Poverty
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1260, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on poverty. As we are fairly constrained for time, I will hold members to the time limits, certainly in the initial stages.
I apologise for the fragility of my voice. I know that it will be a matter of great distress to the Opposition parties that I am struggling to speak, but I will do my best to get through the debate.
I am pleased to bring to Parliament a debate that goes to the very heart of the kind of Scotland that we want to be. I am sure that all of us, whatever our political persuasion and despite our political disagreements, agree on the vital importance of tackling the poverty, inequality and deprivation that have held back our country for too long. As we debate the issue, almost one in five of our fellow Scots—almost 900,000 citizens—live in poverty. That is unacceptable. It is a tragedy that we cannot tolerate and it is why making poverty history in Scotland will be the core of everything our Government does.
Last November, we published our spending plans and "The Government Economic Strategy", which are the twin pillars of a new age of ambition in Scotland. Together, they provide the strategy and the measures that will put Scotland firmly on course for success and ensure that we can deliver our overarching purpose of increasing sustainable economic growth. Addressing decades of economic underperformance requires a fresh approach. It means acknowledging that business and people, not just Governments, drive economic growth. Our history and our instincts tell us that Scotland's people are our greatest asset, which is why people are at the heart of our approach.
We look to neighbours such as Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Norway. All of those small independent countries are wealthier than the United Kingdom and have lower levels of poverty and inequality than the UK has. Their experiences tell us that Scotland will do well and reach its full potential only when more Scots do well. It is vital that we grow the economy and release Scotland's entrepreneurial and creative talents, but that is not enough—we must also share increased prosperity and ensure that all in Scotland can flourish. That is why one of our first steps has been to set tough national targets to ensure that economic growth is shared fairly among the people of Scotland.
By 2017, we want to increase overall income, and the proportion of that income that is earned by the lowest 30 per cent of earners in the country. Also by 2017, we want to narrow the gap in participation between Scotland's best and worst performing regions.
The cabinet secretary talks about setting tough targets for 2017, but no figures appear to be attached to them, whether represented as a percentage or as the amount of success required in a general area. Will she elaborate on how the targets will be benchmarked or measured?
Robert Brown makes a fair point. In the strategic framework that we will develop from this discussion, we will have to ensure that we can measure our progress on targets. The targets are long-term targets—they have to be, given the magnitude of the challenge—but by working consistently and measurably towards them, we will make real inroads into the income and regional inequalities that have held Scotland back for too long.
For clarity, will Nicola Sturgeon explain why such an emphasis is now placed on the solidarity golden rule and why a dismissive remark has been made about the internationally recognised definition of poverty? The internationally accepted standard for poverty income is technically defined as income that is less than 60 per cent of the United Kingdom median income. Why has there been a shift?
It is important to stress that the standard definition of poverty remains, but we are making absolutely clear our determination to meet our solidarity and cohesion golden rules so that we close the gap between the richest and poorest in our society. I would have thought that Labour members would find it in themselves to approve of that. Clearly, things have indeed moved on under new Labour.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I have to make some progress; I will perhaps take an intervention later.
Tackling poverty does not just make practical sense; we also have a moral responsibility to make Scotland wealthier and fairer. We bear that moral responsibility most of all to children. That is why this Government remains committed to halving child poverty by 2010 and eradicating it by 2020. Although there is no doubt whatsoever that independence for Scotland would give us many more levers to meet that target, we will in the meantime work with the United Kingdom Government and use all our devolved powers to try to achieve it.
Today we are issuing a discussion paper that is designed to spark debate among stakeholders across Scotland and generate a dialogue to inform the way forward. We want to hear the views not only of those who work in the poverty field but of people who are themselves in poverty, so that our approach to these issues can be grounded firmly in what they tell us. We will be proud to lead the discussion with our partners in the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Poverty Alliance—groups that are, to quote Labour's amendment, "experienced in tackling poverty". The discussion will allow us to develop a strategic framework for tackling poverty, inequality and deprivation.
The framework will replace the closing the opportunity gap approach, on which we are today making available an evaluation report, but that does not mean that we want to throw out all that went before simply for the sake of change—far from it. Yes, we must identify where fresh approaches are needed, but we remain supportive of what has been working and is still working.
We all know that poverty is about much more than low income. It is about being excluded from a range of opportunities to lead a fulfilling life, about being unable to lead a healthy life, about being unable to realise one's potential through education and skills, about being unable to get into sustained quality work and, all too often, about being unable even to have a place called home.
Often, poverty is compounded by a lack of basic social skills and by the problems that are created by living in fractured, deprived communities that may be unsafe, lacking in services and lacking most of all in hope. Our approach will recognise that poverty cannot be sorted by the Government alone or by any quick or simple formula, but it is important that the Government does not make matters worse. Labour's amendment talks about the need to help "the poorest households". I agree, but I encourage Labour members to reflect on the fact that the UK Labour Government's decision to scrap the 10 per cent starting rate of tax penalises all but the richest 30 per cent of people. That is the Labour record on tackling poverty.
We need to break down structural and cultural barriers and equip vulnerable individuals with the resilience and strength to overcome them. We want first and foremost to tackle the root causes of poverty through early intervention and prevention in areas such as education, health and employment, but we also need, through offering more responsive public services, to help those who are already in poverty get out of poverty—and we need to alleviate the impact of poverty on people's lives. We will consider what actions need to be taken in all those areas.
One way in which we will seek to maximise incomes is by promoting increased benefits take-up—which I am pleased to see is called for in the Tory amendment. That is particularly important for pensioners, who cannot lift themselves out of poverty through work alone.
Will Nicola Sturgeon give way?
I have to make some progress just now.
I am pleased to announce that we will work with the Department for Work and Pensions to launch in the spring of this year a pilot project that will be aimed at maximising benefit income for the one older person in three who, under Labour, did not claim the benefits to which they were entitled.
Of course, even the best strategy will count for nothing if it is not followed through by delivery on the ground, so our framework will articulate how national policy must connect with local delivery. The single outcome agreements and our new relationship with local government, established through the concordat with COSLA, will be central to delivery. That is a partnership of trust and mutual respect, focused on achieving sustained, shared outcomes that really change people's lives.
The commitment to delivery is backed by investment. The new fairer Scotland fund will provide £435 million over the next three years to help community planning partnerships tackle the poverty and deprivation that affect too many people throughout Scotland. It brings together seven individual funding streams, thereby reducing bureaucracy and simplifying the funding landscape for our partners.
Will Nicola Sturgeon give way?
Not just now.
The fund will also support collective action across all community planning partners and act as a catalyst to mobilise mainstream budgets to help tackle the root causes of poverty and deprivation rather than leave us struggling to deal with the symptoms, as we have done all too often in the past. Early intervention, employability and skills will be key elements, building on positive achievements that have already been realised in many parts of Scotland under previous initiatives.
It is no secret that this Government believes passionately that only independence will give Scotland the full range of levers to tackle the deep-seated poverty, inequality and deprivation that scar our country. That is why, in the context of the national conversation on choosing Scotland's future, we will seek views on how constitutional change might help us to tackle poverty and create a fairer Scotland. In the meantime, we need to—and will—do our job by using our existing powers to maximum effect, and we will work with the UK Government to ensure that its policies address Scotland's needs.
This debate is of the utmost importance to our vision for Scotland. How we fare on this issue, perhaps more than on any other, will help to define the kind of Scotland we build for the future and for future generations. I commend the motion to Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that poverty, inequality and deprivation are among the greatest challenges to be faced in Scotland today, that tackling these challenges is core to the delivery of the Government Economic Strategy and that development of a framework for taking forward these aspects of the Government Economic Strategy will contribute to the creation of a fairer Scotland.
I thank Nicola Sturgeon for bravely soldiering on despite her fragile voice. I suppose that members will be equally disappointed that there is no fragility in my voice this afternoon.
The Labour Party welcomes the debate very much. I cannot imagine that any members disagree with our view that the fight against poverty must remain a central plank of Government policy. The Parliament cannot afford ever to lose sight of the hardest pressed in our society. We must appreciate the harsh reality of people struggling to ensure that their children are not left behind all the other children and the truly human consequences of reinforced disadvantage in education, work and health.
The toll of disadvantage is borne not only by the individuals, families and communities involved; it is, of course, a key loss to the country's social and economic future. As many people have acknowledged—including, I think, the cabinet secretary in her speech—real and deep-seated change has followed Labour's unprecedented commitment to end child poverty within a generation. In Scotland, we met our target of reducing child poverty by a quarter. Indeed, by 2005, the proportion of children in relative poverty had fallen from one child in three to one child in four and we were on track to fulfil our promise to halve child poverty by 2010.
I listened to the cabinet secretary's response to Robert Brown. I hope that measuring progress on targets will be in the new framework that the Government is drawing up.
The number of pensioners who live in poverty has reduced from one in three to one in five. The number who live in absolute poverty has reduced from one in three to one in 20. Some would say that that is not good enough. Many Scottish National Party members told us that when we were in power. I look forward to learning what the SNP's more ambitious targets will be.
Our targets were achieved following a programme of serious investment in child care, support for homeless people and action to tackle inequality and educational disadvantage.
I have had a little time to read the SNP document and the press reports on it. The cabinet secretary might pick up on this, but we are entitled to ask a number of significant questions about the fresh approach that we have been promised by this new Government.
I am happy to accept clarification of this, but I understand that the SNP Government is thinking of dropping the use of measurements of absolute and relative poverty. If that is the case, it is truly staggering. It is firmly established that action to improve the living circumstances of the poor is vital, but tackling poverty must always be defined as affording our most disadvantaged citizens opportunities to attain a proper stake in improving living standards and shifting aspirations. The SNP cannot claim any credibility in tackling inequality if it abandons the use of the measurement of relative poverty.
The definitions of poverty will not change. We want to set clear targets for tackling poverty. We are saying that the target will be to increase not just the overall wealth of the country but the proportion of wealth earned by the bottom 30 per cent. I hope that members throughout the chamber can agree about that.
I was not suggesting that the cabinet secretary will shift the definitions of relative and absolute poverty—I do not think that she could do that; I was asking what use is made of those definitions and measurements. I am sure that that conversation will continue, because I do not think that just one target can be set without definitions being applied across the board. I am sure that that issue will emerge in the consultations.
In the press publicity about the SNP's new approach, much has been made of the language that is used and how it is to inform the SNP's thinking. I do not suppose that it is much comfort to those who are struggling to make ends meet to hear that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are spending their time thinking about what words to use; they would prefer us to focus on the actions. However, I concede that there is an argument that the words that we use matter and that they should imply that certain actions will follow.
Although the cabinet secretary did not say this—she did not take any Labour interventions—I am concerned that the SNP wants to dump the term "social justice." Social justice is an internationally used term that is widely understood and associated with progressive Governments throughout the world. Many others use it—it has meaning beyond the political world. There was a clear illustration of that only last night, when a leading member of the SNP, at a Burns supper, described Robert Burns as the poet of social justice. When Mike Russell said that, everybody knew exactly what he meant. Perhaps we now need to go back to him and say, "Sorry, Mike, but Robert Burns is now the poet of coherence." That does not have quite the same ring to it.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I am sorry, but I need to watch my time.
No doubt Mike Russell will be told that social justice is to be added to the list of banned terms.
We all know that tackling poverty is a demanding challenge for us all. The key question that we have to put to the SNP is, "What is the core of its fresh approach?" It used to ally itself with the Scottish Socialist Party when we talked about poverty; now it seems that it is allying itself with the Tories. Is it the SNP's argument that general tax cuts help everyone and that poor people still benefit even if the money does not go directly to them but to the better-off? That sounds very much like trickle-down economics to me.
Is it the SNP's argument that universal benefits help the poor as a matter of course? Professor David Bell recently pointed out that the proposals from the SNP that we have heard so far do not help the poor, because the poor are already in receipt of the benefits in question. He went on to say that the £1 billion that will be spent to freeze council tax will directly benefit those who are in the top three bands.
It is legitimate, therefore, to ask the SNP what it is going to do about poverty. It has finally acknowledged that there is no magic wand that can change the statistics overnight. We are entitled to ask what resources in its budget have been explicitly directed towards our poorest households. Where are those commitments? Why has the SNP abandoned our programme of investments? We have always argued that universal services are important, but that they must be underpinned by targeted resources that are directed to the poor, in the form of national programmes that deliver on poverty.
If Labour had been in office, we would not have turned our back on social justice or cut the budgets that are critical to it. For us, social justice would have been centre stage. Tackling poverty is at the core of Labour's beliefs. It not only addresses social need; it facilitates economic opportunity. Labour's approach is, undoubtedly, internationalist. With Gordon Brown's leadership in the fight against global poverty—[Laughter.] Well, it is recognised throughout the world.
In power, Labour would have targeted investment in child care toward those in most need. We would have targeted our money on health and education, on our poorest communities and on our poorest families. The fairer Scotland budget would not have been cut under Labour's leadership. We would have invested in skills and training. That is how poverty is tackled. A coherence target means absolutely nothing. The issue needs real resources and investment. For Labour, economic prosperity and social justice go hand in hand. Sadly, it looks as though the SNP has abandoned that idea.
I move amendment S3M-1260.2, to leave out from "that tackling these challenges" to end and insert
"; regrets that the SNP's approach fails to respond to the needs of the poorest households in Scotland and fails to engage those groups experienced in tackling poverty in finding solutions, and believes that social justice is a priority for the Scottish people and should remain a central policy commitment of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament."
Tommy Sheridan will be pleased to know that he left behind him a legacy of solidarity that is now a golden rule for this Government.
Reading "Taking Forward the Government Economic Strategy", which mentions the concept of independence, it is quite interesting to note that it says that, between 1995 and 2005, the percentage of people living in poverty fell in both parts of the UK, while in Ireland, Denmark, Sweden and Finland, it rose. Independence is not a golden rule.
I welcome the cabinet secretary's initiative to aid benefits take-up, particularly by pensioners.
Does the member recognise the critical role of organisations such as Citizens Advice Scotland in relation to increasing benefits take-up? Does she share my concern that it is possible that such organisations' funding is vulnerable? Will she join me in seeking a commitment from the SNP Government to continue that funding?
I volunteered with Citizens Advice Scotland for many years, so I can testify to the excellent work that it does. I sincerely hope that its funding will not be cut.
Greater emphasis must be given to getting people out of poverty and, if possible, back into work. There are many types and causes of poverty and just as many ways of dealing with it. We still have in Scotland what is known as genteel poverty. Many people—many of them elderly—are too proud to admit that money is short, and blankly refuse to take up benefits. Largely in the Highlands, there is also hidden poverty. When people live in a beautiful location—as opposed to a deprived part of a large city—the setting can conceal much poverty, and there are the added problems of lack of public transport and high fuel costs, and, often, day-to-day necessities cost more.
According to Help the Aged, 40 per cent of pensioners in Scotland live in fuel poverty and 20 per cent live in income poverty, yet as many as 40 per cent of eligible pensioners do not claim pension credit and an estimated 44 per cent do not claim council tax benefit. We have asked the Scottish Government and the Westminster Government to respond on that issue and I am pleased with what I have heard in that regard today.
Energy efficiency can greatly help to lower fuel bills. The Scottish Conservatives had a manifesto commitment for a fully funded eco-bonus scheme, which would have increased the grant available from local government for insulation, solar panels and other measures. I will look for a similar initiative in the single outcome agreements between local authorities and the Government, which will be published in April.
The Health and Sport Committee has taken evidence on drug and alcohol addiction services. All members should take note of these statistics: 70,000 children in Scotland live with an alcohol-addicted parent and up to 59,000 children live with a drug-addicted parent. I commend Annabel Goldie's work on the issue. I hope that before next week's vote on the budget the Government will make a commitment to support services that do not just park people on methadone but lead people to abstinence and back to independence.
Social enterprise must be one of the best passports out of poverty caused by disability, mental health problems or addiction. There are more than 1,000 social enterprises in Scotland, one of the best of which must be the Shetland community bike project. I met people in Lerwick who were back at work, interacting with other people and no longer dependent on benefits. Many of them were moving on to full-time education or employment. The project's business model is simple. People restore old bikes and then sell them or rent them to tourists. The project is based on the principle of recycling and it helps people and the local and national economy. Such a business model could be replicated in every town in Scotland.
I have received a letter that says that despite the project's positive outcomes in relation to the scheme that is operated by the Scottish centre for healthy working lives, it is threatened with closure due to a lack of funding from the local alcohol and drug action teams. I will pass the correspondence to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing and I trust that the issue will receive her support.
Last week I attended a briefing hosted by Margo MacDonald. We heard from Transition, which is an Edinburgh-based charity that provides employability services and support for people who are moving on from care, prison, years of drug or alcohol addiction, prostitution or homelessness. Margo and I met people who are in work and people who are at college, preparing for university. We met people who had regained their self-confidence, self-esteem and independence.
We will not support the Liberal amendment, on the basis that the Local Government and Communities Committee's inquiry into fuel poverty offers the best example of cross-party working on poverty. I have no doubt that Jim Tolson, who is the Liberal member on the committee, will do sterling work.
I move amendment S3M-1260.1, to insert at end:
"recognises that the Scottish Government, UK Government and local governments need to work together to get people off welfare and into work where possible and to increase the percentage of benefit take-up ensuring that those most in need of help get it, and calls on the Scottish Government to bring forward proposals to achieve these aims."
There is no liberty in poverty and inequality. As members have said, an individual who lives in poverty is more likely to be out of work or surviving on low income or benefits, and a child who lives in poverty is more likely to suffer from poor health and to display low levels of educational attainment.
It is sad that, despite many years of effort, the number of our children who live in families that claim out-of-work benefits is twice the national average. That is why Liberal Democrats, in common with other parties, support measures to eradicate child poverty by 2020. It is also why, as part of the previous coalition Government, we supported measures such as the attack on fuel poverty, the supporting people fund, the community regeneration fund and the increase in child poverty funding for the child care strategy to £43 million during the previous session of the Parliament—an increase of 45 per cent. Under the coalition Government, the number of children living in poverty fell by some 100,000, from 340,000 to 240,000. That was not an insubstantial achievement, but we were never complacent. We knew that more needed to be done, as members said.
Tackling poverty is a complex matter that calls for an integrated approach in which we address levels of income, the environment in which individuals live or are brought up, the discrimination that many people suffer, social exclusion, support for families, health inequalities, educational attainment and opportunities for work.
It would be churlish not to acknowledge the publication this morning of the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing's discussion document on tackling poverty and deprivation. However, as the cabinet secretary admitted, it is only a discussion document. Much work will be needed to produce the solid measures that might require to be put in place. I note that paragraphs 39, 65 and 67 recognise the need to work and collaborate with a wider range of elements of Scottish civic society, which the Liberal Democrat amendment mentions.
To improve the income of people in the lower deciles, we need to work with the United Kingdom Government to ensure access to the appropriate level of benefit support, but we must also ensure that any income increase is fully understood and therefore integrated with the taxation, national insurance and tax credits system to stop people falling back into the poverty trap.
In last week's health improvement debate, I reiterated the Liberal Democrats' commitment to tackling health inequalities, gave our views on preventive and anticipatory care, the extension of the keep well project and hungry for success and looked forward to seeing the outcome of the Government's ministerial task force on health inequalities.
Liberal Democrats acknowledge the need to improve the environment, and particularly the housing, of those who live in poverty. We want fuel poverty to be eradicated by 2015 and we welcome the Local Government and Communities Committee's work on the subject, to which Mary Scanlon referred.
Liberal Democrats share the view that the lack of appropriate and affordable child care is a barrier to parents returning to work. We need to work with the UK Government to ensure that the tax credit benefit keeps pace with inflation, while the Scottish Government must ensure an adequate supply of affordable childcare places.
Liberal Democrats would like, as part of improved family support, every two-year-old to have access to a free place in a playgroup for at least 15 hours a week and to extend entitlement to free nursery places to at least 38 weeks.
Liberal Democrats support workforce plus, and of course we support "More Choices, More Chances", which the coalition Government introduced. I was a member of the Cabinet sub-committee that produced the recommendations to reduce the proportion of young people who are not in education, employment or training. The previous scheme to increase the number of young people with appropriate skills should continue and we would like a target of at least 50,000 modern apprentices by 2011 to be set. We would also like a project enterprise scheme to be introduced to provide microcredit business support and training for people who are on low incomes.
Liberal Democrats have long held the view that eradicating poverty, especially child poverty, is one of the litmus tests of a civilised society. In the past decade, huge strides have been taken in reducing the number of children who live in poverty, yet the levels of relative poverty stubbornly persist and far too many individuals continue to experience its causes and effects. I noted with interest that the cabinet secretary cited Ireland in her document. Ireland is well recognised for its improved economic performance but, notwithstanding that, even it has had difficulties overcoming relative poverty.
Liberal Democrats believe that if child poverty is to be eradicated within a generation, as it must be, we will require not just renewed commitments by the Scottish and UK Governments, and not just increased collaboration between the Scottish and UK Governments, but total integration of the effort of all those who are engaged in fighting poverty—of all the stakeholders, the professionals, the voluntary sector and the health, education, housing, family support and regeneration agencies. Liberal Democrats believe that, to achieve that, we must go further than the discussion paper suggests. We must recognise that there is no monopoly on wisdom and that all parties are committed to addressing poverty. We want a cross-party investigation and commitment to propose practical steps. Everyone in the Parliament wants the scar of poverty to be eradicated. We need to harness all the talents across parties and throughout Scotland if we are to achieve that aim.
I move amendment S3M-1260.3, to leave out from "that tackling these challenges" to end and insert:
"; believes that tackling poverty requires a co-ordinated approach with the UK Government to ensure that the benefits system supports those most in need and actively encourages those able to return to education, training and work to do so; believes that a cross-party approach to increasing opportunity across Scotland is required, and therefore calls for the establishment of a cross-party inquiry, involving stakeholders, to address the causes and effects of poverty and wealth inequality in Scotland and recommend to the Parliament practical actions in areas including health, housing, training, social enterprise and the voluntary sector, micro-credit and community regeneration."
To Margaret Curran, I point out that the difference between the SNP and the Labour Party is that the Labour Party pays lip service to social justice, whereas we are taking practical measures to achieve it.
Margaret Curran referred to tax cuts. She seems to be critical of the council tax freeze, which will help many thousands of ordinary families in Scotland, but she did not say anything about the reduction in capital gains tax from 40 to 18 per cent, which will primarily benefit the fat cats in the City of London. Labour has double standards.
If Margaret Curran cares about social justice, why did she vote against a budget that included the abolition of prescription charges? If the vote against the budget had been carried, council taxes would have increased by 22 per cent, which would have driven many people in Scotland into poverty.
Margaret Curran said that the SNP will drop the use of absolute and relative measurements of poverty. I want to correct her on that. I, too, was at the Burns supper last night that was mentioned, and I know my Burns. He said:
"facts are chiels that winna ding".
Margaret Curran should read paragraphs 31 and 32 of the discussion paper, in which we make it absolutely clear that we will continue to use the standard poverty measures to measure year-on-year progress.
Will the member take an intervention?
I do not have enough time, unfortunately.
Broadly speaking, poverty is heavily concentrated in five groups in our society. There is child poverty, and poverty among disabled people, which often does not receive the attention that it merits.
Will the member take an intervention?
I do not have enough time.
There is pensioner poverty, and poverty among people in work. The most recent reports show that 50 per cent of people of working age who are classified as being in poverty are in employment. Many people live in poverty as a result of low pay.
Will the member take an intervention?
I do not have enough time.
Finally, it is obvious that unemployed people often live in poverty.
Poverty has different aspects. Fuel poverty is a major form of poverty in Scotland. Only a few years ago, it looked like we might begin to see the end of fuel poverty in Scotland by around 2016, but the recent increases in energy prices have set back our ability to achieve that objective in a short timeframe. I hope that the UK Government will consider rechannelling the extra £175 million of VAT receipts that the Treasury will receive next year as a result of the increases in energy prices to deal with fuel poverty both north and south of the border.
There is a link between the Parliament's powers and our ability to deal with the fundamental causes of poverty. Some aspects of the UK tax system contribute to inequality and unfairness. Employees' national insurance contributions are an example. A low earner contributes 11 per cent of their total income in national insurance contributions, but a person who earns £100,000 a year makes national insurance contributions of around 6 per cent of their total wage. That is not fair. Removing such unfairness would help to tackle the escalation of inequality in our society.
Many of the weapons that are available to the devolved Government have been mentioned. In that context, I congratulate Ross Finnie on suggesting practical and useful ideas about what the Parliament can do.
The three major causes of poverty in our society are unemployment, low pay and bad housing. The Government's commitment to increase the number of houses that are built from 24,000 to 35,000 units a year will contribute greatly towards alleviating poverty in Scotland. Not only will that help to solve the housing problem, but it will create many more new jobs throughout Scotland.
Will the member take an intervention?
The member is winding up.
We are taking many practical measures that are within our devolved powers, but we will not be able to solve poverty in Scotland until we have the freedom and the power in the Parliament to do so.
I speak in support of the amendment in the name of my colleague Margaret Curran.
I made my maiden speech in the Parliament last year during a debate about how to promote wealth and fairness. I spoke about the East Dunbartonshire Council area, which covers my constituency. Of Scotland's 32 local authorities, it is listed as the least deprived. However, the statistics can be misleading. It is true that there are more people in work there and fewer out of work than the Scottish national average. It is also true that the average life expectancy there for men and women is above the national average.
Other statistics about those who live in my constituency do not make such pleasant reading. In the Hillhead and Broomhill area of Kirkintilloch, 25 per cent of the working-age population are in receipt of out-of-work benefits. To put that in some context, that is the same as the rate for Glasgow. In the areas of Kirkintilloch central, east Harestanes and Twechar, Auchinairn and Crowhill and Hillhead and Broomhill, more than 20 per cent of pensioners receive the guaranteed part of the pension credit. The rate for the rest of East Dunbartonshire is 12 per cent.
I was a little puzzled at the weekend to read that the SNP's answer to tackling poverty would be simply to change the language of how it is described. To be fair to the SNP, and having read its discussion paper, that is only one of the things on which it wants to consult. Like Margaret Curran, however, I make no apology for stating that social justice is what I want and what my constituents want, particularly those who are living in poverty—an equal chance to improve their lot in life.
The First Minister said, when talking about his Government's economic priorities, that he wanted not just to grow the economy but to allow all citizens to benefit from further wealth. I have no argument with that, but the best way out of poverty is to get a job that pays a decent wage. Alex Neil and other SNP members should not forget that the SNP did not turn up to vote when we introduced the national minimum wage.
Companies throughout Scotland in all sectors are crying out for skilled workers, yet when Labour lodged amendments to the budget to create more skills academies and to increase the number of modern apprenticeships from 34,000 to 50,000, they were voted down, and not just by SNP members—they were aided and abetted by the Liberals and the Tories. Our amendments would have meant less spent on tarmac and more spent on talent. I still hope that the SNP will reconsider our proposals before the budget is finalised next week.
On page 9 of the Government's discussion paper, under the heading of "Alleviating the impact of poverty on people's lives", it is claimed that that can be done by, among other things, funding free prescriptions,
"providing free bus travel for older people and discounted travel for young people … and through the introduction of"
what the discussion paper describes as
"a fairer Local Income Tax to replace Council Tax."
Will those measures work? According to Professor David Bell, the adviser to the Finance Committee, whose name has already been mentioned,
"When finances are constrained"
—as the SNP keeps telling us they are—
"the Scottish Government must consider whether it should be more selective in providing benefits to the Scottish population. Universal provision can be unfair, since it provides just as much help to the affluent as to the poor".
He cites as examples the freezing of council tax, the removal of tuition fees and the provision of free prescriptions.
The thrust of the SNP budget is to achieve its aim of a council tax freeze and, as witnessed at paragraph 52 on page 11 of the discussion paper, the introduction of local income tax. The SNP intends to spend £1 billion over three years to do that.
Professor Bell says:
"Those in council tax bands F, G and H gain most from a council tax freeze … This is because many households in bands A-E receive council tax discounts … and/or council tax benefits. Because their weekly council tax bill is small or zero, they have little to gain from a freeze on council tax."
It just so happens that about 30 per cent of the housing stock in Strathkelvin and Bearsden is in the top three bands, with 30 per cent in the bottom three bands. Therefore, in my constituency, the rich will get richer and the poor will gain little or nothing at all. We know that, under the SNP's proposals for a local income tax, anyone living on unearned income will not pay either, so the fat cats who support the SNP will be laughing all the way to the bank. How does Alex Neil square that with tackling inequality and deprivation in Scotland?
On the evidence so far, the SNP is failing Scotland's poorest. It knows that there is a problem, but it does not have a clue about the solution. Policies such as freezing council tax and introducing free prescriptions will not help the poorest—the evidence to the Finance Committee shows that. The poorest people in my constituency want to know whether the investment that was made in housing and urban regeneration programmes by the previous Administration will continue. The evidence so far shows a real-terms cut of 1.6 per cent in the difference between 2007 and 2004.
Two weeks ago, I visited the breakfast club at St Flannans primary school in the Hillhead district of Kirkintilloch, which is one of the areas that I talked about earlier. The club at St Flannans is one of more than 30 such clubs, but it is by far the biggest; 120 children attend most mornings for milk, juice and toast. The headteacher told me that, if the club was not there, many of those children would not have anything to eat before they started their day. That is poverty. It costs £16,000 a year to run that club, but for such a small investment life chances can be changed. That kind of investment will help to cut the rates of poverty in Scotland.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. There are clear rules on responsibility and the courtesy that members extend to one another in debates. Will you confirm that it is a discourtesy for the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, who led the debate, to leave the debate and have meetings with her officials at the back of the chamber? Does that not confirm her lack of respect for any view other than her own?
The cabinet secretary had indicated to me earlier that she had to leave the chamber for a few minutes.
I welcome this debate on an issue that is of great importance to all members, although I was amazed to hear, in Mr Whitton's speech, a Labour MSP arguing against the removal of prescription charges and the freezing of council tax, and in favour of more means testing. If Mr Whitton went out to speak to working-class people in his or any other constituency, he would quickly find out that the people of Scotland want the council tax to be frozen, prescription charges to be abolished and the council tax to be removed altogether.
It might come as a surprise to Mr FitzPatrick, but I go out and talk to my constituents. They tell me exactly what I just said: free prescriptions for all are not the answer. The member need only speak to the adviser to his own Finance Committee, who points out in his report to the committee that that is not the answer.
If those are the answers that Mr Whitton is getting in his constituency, perhaps he is being selective in whom he speaks to. Perhaps that is why Labour did so poorly in the election.
The importance that the Government places on tackling poverty can be seen clearly in its actions during its first eight months in office. A free school meals pilot, the scrapping of prescription charges, the council tax freeze and commitment to introducing a local income tax, a 19 per cent rise in spending on affordable housing, and a ministerial task force on health inequalities are just a few examples that show that the SNP Government takes the issue of poverty seriously.
As well as congratulating the SNP Government, I acknowledge the work of the previous Administration. The fight against poverty is far too important for us to allow narrow party-political interests to come in the way of progress. That is why the SNP supported most of the previous Executive's antipoverty measures. It is disappointing that only one part of that previous Executive has come to today's debate with constructive arguments on how to tackle poverty.
As we have heard, the situation in Scotland is not getting any better for those at the lower end of the income spectrum. Let there be no doubt that there is still a serious problem in Scotland with poverty. Dundee is a much-changed city—members have heard me extol the virtues of the growing science, technology and digital media sectors—but the blight of poverty remains. Levels of child poverty in Dundee are twice the national average, and 20,000 people live in what are classed as severely income-deprived households. The situation is bad and, in spite of efforts, it has not been getting much better.
Figures provided by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation show that the number of children in Scotland in low-income households did not change between 1997 and 2006. That is in contrast with the rest of Britain, where the number declined. Barnardo's, the Child Poverty Action Group, Save the Children and the Poverty Alliance all argue that the main areas of focus for targeting child poverty should be to support parents into work and help them to remain there, and to increase the uptake of benefits and tax credit. While those policy areas remain under the control of Westminster, we will continue to work with one hand tied behind our back. Scotland's priorities are not the priorities of the UK and will inevitably be ignored by Westminster.
I understand the logic of the member's argument, which is that only an independent Scotland could tackle those issues. I do not agree with that, but I understand the logic. Given that the Scottish National Party wants powers to deal with the minimum wage in Scotland, does the member think that the minimum wage should be increased to deal with low pay?
I think that the decision should be made by this Parliament.
Scotland's priorities are not the priorities of the UK and will inevitably be ignored by Westminster. The contrast is perhaps best demonstrated by comparing the tax policies of the Scottish and UK Administrations. On the one hand, our SNP Government is determined to scrap the unfair council tax in favour of a system that takes into account people's incomes. That is a progressive tax change. On the other hand, Gordon Brown and London Labour have abolished the 10p tax rate. That is a regressive tax change. One policy will remove a heavy burden from low-income families; the other will see the poor subsidising the rich. Margaret Curran's amendment refers to the needs of the poorest households and to social justice. It is plain to see which of those two approaches to tax meets her criteria—and it is not Gordon Brown's. As long as Westminster panders to middle England, the most vulnerable in our society will be ignored. Scotland is faced with problems for which we need Scottish solutions.
I had hoped to touch on disability poverty, which has been championed by Leonard Cheshire Disability. Its recent report paints a damning picture of disability poverty in Scotland, with people twice as likely to live in poverty if they happen to be disabled. We cannot accept that that situation should continue. Over the past 10 years, the issue of disability poverty has been marginalised. In the case of disability poverty, instead of "Things can only get better", things have got worse. Figures show that, whereas 80 per cent of non-disabled Scots are in employment, only 48 per cent of disabled people are in employment. That is not because disabled Scots are less likely to want to work, as only a tiny number of disabled people are unable to work. That issue needs to be challenged, and it needs to be challenged soon.
I say to Alex Neil that I remember when SNP members at Westminster did not even go into the voting lobby to vote for the minimum wage. I remember when, by one vote, the SNP sentenced the UK to the Thatcher Government that brought so much misery for 19 years. I see history beginning to unfold and repeat itself as Scotland moves to having one of its most right-wing Governments in decades, with the Tories and the SNP getting in bed together and forming an alliance.
Labour in Scotland has led the way in the United Kingdom by introducing measures that have helped pensioners, such as free personal care, free central heating and the national concessionary bus travel scheme.
Will the member take an intervention?
Like Alex Neil and other members on that side of the chamber, including Joe FitzPatrick, I do not have time.
Help the Aged, along with many pensioners throughout Scotland, strongly welcomed and supported the measures that Labour introduced. The initial results of the central heating programme were excellent. As the Government's report on the first three years of the programme pointed out, significant increases were achieved in energy efficiency in recipient households. On average in such households, the expenditure that was needed for a satisfactory heating regime decreased by 47.6 per cent and increases were achieved in both the temperature and the length of time that heating was used for. However, like Help the Aged in Scotland—which kindly sent us a briefing, of which we take careful note—we are concerned that 30,000 pensioners in Scotland remain in deep poverty, with incomes below 50 per cent of median national earnings.
We must not ignore what has been said by my friend and colleague the Minister of State at the Scotland Office, David Cairns. He pointed out that the Government has succeeded in arresting the long-term trend in rising child poverty, with 80,000 children lifted out of relative poverty in Scotland since 1999.
I also support my other Westminster colleague, the Minister of State for Employment and Welfare Reform, Stephen Timms. He said that work is the best route out of poverty; it is good for people's health and well-being, their self-esteem and the future prospects of their families; and it promotes choice and independence, supports our society and increases community cohesion. We must keep in mind during our deliberations and our work the fact that the figures show that disabled people are twice as likely to live in poverty as non-disabled people—the figure is 30 per cent, compared with 16 per cent. The future welfare of Remploy, a company that every member in the chamber will support, must be central to all the work that we do.
Poverty affects many pensioners in Scotland. Almost one in five of them lives in relative income poverty, more than 40 per cent live in fuel poverty, and a large number fail to claim the benefits to which they are entitled. In Scotland, 16 per cent of pensioners live in relative income poverty after paying their housing costs; that amounts to 150,000 people.
Will the member give a little bit of credit to the Scottish Conservatives who, this afternoon, called for measures to help increase the uptake of pension credit and council tax credit?
I will always give credit to Mary Scanlon, who is a hard-working and diligent member. She is right to make that point.
We all know, and it was stated in Help the Aged Scotland's briefing to MSPs, that managing on a low income throughout old age can turn retirement into a grind and struggle rather than the time of relaxation and enjoyment that many of us hope for. In our view, older people who have worked hard all their lives ought to receive state pensions that afford them the security and dignity to lead fulfilling lives rather than being left to struggle to get by on a day-by-day basis.
I join other members in welcoming the fact that there will be a benefits checks campaign. When Labour undertook that task many years ago, I know for a fact that an extra £60,000 per week in benefits was brought into one of our small villages in west Fife. If that were to be replicated throughout Scotland, it would make a tremendous difference.
It is deplorable to make disabled and sick pensioners pay for the council tax freeze that will benefit people such as the well-off members in the chamber. That is disgraceful. The cabinet secretary talks about removing the 10 per cent tax band for the poorest, but Scotland is seeing the reincarnation of the sheriff of Nottingham in the shape of Alex Salmond. He is taking from the nation's sick, disabled and disadvantaged—people such as my constituent who, under the auspices of Fife's SNP and Liberal Democrat-controlled council, cannot even get a stair rail, or such as those throughout Scotland who are waiting for their central heating to be dealt with. My current case load is obscene.
Also obscene is the policy on charging, whereby elderly people have to pay £7 per trip for their shopping to be done and £1 per week for their community alarms under SNP-controlled Fife Council.
Will the member take an intervention?
The member is just about to conclude.
It is obscene that a grandfather has to look after his grandchildren in my constituency when the Government could take the initiative and introduce a kinship carers allowance.
Those are all important issues. The sheriff of Nottingham is taking from the poor to pay for the rich and their council tax.
I refer members to my interest in the agricultural industry, to which I will refer in my speech.
History teaches us, and the SNP concedes the point in its motion, that the single most effective way 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 welfare. Therefore, every able adult of working age who is capable of earning a decent living for themselves and their dependents must be given the incentive to do so. The stronger the economy, the better the welfare system will be.
A good welfare system is required to enable financially those people who are unable to work or who find themselves temporarily out of work. Within that context, I want to highlight the very real problems that face the rural primary industries in my region of the Highlands and Islands and which are contributing to real poverty in our remote communities. Unless something is done, the problems will get much worse. Although much of the debate has rightly focused on conditions in the most urban parts of Scotland, the Parliament and all MSPs have a duty to consider and address the issues of rural poverty and deprivation.
The main industry on most of the open land in the Highlands and Islands continues to be livestock agriculture. For farmers and crofters, 2007 was the worst year that most can remember. I am pleased that I was at least able to help achieve the £6 per ewe foot-and-mouth compensation payment from the Scottish Government and payments under the light lamb welfare scheme, also from that source. I thank the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, Richard Lochhead, for listening and acting, albeit that both payments were less than what was called for.
However, it is disappointing that the Scottish Government seems no longer to be putting pressure on Hilary Benn, the Labour Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, for compensation to alleviate the huge losses that the livestock farming industry in Scotland has incurred due to the serious and fundamental mistake by the Government's laboratory at Pirbright. The NFU Scotland and the National Sheep Association tell me that the present UK Labour Government refuses to acknowledge the catastrophic losses to the sheep industry. It is undoubtedly the case that those losses will contribute to severe rural poverty. To compound the industry's difficulties, feed prices have doubled since last year and the price that sheep made at the autumn sales would have been laughable if the position was not so deadly serious.
Much is made of the Highland culture in which people in remote communities look after one another. Poverty can destroy such communities and that culture. That is why I ask the Scottish Government to find out why primary livestock producers on the continent, in countries such as France and Germany, receive so much more for their product than the equivalent primary producers here in Scotland receive. We are, after all, meant to have a common market.
I will continue to keep up pressure on the long-suffering cabinet secretary, Richard Lochhead, to make him aware of the predicament of those who depend on the agriculture of the Highlands and Islands. I refer not only to farmers and crofters, but to all those who earn their living from agriculture including those in the haulage industry, animal feed industry and veterinary industry, as well as the fencing contractors, auctioneers and market men. Will our cabinet secretary let Hilary Benn get away with this scandal?
Other members referred to fuel poverty in the context of rising electricity and central heating bills. Those price rises impact particularly on pensioners and those who are on low incomes. The high cost of petrol and diesel is having a devastating effect on many rural businesses—quite simply, some of our small companies are being priced out of the marketplace.
I was in Stornoway early last week. In some parts of the Western Isles, petrol is more than £1.20 a litre, which is around 20 per cent more than the average mainland price. That high cost is crippling the lives of local residents and deterring tourism. Higher haulage costs increase the price of goods in the shops in the Western Isles. I would be interested to hear the cabinet secretary's view on that and whether she agrees that inflation in many of our island and remote communities is running way above the headline rate of inflation, due in large part to the rising cost of fuel.
Since the route out of poverty in rural areas is a mosaic of thriving small businesses, it is important that the physical routes that are vital for those businesses are kept open. I point out to the Scottish Government that the lifeline A82 to the Highlands still has a single-line section with traffic lights that has been in place for more than 30 years. Also, its sister road, the A83, now has a similar single-line section at the Rest and Be Thankful. Good road links are essential to local businesses and tourism, and bad infrastructure relates directly to rural poverty.
I share my colleague Mary Scanlon's concerns about the appalling health statistics in some parts of Scotland. I will support any measures to bring about change. We must eliminate the culture of dependency that leads not only to poverty and deprivation, but to feelings of exclusion, depression and despair among many who are caught in the trap.
The Scottish Conservatives will support any moves to make the Scottish economy more competitive and to make conditions more conducive to job creation. We believe that those are the best ways in which to reduce and eradicate poverty. I hope that the cabinet secretary and ministers will acknowledge the specific problems that face the primary industries in the rural areas of Scotland. I support the amendment in the name of my colleague Mary Scanlon.
I was amazed by Helen Eadie's speech and am sorry that she did not take an intervention from me. She said that
"Labour in Scotland has led the way".
If that is the case, I wonder why the Scottish Labour leader, Wendy Alexander, had to go down to the British Labour Party conference to apologise for losing the Scottish election.
I thank the Scottish Government for instigating this debate on poverty. It is the most important problem that we face and it continues to blight the lives of so many of our people. I remind members that the previous Executive never brought poverty before Parliament as a subject for debate. I shall explain that point and quote from the motion that the SNP lodged on the subject in 2002. [Interruption.] Will you please listen, Ms Eadie?
Despite what I have just said, I believe sincerely that members from all parties genuinely want to tackle poverty. However, the big difference is in how we intend to do it.
Will you name one thing—within the powers of the Parliament—that we did not do in the past eight years that you would have done and are now asking the Government to do?
If you listen to my speech, Johann—I am sorry, Ms Lamont—you may learn something. I believe sincerely that all of us have the interests of the people of Scotland at heart and that we want to eradicate poverty, but we propose different ways of doing that. If you will listen to me, I will explain how we intend to tackle the issue.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. For some time, I have witnessed the pedantry of the Presiding Officers regarding use of the word "you". Sandra White used the word "you", but you did not pull her up for that. I was pulled up for it during questions yesterday. I would like to see consistency in the Parliament, but most of all, I would like to see the end of pedantry in the Parliament. That comment is not aimed at you, Presiding Officer.
You are right in principle. I did not hear Sandra White use the word "you". When I hear it used, I usually pull the member concerned up for that. I remind members to address other members through the chair and to use their full names.
I corrected myself, but perhaps Helen Eadie did not hear that.
The first debate in Parliament that included poverty in its title was initiated by the SNP. Our motion stated that
"the most effective way to tackle poverty in Scotland is to ensure that all powers over tax and spending decisions are transferred from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament."
That is true, but this minority SNP Government has developed innovative ideas to tackle poverty within the present powers of the Parliament. It should be congratulated, not derided, for that.
Measures such as the freezing of council tax, free school meals projects, an increase in nursery provision, the abolition of prescription charges, the move towards a local income tax and the central heating programme have been mentioned. We have inherited problems from the past eight years when the previous Executive was in government, but I am sure that this Government will tackle them. I have great faith in the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing and the Minister for Communities and Sport.
One of the most important issues, on which Ross Finnie touched in his speech and his amendment, is the need for joined-up thinking—we must speak to other people. The cabinet secretary mentioned that when she launched the framework that is to be developed, which will take a different approach. I believe that the framework will achieve the practical outcome of reducing the appalling figure that one in four children in Scotland is officially recognised as poor, and will reduce the effects of poverty on those children's health. I ask the cabinet secretary, when responses to the discussion and the framework have been received and considered, to pay special attention to the appalling and shocking figures for Glasgow, my home and constituency, which contains 52 per cent of the most deprived 5 per cent of areas in Scotland.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I do not have much time.
A child who is born in the east end of Glasgow is three times more likely to suffer from heart disease, four times more likely to grow up in a workless household and 10 times more likely to be hospitalised than a child who is born in a prosperous suburb. It is disgraceful that in the east end of Glasgow a man can expect to live to only 54.
You have one minute left.
After so many years of devolution and Labour and Liberal Democrat Government, those figures are truly shameful. Nevertheless, Opposition members such as Margaret Curran talk about the great job that the UK Government is doing, how Scotland is better off and how good Gordon Brown is. When will the Labour Party in Scotland have the courage to condemn the inequalities that are faced in Scotland today?
I am sorry, but I cannot give way.
Pensioners suffer greatly—one in five is in poverty and more than 40 per cent of them face fuel poverty. That is not a record to be proud of.
I know that I have less than a minute left, but I want to congratulate Scottish and Southern Energy on its approach to fuel poverty. It is the only company that does not put up prices during the winter months and which has social tariffs. It is doing a wonderful job, and I ask the minister—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The member mentioned Scottish and Southern Energy, but she should have declared an interest because that company paid for an employee to be seconded to the SNP. A number of donations to the party are shown on the Electoral Commission's register.
I do not have that information. That was not a point of order. I ask Ms White to wind up.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is a pity that we do not have a bit more time. I know nothing about the issue that Helen Eadie raises.
I hope that other energy companies will look at the good work that Scottish and Southern Energy is doing. It is difficult for people to access the necessary information, and I ask the minister to take that fact on board.
I remind members to address each other by their full names and, if they have something to declare, to declare it.
I thank the Scottish Government for this entirely appropriate debate.
At issue is what we can do to tackle poverty, which members of all political parties recognise is an evil. I turn first to an issue that my colleague Ross Finnie and others have mentioned, and which has been recognised by Nicola Sturgeon—the record of the previous Administration. Since 2001, 141,000 homes have benefited from insulation and 77,494 homes have had central heating systems installed through the warm deal programme.
My second point is one that Mary Scanlon, who has left the chamber, and Sandra White among others touched on—fuel poverty. Although the Westminster Government can control many things and we can control many things, the international price of oil is not one of them. That has a huge impact on some of the poorest sectors of society, including elderly and disabled people in my constituency, many of whom simply cannot afford to pay their heating bills. They are left with an invidious choice between going into debt and turning the heating off. Today's weather highlights what a difficult position to be put in that is. It would be a mistake to suggest that the issue affects only people in Caithness and Easter Ross—people who live in rural areas in places such as Cornwall or Wales face the same situation.
It is easy for us to say that the UK Government, which is taking record revenues as a result of the high price of oil, should do something to address fuel poverty on a UK-wide basis, but there is a danger that in doing that we would duck the question of what the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government can do. To that end, in early December I lodged a motion in which I outlined the problem and suggested to the Scottish Government various measures that could be introduced, such as improved insulation, acceleration of the installation of new heating systems and perhaps even some form of trigger-point system on cost, whereby financial assistance would be offered when the price of oil reached a certain point. Given that the price of oil can go down as well as up, it is necessary to have an on/off switch.
My third point is about the take-up of benefits. In this regard, the provision of money advice by councils is very important. When Rob Gibson and I were councillors in the Highlands in the early to mid-1990s, we were forced by budgetary constraints to make extremely difficult decisions. Sometimes we had to hit some of the council's softer services, one of which was money advice. I suggested in this morning's debate that some—I hope not all—councils might experience budgetary difficulties with the present settlement, so I ask ministers that, when council budgets are settled, they conduct an audit of outcomes to find out, in particular, how social work provision and money advice provision are impacting on poverty. If we undermine money advice, we will be going in entirely the wrong direction.
My fourth and final point, which has also been raised previously, is about working together. Mary Scanlon and others mentioned the work of the Local Government and Communities Committee, of which my colleague Jim Tolson is a member. I believe that it is taking a hugely constructive approach to its inquiry on child poverty. Ross Finnie quite rightly broadened out the issue. I make no apologies for mentioning this yet again, but with the on-going decommissioning at Dounreay and the present—and disgraceful—impasse at the Nigg yard, where one intransigent landowner is preventing that splendid facility from providing employment, my constituency faces not only the threat of people being out of work or of having to move away in order to find work, but the threat of straightforward rural poverty. When Ross Finnie talks about working together, that means that Nicola Sturgeon should work properly with Jim Mather and her other colleagues to tackle the problems. At Dounreay, work that I hope will be successful is in hand to establish successor industries to give people quality jobs and keep them from poverty. As for Nigg, the landowner will probably have to be forced to sell through compulsory purchase orders.
I welcome the statement by Nicola—I am sorry; I mean Nicola Sturgeon—that she will work with Westminster. As members of all parties have hinted, both Governments have to find a way to work together. Poverty is no respecter of borders.
Before I sit down, I remind members of the good work of the cross-party group on tackling debt, of which it has been my privilege to be a member since its inception. I invite members to look at what it does and to take part in its discussions. We have, for example, been working on the matter of gas and electricity companies suddenly switching off a supply because the bill has not been paid and plunging people not only into poverty but into the cold.
I ask members to support Mr Finnie's excellent amendment.
I rise in support of Margaret Curran's amendment.
I presume that all members agree that we do not want anyone's destiny to be determined by their income or their first steps to be pre-determined by their social and economic background. Yesterday, we debated the importance not only of teaching but of learning from Scottish history. If that history teaches us anything, it is that too many of our ordinary citizens have been excluded from participating in society to the best of their abilities. I believe that the real lesson is not only that we learn from the past but that we have the analysis to allow us to understand what we can take from the past, apply to the present and amplify for the future.
In the spirit of graciousness, I hope that we are having such a debate with the new Government. I also hope that Parliament has a common commitment to tackling the scourge of poverty, whether it is experienced by pensioners, people with disabilities, people who are not fortunate enough to find anything other than low-income work or people who are condemned by circumstances to be dependent on benefits.
The real debate is about the choices that Parliament can make. I acknowledge that I have a difference of opinion with colleagues in the chamber over whether the Parliament's current powers are appropriate or should be more extensive. However, I am worried about the casual way in which people conclude that everyone else is to blame for poverty and we cannot take any responsibility for it ourselves. If this debate is about what we can do within the powers of the Parliament, we should have it.
I have heard what members have said in the past on this subject. Indeed, a member who has already spoken this afternoon once said:
"It does not matter whether it is called relative, absolute or persistent poverty—it is poverty."—[Official Report, 29 November 2006; c 29803.]
I agree with that comment by Sandra White, which was made a number of months before the change in Government.
I want to address the way in which we use our budget. During a previous budget debate, I quoted a candidate in the Democratic Party elections in the United States, who said:
"Show me your budget, and I'll show you what you value."
It is legitimate to consider that quotation, because the two key elements of the narrative in Scottish politics apropos the SNP are the freeze on the council tax and tackling business rates. The SNP has found some agreement in a rather colourful way—agreement was achieved last week through the combination of the SNP and the Conservatives, with the noble abstention of the Greens.
The real issue is what we do with the powers that we have. Last night, members from all parties were at an Energy Action Scotland Burns night. If we took the money that is being used for the council tax freeze, we could deliver on the ambition for the central heating programme that Energy Action Scotland identified last night. We could extend elements of the central heating programme, even if there are difficulties with it, as the Labour leader identified at First Minister's question time today, and with which the First Minister did not disagree.
I have the benefit of a very good income because I am a member of the Scottish Parliament. I still live in the same house that I had well before I was an MSP—I am such a noble and austere individual—so the council tax freeze will save me about £36 or £39 a year. I will have the sum total saving of 70p per week. To return to Scottish history and language, we could take away that 70p from people such as me and give it to the people who need it most. Many a mickle makes a muckle. The real challenge is how we use the powers intelligently in the Parliament.
My criticism of the Administration that we have had since May is that the agenda has been all about either a council tax freeze or business taxation. We have had many noble speeches. I count Alex Neil as a good debating colleague, but he always tries to remind me of the guilt that he alleges I should feel as a member of the Labour Party. However, I have not heard Alex Neil say anything about the rubber-chicken debate that has been put round the Parliament by our Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism, who says that we can have low taxation and low corporation tax, but still provide the sort of support and services that are necessary to tackle poverty and which exist in the Scandinavian countries. That is a noble ambition, but I would like to know how we can achieve it with those two contradictory aims. Perhaps the SNP, which often faces many ways, can do that.
I will conclude on a final important point. We want to address how we deal with poverty. Although Labour's budget proposals were not accepted by the Administration, they identified several ways in which we could tackle poverty and reduce its extent. People need skills and training to get into work; when they are in work, they should have the opportunity to continue to improve their skills through training and to improve their income so that they are not condemned to low-income employment.
We need to work in partnership. SNP members cannot talk about the need to work in partnership to tackle poverty if they then, at the conclusion of every major statement they make, claim that Westminster is to blame. We have a shared responsibility—that is what devolution is about. That is the test that we have. I hope that the Administration can rise more effectively to that challenge in order to tackle poverty in Scotland.
I congratulate the cabinet secretary on the motion. The Scottish Government is attempting to develop an holistic approach to tackling poverty, although the present constitutional arrangements do not always offer the necessary scope to drive forward the agenda as I would desire. I welcome the debate, because poverty and its consequences have existed for a long time: the complex aspects of poverty are deep seated and, shamefully, still too embedded in many of our communities.
Seebohm Rowntree wrote about poverty in the homogeneous working population in York more than a century ago. Then, the factors behind poverty could be narrowed down to a few: large families, low incomes and loss of earnings because of sickness, for example. Today, the factors that drive poverty are more diverse, but they are still as challenging. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation publication from 2004 entitled "One Hundred Years of Poverty and Policy", by Howard Glennerster, provides an ideal context in which to examine the debate on poverty.
Progress on poverty since the mid-1980s has relied on a few mechanisms—usually, the hope that economic growth will trickle down to the poorest in society or that the increasing dynamic of welfare-to-work programmes will by themselves solve working-age poverty without there being any meaningful change in the incomes of those who remain out of work. In recent times the focus of UK Government priorities has led to the over-the-top situation—
John Wilson's Government says that it has received a tight budget settlement and that its budget choices indicate its priorities. Is it reasonable for his Government to support the extraction of £265 million from the budget to give to business unconditionally for the next three years?
If we consider Gordon Brown and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's policies down south, we see that they have similar policies to ours to try to develop business.
Labour members have been told in previous debates that we have to work within a tight financial settlement. I want to come on to discuss some of the issues that the Government has taken on board in tackling some key issues related to poverty.
As I was saying, in recent times the focus of UK Government priorities has led to the over-the-top situation in which the Department for Work and Pensions currently spends £1.50 to identify each £1 of overpayment. Benefit fraud has fallen from £2 billion a year to £800 million a year since 2000, but the recent National Audit Office report of 23 January 2008 stated that £154 million was spent in the previous financial year to identify £106 million of overpayments due to fraud. In answer to points that were raised by Mary Scanlon, Helen Eadie and Jamie Stone, I say that that money could be used to ensure that benefits go to the people who are most in need. At the moment, we still have a Government at Westminster that demands that people ask for benefits, when it could use the 25 million names and addresses on its database to ensure that benefits go directly to the people who deserve them the most. I hope that that will be taken up in the debate on poverty.
A recent strength of the policy on poverty has been the acknowledgement that poverty is multifaceted. The emphasis on social exclusion was to be welcomed, but that agenda was nothing new to some of us who have been working on social exclusion issues for many years—I could give various examples. The French Government took up social exclusion as an issue and in 1996 President Chirac visited Easterhouse to see the programmes that were running there.
Given the diverse nature of poverty, it is not surprising that the policy mix needs to be flexible in tackling it. Some academics have identified the need to tackle poverty through work for those who can. Issues have also arisen to do with the group of people who are in deepest poverty—namely, adults without children. They have been identified time and again in discussions on the widening gaps in society. Those people suffer the most poverty, even compared to some of the groups that other members identified.
In July 2007, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation reported that the gap between rich and poor was as wide as it had been for 40 years. That is true despite 10 years of the Labour Government at Westminster. Society has become more polarised since the 1980s, and a consequence has been that wealthier people have moved to the suburbs while the poorest have tended to remain in the inner cities, although I accept that we cannot ignore rural poverty, which other members have mentioned.
Opposition members, especially Labour members, will refer to the introduction of the national minimum wage. However, I will ask Labour members two questions: what is the current national minimum wage, and what is the median income? Labour members should answer those questions and then do the calculations and ask themselves whether the minimum wage is actually lifting people out of poverty. The trade union Unison represents many part-time workers. In its submission to the Low Pay Commission in September 2007, it stressed that the national minimum wage needed to be strengthened. It stated that the full national minimum wage should begin at age 16 for all workers. The old trade union adage about paying the rate for the job springs to mind.
The motion should receive the full support of all members. The cabinet secretary is trying to move the debate forward. That debate should be held, and it should help to truly eradicate poverty from our society.
I will be supporting the amendment in the name of my colleague Margaret Curran. Of all issues, I particularly welcome the opportunity to debate poverty this afternoon. I do not think that there is a member in the chamber who would question the need for the Government to act decisively to tackle poverty in all its many manifestations. It must surely be one of the main duties of any progressive Government to tackle inequality. George Bernard Shaw, a great writer and a good socialist, said:
"The greatest of evils and the worst of crimes is poverty".
Our task as elected representatives is to put in place the practical policies that directly address that evil.
Of course, as other members have indicated—John Wilson just did so—poverty is a complex phenomenon. Its causes include a lack of access to good education and training opportunities, health inequalities, social fragmentation and isolation, substandard housing and poor access to transport links. There is also the familial and social disruption that drug and alcohol abuse causes. Those remain significant problems with which the Parliament must wrestle. Not to do so would be to accept the inevitability of a culture of low aspiration, which—to be frank—is unacceptable.
Most objective observers would agree that the previous Labour-led Executives made significant progress in all those areas. Certainly, there was a conviction that much needed to be done to repair Scotland's social and economic fabric after the dark days of Thatcher and Major, when unemployment was used as a tool of economic management—a policy that proved disastrous for communities the length and breadth of our country, but particularly in our cities. I point out to Ms White that it affected people south of the border as well as people in Scotland.
Members will recall that west central Scotland in particular suffered from high unemployment, tight expenditure constraints on local government and extremely limited provision for families, especially mothers. Many members will share my experience of having watched with despair as skilled craftsmen and craftswomen in my local area found themselves unemployed and—worse still—with little hope of ever working again.
I am by no means claiming that we have solved all the complex and persistent problems that lead to people living in poverty, but I argue strongly that the policies that the two Executives deployed from 1999 to 2007 resulted in significant progress being made, for example in tackling the low achievement of our poorest-performing pupils, which prevents them from making a successful transition from school to work. Health inequalities were also addressed and measures were put in place to help people overcome the barriers to entering the employment market. As a result of such measures, and of members of this Parliament and the previous Executives working in co-operation with colleagues at Westminster, more than 8,000 children were lifted out of relative poverty in Scotland after 1999.
That is progress, but significant challenges still remain, especially if we are to play our part in achieving the UK Government's laudable objective of halving child poverty by 2010 and eradicating it by 2020. Given that the most effective way of lifting children out of poverty is to secure meaningful employment for their parents, the SNP Administration should continue to work with its ministerial counterparts at Westminster to help those who are furthest from the labour market develop skills and secure the support that is needed to get them into work and sustain them in that employment.
In its detailed briefing, the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland acknowledges the efficacy of such an approach when it says:
"Unprecedented Scottish & UK government commitments to eradicate child poverty by 2020, and policy action, have had an impact. The number of children in poverty has decreased over the last decade".
I hope that the SNP Government considers such a commonsense approach to be worth continuing and does not allow what sometimes seems to be an instinctive animosity towards Westminster to colour its judgment and influence its actions in this most important area of Government responsibility. The cabinet secretary referred to co-operation with Westminster, but I am only slightly reassured by that, because the Government's words are often contradicted by its actions.
I will briefly raise the concerns that the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland has voiced, which I believe to have substance. I hope that the minister will address them in his summing up.
First, we have heard from members, particularly my colleague David Whitton, about the effect that the council tax freeze will have. In David Whitton's constituency, many people occupy houses in the upper three council tax bands. However, in my constituency, which borders David Whitton's, the contrary is likely to be true, given that the majority of people live in houses in much more modest council tax bands—indeed, quite a number live in houses in the bottom three bands.
The Government is driving a council tax freeze, which will benefit those who live in houses in the top three bands most. However, poorer, more disadvantaged households will become ineligible for council tax benefit if their incomes rise a little and council tax stays the same. How will that help the very poorest of our citizens?
Secondly, given the significant additional discretion in spending that is proposed for local authorities, how will the SNP Administration ensure that the single outcome agreements clearly define expectations in relation to reducing child poverty and include mechanisms for measuring the impact of spending on child poverty levels?
Those are serious concerns. People who are still trapped in poverty deserve a detailed response from the SNP ministerial team. I hope that we hear it today and again in the future.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. About 10 minutes ago, my colleague Sandra White mentioned Scottish and Southern Energy. At that point, Mrs Helen Eadie raised a point of order in which she alleged that Mrs White had not declared that Scottish and Southern Energy had given assistance, by way of an employee, to the Scottish National Party, which the SNP had declared to the Electoral Commission.
I have since had the opportunity to check that. I assure members that the allegation is wholly untrue—there is no such entry on the Electoral Commission's register. Further, the SNP has never received an employee in kind from Scottish and Southern Energy. This is a serious matter. The allegation suggests that Mrs White was not being honest in her remarks. Presiding Officer, I ask you to invite Mrs Eadie to withdraw the allegation and to apologise to Mrs White and the rest of the Parliament.
It is for members to ensure that they declare whether they have any interests. Ms Marwick, you have cleared up the matter; it is now a matter of record.
Further to that point of order, Presiding Officer, I fully appreciate that it is entirely a matter for members whether they make a declaration of interests. Mrs White made no such declaration because she had nothing to declare. My point of order was that Mrs Eadie made a false allegation in the chamber. Presiding Officer, I am asking you, on behalf of the Parliament, to invite Mrs Eadie to withdraw that allegation, which is wholly without substance.
I have already said that members are responsible for statements that they make in the chamber. I cannot judge whether what you are saying is right or whether what Mrs Eadie said is right. What Mrs Eadie said is a matter for her. You have your point of order on the record.
Further to that point of order, Presiding Officer, the reason why I made no declaration of interests is that what Mrs Eadie alleged is completely untrue. I cannot declare an interest that does not exist. I take on board what you are saying, Presiding Officer, but Mrs Eadie should apologise for making false accusations, which bring this Parliament into disrepute.
It is a matter for Mrs Eadie whether she is going to apologise. I have looked at her three times and she has indicated that she is not going to do so. You have put your position on the record, Ms White.
The debate has been interesting. I am not sure that some of the interventions have edified our deliberations—I am thinking of some of the earlier interventions in particular. A number of good points have been made. Ross Finnie talked about the relevance of liberty. Margaret Curran rightly talked about the centrality of social justice—I agree with her entirely. Alex Neil mentioned the relevance of fuel poverty, and Jamie Stone, Jamie McGrigor and others talked about the relevance of rural poverty.
I would like to put the issue in perspective, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.
We live in one of the richest countries on the planet. We have shelves groaning with consumer goods, our economic indicators are heavily dependent on how successful supermarkets were in selling luxury items at Christmas and our economy is fuelled by record levels of borrowing—previously known as debt—that is now measured in trillions of pounds. Incidentally, that level of debt is now widely perceived to be a particularly malign and ominous outcome of our current Prime Minister's reign over our economic affairs. However, despite all of that, a substantial proportion of our population lives in poverty, however that is defined. In the words of the Child Poverty Action Group, that poverty
"continues to grind down the quality of children's lives and stunt their life chances."
As Frank McAveety put it—very well—the future of those children is determined by their very first step in life. That observation and the observation of the Child Poverty Action Group contain the insight that what holds people back, reinforces poverty and restricts life chances is not just a lack of income but a cloying stratification of society, drastically dampened personal and community aspirations, dependency on things that people cannot control and, often, a sense of hopelessness and pointlessness. All of those elements are signs of a society that is under stress, with increased incidences of health and mental health problems, alcohol and drug addiction problems, antisocial activities and people's individual problems that depress the community's sense of hope and well-being and grind people down. Oddly, one issue that has not been touched on much in this debate is multiple deprivation and its intergenerational aspects.
From Mr Brown's considered speech, can I draw the conclusion that he believes that it is vital that we continue to recognise the geography of poverty in Scotland and target resources at those areas that share multiple deprivation?
I absolutely agree.
We are dealing with enormously complex issues, to which there is no magic-wand solution. Nevertheless, to its credit, the previous Government, in which the Liberal Democrats played a prominent part, worked hard on the issues. We recognised the close link between wealth creation and social justice. We reduced the number of children living in poverty from 340,000 in 1998 to 210,000, according to the Government's discussion paper. That is quite a significant achievement.
Our programme of educational reform, including our major programme of school renewals, made an impact. We believe, rightly, that educational opportunity is a central and major route out of poverty. As has been mentioned, we tackled fuel poverty and living standards, not least through the free central heating programme. There can be little doubt that those policies made a difference and that the face of Scotland in 2008 is most assuredly different from what it was in 1999, as is borne out by the phase 1 evaluation report on the closing the opportunity gap programme, which surveys the period from 2004 to 2007 and was published today.
To its credit, the SNP Government has continued many of those policies. However, there is a legitimate charge that its programme lacks coherence and goes off in the wrong direction, in some respects. Through unfocused and populist decisions, the Government has tended to dissipate the huge—indeed, unprecedented—resources that are available to it. The council tax freeze is the classic example of that. It will indeed help the better off more than it will help the worse off, and it will starve councils of resources. Over time, the situation will unwind as the budget decisions that are being made at the moment move through to actuality. The Government's plans are dependent on outcome agreements, which are an untested mechanism that has yet to be examined in detail.
Whatever the merits of providing free school meals and free prescriptions when money is no object, it is questionable whether such policies should be the top priorities when money is in short supply, and it is likely that they will divert vital resources from spending that makes a difference.
Although we can be obsessed with targets—that was occasionally a problem for the previous Executive—the current lack of benchmarking and targets by which we can hold the SNP Government to account is highly unsatisfactory and removes a key driver of Government action.
In fairness, Nicola Sturgeon misunderstood the point that I made earlier. The reality is that the targets that are set out in paragraphs 15 and 17 of the Government's discussion paper are general.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, I do not have time. I am in my final minute, which is unfortunate, because the debate is important and should be continued.
The discussion paper that the SNP Government published this morning is an elegantly written essay that echoes a number of themes. I struggle to find in it anything that is new or different from previous policies. I do not knock the process—the consultation and stakeholder events might prove useful in putting flesh on the document's rather thin bones. However, I ask the cabinet secretary whether there is value in doing what is suggested in the Liberal Democrat amendment and trying to identify a national programme of action that goes beyond the term of an individual Government, which would be more likely to make a step change over a generation. At the core of the issue are the life chances of many people—including many young people, whom Scotland needs—who are dispossessed of what should be their birthright.
We must ensure that the debate, which has been immensely worth while, is not a fleeting wisp in the night but leaves something permanent. Ross Finnie said:
"There is no liberty in poverty and inequality."
Against that background, I urge members to support the Liberal Democrat amendment.
The debate has been constructive, but I begin my summing up on a sour note. The part of me that is not a professional politician—the part that enjoyed a career in business—despairs of motions on poverty that in essence do nothing but say that we are against poverty, because we can all agree to that. Any set of politicians, in any country in the world, at any time in history, could have sat in a democratically elected—or not democratically elected—Parliament and considered a motion such as we are considering. Therein lies the problem. For all the expressions of dismay, resolve, fury and purpose, we are debating a motion that says that we are still against poverty. It will not be the last such motion. We are offered a public discussion—I will return to that.
On the amendments, I am at a loss as to what to make of Margaret Curran's effort. We take the view that although the language has changed, there is an essence of continuity in the new Government's approach, so the Labour amendment, which asks us to resolve that the Parliament
"regrets that the SNP's approach fails to respond to the needs of the poorest households in Scotland"
contains an implicit criticism of the previous Government, of which Mrs Curran was a member. That is a rare example of an Opposition spokesman who is so keen to score against the Government that she shoots herself in the foot.
I might have stopped at that, but for the fact that, for the second week running, Mrs Curran conjured up her bogeyman of the alleged right-wing tax-cutting alliance between the Conservatives and the SNP. Mrs Eadie and Mr Whitton also danced to that tune. There is no right-wing alliance; there is a commonsense alliance of all the parties that dismissed the reactionary and half-baked budget amendments that Labour put forward in the Finance Committee. The problem with common sense is that it is not very common. Perhaps the Presiding Officer will rule on whether Mrs Curran and her colleagues should be sent in search of some.
Will the member give way?
Mrs Scanlon detailed—
Go on, take the intervention.
Okay. I will take the intervention.
Does Mr Carlaw think that it was a commonsense policy to have 3 million unemployed people under Mrs Thatcher?
I was struck by Mrs Ferguson's point about John Major's Government and the economic tool of unemployment. The number of people who were unemployed when John Major left office and the number who are unemployed today varies by some degree, but are the people who are unemployed today an economic management tool for Gordon Brown and the Government at Westminster?
Ross Finnie and Robert Brown must be pleased about the forthcoming poverty powwow. They made substantial points—although Mr Finnie did so in his best television-charity-appeal voice.
Mary Scanlon talked about the stalled and, in some cases, falling uptake of key benefits that are designed to help those who are most in need, such as people who are disabled and unable to work—although many desperately hope that the world of work will be opened to them; elderly retired people, for whom a back-to-work strategy is irrelevant; and mothers who are on their own or who have very young children, who require appropriate support for a long time.
David Whitton mentioned pensioners. We heard that as many as 40 per cent of pensioners do not claim the pension credit to which they are entitled, 40 per cent do not claim their council tax benefit and 16 per cent do not claim their housing benefit. We must increase the uptake of benefits that are needed and available. I welcome what Nicola Sturgeon said about that.
Mary Scanlon and others talked about the need to get people off welfare and into work. People too often become entangled in the safety net that used to catch them and then bounce them back. I think that all parties agree that dependency should not be assumed. However, that is not a solution in itself. Homelessness, addiction in all its forms, health inequalities and huge variation in educational attainment all feed poverty.
Fuel poverty reared its head again today. Many members have drawn our attention to the needs of the estimated 700,000 fuel-poor households. Jamie McGrigor ensured that the issue of rural poverty was heard, and Jamie Stone touched on debt, which is equally important.
As a response, the Government has published a discussion paper. We will engage in the discussion process and with initiatives to involve the business and independent sectors, although we have noted some jarring remarks in the paper, despite having had only a short time to study it. It is claimed in paragraph 45 that independence will solve poverty, as if no independent small nation has poverty, yet Mary Scanlon contradicted that point by drawing attention to the table on page 17. It is suggested that a local income tax will reduce poverty, but it will shift significant burdens on to others, who might find themselves driven into poverty as a result, to use Alex Neil's phrase.
The paper says that free prescriptions for higher-rate taxpayers will reduce poverty. Joe FitzPatrick said that that would be a progressive act, but what is progressive about a tax cut for the highest-rate taxpayers, which is what free prescriptions would be? Higher-rate taxpayers tell me that they would be happy for such money to be targeted on people who are in need. Why have a tax cut for higher-rate taxpayers, who are not in poverty, rather than target that money on the people who are in poverty and are the subject of the motion? We also need to do more to bring disadvantaged young people back into work, even while the SNP appears to be cutting the feet from under ProjectScotland.
I fear that the poverty powwow is being so touted that it will only raise unreasonable expectations of a magic solution. In the likely absence of such a solution, we will consider and support pragmatic or substantiated radical action in this parliamentary session from wherever it is proposed, to make practical progress.
I welcome the debate and the early sight of the discussion paper, but I hope that we will revisit the debate, because—try as I might—I struggled with some of the concepts and the language in which they were captured.
We are interested in the notion of an independent inquiry that the Lib Dem amendment proposes, but we wish to reflect further on that, particularly because the Local Government and Communities Committee is to move on to an inquiry into child poverty. Parliamentary committees might have a critical role at this stage, but we might want to move to the position that the Lib Dems ably presented—that will depend on the outcome of the consultation.
I regret that the Government has chosen to use language that does not sharpen the debate but which increases confusion. I felt as if I had wandered into a parallel universe of golden rules and purposes with a capital P. Opposition members have been accused of not making the transition to opposition well. It is difficult for former Government back benchers and front benchers to lose the power to make a difference to people's lives. That is made all the more difficult when the SNP—[Interruption.]
I am sorry, Ms Lamont; I can hear the conversation that is taking place between Ms Eadie and Dr Simpson.
The situation is all the more difficult when we see that the SNP might use the power that it has secured to reverse the significant progress that has been made on tackling poverty.
Labour members take the fundamental position that we have a contract on economic growth and shared prosperity—we need both. We acknowledge the challenges in making funding decisions. We know that a balance must be struck between spending in general and spending that is targeted on poor people to address poverty. However, when that balance has been set, it is dishonest to conflate the results and imply that general spending addresses the needs of the poor. Spending money generally on prescription charges may be good, but the Government should not pretend that that measure addresses poverty, because those who are in poverty will not benefit specifically from it.
We believe that we should build the economy and share the prosperity and that we need Government action to intervene to support people who are further away from economic benefit—those who are most excluded. Addressing poverty and exclusion must be at the core of our business. Nothing happens by chance—action is required.
I was interested that Sandra White said that the SNP led the first debate on poverty in the Parliament. The SNP drops the term "social justice" and then says that Labour did not debate poverty because we called it social justice. Where is the logic in that argument? The SNP's problem is that addressing poverty and delivering social justice are not at the Government's core.
I have said before that assertion is not fact. If it were, the Government would not have as one of its key priorities an untested and unconditional business rates cut with nothing in return, no matter how much the Tories view such a cut as common sense. It would not have prioritised securing an early agreement on a council tax freeze, even if such a freeze were very important, without moving at a pace that gave confidence to groups that rely on local government funding. SNP members may believe in a concordat with local government, but they should have ensured proper engagement and the development of social outcomes and agreements in order not to end up with a series of national indicators but not one word about disability, for example. We will not get people, including people with disabilities, into work if we do not fund an employability strategy. Equally, if the Government was committed to tackling poverty—if doing so was at the core of its work—it would recognise that different groups experience poverty differently. Women, for example, experience poverty differently. Consequently, the Government would not have a budget that does not assess the gender or equality impact of spend.
What does the Government claim that it will do? There are the three golden rules: cohesion, solidarity and sustainability. As we wrestle with being in opposition, I challenge SNP back benchers in particular. They must make a transition and take on the responsibilities of government. In today's Daily Telegraph, Alan Cochrane tellingly described SNP back benchers as "creepily loyal". I have waited in the hope that he would be proved wrong, but there is no greater evidence that he is right than what has been said in this debate—or what was said in the budget debate.
The SNP's back benches have many people on them now who were not here during the previous eight years and it looks like the new SNP is in the grip of those who believe robustly in the politics of trickle-down economics. They seem to have silenced the more radical elements in their own ranks—indeed, I am beginning to think that somebody has taken over Alex Neil's body. I cite in my defence the fact that SNP colleagues dallied in alliance with the Greens and the Scottish Socialist Party over many years and condemned us for not spending enough money or taking enough action to address poverty. In my extensive research, I have not found one recent clarion call by the SNP on such questions. I have never heard the chant, "What do we want? The cohesion golden rule. When do we want it? Now."
No matter how cynical about the SNP's underlying commitment to addressing poverty, disability and disadvantage I have imagined myself to be, I never in my wildest dreams imagined that the same colleagues who apparently support cuts in spending on antipoverty measures would end the sharing of the benefits of economic prosperity—the distribution of jobs to other parts of the country—or that they would support business rates cuts worth £265 million without one condition. I thought that SNP back benchers might effectively lobby behind closed doors to secure changes in the budget. However, John Swinney has not only supported unconditional business rates cuts but accelerated those cuts to secure his budget—and SNP back benchers are silent.
I say gently to SNP back benchers that, although we are learning to wrestle with being in opposition, they need to find their voice. Organisations trying to address poverty deserve to know that, even if it is not applied publicly, pressure will be applied privately to ensure that the needs of the poor are addressed and that things are not simply asserted, but delivered. If that does not happen, the serious charge can be made that the language of social justice, inclusion, equality and tackling poverty was used to secure votes, but that addressing such matters is not the principle that drives the use of the power that was entrusted to the SNP at the elections. SNP back benchers must find a voice to ensure that those who want what has been seen as a commonsense deal with the Tories are not allowed to have their way. We know that trickle-down economics does not work and that in order to tackle poverty, people must make a difference, rather than headlines. A partnership with the Government at every level must be pledged. We hear a lot about what is not being done by others. We want to hear what the Government will do—with local and UK organisations that have expressed concerns—to ensure that a shift occurs, that the SNP's commitment to tackling poverty and deprivation is reasserted, and that the progress that has already been made is built on.
I thank colleagues for taking part in what has been a stimulating and—often—constructive debate on a subject of the utmost importance for the Scotland that we want to build for future generations. In adding to what the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing said in her opening speech, I will say a few words about some crucial aspects of what we propose. Before I do that, I welcome the warm welcome that the Poverty Alliance, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Save the Children gave to the proposals that we published today.
We have made it clear that we want to focus on three broad areas for action. First and foremost is tackling the root causes of poverty, by intervening early and preventing the problems that give rise to it. That means giving children the best start in the early years and at school, improving poor health, moving people who can work towards and into work, breaking patterns of reoffending, and addressing the discriminatory attitudes that underlie much poverty.
Secondly, we want to focus on lifting people who are in poverty out of poverty, through more and better employment that does not simply create a class of working poor, by making people more resilient, by improving the provision of advice and information, and by helping vulnerable people through key transitions in their lives.
Thirdly, we want to alleviate the impact of poverty on people's lives by maximising their income and reducing their costs. That is why we want to legislate to extend the entitlement to free school meals to all children of parents or carers in receipt of maximum child tax credit and maximum working tax credit. We have also pledged to abolish the unfair council tax and to introduce a fairer local income tax based on ability to pay.
In implementing our plans on poverty, we want to build connections with the whole of Scottish society. The fact that almost 900,000 Scots live in poverty is a shocking statistic that should be of concern to all Scots, not only those who are affected by poverty or those who work with people in poverty, but those in higher-income households, in the business sector and in public services.
A healthy society is one where the better off feel compassion for and solidarity with those who are disadvantaged. We want to build a commitment among Scotland's people that everybody has a role to play in enabling Scotland to overcome poverty and inequality. Our conviction is that Scotland can never fully succeed as long as so many of its people are unable to contribute to that success. During the forthcoming dialogue, we will be seeking views on how best to communicate on those issues with the whole of Scottish society.
I emphasise the crucial role of the third sector in helping us to deliver on our ambitions. The third sector can help us to reach individuals in poverty because it enjoys a level of trust with vulnerable people that the state often struggles to achieve. We see great potential for social enterprises to deliver both services and employment for disadvantaged people, generating income and business success in some of our poorest areas. The third sector can help to design better public services that have a good feel for the needs of clients, while also acting as compelling advocates for the aspirations and concerns of our most vulnerable communities and individuals. It is important to work with the third sector as a full partner in a public discussion on poverty and in developing our framework for delivery and we are working with the Poverty Alliance on that. We have asked the alliance to oversee an exercise that will specifically engage with those in poverty as part of the forthcoming dialogue on poverty.
Members raised a number of important issues in the debate, and I wish to get through as many of them as I can in the time that I have available. Margaret Curran talked about ending child poverty by 2020. We share that ambition. We have said clearly that it is our aim to work with the UK Government to ensure that we end child poverty by 2020.
Will the member take an intervention?
Certainly.
Before I call Margaret Curran, I point out that there is too much background noise in the chamber.
Could the minister confirm that the target that we had for 2010 will still be part of the framework that the Government is proposing?
Absolutely. I think that the cabinet secretary confirmed that very point in her opening speech.
Margaret Curran went on to speak about the language of antipoverty initiatives. I will quote from a very obvious source. The document that we published today could not be any clearer. It is "A Discussion Paper on Tackling Poverty, Inequality and Deprivation in Scotland". That is clear language about what we want to do. We want to tackle poverty, and not talk about the frippery of language use that Labour members were discussing.
Labour members also referred to budgets, but there have been no cuts to budgets. A record-breaking amount of money is going to local government and into the public sector in the next three years. As the cabinet secretary pointed out, there is £435 million over the next three years in the fairer Scotland fund.
However, I agree that the Government will cut some things. We will cut the tax on ill health by cutting the prescription charges faced by many people. We will cut the tax on fixed incomes that many suffer from, particularly pensioners, by scrapping the outdated and unfair council tax and introducing a tax based on the ability to pay.
There was an accusation of a lack of focus in our work. The allocations in the fairer Scotland fund are based on the most deprived 15 per cent in Scotland, using the 2006 Scottish index of multiple deprivation.
Surely if there is no cash increase in the communities regeneration fund over the next three years, that has to be a real-terms cut.
There are additional funds going into local government and a range of areas. Not only that, by bringing seven funding streams together into a single funding stream, as recommended by the Finance Committee, we will reduce bureaucracy and the time that individual groups spend on applying for funding stream after funding stream rather than getting on with tackling poverty.
Mary Scanlon talked about the increasing rates of poverty in Denmark and other small countries. Those rates are still much lower than the rates of poverty in Scotland. Those countries are independent and we are not; they have the full powers to tackle the problem and we do not.
Order. Let me repeat that there are still too many conversations going on.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
Mary Scanlon also mentioned benefit take-up rates. As the cabinet secretary outlined, we will work with the Department for Work and Pensions on that and in the spring we will be launching a policy on benefit take-up rates, specifically for pensioners.
Ross Finnie said that rates of poverty have fallen. We recognise that there has been a change in the past few years, but all that has happened is that some people have moved from just one side of the poverty line to just the other side. That is not good enough. He also talked about fuel poverty, which doubled in Scotland between 2002 and 2006. We all accept that some excellent programmes have been put in place, including the warm deal and the central heating programme, in trying to secure warm homes for pensioners in particular. Frankly, however, those programmes will not work on their own. Without powers over taxation, benefits and all the other matters that allow us to tackle poverty, we will always struggle and, as Joe FitzPatrick rightly pointed out, we will have one hand tied behind our back.
The debate has focused on a subject of the greatest significance for all in public life and beyond. I ask members to support the Government motion, which calls for
"the creation of a fairer Scotland"
in which all our citizens can truly flourish.