Child Poverty
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-5172, in the name of Jackie Baillie, on ending child poverty in Scotland. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament agrees that it is unacceptable that children living in severe poverty in Scotland are missing out on basic necessities such as fresh, nutritious food, new clothes and shoes and having a warm home in the winter; welcomes Save the Children's campaign to end child poverty, which highlights the effects for children and their families of living in severe and persistent poverty; acknowledges the progress made by the Scottish Executive in lifting 100,000 children in Scotland out of poverty and helping children in the Dumbarton constituency and across Scotland to improve their life chances, and believes that more needs to be done and that the Executive should prioritise the needs of the very poorest children and continue to work with the UK Government in implementing solutions, such as child seasonal grants, proposed as part of the Save the Children campaign.
I have long believed that a strong economy and a strong society are but two sides of the same coin. Equally, I believe that getting people into work is the best and most sustainable route out of poverty. I have witnessed at first hand the liberating effect that gaining employment has on people. In my former work in community economic development, I worked with women and their families to improve their opportunities. Poverty is not simply about income poverty—it is also about poverty of opportunity, which visits itself on successive generations. For those women, employment enhanced their confidence and self-esteem and made them feel valued for their skills and abilities. Their employment transformed their entire families. I want that for every family and every child.
I acknowledge the work of the Executive, which has, in partnership with the Labour Government at Westminster, achieved much in tackling poverty. In Scotland alone, some 100,000 children have been lifted out of relative poverty and as many as 200,000 have been lifted from absolute poverty. We have moved from one in three children being in poverty to one in four. There is, rightly, an ambitious target to end child poverty by 2020, but that is not enough. I urge the Executive to redouble its efforts. As long as any children are born into poverty, are destined to live in poverty and perhaps even to die in poverty, we in Parliament must not rest.
Although 2005 figures from the Child Poverty Action Group suggest that relative poverty in Scotland is less than the United Kingdom average, the Scottish index of multiple deprivation shows that two thirds of the most deprived areas are concentrated in Glasgow, Inverclyde, North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire and West Dunbartonshire, my area. We need urgently to focus on two things. First, we need to tackle the obvious geographical concentration of disadvantage in the west of Scotland and, secondly, we need to target our resources at the poorest children in the poorest families.
That is why I welcome Save the Children's campaign to end child poverty in Scotland. It estimates that some 80,000 children in Scotland live in severe poverty. Its research tells us that the poorest families will experience particular hardships with what we regard as normal life events, such as the birth of a child, the extra cost of fuel in winter and buying school clothes. Understandably, there is little resilience in their family budgets to cope with such extra expenditure. The fact that there is no spare cash for a rainy day means that families have to make tough choices. Parents of some 1.3 million children in the United Kingdom say that they cannot afford to buy new clothes and one family in five struggles to pay household bills. The parents of 770,000 children in the UK cannot afford to give their children a healthy diet and 1 million children live in houses that have rotting walls and floors.
None of that is acceptable, but let me dwell on winter for a minute, when no families—not only the poorest—are helped by the 60 per cent rise in the cost of electricity and the 90 per cent rise in the cost of gas. No physical measures to combat fuel poverty can counter the price rises that we have seen from power companies. Therefore, I commend the comments from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, which I believe signal that he will take action. Next week's pre-budget speech provides an early opportunity for him to clarify his intentions. I encourage him to do so. The chancellor has explicitly acknowledged the pressure on low-income households and has said that he will consider extending to families with children the winter fuel payment that is currently enjoyed by pensioners. That is welcome, but we should not let power companies off the hook. I hope that he will use his influence to ensure that all power companies face up to their responsibilities: indeed, I would go so far as to encourage him to insist on social tariffs rather than discretionary schemes that require people to apply for relief.
Save the Children is to be commended for calling on the Scottish Executive and Westminster to prioritise the needs of the poorest children. It is right that we should target the most effort and resources on that. Tackling child poverty matters not just to Westminster, the current Executive or Parliament, but to all the people of Scotland. In that context, I want to highlight several suggestions that are at the heart of the Save the Children campaign and which have been echoed by Barnardo's and NCH in their briefings to MSPs.
First, will the Executive identify the families and children who are living in the severest poverty so that our policy interventions can be well targeted and therefore effective? Secondly, we should consider a package of policy responses that include increasing the availability of free child care, extending the entitlement to free school meals for the poorest families, improving school clothing grants and tackling the numbers of children who live in fuel poverty. Above all, we should understand what works and apply it in a focused way.
Finally, we should continue to work with our colleagues at Westminster. That could be through a joint ministerial committee—I know that many exist—or a joint parliamentary committee. Whatever the mechanism, I am clear that this is a shared agenda: our aspiration should be to do nothing short of ending child poverty across the UK, not simply in Scotland.
In the words of Save the Children,
"Children can't wait any longer. Let's fill in the missing pieces for children in struggling families."
Let us continue our work—all of us together—to end the scandal that is child poverty.
Ten members have requested to speak, so we must have tight speeches. I will consider later whether we need an extension.
I will try to be quick so that as many members as possible can speak.
I thank Jackie Baillie for securing the debate. It is incumbent on us all to do our utmost to end child poverty. It does not matter whether it is called relative, absolute or persistent poverty—it is poverty. It is unacceptable in the 21st century that one in four children in Scotland is living in such conditions and is disadvantaged through poverty. We cannot imagine just how difficult it is for them. Other members will have met, as I have, constituents who have no form of heating in their homes, who cannot clothe their children and who are dependent on benefits or are on low wages.
Tackling child poverty is a Westminster issue, but we have to force Westminster into doing something. I do not want to be political because we are talking about poverty, but for me the one way to get people in Scotland out of poverty is to have an independent Scotland. I will perhaps touch on that later.
Jackie Baillie's motion says that 100,000 children have been lifted out of poverty by certain policies—I acknowledge that. Equally, however, motion S2M-5198 that was lodged by Karen Whitefield mentions that 100,000 Scottish children now live in fuel poverty simply because of the rise in energy prices. Therein lies our dilemma. We can propose policies—Jackie Baillie mentioned various policies that the Executive could adopt and said that we should have a joint working party with Westminster—but we have a dilemma. Low pay, child benefit and other benefits, energy prices, debt and the so on are all the responsibility of Westminster. We do not have control over them.
I fully support Save the Children's campaign, Barnardo's and all the other organisations. I particularly support Save the Children's campaign for seasonal grants and I wish it every success. I condemn Scottish Power's obscene profits, which are up by 77 per cent to £483 million. We have the added concern of the Spanish takeover—we do not know what will happen.
Barnardo's says in its briefing that
"Both Westminster and Holyrood policies contribute to poverty reduction. It is reserved matters—Treasury and Social Security—that have greatest potential to impact on poverty."
Jackie Baillie said that Gordon Brown, the chancellor, is considering winter fuel payments for the poorest families, and other matters that are reserved to Westminster. That is good—something may come out of that. However, the people whom I speak to want decent jobs, access to decent houses and access to decent education. They do not want handouts, but we constantly tell people that they must take handouts. When people take a low-paid job, their low pay is backed by the child tax credit. If winter fuel payments are offered, they will have to apply for them. All those payments are handouts. In an independent Scotland, people would not need to rely on that.
Jackie Baillie mentioned power companies' profits. Gordon Brown and successive Westminster Governments have had the power that she described for years but have done nothing with it. I support Jackie Baillie in asking Gordon Brown to do something, but the basic problem lies in our own country in that we do not, unfortunately, have the necessary powers. It is sad to say that, but until we have control over our own moneys and until we have our own benefits system, we will have poor people and children living in poverty. I do not want that to continue, which is why I believe that independence is the best way forward. That is not electioneering, but a belief, and I hope that families listen to it.
I hope that we as a Parliament lobby Westminster and the next Prime Minister—who might not be Gordon Brown; he might be John Reid or anybody, for all we know. We should lobby Westminster if we are not independent, because we need that success and that power over our own affairs so that our people can live decent and independent lives.
I will try to be swift.
Poverty at any level is tough and can be a struggle, and child poverty often has even worse manifestations. Children cannot influence the situations in which they find themselves, nor can they take any responsibility for them. They are in a vulnerable period when their needs and welfare are paramount for their progression. It is therefore highly regrettable that in one of the wealthiest countries in the world—a member of the G8 and the first nation to industrialise fully—up to one in four children lives in poverty.
I am pleased that Jackie Baillie has given us the opportunity to discuss the topic and I thank her for that. As communities spokesman, I often deal with issues that concern poverty and urban decay and I am amazed by the effect that they have on people. That so many people still live in poverty is a disgrace.
On the specifics of child poverty, I sympathise with the situation that the motion describes and the intentions of the motion. I welcome the fact that Save the Children has chosen to campaign to highlight the situation. However, there is a broader picture—child poverty exists because poverty exists. The majority of us enjoy comfortable and secure lifestyles, but too many people still live in substandard conditions and worry about how to make ends meet. Many of those individuals have children, so if we are to help them significantly, we need to think long and hard about how we will bring people out of poverty and improve their chances in life.
I am disappointed that, despite a period of significant investment by Holyrood and Westminster, child poverty levels have at best remained static, while social mobility and educational standards have declined. It is often hard to see where money has been spent. Combating poverty is not about throwing around well-intentioned money while achieving little; it is about going to the root causes, identifying problems and implementing effective solutions.
I strongly believe that to alleviate poverty levels, we need to improve economic conditions as a whole. We need to encourage more jobs, regenerate our cities and restore our sense of community. By doing that, we will allow people to rise out of poverty by their own efforts, and child poverty rates will fall drastically.
Statistics show that children who are born into and grow up in poverty are more likely to be poor throughout adulthood. Therefore, it is imperative that the education system be used as the invaluable tool that it is to provide such children with the ability to escape from the poverty trap. We must ensure that schools are given the investment and authority that they need to deliver education that is fitted to the needs of individual children. It is important to protect the integrity of our exam system and vital that we allow a broader range of subjects—including vocational and life skills—to be taught, as opposed to our relying solely on an academic-subject based curriculum.
We must remember that there is scope in the community for dealing with poverty, including child poverty. The voluntary sector already does a range of important jobs; indeed, its ability to provide support, advice, child care, social interaction and community engagement is far greater than the ability of a host of Government initiatives. It is therefore important to provide the voluntary sector with the financial security that it needs to carry out its responsibilities adequately, and to give it the autonomy to do what the experience of people in that sector suggests is necessary.
I am confident that there is cross-party support on the vital issue of ending child poverty. Accordingly, I would welcome any group or organisation highlighting the relevant statistics and symptoms. It is a shame that such matters are not brought to our attention more frequently.
I am pleased to have discussed child poverty with Save the Children. I read the literature that it sent me and hope that it continues to maintain regular communication with politicians. That said, I think that money for seasonal grants could be better invested in reducing the poverty burden as a whole. I am committed to tackling child welfare issues and hope that Parliament can use the powers that are vested in it to make the right decisions for the most vulnerable sector of our society.
I congratulate Jackie Baillie on securing the debate and on her informed and sincere speech. I also congratulate Save the Children, which has been represented in Parliament's lobby for most of the week, on its useful briefing packs. My colleague Sandra White referred to its seasonal grants proposal, which must be investigated.
Many people have said what Save the Children's literature says, but it is worth saying such things again. Being in the poverty cycle impacts on a person's health, education, job prospects and life expectancy. The poverty cycle denies many children in rich countries such as Scotland happy and secure futures. Some 83,000 children in Scotland are living in severe and persistent poverty, which is extremely worrying. That is 83,000 children too many.
I do not often quote Tony Blair, because I do not agree with all his aims. However, I agree with what he said in 1999. He said then:
"Our historic aim will be for ours to be the first generation to end child poverty forever and it will take a generation. It is a twenty-year mission but I believe it can be done."
I am sorry to say to Jackie Baillie that, for reasons to which she referred, achieving that aim here will be mission impossible under the Scottish Parliament's devolved powers. On fuel poverty, for example, gas prices have increased nearly 90 per cent. For every 5 per cent increase in gas prices, 30,000 people go back into fuel poverty. We are not in control of jobs or the macroeconomy and are therefore unable to develop the economy that we want.
Jackie Baillie rightly alluded to jobs. Decent and well-paid jobs in which people have respect and contribute to society are the pathway out of poverty and to better lives for people and their families, but what do we have? Some 85 per cent of low-income families find the basics that Jackie Baillie mentioned—such as clothes and nutritious food—expensive and cannot buy them. Children growing up in poverty can expect little in life. I heard what Jackie Baillie said about what can be done under devolution—I agree with some of what she said, but we should have more power.
At First Minister's questions last week, I referred to extending winter fuel payments. That issue should be grasped. I do not know how people who are at home far more than I am and who are trying to wash, keep their children warm and keep their households going can afford to pay fuel bills. We know that poor people pay for their fuel by the most expensive means—pre-paid cards. I will not go into the fact that many cards have not been recalibrated and that people are now being charged for underpayment, which is outrageous.
I am not in favour of stigmatising funds such as the school clothing fund—people should use such funds. Currently, a uniform and physical education kit costs £224.69, but people can get £51.27 from the fund. However, some local authorities do not have such a fund.
I am all in favour of extending child care but, as the Poverty Alliance highlighted at the Communities Committee, there is no point in free child care or free leisure if public transport is too expensive for people to take their two children on the bus, which means that people are denied access to such things. I urge members to read that evidence. The Poverty Alliance voiced the experience of people who are coping with poverty. I will paraphrase one lady, who said that she is teaching her child how to live in poverty.
Finally, I ask Jackie Baillie to accept that, as nationalists, we sincerely believe that an independent Scotland would be a way of growing the economy. However, as she also said, the other side of the coin is social justice and redistribution.
I thank Jackie Baillie for lodging the motion and for making an excellent speech.
Some years ago, I visited a school in my constituency in what is considered a deprived area that ticks all the boxes of deprivation. The story competition on the wall was, "What do I want to do when I grow up?" One wee boy of about nine or 10 said to me, "That is my story up there." He pointed to a story that began, "I want to be like my big brother and sit in my pyjamas all day and watch television." That is a terrible indictment of the poverty of aspiration.
The question is whether he would write the same story today. I must honestly say that, in some areas, he would. He lives in poverty, he sees no way out of that poverty and he sees a different world when he looks at the television. That is clear inequality. We all agree that alleviating poverty is a major task but, as Jackie Baillie said, some 100,000 kids are not in poverty now who were in poverty when we established the Parliament in 1999. We have made progress, although there is still a lot to do.
A particular group of kids who find themselves in really helpless circumstances—I will call them the forgotten children—are the children of drug abusers. I believe that we need to provide increased support for such children. We would probably all agree that work is the main route out of poverty, but if a child's parents are drug users, work is not an option. Such kids experience their parents stealing or even prostituting themselves. When their parents work, they usually do so on the black market. Their parents work not to feed and clothe their kids but to feed a habit.
The erratic lifestyle of their parents means that the kids will sometimes be lifted up in the middle of the night and moved to the house of a grandparent or other member of the extended family for a short spell because of the state that their parents are in. As others have said, the family or extended family may not have enough money for school uniforms. That is laughable nowadays, as that is the last thing that one would think of. As for school trips, the kids can forget them as they have no chance. I hope that the minister will address such issues around kinship care, which I have raised before in this Parliament, when we deal with the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Bill next week.
What kind of life have those kids got? They have no money, no social skills and no support. They do not learn how to live or play with other people. Their parents are stoned out of their minds and show absolutely no interest in them. They are moved from pillar to post. The extended family might try to do what it can but such families are usually poverty stricken themselves.
Those kids are not only in bleak financial poverty but, in many instances, they are also carers. They may be carers of younger children and, indeed, sometimes they are carers of their parents. As young carers, they try to ensure that young ones get to school on time—hopefully, with something in their stomachs—and take care of their parents when their parents are unable to look after themselves.
There is no point in talking if we do not do something. Like Jackie Baillie, I believe that the Scottish Executive needs to work in tandem with Westminster and voluntary organisations, including the National Union of Students, which has considered the issue seriously and come up with recommendations. There needs to be a change in the benefits system.
Providing opportunities for young people who are not in education, employment or training—NEETs—can make a difference, as the cross-party group on the subject heard at its meeting at lunch time today. We all agree that the way out of poverty is work, but the work should not be a dead-end job. Why should such young people not be put on a path to careers? Our aims should be: getting children out of poverty into decent poverty-free lives; welfare reform; and improving the path to good education and good sustainable employment.
Like Jackie Baillie, I ask the Scottish Executive to redouble its efforts. Like her, I also think and hope that Gordon Brown will give us good news on fuel poverty next week. There is no doubt that we need less talk and more action.
I, too, congratulate Jackie Baillie on bringing a very important issue to the chamber for debate. I hope that she will appreciate the fraternal way in which I will disagree with some of the fundamental points that she made.
By way of introduction, I recall the words of the social reformer and writer Richard Tawney, who said many years ago:
"What thoughtful rich people call the problem of poverty, thinking poor people call, with equal justice, the problem of riches."
Approaching the question from the opposite end of the spectrum might shape our ideas and demands in relation to child poverty.
In 1997, when Mr Blair was elected as the first Labour Prime Minister for 18 years, the richest 1,000 people in Britain had an obscene combined wealth of £98.99 billion. When the Labour Government was elected in 1997, inequality was already grotesque, but there were hopes that that obscenity would be tackled. Today, in 2006, the richest 1,000 people in Britain have a combined wealth not of £98.99 billion but of £300 billion. Under a Labour Government—a Labour Government—they have experienced a 205 per cent increase in their wealth. When we call for higher pensions, a higher minimum wage and higher benefits, we are told that we cannot afford them, but there has been a 205 per cent increase in the wealth of the richest people to £300 billion. Last year, average chief executive pay increased by 47 per cent. Chief executives of FTSE 100 index companies now have average pay of £2.8 million.
In 2000, at the beginning of this decade, the average pay differential between managing directors and workers was 39:1; today, in 2006, it is 100:1. That is the growth in inequality over which Labour has presided. It has taken place under Labour's watch, because Labour has refused to take any steps to tackle inequality. Jackie Baillie and Trish Godman talk about looking for good news from Gordon Brown next week. Good news from Gordon Brown next week would be that he is going to tax the wealthy more and to redistribute wealth from those who can afford it, so that we no longer have to means test our children and low-income families.
According to the Executive's own figures, given to me in a written answer last week, in 2006 20 per cent of individuals here in Scotland are trying to live on less than £5,000 a year and 21 per cent of Scottish households are trying to survive on less than £10,000 a year. That is poverty—that is the problem that must be tackled.
I say to my colleagues in the Scottish National Party that we need independence, but independence without socialism means doing absolutely nothing about Scottish Power, British Gas and the rest of them, and they will continue to bleed us dry with their prices and profits. Independence must be linked with socialism if we are really to tackle child poverty.
I thank Jackie Baillie for lodging the motion and congratulate Trish Godman on ensuring that we do not avoid the appalling reality of the problem that we face and the corrosive effects of poverty on people.
Tommy Sheridan has a point. In Norway, where there is a much flatter rewards system, the rewards for chief executive officers are between six and 10 times those that the average person gets, whereas here they are 30, 35 or 40 times the average wage.
I support Save the Children's calls for seasonal grants for children throughout Britain, but here in Scotland the Executive has the power to enact legislation that could make a real difference to the daily lives of the poorest children.
Everyone will have seen the fuel poverty figures released by the Executive today, which show that, in 2004, 14.5 per cent of all households in Scotland were forced to spend more than 10 per cent of their income on fuel. Although the figures show that the Executive has had some success, they are two years out of date. As we all know, in that period fuel prices have rocketed. The motion points out that the Executive has lifted 100,000 children out of poverty, but the rise in fuel prices means that 100,000 children are in fuel poverty in Scotland, so we are running to stand still.
On putting children at the heart of policy decisions, when it comes to energy policy, we suggest that microrenewables offer a reliable solution to ensuring that Scottish families are no longer at the mercy of international oil crises and the profiteering of energy companies. Through organisations such as the Energy Saving Trust, the Executive can do more to ensure that advice and grants for renewable energy are targeted at the poorest families.
To get families out of poverty we must make them less dependent, and improving the energy efficiency of homes is the perfect example of such an approach. We acknowledge that energy efficiency in homes is improving and commend the Executive for that—much has been done. In 2003-04, only 6 per cent of households lived in dwellings rated as poor and 40 per cent lived in dwellings rated as good, but good is not good enough: we could do much better than that. A rating of good in a dwelling in which fuel prices double is definitely not good enough. We must ensure that those in the most extreme poverty are not left behind. Money spent on insulation saves money for households for a lifetime. There are no maintenance costs and there is no need to rely on the whims of future Governments.
Shiona Baird's Home Energy Efficiency Targets (Scotland) Bill had the backing of MSPs from across the political spectrum, as well as from leading social justice and environmental charities. However, the Communities Committee recently decided not to consider the bill in this session of Parliament, in effect kicking it into the long grass.
We have the opportunity and the ability to make a difference to the lives of children in Scotland. As the weather turns colder, we must do everything that we can to ensure that no parent has to choose between feeding their children properly and keeping them warm.
I welcome the opportunity to participate in this important debate, which Jackie Baillie has secured. The number of Scottish National Party members in the chamber is a clear indication of the priority that we in the SNP place on the issue. Of course, the facts provided by various pieces of research reinforce the need to engage with the subject.
Figures from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation indicate that, in the most deprived ward in my parliamentary constituency, 44.4 per cent of children aged between zero and 15 are dependent on the workless, which is one definition of poverty. Although the overall figure for the Aberdeenshire Council area is 10.5 per cent, a significant number of wards are in serious difficulties. In the City of Edinburgh Council area, which by that definition has twice the overall level of poverty of the rural area of Aberdeenshire, the figure for the most deprived ward is 59.6 per cent, so three out of every five children meet the test of being dependent on the workless. In Glasgow, where the overall figure is a startling 39.4 per cent, the figure for Parkhead, the most deprived ward, is 63.4 per cent. At the other end of the scale in Glasgow, the figure for Jordanhill is 4.2 per cent. The localisation of deprivation is one of the key challenges for Governments—here and at Westminster—and local authorities, whatever their complexion.
In Jackie Baillie's constituency, the percentage of children aged between zero and 15 who are dependent on the workless is 28.8 per cent overall and 44.1 per cent in the most deprived ward. The reason why she perhaps brought the debate to Parliament is that the figure for the least deprived ward is 10.1 per cent, which is the overall figure for the whole of Aberdeenshire, which tells us a little bit about something. The issue should engage MSPs and should be debated.
I am glad that, in the past couple of weeks, Gordon Brown has appeared on GMTV to nail his colours to the mast. Of course, I remain sceptical until I hear what he has to say, but he is a man of good will—I hope. However, if he decides to introduce seasonal grants, as requested by the campaign that will be launched immediately after the debate, he must not rob Peter to pay Paul but add new money to the pot of support for the neediest families in our society.
In the 25-country European Union, the United Kingdom is ranked 21st in the league table of child poverty. Of the long list of countries that escaped from the Soviet Union in the 1990s—hardly an economically successful group—only Slovakia and Poland are ranked lower. All the other such countries, which had to struggle out of serious deprivation, are doing better than the UK. That shows how far we still have to go and the steps that we must take to get to where we need to be.
At the moment, the savethechildren.org.uk website is running a poll on whether child poverty can be beaten. Although only 70 people had voted when I looked at the site, 70 per cent of them thought that, with proper investment, the problem could be solved. Let us do so—and soon.
If anyone is prepared to move it, I am minded to accept a motion without notice under the relevant rule in standing orders to extend the debate by 10 minutes.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended until 6.10 pm.—[Christine Grahame.]
Motion agreed to.
I congratulate Jackie Baillie on securing the debate. I should also congratulate the Executive. As I often criticise what it does, I think it only fair to recognise that it has made progress in dealing with poverty. However, we still need to address some very serious issues, and I want to draw attention to a few that have not been highlighted by other members, who, I might add, have already covered a lot of ground.
Ted Heath used to talk about the unacceptable face of capitalism. To my mind, the financial lenders and fuel companies are two of those unacceptable faces. They act in a totally immoral and disgraceful way—for example, with fuel bills rocketing, people who have to put money in a meter find that it does not go as far these days—and we need to sort them out. Of course, the Parliament might not have such powers, but we should at least try to shame them into more sensible actions.
Traditionally, we have poured a lot of money into poor areas, only for them to remain very poor. As other members have pointed out, they have been unable to catch up. Although we should not stop trying to help the poor, we should perhaps use our brains a bit more and find ways of helping them to help themselves. A lot of these people are very bright and are, potentially, energetic, but they lack self-confidence, self-esteem and ambition. Moreover, they do not understand the system, which is often hostile to them and prevents them from getting their foot on the first rung of the ladder. The first rung is always the hardest and, until they can get their foot on it and climb up, they will struggle.
As a result, we need to examine some good enterprises that give young people some understanding of business. The other day in the Parliament, I met some young people who had worked with Young Enterprise Scotland, which operates in schools and places such as young offenders institutions and helps to teach young people about business by allowing them to set up their own small businesses. All sorts of groups, such as the Prince's Trust, Barnardo's and the Wise Group, are teaching people to go out and do things themselves rather than relying on the state.
We should put more systematic effort into this area. Some of the money that, at the moment, is poured rather thoughtlessly into trying to help poorer communities could be targeted much better. We need to educate people about the use of money. I met an interesting group that has had some success in England with courses that tell people how to manage their money. It hopes to start up in Scotland.
We should help people to help themselves. That means that we have to train up and pay youth workers, family support people and so on to help families and, especially, young people to be more constructive, to do work in their communities, to volunteer and to work towards having a successful career.
We can crack this business. I know that Jesus said that the poor are always with us, but he is not always right. I think that we can really go for it and show that we can do better than could be done in Palestine in the year zero.
I thank Jackie Baillie for bringing this important debate to the Parliament.
I was asked in a survey what was the biggest luxury of my adult life. After some consideration, I answered that it was gas central heating. Living in a freezing house in the west of Scotland in winter is nothing short of torture. It affects everything—people's mood, children's homework and so on. It affects people's entire beings. Being freezing all the time and never getting to heat up is a form of torture—I say that as someone who was always freezing and still is.
One of the scary things is that none of us knows where energy prices are going to go next year—or even next month. Members who are worried about that can sign my motion on the public ownership of Scottish Power, which I lodged today.
I am in favour of seasonal grants. However, if we are discussing the wider issues of poverty, there are other, more central issues, that we should address. Last week or the week before, I went to One Plus's annual general meeting, at which we heard a presentation by the London-based Centre for Social and Economic Inclusion that made it clear that the overarching Government policy is to get people back into work. That is the route out of poverty for everyone, regardless of whether they have children. The Government's targets are to get 70 per cent of lone parents back into work and to get 85 per cent of all adults into work.
The figure that stood out most starkly in the presentation showed that an absolute majority of children who are living in poverty live in households in which either one parent or both parents are working. That is the figure that we should be talking about. The percentage of children who are living in poverty in households in which both parents are on benefits has gone down. What are we going to do about those children who are living in poverty in spite of the fact that their parents have already done what Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are asking them to do? We should bear it in mind that many families fluctuate below and above the poverty line.
If we really want to tackle the problem, we will have to do one of two things. We will have either to increase the minimum wage dramatically or to change the working tax credit. Children who live in poverty are concentrated in families in which only one parent is bringing in an income. It is interesting that, when they talk about poverty, people—especially politicians—never talk about money. Politicians never say what they think an income should be. The working tax credit brings the income of a lone parent family up to between £10,000 and £14,000 a year, depending on how many hours are worked. Is that acceptable for families with one or two children? Can people live on that?
Those people are living on the breadline, and they are worrying. They are not living a life in which they can meet all the demands on them, have a holiday and so on. Even if Gordon Brown is discussing the issue, what is he going to do about that? I do not suppose that he will change the minimum wage, although he should to raise it dramatically because the working tax credit takes the minimum wage to between only £7 and £8 an hour. Where should we fix the working tax credit so that it will lift all children out of poverty? Should it be fixed at £20,000 or £25,000? I would go for £25,000, because that is the average wage of a skilled worker in Scotland. We need that type of debate on policy. We must nail our colours to the mast and say how much we think the figure should be.
My final point is about getting lone parents into education, given the concentration of children in poverty who live in lone-parent families. If someone goes back to college or university, they get £6,000 per year for 30 weeks. That is not enough.
I, too, congratulate Jackie Baillie on securing tonight's debate and on her opening speech, the sincerity of which shone through.
We should be having this debate during the day and voting on it because the subject is, with all due respect, too important to be left to a member's business debate at the tail end of the parliamentary day. It is one of the biggest challenges that Scotland faces, so I hope that the minister will be able to schedule a debate on poverty, particularly child poverty, sometime early in the new year.
There are three main causes of child poverty in our society, the first of which is unemployment. I agree totally with Jackie Baillie that the best anti-poverty measure is full employment. However, as Frances Curran pointed out, it is not enough just to get people into jobs—we must also tackle the second major cause of child poverty and poverty among adults, which is low income and low pay. There is no point in people being in jobs if they would be better off on benefits, or if they have to live in poverty.
The third major cause of child poverty is poor housing. Despite all the efforts that have been made over many years, we have never really broken the back of Scotland's housing problem. For example, we are still only building about 27,000 new houses in Scotland every year compared to southern Ireland, where 85,000 new builds were started last year.
One of the consequences of the current levels of poverty is poor educational attainment. According to the Scottish Funding Council, the same percentage of youngsters—about 14 per cent—from working class parents are attending university today as was the case 30 to 40 years ago. The number of people who are classed as coming from working class parents is smaller than it used to be because many parents would now be defined as middle class, but that still emphasises the fact that we have not made any significant progress in giving people from such homes access to higher education.
As we all know, another major consequence of child poverty is that people's health as adults is badly affected, as is their longevity. No matter what problems we are talking about—housing, unemployment, low pay, education or health—poverty runs through them all as a major theme that has to be tackled.
I would like the chancellor to take three measures in his budget, one of which is the seasonal payments for which Barnardo's is calling. Another is implementation of the Child Poverty Action Group's recommendation that child benefits be paid to every child at the level that is currently paid to first children. That would go a long way towards helping to alleviate the worst of the problem.
Although progress has been made on getting some children out of poverty, that is true only in respect of the definition whereby children are said to be in poverty if they live in a household whose income is less than 60 per cent of the median household income. Many children have gone from living in households in which the income was under 60 per cent of the average to living in households in which it is just over 60 per cent of the average, but the percentage of children who live in households in which the income is less than 40 per cent of the average has increased. We face a major challenge and I hope that the chancellor and others will take radical measures to tackle a huge problem.
Like other members, I begin by congratulating my colleague Jackie Baillie on securing the debate. I commend her speech and those of other members.
A majority of Jackie Baillie's constituents live in West Dunbartonshire, as do a majority of mine. The area has the second-highest concentration of deprivation in Scotland. This evening's debate affords us an opportunity to consider how we can best address problems of disadvantage and lift families with children out of poverty in West Dunbartonshire and elsewhere in Scotland.
Since 1999, the Executive has worked in partnership with the United Kingdom Government to introduce a range of new programmes and initiatives that are aimed at allowing us to meet our shared target of eradicating child poverty by 2020. Considerable progress has been made, especially in raising the household incomes of families with children, although, as members have said, there is still much to do. Measures that have had an effect include the introduction of child tax credit and working families tax credit, a huge expansion in child care provision through sure start Scotland and the supporting people initiative, which I remember introducing when I was the Deputy Minister for Social Justice nearly four years ago. Compared with what went before, those and other measures have helped to transform the lives of children and their parents.
Lack of money is the most immediate issue for families who live in poverty. The past seven years have seen the most radical ever redistribution of resources to low income families, which has been spearheaded by a Scottish Chancellor of the Exchequer. Gordon Brown has a deep personal commitment to improving the prospects of those children and families who most need and deserve our support. The resources that have been made available to Scottish families by the Labour Westminster Government are the single most important factor in taking us towards our goal of eradicating child poverty within a generation.
I understand what the minister says about all the measures that the chancellor has taken but, as the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust has shown, inequality in Britain today is worse than it was on the day that Gordon Brown became chancellor.
I believe that there has been a substantial reduction in inequality.
Poverty is a complex phenomenon that cannot simply be equated with low income. The causes of poverty include lack of access to good education and training opportunities, health inequalities, social fragmentation and isolation, poor-quality housing and poor access to transport links. Significant improvements have been made in all those areas. If those matters, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament, do not continue to be addressed, the inevitable consequence will be a culture of low aspiration, especially in the most disadvantaged communities.
In addition, we must consider how we can support the children who are directly affected by some of the factors that Trish Godman so eloquently described, such as the uncertainty and disruption that are caused by parental drug and alcohol abuse. That is another task for us.
The Scottish Executive was right to set itself ambitious targets—targets that would have been considered fanciful when I first became an elected politician 16 years ago. At that time, west central Scotland, in particular, suffered from high unemployment, tight expenditure constraints on local government and extremely limited provision for families and especially mothers. Any reasonable analysis of the changes that have been made since 1999 shows that dramatic results have been achieved. By no means would I claim that we have solved all the complex and persistent problems that lead to people living in poverty, but significant inroads have been made into tackling the continuing low achievement of our poorest-performing pupils, which prevents them from making a successful transition from school to work. The stubborn inequalities that exist in health have been addressed, too, and measures have been put in place to help people to overcome barriers to entering the labour market.
As a consequence of those and other measures, more than 130,000 children have been lifted out of relative poverty since 1997, if we exclude housing costs from the calculations. The UK Government set a target of reducing child poverty by a quarter between 1998-99 and 2004-05. Over that period, Scotland has outperformed the target and 100,000 Scottish children have been lifted from relative poverty, which represents a reduction of 34 per cent. That is more progress than has been achieved anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Since 2001-02, the Executive's actions have meant that 20,000 children have been lifted out of severe poverty, with a further 10,000 if housing costs are taken into account.
I believe that that is significant progress. I also believe—and a number of people share my view—that securing meaningful employment is the best and most sustainable route out of poverty. The most effective way of lifting children out of poverty is to enhance the ambitions and job prospects of their parents. By working together, Governments at Westminster and Holyrood have been able to help those furthest from the labour market to develop skills, secure the support needed to get them into work and sustain them in that employment. One group that we have been particularly successful in assisting is lone parents. The latest figures show that 57.2 per cent of lone parents are in employment in Scotland, compared with the Great Britain average of 56.6 per cent. That marks an increase of 10 per cent since 1999, although I accept that there is still scope to do more.
The figure of 100,000 children lifted out of relative poverty was calculated excluding housing costs. What would the figure be if the Executive included those costs, as the Child Poverty Action Group wants to do?
I think that the figure is about 25 per cent if housing costs are taken into account.
A sum of £50 million is being spent over a four-year period under the working for families initiative in those local authority areas, such as West Dunbartonshire, where there is the highest concentration of workless households. That investment enables parents from the most vulnerable communities and groups to access education, training or employment by providing the necessary help and support with child care. In Glasgow, the One Plus sustainable employment project assists vulnerable parents to return to and sustain employment by providing pre and in-work support for a period of six months. There are no magic wands or instant solutions. Eliminating poverty requires consistent effort, and considerable challenges still exist, but those measures are making a difference and are achieving significant dimensions of change.
I welcome Save the Children's campaign because it reminds all of us that many families in Scotland still lack the opportunities and support that they need to make the most of their potential. Save the Children is calling for the introduction of seasonal grants to ease the pressure on the budgets of the poorest families at a time when demands on disposable income can increase—during the winter, at Christmas and during the school holidays. Changes to the benefits system in order to permit such seasonal grants are, as we know, reserved matters for the UK Government, but I assure members that we will be discussing those matters with Westminster colleagues as part of our on-going dialogue with them.
Save the Children is right to highlight the additional pressures that are placed on poor families as a result of fuel poverty. Over the past 18 months, rises in fuel prices have put pressure on many family projects that are overstretched. We will do what we can to encourage energy companies to protect those who are most vulnerable to price increases. As members have said, that is an issue that one hopes that the chancellor will examine in preparing his pre-budget statement.
Our programmes are making a significant difference to fuel poverty. To date, we have spent £294 million on our central heating and warm deal programmes. Over the next two years, £102 million has already been committed. More than a quarter of a million homes have been insulated under the warm deal, and many families with children have benefited from measures such as loft and cavity wall insulation. Glasgow Housing Association will shortly complete its central heating programme. When the final installations in Glasgow take place, every house that is rented from a registered social landlord in Scotland will, where the tenant wants it, have central heating.
For too long, poverty, deprivation and disadvantage have blighted the lives of too many of our people. The Executive, working in partnership with the UK Government, has put in place policies and initiatives that will help to ensure that every Scot gets the opportunity to enjoy a decent standard of living, a decent income and a decent quality of life. We must maintain the momentum that has been built up on tackling child poverty. We will consider the issues that Save the Children has raised and we will discuss them with colleagues in Whitehall as we take forward our shared commitment to eradicating child poverty across the UK by 2020.
As we succeed in lifting people out of poverty, those left behind will inevitably be those who are most difficult to reach, which is why I agree that we need to target resources more closely on the most deprived families.
This has been a constructive debate. There are a range of issues, including education, health, employment, and support for vulnerable people and families, all of which need to be addressed. I hope that all members, no matter which party, keep the goal of ending child poverty at the top of their political agenda. It will remain at the top of my political agenda and that of my party.
Meeting closed at 18:10.