact that his Government reduced funding for the education maintenance allowance?
Actually, we focused the education maintenance allowance on poorer people, in a way that it was not focused previously.
Early intervention sits at the heart of our three complementary social policy frameworks: “The Early Years Framework”, “Equally Well” and “Achieving Our Potential”, which are joint Scottish Government and Convention of Scottish Local Authorities frameworks to tackle poverty and income inequality in Scotland.
The core principles of “Achieving Our Potential” are to tackle the drivers of poverty and income inequality in Scotland; to maximise the potential for people to work; to make work pay for those who can work; and to support those who cannot work and those who are experiencing poverty now.
Some of the groups of people who are most at risk of persistent poverty are pensioners, disabled people, women and children. The latest statistics show that relative pensioner poverty in Scotland fell from 21 per cent to 16 per cent over the past year. That is an encouraging sign, and we hope that the range of measures that we have in place to help pensioners will help that trend to continue. I welcome the commitment by the new coalition Government to re-establish the link between the annual increase in the pension and the annual rate of wage inflation from 2012.
Older people continue to be an important target group for the Scottish Government’s income maximisation work under “Achieving Our Potential” and they have benefited substantially from the energy assistance package. We also fund the Scottish helpline for older people to help vulnerable older people to maximise their income. The Scottish Government also introduced free Scotland-wide bus travel. The Parliament introduced free personal and nursing care and we have provided a record number of central heating installations for pensioners in their own private accommodation in the past two years to help to alleviate pensioner poverty.
Twenty per cent of Scotland’s children live in poverty. We cannot let poverty blight more generations of our young people. That is why we have taken radical measures to intervene early and to address both the causes and consequences of child poverty.
For the sake of accuracy—because this is important—what is the minister’s source for that figure? The statistics that the Government published on 20 May state:
“The percentage of children in relative poverty ... increased from 20 percent to 21 percent”.
For the first time in a very long time, the downward trend has reversed.
Across Scotland and the United Kingdom, the percentage of people in relative poverty is now at 17 per cent. That is the figure for all individuals. For children, the figure is 21 per cent. Over the piece, the long-term trend over the past three years, for example, is still on a downward path.
We have a range of policies to help to maximise the income of people who are in work as well as those who are not in work. We also have polices on employability and skills initiatives. In the longer term, we are investing in our children through the early years framework and getting it right for every child.
We are also taking forward the development of the Scottish Government’s child poverty strategy. That is still in its early stages, but we can be sure that support to enter and sustain employment will be a high priority. In order to move out of poverty, people need good job opportunities, and we believe that decently paid, sustainable employment is the best route out of poverty for people and their children.
I want to mention disabled people. Many people still have to live with difficult and often complex barriers to employment. For example, despite improvements over the past decade, the employment rate for disabled people in 2008 was only 48.1 per cent, compared with the general population figure of 74 per cent. That is why, together with COSLA, we have published a supported employment framework for Scotland, which aims systematically and effectively to provide the mechanisms that are necessary to support disabled people’s move to paid employment in the open labour market. The framework sets out our shared determination to support disabled people who want to work to get into employment. It seeks to put in place the vital ingredients that are required: well-trained and qualified staff, professional standards for service delivery and consistent quality, irrespective of postcode.
We want a more consistent, person-centred approach, with sustained employment as a realistic and achievable outcome for the individual. It is not about work experience, volunteering or taster sessions; we want people in real jobs, properly integrated and rewarded. People have a right not to be dependent on benefits and a right to make the progression into work. That is good for them and their families and communities, and ultimately it is a prerequisite to allow the whole of Scotland to flourish.
There is poverty among those who are in work, too. It is important that people have access not just to employment but to reasonably well-paid employment if they are to escape the poverty trap. It is encouraging to see living wage campaigns gathering momentum. Paying a living wage brings benefits to employees and employers. Employers can expect to benefit from increases in productivity, greater staff loyalty and motivation, easier recruitment and retention, reduced absenteeism and higher-quality staff. I am proud to say that from August this year, no one in the employ of the Scottish Government will be paid less than a £7-an-hour living wage.
Will the minister give way?
I have already given way and I am just about to finish.
I welcome the coalition Government’s plans to increase the personal allowance over time to £10,000. That should help to make work pay and encourage people to move from welfare to work.
Poverty has been a blight on Scottish society for far too long, for children, pensioners and disabled people and for some people in work. We in the Parliament must all—especially in these difficult times—do everything that we possibly can to reduce poverty among all those groups in Scotland, with a view to eliminating the blight of poverty from our society.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the continuing approach set out in the Scottish Government’s poverty and income inequality framework, Achieving our Potential, to take long-term measures to tackle drivers of poverty and income inequality in Scotland, to maximise the potential for people to work, to make work pay for those who can and to support those who cannot work and those who are experiencing poverty now; recognises the need to focus on those people and communities who experience longer-term persistent poverty, and supports the need to streamline the welfare system while ensuring that reforms provide better protection for, and do not further disadvantage, vulnerable people, particularly in these challenging times.
15:37
I am happy to participate in the debate, and I join Alex Neil in supporting the aspiration that he described at the end of his speech. However, the test for us is not our aspiration, but what we do to deliver on it and address the serious issue of poverty, particularly at a time of great change.
The reality of what precipitated the economic crisis—the failures in the global private markets that led to the banking system requiring Government intervention—has curiously been transformed into an argument that the crisis was caused by big government and a public sector that was too big, as if all public sector workers were useless bureaucrats rather than people who are employed to deliver services for some of our most vulnerable and disadvantaged citizens. They are people such as care workers, classroom support assistants and those who work in child care, employability and educational support, and they work directly to address issues around poverty. I trust that our Lib Dem colleagues will bring their pressure to bear on the coalition to ensure that the hostility to big government does not involve attacking services that are required by the poorest in our communities.
Labour’s amendment acknowledges the existence of the framework approach, but argues that it is not enough to have an approach; we need to be serious about delivering on it. I wish to say something about the weakness of the Scottish Government approach and the gap—not for the first time—between words and action. I will speak about some of the key challenges and provide some examples of how a national approach can be national and how the powers of the Parliament might be used.
The Scottish Government presided this year over an increased budget, but the reality is that whatever the size of the budget, it is simply a dereliction of duty not to maximise its impact among the poorest in our communities. A useful starting point is provided by the Child Poverty Action Group, which argues that Scottish Government and local government budgets should be poverty proofed. If the Scottish Government took even a moment to poverty proof one of the critical elements that it often identifies in its poverty strategy—the council tax freeze—that would reveal that whatever it is, it is not an anti-poverty strategy. It is disappointing that the Government continues to resist the idea that single outcome agreements should be poverty proofed. I urge the minister to consider taking that approach, because it would cause a shift from asserting good works to doing what works.
The Scottish Government does assertion—indeed, the minister is a master at it—but it must trouble us all that a written answer to Bill Butler revealed that the centrally held poverty budget has been cut by a third. I understand that that funding could be used to support financial advice work, benefit uptake work and so on, which are all important to poor families. If one claims to take a national approach, one needs evidence of its effectiveness. There needs to be monitoring and assessment to test the gap between saying and doing, but also to allow government at every level to reflect on and amend what it is doing to address weaknesses or ineffectiveness.
There is a well-rehearsed debate on the concordat and single outcome agreements. It is not an academic debate; the framework approach is predicated on its being delivered through locally determined single outcome agreements. We can put aside the ludicrous haste with which the concordat and single outcome agreements were cobbled together as an approach; the lack of consultation with, for example, the voluntary sector; and the total lack of thought-through indicators. The reality is now serious. There is no effective monitoring, no reflection on input and clear evidence that too many services are subject to a postcode lottery. We know that local authorities are under pressure and are not helped by claims by the Scottish Government about resources and a lack of funding, and that local authorities are making difficult choices, but surely those choices should be shaped by basic standards across local government throughout the country.
In this carers week, the problem is highlighted by a clear example of what the lack of a national approach means. Information that we obtained under freedom of information legislation about the lack of assessment of unpaid carers showed three staggering elements: the huge variation in approach across Scotland; the apparent reluctance to assess unpaid carers, perhaps because, once assessed, the need has to be met with resources; and the number of local authorities with no information about the number of carers in their area.
The member talks about national projects and policies and working together. What does she say about the green paper on the national project proposed by the Westminster Government that would have taken money away from carers? That is neither national nor local; it is disgraceful.
It is also not a policy. There was a green paper and the response to it was unhappy. I am asking us to look at what we can do here. The fact is that currently, only 3 per cent of unpaid carers have their needs assessed and most local authorities do not even know how many unpaid carers they have. That is a simple example. If we acknowledge that, as in the words of the motion, we have a responsibility
“to take long-term measures to tackle drivers of poverty”,
what is the Scottish Government doing to address the needs of carers whose caring responsibilities often hold them in poverty? It is simply not good enough to look away or to blame others. If the Government is to take a national approach, it must address the problem of the wide variation in carers’ experience across the country.
As I said, the framework is underpinned by single outcome agreements. We all acknowledge the role of the voluntary sector in reaching out to communities and understanding how poverty is lived and what needs to change. The sector is pivotal in that regard. However, when voluntary sector organisations persistently express their concerns about the lack of specific indicators to test and shape local government and national priorities—for example, on disability—they are simply ignored. There is a lack of seriousness in the Government’s approach that includes a cavalier disregard for any process of reporting, which means that voluntary organisations have to fund their own interrogation of single outcome agreements. If the Government is serious, that cannot be acceptable.
In my remaining time, I will flag up some areas in which the powers of this place could be used more effectively. The minister acknowledged the critical role of work and talked about the concentration of unemployment in some communities. Does he still think that it is acceptable that Scottish Enterprise no longer has any geographical role to support community regeneration and create employment opportunities for people in our poorest communities? It is important to support those who lose their jobs, but we need commitment and evidence of action to deal with those who are further away from work. The danger is that while supporting people who have lost their jobs, those who are further away from the market move even further away as the tougher employability actions of the Government become deprioritised. I urge the minister to reassure us on that point.
The minister spoke about pay issues. We need to establish what is being done to tackle problems around equal pay. I would welcome an update on the role of the Scottish Government in helping women who are currently trapped in equal pay tribunal processes. I would also welcome some progress in what the Scottish Government is doing with regard to the living wage.
Low pay is particularly prevalent in the tourism and retail industries. What is the Scottish Government doing in its tourism strategy to tackle that? What levers are being used to advocate for and reward those businesses that have a living-wage approach? The minister says that the national health service is a living-wage employer. Will he confirm that, in the Scottish Government, the living wage extends to agency and contract workers?
We all recognise the power of public spend. Can the minister confirm that the public procurement process includes a positive assessment for bidders who include commitments to the living wage? Can the minister give examples of how public procurement procedures incorporate the provisions of article 19 of the European directive on public procurement, which allows contracts to be reserved to sheltered workplaces? I would welcome some examples of current spending by the Government where that has been done, as it is an obvious way of tackling poverty among people with disabilities.
In recognising the importance of the Scottish Government’s role in tacking poverty, I ask the minister whether he and his colleagues have reflected on what constitutes front-line service—I refer here to the point that I made about the education maintenance allowance. The most vulnerable people need services from mental health groups, carers groups and voluntary organisations to get them to the point where they can access front-line services, and my fear is that those services will be the first to go, and that most vulnerable people will not even get to the point where they can use front-line services in future.
I urge the minister, together with us, to wrestle with these tough questions. What are our priorities? How do we balance the roles of local government, central Government and voluntary organisations? How do we ensure that financial pressures do not impact disproportionately on those who need small amounts of enabling support in order to access services? I also urge the minister to ensure that what he says is followed by action. If he does that, we will certainly support him.
I move amendment S3M-6581.2, to leave out from “to take” to end and insert:
“; further notes the findings of research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust that child, pensioner and overall poverty fell faster in Scotland than in any other part of the United Kingdom during the period of the previous UK administration, led by Labour, but notes concerns raised by anti-poverty organisations, such as Save the Children and the Poverty Alliance, that single outcome agreements do not give sufficient priority to meeting shared poverty targets and have created further problems in terms of monitoring progress and accountability; therefore urges the Scottish Government to review the impact of the concordat and single outcome agreements to ensure a clearer focus on reducing poverty and that measures are put in place to monitor progress made at the national level, and further, in this European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion and given the critical role for the Scottish Government in tackling poverty, calls on it to report to the Parliament detailing how it will use all the powers at its disposal to tackle poverty and disadvantage.”
15:47
The Government has asked us to debate its strategy “Achieving Our Potential”, and it will be the focus of my speech. The document starts with strong rhetoric from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing. In fact, her foreword is rich on rhetoric. She starts by saying:
“This Government has a new level of ambition for Scotland”.
She goes on to say that the Government will bring forward
“a fairer distribution of wealth which we believe is key to tackling poverty. That is why we have set a national target to increase the proportion of income received by the poorest 30% of households by 2017.”
Three years into the Administration, it is right to scrutinise the work of the Government and to hold it to account for its record in that regard. We recognise that there are some deep-seated, community and social elements around the issue of poverty. The constituency that I represent and the region of the Borders of which it is part have some of the lowest wages in Scotland. They are considerably lower, on a per capita basis, than in Glasgow.
UK Government figures on alcohol morbidity show that alcohol morbidity in my constituency is 30 per cent of the UK average whereas in the Glasgow Shettleston constituency it is 600 per cent of the UK average. Life expectancy is 20 years lower in some parts of Glasgow than it is in some parts of the Borders, and that is over a distance that it takes only an hour and a quarter to travel.
The issues around poverty are wider than simply addressing income, but that is the focus, and it is one of the biggest drivers. It is therefore welcome that the minister recognised the Liberal Democrat contribution to the work of the UK coalition Government in moving towards lifting the threshold of income tax. If we lift it to £10,000—below which level people will not pay income tax—that will affect 530,000 people in Scotland and will be one of the biggest, most progressive income tax or other tax changes that this country has seen for a generation. That can be added to the welcome announcement that there will be a triple lock for pensioners from next spring, so that pension increases will be determined either by prices or by earnings, or there will be a 2.5 per cent increase, whichever is greatest. That is a very good step in the right direction. We know that there is too much inequality and unfairness in Scotland. Those are two major ways forward.
In “Achieving Our Potential”, the Government says:
“The success of the Framework should be judged by the extent to which it influences investment decisions and action in all parts of the public sector in Scotland”.
That is the mechanism for monitoring the progress of the Government’s strategy and on which we can hold the Government to account. The document even provides a link to the Scotland performs website. Just two of the nine relevant outcome indicators within economic growth, productivity, participation, population, solidarity and cohesion show improving performance—I know because I looked before I came to the chamber—four show no improvement in performance and three show worsening performance. That is not encouraging if we want to find the way forward. In addition, the Government’s official statistics, which I quoted to the minister, show that, for the first time in a decade, the prospect exists of the downward trend for child poverty turning around. All that should give us considerable cause for concern.
The Government’s framework contains a clear commitment on something that it has said could have one of the biggest impacts in reducing poverty. In the section entitled “What more we will do”, it says:
“The Scottish Government will legislate to replace the regressive, unfair Council Tax with a fairer system of local taxation, based on ability to pay. This change will help to lift an estimated 90,000 people out of poverty. This will provide a vital financial boost to low and middle-income households across the country as the biggest tax cut in a generation.”
Much was promised by this Government, but so far little has been delivered. In its place, the Government has provided the council tax freeze, which has not been progressive. Between 2008 and 2012, that policy will cost £700 million, which means that it could be one of the biggest—if not the biggest—revenue funded policies of this Administration.
Let us look at the impact of that policy on a low-income family in Scotland—one that earn less than £15,000. We know that such families, who live predominantly in band A houses, make up 40 per cent of Scottish households. Many of them receive benefits that allow them to get a discount on their council tax, if not a 100 per cent discount. Let us compare their position with that of a high-income family that earns more than £100,000 a year and lives in a band G house, which is the second most common band for the highest-earning households in Scotland. Under the council tax freeze, the low-income family will have got zero extra pounds in its pocket, whereas the high-income family will have gained £138 a year. Such a policy is not progressive. We know that the biggest impact of that £700 million policy over the past two years and next year will be experienced by those who are earning the most and who live in the biggest houses in Scotland. That is simply not fair.
Unless we have a change of direction—perhaps by following the UK Government’s example—the trend on child poverty will match the trend on other kinds of poverty and will reverse.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am afraid that I simply cannot.
We must continue the trend of reducing child poverty.
I move amendment S3M-6581.1, to insert at end:
“, and believes that the Scottish Government should introduce a fairer pay policy that gives a real-terms pay increase to those on the lowest wages in the public sector while paying no bonuses to higher earning staff in 2010-11 and 2011-12.”
15:53
I support the motion in the name of Alex Neil, but I emphasise the fact that the Conservative party shares the objective of all the parties in the Parliament of ensuring that relative poverty is cut as quickly as possible. Our problem is that we find ourselves in an economic situation in which such objectives will be harder to fund. Consequently, they might be harder to achieve.
It is a serious concern that some poverty figures may have gone into reverse over the past year, because that coincides with an economic decline that has cut the resources that are necessary to deal with the problem.
I agree with much that has been said and I support the Government’s motion, but I will concentrate on issues on which my views might differ from those that have been expressed and for which an alternative strategy might be found, if necessary.
We need a fairer nation in which wealth is properly distributed—I hope that no one doubts that. I might differ on occasion not because I do not have common ground, but because I suggest that creating wealth is the solution to poverty at least as much as is redistributing wealth. Any perspective that I give on the poverty situation is about how we foster wealth creation in the broader economy and about how we distribute that wealth, ideally at one and the same time.
I admit that I am a little puzzled. Until the recent recession, we had sustained and consistent economic growth for a long period, yet our society has become more unequal—the gap between rich and poor has widened. How does Alex Johnstone sustain the position that creating wealth creates by definition a more equal society?
I thank Patrick Harvie for his question, because he moves me on to a case study that I will use to demonstrate that, although we have had a problem in recent years, it has a solution that can be used effectively.
In the past five to 10 years, we in Scotland have created strong economic growth. We could argue about how that compares with other parts of the United Kingdom, but many jobs were created in Scotland. At the same time, the increasing dependency culture—the effect of the greater and increasing safety net that was provided—meant that it was more and more difficult for people who required work to take up the jobs that were created. That led to significant immigration levels. I do not object to immigration, but I am worried that many jobs that were created were taken by people who moved to Scotland for them rather than by people who were already here and who could have taken them.
In the recent general election campaign, I knocked on many doors and I was particularly taken by one group whom I met—single mothers. An extraordinary number of single mothers wish to be part of the workforce and have skills that they want to deliver into the workforce. Despite that, the support that they are provided with makes it virtually impossible for them to return to the workforce. Seeing such a huge and well-motivated group of people in the economy unable to take advantage of the opportunities that are provided for them seriously disappointed me.
The challenge is that we in Scotland require to rebalance our economy. Through a period of considerable wealth, we grew the public sector and consequently became more dependent on the redistribution of the wealth that we had. Some see the current situation as an effort to bridge the gap between the position that we were in some years ago and a return to that position in a year or two. I do not believe that we will find ourselves in that situation. We need to think hard and objectively about how we achieve an economy that generates wealth and redistributes it effectively, so that we can begin to reduce poverty, not necessarily through the primary redistribution of wealth from top to bottom but through the creation of wealth at the bottom.
That is why I particularly support the position that Jeremy Purvis described. If he had been on the doorsteps of West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, he would know that I argued for the policy of raising personal allowances to take low-paid workers out of the tax system. By taking that option, we will deliver the opportunity for a huge number of people who are able and willing to work to benefit from their efforts. That is one way out of poverty. Increasing personal allowances also gives us the opportunity to focus again on concentrating our support on people who cannot take up such an opportunity. If we have a continuing difficulty in generating the necessary wealth, it is important to focus our efforts on those people.
We in Scotland are lucky. Poverty here is largely relative. In comparison with many parts of the world, even the poorest in our society are relatively wealthy. Those who have seen some of the coverage of what happens in South Africa at the moment will realise that we are lucky. However, here in Scotland we have a fundamental responsibility to end dependency culture, wherever possible, to give those who are in a position to do so the opportunity to benefit from their own hard work and effort, and to concentrate the support that is necessary on those who need it most. For that reason, we support the principles that lie behind the Government’s motion and will continue to work to ensure that our economy is rebalanced, so that we can provide progress in years to come.
The debate will be tight, so I will keep members to six-minute speeches. I call Jamie Hepburn, to be followed by Irene Oldfather.
16:00
I am sure that Irene Oldfather, too, will begin by saying that, in the European year for combating poverty and social exclusion, it is right that we should have this debate. Poverty is a scandal wherever it exists. In this world of plenty, and our land of plenty, the fact that any human being—let alone the estimated one fifth or so of people in Scotland who are defined as being in poverty—should go without the means to meet their basic needs shames us all and is an issue, above all others, that cries for justice.
Tackling and eradicating poverty should be front and centre of the policy agenda of any Government, of any colour—not simply because it is morally the right thing to do, but because it is in the enlightened self-interest of society as a whole to narrow the gaps between the rich and the poor. With poverty and deprivation come challenges of ill health, crime, antisocial behaviour and lower educational attainment that impact on society as a whole and end up costing us more. All of us benefit from a more equitable society.
I welcome the approach that is taken in the poverty and income inequality framework, which was published less than 18 months ago. In the framework, the scale of the challenge that faces this country in tackling poverty is set out clearly. Ambitious targets to meet that challenge have been set. In addition to backing the UK-wide target to eradicate child poverty by 2020, the Scottish Government has established its solidarity target of increasing the proportion of income that the poorest 30 per cent of households receive by 2017.
The Government’s framework uses the powers that are available at present to make what progress we can. A total of £435 million has been invested in the fairer Scotland fund over three years, £60 million has been invested in measures to tackle fuel poverty, and wide-ranging support for credit unions and the third sector has been made available.
Will the member give way?
I will take a brief intervention, as we are tight for time.
The member mentioned the fairer Scotland fund. Would it not be more effective if there were a way of measuring its impact? At the moment, there is not.
We should always be willing to assess the impact of any measure. I will come on to the issue of how we can tackle poverty really effectively.
The motion recognises the importance of being able to work as a means of lifting individuals and families out of poverty. That is confirmed by the most recent report of the growing up in Scotland study, “The Circumstances of Persistently Poor Children”, which finds:
“Being without paid work, and in particular regular work, is often cited as the key influence on poverty.”
For that reason, I welcome the Scottish Government’s continuing commitment to supporting jobs in our economy, the number of apprenticeship places in recent years and the announcement earlier today by the Minister for Skills and Lifelong Learning.
The poverty framework demonstrates the Government’s commitment to tackling poverty and inequality. I note that some progress is being made. Absolute child poverty has fallen, but rates of relative poverty remain too high. Currently, 16 per cent of pensioners live in relative poverty. That is an improvement on the situation previously, but the figure is still too high. The task now is to speed up the rates of progress—a task that is all the more challenging, as the motion suggests, because of the economic circumstances in which we find ourselves.
It is also challenging because of the limited powers that are at the disposal of the Parliament and the Scottish Government. Johann Lamont talked about the powers to tackle poverty that are at our disposal. I accept that those powers exist, but they are limited in relation to the challenge. Although we can and must make inroads to mitigate the effects of poverty, the powers to tackle the root cause of poverty—the unequal distribution of wealth—are not particularly in the hands of the Parliament or the Scottish Government. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s recent report “Devolution’s impact on low-income people and places” reflects that fact when it concludes:
“Support for tackling poverty in the devolved countries came ahead of powers to act”.
Although I accept that the political will to act in Scotland is real—and I think that that is the case across all parties—the ability to act is constrained. I believe that small, independent countries have consistently been able to demonstrate that poverty reduction and better social equality are not only possible, but compatible with economic development.
That brings me to the exchange between Alex Johnstone and Patrick Harvie. I agree with Patrick Harvie’s point that the generation of economic growth does not necessarily lead to a more equal society. The converse can be true: more equal societies can generate growth. For example, Norway has been ranked among the five most highly developed countries in the world—the UK, incidentally, ranked 21st—and it is a regular top performer in the United Nations human development index. Looking beyond crude economic measures, the New Economics Foundation, in its index of human wellbeing and environmental impact, ranks Belgium, Finland and Sweden above the UK in its ranking of western nations. Given his previous criticism of me, Murdo Fraser might be interested to know that Venezuela ranks 38 places above the UK in that table. Sadly, he is not in the chamber; he will learn about that when he reads the Official Report.
In September last year every member of the Parliament was presented with a copy of “The Poverty and Justice Bible” by the Scottish Bible Society to mark its bicentenary. Throughout that edition of the bible, injunctions to end poverty are especially highlighted. I was drawn, in particular, to Isaiah’s call, echoed by John F Kennedy in his inaugural address some 50 years ago,
“to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free”.
That is the challenge that we must constantly strive to achieve. To do so, we need to rise above petty party-political differences, and we need the powers that best come with independence.
16:06
This has been an interesting and important debate that goes to the heart of one of the great social problems. As Jamie Hepburn said, in European terms it is a timely debate, because, as the Labour amendment notes, 2010 is the European year for combating poverty and social exclusion.
I take a moment to acknowledge the contribution of Scotland’s voluntary sector to promoting awareness of poverty during this designated year and to thank the many organisations that have provided briefings for members and that work tirelessly to promote this agenda. Activities in Scotland are being led by a range of organisations, including Save the Children, which is taking its museum of poverty on a tour around the country, and the Poverty Alliance, which has organised 10 regional seminars to highlight the future challenges in tackling poverty and is supporting five community members to attend in Brussels the European meeting of people with direct experience of poverty. That is all to be commended.
On 30 September I will host a reception, in conjunction with the Poverty Alliance, to mark the year. The Poverty Alliance has been funded by the Department for Work and Pensions to create three short films highlighting what communities are doing to address poverty on their own behalf. We intend a first showing of the films at our reception in September, so I ask members please to mark that date in their diaries—I hope that the minister is listening and will make a careful note.
Although the commitment of the voluntary sector is admirable and the goals of the year are to be welcomed, they need to be met and matched by Government and European Union-wide commitment. That brings me to the EU 2020 strategy—the EU’s economic strategy for the next decade. Europe continues, even in these times of global economic instability, to be one of the wealthiest areas of the world, but some 84 million people—one in every six Europeans—is affected by poverty. That is why the new economic strategy proposed a platform against poverty, with the original idea of setting a target to reduce poverty by 25 per cent across the EU, lifting some 20 million people out of poverty. That is an ambitious but necessary target. However, some member states have been unhappy about a single measure and target for poverty reduction and, at the employment, social policy, health and consumer affairs council meeting last week, a compromise proposal was advanced. We are in danger, in this European year for combating poverty, of negotiating the poor out of our economic strategy in a bid to adopt the easiest way and the lowest common denominator. If the financial crisis demonstrated anything, it surely demonstrated the need for financial and internal market policies to be complemented by strong, co-ordinated, concerted social agendas.
The Poverty Alliance is campaigning to introduce the toughest measure possible and I hope that the Parliament will offer its support for those endeavours. The Council of the European Union is meeting today and tomorrow, and I know that the minister is listening carefully. There is still an opportunity to influence the agenda. Belgium is set to take over the EU presidency in July and I have already raised the matter with the Belgian ambassador, who was extremely supportive of ensuring tough safeguards.
In a debate such as this, it would be remiss of me not to mention the progress that needs to be made in my constituency. If I tell members that there is a 14-year gap between the average life expectancy in Fullarton in Irvine and that in Fairlie, which is 14 miles to the north, they will see the scale of the challenge that we face.
I have no doubt that the structural, chronic unemployment that my constituency has suffered—dating back to huge job losses in ICI—is a huge contributory factor. North Ayrshire continues to experience some of the highest levels of unemployment, as well as high rates of child poverty. Although the Irvine Bay Urban Regeneration Company is playing its part, the solutions are long term and, in constituencies such as mine, direct intervention is necessary. The Government’s motion mentions
“the need to focus on those people and communities who experience longer-term persistent poverty”
and I would welcome some comment in the minister’s closing speech about how North Ayrshire could benefit from that.
I will reflect for a moment on global poverty. A letter that I recently received from the Network of International Development Organisations in Scotland pointed out that the recession has forced 100 million people throughout the world to live on less than $1 a day and that 400 million children are chronically or seriously malnourished. I agree with NIDOS that support should be given to those affected wherever they are. In doing that, we need to resist the temptation to reduce aid or policy commitments to the most vulnerable and the poorest in our society.
I support the amendment in Johann Lamont’s name.
16:12
A great number of my constituents are, like Irene Oldfather’s and those of other speakers, among the lowest paid. If members remember that that is compounded by the relatively high cost of many of the essentials of rural life, they will appreciate the scale of the problem that we face.
I apologise to members for repeating myself, because I have said these things many times before, but I will underline them again. The cost of heating fuel is disproportionately high in the far north of Scotland, and those bills are faced by people who can ill afford them. The cost of motor fuel is a subject on which members have heard me and many others in all parties speak during the 11 years that we have been in the Parliament.
Does Jamie Stone agree that any increase in VAT would add to that burden?
That is a complicated equation, but I admit that it could do. It must be considered, which is why I hope that, in the budget, the coalition Government in the UK will do something to address the cost of rural motor fuel. It has an impact on the cost of everything else, as I have often said, from a fencepost to a newspaper or a tube of toothpaste. That is why I hope that there will be some movement from London.
Historically, the cost of motor fuel has been a big issue. When I was first elected, I and others took a petition to Her Majesty’s Treasury, pointing out to the then chancellor, Gordon Brown, that something had to be done. I cast my mind further back to 1983, when it was one of the reasons that Hamish Gray lost his seat and Charles Kennedy stepped on to the political stage. The problem has existed for a long time.
In my constituency, the problem is compounded still further—I know that this a tale of woe, but it is true—by the fact that there is not much public transport. The cost of travelling on what little public transport there is, never mind running one’s own car, to get to an appointment at Raigmore hospital, or the doctor in Wick or to buy the messages in Thurso hits the pockets of people who cannot afford it.
Poverty is related to employment. That brings me back to the subject of Nigg and Dounreay, on which members have heard me speak before. As Dounreay continues to be decommissioned, jobs are going. At Nigg, we see a shocking stalemate that is, frankly, a blight and something must be done about it. In the days when both those sites were at their height, they provided employment. Whatever members might feel about nuclear energy, the point is that Dounreay gave people decent wages and, in doing so, halted and turned in the opposite direction the numbers of people leaving the Highlands. The Highland clearances did not stop when the lairds were banned from removing people from their estates but continued right through the first part of my lifetime and throughout the lifetime of my father before me.
The irony is that the remotest areas now offer some of the greatest employment opportunities. Because broadband makes access so much more direct, it has made the playing field more level and it should be possible to persuade companies, whether in manufacturing or services, to relocate to remoter areas. There is also an irony—a beneficial irony—in that the remotest areas have the greatest potential for renewable energy. The tides that rip through the firths and the winds that howl in some of the furthest away parts of Scotland, including in my constituency, now offer great potential. I say for the record, however, that the jury is still out on the performance of the enterprise networks in delivering on that potential. I have often said that we will need a leap of faith of the scale that put Nigg into building oil platforms in the 1970s if we are truly to maximise the benefits of what the First Minister has described as our potential to become the Saudi Arabia of renewable energy.
I whole-heartedly support the point that Jeremy Purvis makes in his amendment. According to the Highland Council website, 31.1 per cent of the workforce in the Highland Council area works in the public sector. That is higher than the equivalent figure for Edinburgh. It is evident, therefore, that the economy of my constituency and of the whole Highlands and Islands rests on the public sector. Indeed, Charles Kennedy’s brother—I have mentioned Charles already—drives a lorry for the Highland Council roads department. The public sector affects every family, so we should not underestimate the important boost that the proposal would bring.
I acknowledge the point that is made in the Liberal Democrat amendment, but does not the Government also have a role in influencing the private sector to pay properly? Will the member support the calls to use the levers of Government to ensure that a decent wage is paid in, for example, the tourism and retail businesses that are critical in his constituency?
I will seek to support any intervention that tries to increase the lowest wages. Ironically, I will be entering the job market myself a year from now, when who knows what might lie before me.
To go back to my point about the public sector, it is worth remembering that, if we can increase the basic wage, we can start to tackle some of the root causes of poverty, not just in my constituency but throughout Scotland. That is the wisdom behind Jeremy Purvis’s amendment, which states a very important principle. I am grateful for the Conservative party’s support for it and I hope that members will be able to coalesce around the amendment at 5 o’clock.
16:18
Despite our many differences, one thing that we all share—I mean this sincerely—is a desire to tackle poverty and income inequality. Regardless of which party has been in administration here in Scotland, tackling poverty has always been and, I think that it is fair to say, will remain a priority.
Given that we share a desire to tackle poverty, it is disappointing that some seem to want to use the issue to make political gain at the expense of engaging in a constructive approach to tackling it. As we listen to the debate, I hope that we can work together towards an agreement on the practical measures that can be taken to address the problem. [Interruption.] If Mary Mulligan wishes to intervene, I am quite happy to take her intervention.
I believe that the fairer Scotland fund, to which other members have referred, has delivered, and is delivering, real results in the fight against poverty. More than £400 million has been earmarked to tackle the social and economic disparities that exist in our most deprived communities and I agree, as I have said many times before, that we should monitor the outcomes and where that money goes. For more than 50 years, my area of Glasgow has suffered extreme poverty and, although money has been ploughed into certain areas, we have never seen an improvement. Therefore, I believe that we need to monitor where the money goes and what the outcomes are.
Does the member agree with the voluntary organisations’ call to the minister to put in place proper reporting that will allow for the monitoring and accountability that they say are absent?
I remember a number of voluntary organisations coming to talk to me, and they are right to say that we should be looking at monitoring. However, the Labour Party, and Johann Lamont in particular, should stop scaremongering when they speak to the voluntary organisations; some of the organisations are quite worried, and they are being told that their funding will be stopped or limited when that is not quite the truth of the matter. I ask Johann Lamont to think that over, because our voluntary organisations and the communities that they serve must have faith in the Government. It is unfair to scaremonger.
On deprived communities, it is important to remember that inequality and poverty are not uniform throughout Scotland. They are different in different areas and any strategy must have at its heart the unique local dynamics of the area. Jeremy Purvis touched on that earlier. It is important to recognise both the need to enable local authorities to analyse the reasons behind the inequalities that exist in their communities and the expediency of doing that, and to work constructively with the communities to implement local policies that will best benefit the most needy. The concordat is important to the delivery of those aims.
The Labour Party amendment mentions concerns raised by anti-poverty organisations. It might be worth noting that the concordat promotes a framework of evaluation and response that allows any concerns or suggestions to be taken on board and used to inform and mould agreements with individual local authorities that reflect recommendations from such organisations. It might also be worth noting that the Poverty Alliance document recommends that in
“future revisions and negotiations on the concordat between the Scottish Government and Cosla opportunities are created to allow for large scale national demonstration projects to tackle address poverty and social exclusion.”
I am sure that the minister will take that into consideration during any such negotiations. Such suggestions are welcome in this debate, and they highlight the need to be constructive rather than to criticise any approach that has, at its heart, the elimination of poverty. The Poverty Alliance also recommends that further work be done to ensure that all P1 to P3 pupils will be able to access free school meals; I hope that the Labour Party will support that recommendation.
The Poverty Alliance’s recommendation 7 asks that
“All parties in the Scottish Parliament work together to ... reduce the burden of the council tax”
on those who are on low pay. As we know, it is disappointing that the Labour Party does not support the Scottish Government’s action in freezing council tax for the past three years, which has undoubtedly helped thousands of families throughout Scotland.
Will the member address the way in which the council tax freeze has helped to put more money in the pockets of people who live in bigger houses than in those of people who live in smaller houses? The Government has done no equality assessment of that measure, which is regrettable.
I take on board what Jeremy Purvis said, but it is not necessarily absolutely true. Plenty people who live in larger houses are poorly off as well. I point to some of the houses in the area of Glasgow that I represent. People seem to think that everyone in the west end of Glasgow is well off, but I am sure that Robert Brown, who is sitting next to Jeremy Purvis, can tell him that many who live in such houses are not that well off. The council tax freeze has been better for everyone throughout Scotland. I ask the member to remember that.
The Poverty Alliance’s criticism of the current local taxation system is that it is
“fundamentally regressive, particularly for those in low paid work”.
It goes on to say that it hopes that all parties will
“find a suitable way of reforming the current system”.
We all know that when the Scottish Government proposed the introduction of a fairer local taxation system, its proposals were unfortunately dismissed out of hand and everything was done to ensure that they would not gain parliamentary support or be the subject of reasoned debate.
You must close, please.
I am sorry that I am being cut short, Presiding Officer.
You were not being cut short, but you are now. I have no extra time; I am sorry, Ms White.
16:24
I will take the hint, Presiding Officer, and press on immediately.
This debate is obviously timely as we get into the economic decline and slump, and as lots of tough decisions have to be made by politicians, as we have heard. I represent a community that has some experience of joblessness and poverty, which is still with us from the last recession—it has lasted decades. It is important to remember, when we are making tough decisions, that unemployment and poverty are costs too, and they can be measured looking back over 20 years. We should not just look at deficits and everything else; it is important to take poverty into account.
We need to learn some lessons from the mistakes that were made many years ago and which have left us with communities that are severely damaged. There are high levels of unemployment, and poverty in terms of not just income but, as other members have said, ambition, education and health. The minister was right to say that, in these difficult times, we need to maximise our effort and focus our attention on helping those who are least able to help themselves. The failures of the banks should not be borne on the shoulders of the poor. We cannot allow that to happen.
Governments need to be judged by their actions and not just their words, although at this time their words and actions are both worrying enough. We have heard lots of talk of job cuts in the public sector, with all the costs that they will mean, and at the same time talk of cutting benefits, too. That happened all those years ago, and it is happening again.
Already we have seen the end of the future jobs fund, which has given 400 young people in my constituency the opportunity to experience work for the first time. It is gone. The Secretary of State for Scotland told us today that it is not sustainable, but what is not sustainable is long-term unemployment and youth unemployment, and all the chaos that comes from that.
To be fair, attempts to address the tax system and make it fairer, as mentioned by Jeremy Purvis and under the long-held view of the Liberal Democrats, would help to break down the barriers for people to get into work. That is eagerly supported by the other party in the Government: the Conservatives, who are not progressive. The reason why they are so enthusiastic—
Will the member give way?
Just a second—let me make the point.
The reason why the Conservatives are so supportive may be that they recognise that middle-income earners will benefit the most. We must watch out for that when we criticise the Scottish Government for its mistakes, such as freezing the council tax, which Jeremy Purvis is right to say does not benefit the poor. In difficult times, we should also look at policies such as free bus fares for 60-year-olds who are going to work in Edinburgh and Glasgow while the part-time female worker on the minimum wage pays £12 to £15 a week to go to work. That is not fair and should not happen. We cannot sustain free prescriptions for me while cancer patients go without. That is what is not sustainable in difficult times.
We have a test that will define us as politicians, political parties and a Parliament in these hard times: the decisions that we make over the coming weeks. They are what are important.
As we have heard today, people want to work. I support enthusiastically the right to work and the work ethic, and whatever we do with the benefits system must be used to support the people who want to work and to support the work ethic. However, people should not be driven from unemployment and compelled to work if they are terrified and have been imprisoned in unemployment. Some people do not know how to cope with a job and are not educated enough to get up in the morning to go to work. They fear for the family’s income and perhaps see work as a threat to that. However, they want to work, and we must give them routes to that.
I have some questions for the minister on that. Governments should not campaign on the living wage, which is also important to support the work ethic, and other issues; Governments should act. We need action not just from the Government but across Governments. On 5 May, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing said that she wanted as a matter of urgency to arrange for the Scottish Government to speak to the new Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to ensure that we could get flexibility in the system that would enable us to tackle the barriers to work and employment. Perhaps Mr Neil can tell us what progress was made at that meeting, if it has taken place.
I see that I am running out of time. I urge the minister to act on equal pay, which is a poverty issue. It concerns working women who are living in poverty. We have had three inquiries in this Parliament to tackle the issue of equal pay, but we have failed to do it and have blamed others for not doing it. It is time to act, and I hope that the Scottish Government will act—
I must stop you now, Mr McNeil. I am sorry, we really have no time to spare.
16:31
A lot of good points have been made in this debate. Rightly, Jeremy Purvis said that poverty involves not only money but the wider issues around morbidity, addiction and quality of life. That links into the point that was made by the minister about issues of multiple deprivation and perhaps explains why there are some differences between the situation in the Borders and the situation in certain parts of Glasgow.
When Duncan McNeil was waxing lyrical about Government policy in action and all that, I was struck by the question of why, when the Labour Government poured all that money into the banks, it did not insist on dealing with the bonus culture, which had been the cause of many of the problems that we are now dealing with.
Will the member give way?
No, I will continue.
It is often good to have a strategy for things, not least for tackling poverty and income inequality. It is a demonstration of concern. It shows that high-level thinkers in Government are having cerebral moments worrying about it. If anything, it is even more exciting to have a framework, as that is a precursor to action—action is surely just around the corner.
Today, of course, we have the excitement of an approach—indeed, a
“continuing approach to take long-term measures to tackle drivers of poverty and income inequality in Scotland”.
However, struggle as I might, I have found it beyond my abilities to take all that much meaning out of the SNP Government motion. The soporific phrases of the motion could fit almost any conceivable policy mix, but seem focused on the responsibilities of Westminster, rather than those for which the minister—my favourite minister, I should say—is accountable to this Parliament.
I should point out that the member’s spokesman contributed to the drafting of the motion.
I thank the member for that information.
The Labour amendment—if I may move on to more profitable territory—is a little better, although it is true that it suggests that everything that moves should be monitored. The job creation potential of the economically vital monitoring and evaluation industries under Labour is clearly enormous and is capable, by itself, of wiping out the nation’s fiscal deficit.
The banking crisis revealed in all its ugliness the glaring gap between those at the top and those at the bottom of our society. It was a manifest demonstration of the reality that, after 13 years of a Labour Government, the gap between rich and poor in Britain had widened, and it illustrated the favour that that Government showed to people in the casino part of the economy, which contributed a great deal to the current disaster that the nation has to navigate.
In summing up for the Liberal Democrats, it is worth my saying that programmes that were begun under the first two Labour and Liberal Democrat Governments in this Parliament for free central heating systems, support for debt advice, tackling homelessness and free personal care have made a significant difference and have been broadly continued under the present Government, to its credit. Such policies were substantial drivers of an anti-poverty strategy. However, the giveaways by the SNP to better-off people in relation to prescription charges and school meals contrast with a continuing failure to secure an adequate weekly allowance for kinship carers.
Like Jeremy Purvis, I want to talk about the opportunities to make Scotland a more equal society that, paradoxically, arise from the banking and financial crisis. For some time, Liberal Democrats have campaigned on the issue of the bonus and top-salary creep that has crossed from the private sector to the public sector. There is a curious amalgam of public sector empire building and private sector bonus culture that has produced unsustainable salaries at the top of the public sector, particularly in quango land and the world of arm’s-length external organisations, where there are bonus levels that most of us would think are unsuited to public service.
Liberal Democrats have been impressing on the Scottish Government the need for a fairer pay policy in the public sector that hauls back pay bills and bonuses at the top in order to secure real-terms pay increases to those on lower wages. I think that I am right to say that there is a £651 million pay bill for those who earn more than £80,000 in the public sector. The bonus culture should be taken out of the system at that level.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I have limited time. I ask the member to forgive me.
There is some mileage, too, in the concept of the living wage campaign—the minister touched on that—under which public and private sector employers voluntarily undertake to pay a living wage, which is currently £7.15 an hour. According to the Poverty Alliance, 370,000 workers in Scotland are paid less than £7 an hour, including 8,500 in the national health service and more than 15,000 in councils. I echo what Johann Lamont said and ask the minister to confirm when he concludes the debate whether the NHS is covered by the undertaking that he gave earlier about Government employees. I recognise that it is not an easy challenge, but impacting on that group is vital, not just for those who are directly employed but, as Johann Lamont pointed out, for those who are paid for by the state but work in the private or voluntary sectors. The issue is the in-work poverty that the Poverty Alliance has identified.
Liberal Democrats in government in London are making their contribution to helping families on low and medium incomes, as the minister rightly acknowledged. The coalition agreement contains a range of important measures in that area. Insisted on by Liberal Democrats, they are based on the concept of fairness in the tax and benefits system. They include the commitments to raise the tax-free threshold to £10,000, to relink pensions to average earnings, and to hold a fair pay review in the public sector to implement our proposed 20-times-pay multiple.
The debate on poverty is important, complex and on-going. Oxfam comments in its briefing on the feeling of lack of control and hope that is experienced by people and communities who live in poverty, on the lack of security of people with weak financial assets who are reliant on borrowing and benefits, and on the dominance of inequality. The Liberal Democrat amendment is based on taking effective action to tackle the issue in public sector pay policy, but that must be linked with a wider range of effective actions across the board. Poverty and inequality blight the life opportunities of many in Scotland. They form a scar across our country that is no less important than the physical scars that were left on our landscape by declining industries, and they must be tackled effectively.
16:37
Many people will be shocked by the stark statistics that we heard today, especially those on the massive differences in life expectancy in different, but sometimes neighbouring, communities. I recognise the passion in Duncan McNeil’s speech, but it is a sad fact that, after 13 years of so-called socialist government at the UK level, income inequality is at its highest since records began and UK working age poverty stands at its highest level since 1961.
History teaches us—this is a fundamental Conservative principle—that the single most effective way in which to lift people out of poverty is to grow the economy so that more people are in work and earning enough money to allow them to provide for themselves and their families, and to provide the wherewithal for decent pensions and good welfare. Therefore, every available adult of working age must be given the incentive to do that; the stronger the economy, the better the welfare system will be. A good welfare system is required financially to enable those people who are unable to work or who find themselves temporarily out of work.
We are living in difficult economic times and we are faced with unprecedented challenges over the public finances, but it must be a Government priority to ensure that job creation and economic competitiveness underpin policy decisions. The rise in unemployment that was revealed yesterday is disappointing; Scottish Chambers of Commerce was right to say that it will be down to the private sector, which Johann Lamont mentioned, to drive our economy forward and create new development opportunities. I ask the minister to help it to do that.
Jamie Stone mentioned fuel poverty, which is a real issue in many parts of the Highlands and Islands region. Figures from 2008 suggest that more than a quarter of Scots live in fuel poverty—we are all aware that fuel price rises since 2003 have exacerbated the problem. Yesterday, I chaired the cross-party group on renewable energy and energy efficiency, which received excellent presentations from energy saving Scotland and WWF Scotland on the good work that is being done to find community-scale solutions to energy efficiency. Although much excellent and often innovative work is being done, many concerns have been expressed about the support that is available to communities who are seeking to improve energy efficiency. I ask the minister to help those groups.
As well as finding ways of making the economy more competitive, the Scottish Conservatives have a range of practical policy measures that we believe will tackle the consequences of poverty. For example, we propose the introduction of a universal health visitor service attached to general practitioner surgeries to provide support to families from the birth of a child until it reaches the age of five; after all, according to research, the first five years are the most important in ensuring a child’s health. Although we recognise that there is no magic bullet for reducing all health inequalities, we believe that that sort of measure empowers individuals to make the right decisions and lead healthier lives. Annabel Goldie’s sterling efforts also secured the new national drug strategy, which was published in May 2008.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry—I am afraid that I do not have time.
Much of today’s debate has focused on the very concentrated and highly visible problems of poverty in urban Scotland. That is understandable, but as a Highlands and Islands MSP I try to speak out about the poverty in some of our remote communities, including those in our small islands, which can be just as serious. The primary industries of our rural economy remain under real pressure and I hope that, in his closing remarks, the minister will give an assurance that he takes tackling rural poverty just as seriously as challenging urban problems.
We hope that the Scottish Government will take a constructive approach to working with UK ministers on shared aims. In that respect, I commend to members the recent speech by the new Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Iain Duncan Smith, entitled “Welfare for the 21st Century”. In it, he rightly identifies the current problems in the current benefits and tax system, which far too often disincentivises people from finding work and imposes prohibitive marginal tax rates on too many people who want to return to work, making the option of work simply not economically viable for too many people.
I would accept an intervention from Mr Stone now.
I thank the member for giving way. He talked about getting health visitors to go round rural communities. Such a scheme would be very welcome. Could it be combined with the provision of rural patient transport, which is a problem that we have all experienced in the Highlands?
Rural transport’s spasmodic and often inefficient nature is a huge problem. Because such transport does not really fit in with people’s way of life, the car becomes absolutely vital for those who live in remote areas.
We agree with many elements of “Achieving Our Potential”, notably the focus on economic opportunities as the key to achieving a wealthier and fairer Scotland. As it is right to prioritise work as the main route out of poverty, every effort should be focused on creating the right conditions for companies and individuals to create jobs in Scotland and on helping the small businesses that are key to Scotland’s economy. We look forward to ministers’ delivering the poverty framework.
16:43
I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate on poverty. Its timing is particularly apt, because in Scotland progress on reducing and eradicating poverty has stalled. Indeed, like many others who have spoken this afternoon, I have real concerns that the Scottish National Party Government does not have any idea how to restart previous initiatives.
I point to the minister’s motion, which he seems to have drafted in co-operation with others in the chamber—who I have to say looked a little puzzled—and in which there seems to be a tacit acceptance—
I counsel the member not to confuse acquiescence with active support.
I am always pleased to give Mr Purvis the opportunity to distance himself.
The motion seems tacitly to accept that the powers to assist people in poverty rest elsewhere, but there are actions that this Government can take with our partners in local government to help people move out of poverty. Members have outlined many of them this afternoon.
One of the most contentious issues in the past, although not particularly in today’s debate, has been the usefulness of single outcome agreements in identifying and monitoring actions to tackle poverty. The hope of the partnership between the Scottish Government and local authorities was that poverty issues could be addressed locally and flexibly and identified in the single outcome agreements so that the outcomes could be measured. However, given that so few local authorities and community planning partnerships identified the issue in the single outcome agreements, it is difficult if not impossible to monitor the actions that are being taken. Only nine SOAs have stated that local anti-poverty strategies have been developed and only one stated that the local authority is working to embed the anti-poverty framework into its single outcome agreement. As the briefings that members received from Save the Children and the Poverty Alliance said, that makes it difficult to see the usefulness of single outcome agreements.
I will respond to a point that Sandra White made. What I was trying to say about the fairer Scotland fund when I intervened earlier was that it is all very well investing in that fund, but if we do not know what the outcomes are it is difficult to say whether the fund is effective or working and therefore difficult to know whether to invest in it in future. That was my point with regard to monitoring. I say in my defence that although I have raised the issue on several occasions with the minister, such monitoring is still not possible.
Most members recognise that work is a major route out of poverty, but members from Duncan McNeil to the minister have acknowledged that even some people who are in work remain in poverty. The introduction of a minimum wage, which I must say was not supported by all political parties that are represented in the chamber, was a big improvement for those who were on low pay. However, there is still much debate as to the level at which it should be set. I welcome the Labour Party’s inclusion in its manifesto for the 2010 general election a commitment to a living wage of £7 an hour. If such a move is to have its full impact, it needs to happen in the public sector for permanent staff and for temporary or agency staff. The Scottish Government can set a good example on that, just as our colleagues at Glasgow City Council have done. We need private sector employers to work towards that end, too. They need to respond to the challenge of ensuring that everybody has a living wage.
The private sector must also operate more flexibly, for example on hours of employment, which can be particularly important for employees who have caring responsibilities. That brings me to child care. If we accept that employment is one of the most important routes out of poverty, it is essential to recognise the importance of affordable and flexible child care. The Local Government and Communities Committee report on child poverty recognised child care as one of the most important supports that are necessary for parents to access work and training, so the minister will imagine how disappointed I was to hear just last week that West Lothian Council, whose area includes my constituency, is reducing the provision of wraparound care and totally removing it from two schools.
I say freely that West Lothian Council has been a progressive council; my concern is that where it goes other local authorities will follow. My constituent who contacted me about the issue is about to lose her job because her company is moving to Ireland. She says that she will lose her job, her child care and the opportunity to train for future employment that she was trying to take up. No wonder she feels that everything is against her. Child care is essential if we are to encourage not just single parents but other parents and carers back into the workplace. The Scottish Government can give a lead on that. More often than not, child care will be delivered by local authorities and the voluntary sector, but the Government needs to give a clear lead.
This has been a good-spirited if not particularly inspiring debate in which a number of actions and their relative success at addressing poverty have been debated. A number of questions, to which I hope the minister will respond, have been asked. I will outline a few of them. What will the Scottish Government do to address the assessment of carers, which my colleague Johann Lamont mentioned? It is important that carers are fully assessed for the role that they play and that they maximise the income that they can receive. The minister said that carers are one of the groups that most need income maximisation. A full assessment of carers is a legislative requirement, so it should be happening—but it is clear that it is not. How will the Government respond to that?
How will the Government respond to the loss of Scottish Enterprise’s role in regeneration? What is it doing in its tourism strategy? Is it promoting better pay for people who are working in tourism and retail, which are two areas in the rural economy that Jamie McGrigor mentioned? When I worked in the retail industry, things were very difficult for people on low incomes. We still have not had a response to that. Perhaps the Government will promote better pay through its tourism strategy.
Duncan McNeil said that we do not need campaigns from the Scottish Government; what we need is action. I hope that we will hear about that from the minister.
16:51
This has been quite an interesting debate in a number of respects. I want to cover one or two things that members have asked me about.
The Government takes cognisance of the need to address rural poverty as well as urban poverty. A recent example of how we have done that is our introduction of a separate set of assumptions, which recognise the special circumstances in rural areas, for the allocation of housing association grant in relation to rural housing.
The carers strategy has been drafted and our strategic partner COSLA will consider it at its convention on 25 June.
Will the minister give way?
I need to make progress.
It is therefore not true to say that no progress has been made.
The debate has been about poverty, of which there are three major causes in our society: high levels of unemployment, low incomes and poor housing. On high unemployment, I share Duncan McNeil’s concerns about the Liberal Democrat Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s decision to abolish the future jobs fund, which I think was a useful tool to see us through the recession and provided funding at a critical point.
What representations have the minister, the Government or the First Minister made to the current UK Government with regard to that terrible decision?
In nearly all our verbal and written communication with the new Government we are stressing the need to maintain every available weapon to safeguard employment, because we see that as the best way out of recession. It is critical to dealing not only with unemployment but with poverty.
I have to say that, listening to Labour members, one would not realise that they have just completed a 13-year period of government. The level of unemployment they have left in this country is among the highest in Europe and the level of youth unemployment under Labour was even higher than it was under Margaret Thatcher, so I do not think that Labour members are in a particularly strong position to criticise others in relation to unemployment.
It is clear that if people do not have an adequate income they are by definition living in poverty. I hope that the new coalition Government will tackle the regressive nature of much of the tax system.
I welcome the fact that capital gains tax will be equated more with levels of income tax—that is a move in the right direction—but other taxes such as national insurance contributions are regressive, as those who are more highly paid pay a substantially lower percentage of their income than do the low paid.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will in a minute.
I am rather bemused by the fact that Mary Mulligan is proud that the living wage was in Labour’s 2010 manifesto. It was in Labour’s 1924 manifesto—I know that not because I remember it but because I have read my history. In the intervening period there have been 31 years of Labour government and yet it has not done anything about a living wage in any one of those years, so we will not take any lessons on that.
We should consider that the Labour-controlled North Lanarkshire Council is doing everything in its power to avoid having equal pay and single status for women. Labour’s record on employment and dealing with low income has not been particularly proud in London, North Lanarkshire or elsewhere.
The third major driver of poverty is poor housing. That is why we have given such high priority to investment in social housing and why we have record investment and record starts and completions in social housing. It is not just because of the great need to produce more housing—
Will the member give way?
I will in a minute.
It is also the fact that housing investment creates and maintains jobs. We have, where we can, used community benefit clauses to ensure that local people benefit from the housing investment.
We should have a bit less noise in the chamber, other than from the minister.
That is a sentiment I share, Presiding Officer.
What I found most strange about Jeremy Purvis’s contribution was that he did not mention his own amendment once. That is because he is calling on us to introduce a fairer pay policy. Has he not noticed, as the Lib Dem finance spokesperson, that we have already done that? We have already done everything we possibly can to ensure that people on the lowest wages are treated more fairly and to discourage bonuses for those at the higher levels, even when their contracts were signed by the Lib-Lab pact that was in power until 2007. We have already introduced a living wage in the health service and we are spreading that to the whole of Government by August this year—something Labour and the Liberals did not do when they were in power.
We have heard that the council tax freeze is not helping poorer people. I ask the Liberal and Labour members who criticise the council tax freeze whether they realise that the minute someone earns £6,000 they have to pay the full council tax. Anyone who is earning £7,000, £8,000, £9,000 or £10,000 is by definition low paid. We are saving those people a fortune year in, year out with our council tax freeze. Yes, we wanted a local income tax—but the Labour Party, supported by some others, frustrated our efforts as a minority Government to deliver it. Then I hear from Johann Lamont, sent by the Scottish Labour Party to the Scottish Parliament to cheer up the nation, criticise us for not poverty-proofing our policies. When she was a minister, there was no poverty-proofing whatsoever.
You must close, please, minister. [Applause.]
Do I not get injury time, Presiding Officer?
The reality is that the difference between those on the Labour benches and us is that whereas we want to spend the money on housing, health and education, they want to spend it on Trident.